Missile slider and 'realism', what do you think?

[JEFX]

I was just reading an excellent book on the Eagle the other day (F-15C in combat, from Osprey aviation books), mainly on the use of the Eagles in Desert Storm, and I was surprised to read again (as in many other accounts) about missiles failures, missiles missing, missiles engines not firing up or missiles not exploding...

 

One pilot recalls sending 3 sparrows before getting one to have the engine work! and another tells about sending 2 AIM-9 before realising there was no tone...

 

There is also a range thing : pilots accounts of MiG kills tell their story and they shoot their missiles quite close to the targets because of the ROE (most of the time, they need to visually identify their targets before shooting...)

 

Not surprising that everybody in the USAF tell you eagerly that they are called miss-iles because they do miss a lot... (SAMs too, as a matter of fact, and for that topic, one should just read Rosenkranz book about F-16s in Iraq called 'Vipers in the storm' where the jets are litterally surrounded by SAMs, AAAs and Flack of various type, enough that the pilot compare it to fireworks).

 

My point is : I believe that in our favorite SIM the missiles work too well and too predictably compared to the reality. I started experimenting with the missile slider and I found that a little bit (not much) off center to the left (say 4), one will get sometimes a SAM or missile to miss (yours or your ennemie's equally) and it adds to the excitement!

 

What do you guys think? just a tought.

 

JEFX

[GGTharos]

Actually you're quite wrong.

 

The missiles are -too- inaccurate and too easy to spoof compared to the real ones.

 

Just because some obsolete optical-guided-saclos-missiles missed against aircraft, in particular maneuvering, evading aircraft, doesn't mean squat about LOMAC's missiles.

 

Most missiles that missed in GF1/2 were due to Rmax launches and tail-chases.

[Shaman]

Maybe easy to spoof, but if you not turn around they'll just nail you, whatever it is. All are very accurate. If you do nothing, they hit always unless some weird bug kicks in, lol. Gunzo situations on dedicated servers are very rare sight.

Oh and think about manpads. Igla etc. Always fired at you right in front, at your face. Man, these are the best missiles in the game. lol.

[Zayets]

How can we know how accurate are the missiles in RL except from pilots accounts? I'll take their word anytime. If they said the missiles are missing a lot, then I believe them.

So far there's no game that managed to simulate fabrication errors, bad maintenance,missfires etc. I guess that a random variable can be a real solution.

[ФрогФут]

Actually you're quite wrong.

 

The missiles are -too- inaccurate and too easy to spoof compared to the real ones.

 

Just because some obsolete optical-guided-saclos-missiles missed against aircraft, in particular maneuvering, evading aircraft, doesn't mean squat about LOMAC's missiles.

 

Most missiles that missed in GF1/2 were due to Rmax launches and tail-chases.

Chizh said, LOMAC missiles are too effective, compared to real ones.

[Pilotasso]

Actually you're quite wrong.

 

The missiles are -too- inaccurate and too easy to spoof compared to the real ones.

 

Just because some obsolete optical-guided-saclos-missiles missed against aircraft, in particular maneuvering, evading aircraft, doesn't mean squat about LOMAC's missiles.

 

Most missiles that missed in GF1/2 were due to Rmax launches and tail-chases.

 

Respectfully:

I think this isnt accurate either. It realy depends on launch conditions. real life BVR shots may or may not be as easely spoofed in LOMAC. But what LOMAC has it wrong is excessive clutter and chaff sensitivity at short ranges. But on the other hand it does not simulate all the wrong things that can happen to the missile/datalink/radar during the missiles travel for long ranges. Its possible that LOMAC features similar PK at the edge of the range envelope but for the wrong reasons, like some conjugated errors sometimes can tend to nulify each other. Correcting evenly the missiles sensitivity may lead the missile to be accurate at short range (I.e not loosing lock stupidely at 5 miles) but it could also mean they could become thunderbolts of death anywhere in their kinetic envelope, wich of course is not realistic.

 

Also when 2 missiles are fired in the same conditions in LOMAC they always behave the same. Tracks work in a way that they repeat the mission but with autopilot mimic'ing the players imput and the virtual world is left working as if the mission is actualy running instead of replaying objects recorded positions over time like a real ACMI. There is no truly dynamic missile flaw, nor flight modeling.

I think this is the complementar thinking to what JEFX was trying to tell.

[S77th-GOYA]

Chizh said, LOMAC missiles are too effective, compared to real ones.

 

Then I would guess Chizh hasn't fired too many LOMAC AMRAAMs at head on bandits at 5nm.

 

But anyway, I'll start the corn popping.

[Pilotasso]

Then I would guess Chizh hasn't fired too many LOMAC AMRAAMs at head on bandits at 5nm.

 

But anyway, I'll start the corn popping.

 

The problem of the Chizh's coment here is that it has taken out of the original context it was first in. I remember him saying that for R-27 missiles. There is a huge gap between western and russian missile behaviour in real life and--on the opposite sense--, in the game. One coment like that cant realy be applied to them all after puting them on the same bag.

[nscode]

So far there's no game that managed to simulate fabrication errors, bad maintenance,missfires etc. I guess that a random variable can be a real solution.

 

Yes. And being able to set these params for each missile.. like we can set skill for units now. It would be a nice thing to come along with advanced weapon models.

[S77th-GOYA]

Yes. And being able to set these params for each missile.. like we can set skill for units now. It would be a nice thing to come along with advanced weapon models.

 

We've got random failures available now for the aircraft. How many of us use that option? I'm guessing very, very few of us.

[rlogue]

If missiles were really that inaccurate, we wouldn't have F-15's and F-22's now would we ? A P-51 or an F-86 would still be perfectly adequate.

[Pilotasso]

How can we know how accurate are the missiles in RL except from pilots accounts? I'll take their word anytime. If they said the missiles are missing a lot, then I believe them.

So far there's no game that managed to simulate fabrication errors, bad maintenance,missfires etc. I guess that a random variable can be a real solution.

 

Yes. And being able to set these params for each missile.. like we can set skill for units now. It would be a nice thing to come along with advanced weapon models.

 

We've got random failures available now for the aircraft. How many of us use that option? I'm guessing very, very few of us.

 

Advanced ramdom failiures would be frustrating for people as they would claim they lost a fight because a missile went dead off the rail precisely in the worst moment. WAFM and advanced sensor modeling would give the impression -almost- of the presence of ramdom enviromental induced behaviour, i.e. you would have to try 1000 times before you would get 2 missile launches alike.

Thats preferrable.

 

But for now we just have to consider ourselves happy enough if they correct the sensor behaviour at short range.

[Shaman]

Then I would guess Chizh hasn't fired too many LOMAC AMRAAMs at head on bandits at 5nm.

 

But anyway, I'll start the corn popping.

I thought AMRAAM is more med-range missile then close range.

I wouldn't expect it to be the best missile for this situation.

 

But lets not start a discussion about certain missile. The point of this thread is about all the weapons in general. Hey, people. Ever wondered that even free fall bombs are deadly accurate?

[Pilotasso]

AMRAAM is good at BVR, and it is MORTAL at short range, that is if the missiles lauch dealy of 1-3 seconds doesnt screw with the required flight path. The Israelis allegely made their Python V BVR missile to correct this problem, for a slighly reduced range.

[Shaman]

AMRAAM is good at BVR, and it is MORTAL at short range

If that's the case, why AIM-9 is still in service and still being improved. Why not making AMRAAM all purpose missile. I don't get it.

 

But back to general topic.

If all the weapons would be so effective in real life as they are in LockOn, all wars would end in just 1 day.

[Pilotasso]

If that's the case, why AIM-9 is still in service and still being improved. Why not making AMRAAM all purpose missile. I don't get it.

 

Let me put this way...AMRAAM costs as much as a house. AIM-9 costs as much as volkswagen beatle.

 

If you want to get a traget at 3-4 miles the Sidwinder will be also capable of doing the same job only it costs a fraction of the money and it fires instantaneously. In adition the 9X will be able to hit a target if you need to get a high off boresight shot during a furball.

Another factor is that the AMRAAM has to have its lauch planned in advance regardless of the range to target. you have difficulties launching it if you need to get a snap shot. Maddoging inst as good as Sidwinder locked and ready to be launch instantaneously.

I just regret the 9 has a range of about 300 feet in this game...too bad.

[Omega Oska]

I have no comments on nor knowledge about missile behaviour in RL. But I do think slightly decreasing the missiles' effectiveness increases the fun factor since it encourages players to make wise shots rather than spamming missiles.

[Kusch]

Yes, yes, realism slider, naked women and 13-year-old boy from Kansas slider necessarily...

[GGTharos]

The 9X is necessary where you have to perform extreme short-range launcher ... ie. things such as 90 deg off-boresight launches, lufberry launches, etc.

 

The 120 doesn't have TVC and DOES NOT NEEDED it since you have the 9X to fill that gap - a lighter, cheaper and very effective missile.

 

Plus, if you just used the 120 you'd be vulnerable to single-point failure with respect to enemy counter-measures.

[Stealth_HR]

What is a lufberry launch? :huh:

[GGTharos]

And further, missiles in LO are -not- effective enough, or at the very least, they do not have realistically modelled sensor capabilities and INS capabilities in many ways. They are -half way- there, and ED will eventually further improve them, at which point you can forget about dodging radar guided missiles by flying straight at them and popping chaff ... *regardless* of wether you're scraping your paint off on the ground, or wether you're half-way into space.

 

Eventually it -will- happen, so try not to get used to how missiles are now. You WILL have to perform serious, violent evasive maneuvers.

 

Stealth_HR, a lufberry is when both fighters are flying on the same circle and neither is gaining - you can see the other guy right out the top of your canopy, and he can see you straight out the top of his.

[S77th-GOYA]

so try not to get used to how missiles are now.

 

So we're ready for WAFM in 2012?

 

Get used to how missiles are now or get killed a lot.

 

Get used to ED changing the rules every time they release something.

[rlogue]

Heck, why not just make all missiles fly straight like a bullet ? I disagree with anybody who thinks that a missile being fired at them would not make them completely on the defensive. If you have a missile on the way, and I think any fighter pilot for any country would agree ... that is your top priority. You are no longer worried about shooting people down, you are worried about not being blown to bits.

[S77th-GOYA]

What is a lufberry launch? :huh:

 

A lufberry circle is when planes are locked into a tight circle fight, trying to get a shot on each other.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

We've got random failures available now for the aircraft. How many of us use that option? I'm guessing very, very few of us.

Good point. I can remember a campaign that I D/L'ed from the Community (I think it was called A-10 Spec Ops?), it had some failures set plus some bad weather. Never seen any others that use failures.