In your opinion (hypothetical) what would make LOMAC more realistic?

[S77th-konkussion]

Well- I think most of the choices entire premise is wrong. First- add unrealistic weapons for the sake of balance? No thanks. I can handle myself OK without resorting to that.

 

LOTS of missiles on BOTH sides are hurtin-fer-certain. The 27ER's "seem" very slow, and miss a LOT. Maybe they suck in real life- but I doubt they are this bad. Diving & chaffing a little should not defeat a missile that easily.

 

The slammers are so bad that they actually seem to hit better when you just spam away at a RWR hit than they do by actually locking something up.

 

The AIM9's (M's, right?)were well documented to be inferior to the R73's but I beleive this comparison has been just a tad exxagerated in present day LOMAC. I know they are not "X's", but they suck BIG time ATM..

 

Fixing the radar & ECM.. well seems to me that this has always gotten a lot of attention. On the Russian side-It's 180 degrees bass ackwards from the release! We had no TWS at all,(don't really have it now, either but..) jammers from God himself, no HOJ capability, a dysfunctional RHAW, VS had no auto acquire, certain EOS modes could IFF, plenty more... Don't know if they had no info, bad info, or had to fake it to appease NUBi- but work on this they have, and look at how much more there is to do/ or what we would LIKE for them to do.

[Pilotasso]

I agree mostly to what you said except the speed of the ER's wich is the same as the EM's, only thet EM's have reduced drag factors. Infact these 2 missiles are faster than any american missiles. AMRAAM barely reaches mach 2.5 and the average is much lower. It just takes too long to arrive at target.

 

Thing is you can se an ER go with a trail while the AMRAAM does not wich might cause you the placebo efect.

[tflash]

You can easily see what happens with labels on. The R-27ER is distracted by chaff over its entire FOV, wheres a) the Su-27 is capable of emmitting a strong and sufficiently narrow beam and b) one can expect the missile to have some rejection capability. The Amraam is overscripted. The whole idea of having loft flight goes bananas: the Amraam is flying anywhere except for the target. I have the idea the R-77 performs better because it flies that more faster and flatter: it closes the gap with the target faster, thus narrowing the FOV and avoiding distraction by chaff.

 

I found this post on F-16.net interesting:

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4530-start-0.html?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=4530&start=0

 

It gives more credit to R-27 then R-77; the described tactics works very well in Lockon and is used by most of us, I think.

[GGTharos]

LOTS of missiles on BOTH sides are hurtin-fer-certain. The 27ER's "seem" very slow, and miss a LOT. Maybe they suck in real life- but I doubt they are this bad. Diving & chaffing a little should not defeat a missile that easily.

 

Actually the only account that we have of R-27's in actualy combat use is the E-E conflict. Despite massive spammage of these missiles from both sides, only one actually hit, and that was a proximity hit, too.

Now you might argue that they were poorly maintained, etc etc but I personally think that the poor radar, and other things contributed to the problem ...

 

The slammers are so bad that they actually seem to hit better when you just spam away at a RWR hit than they do by actually locking something up.

 

Too slow, poor missile logic in some respects. ED is aware and will work on it I'm sure.

 

The AIM9's (M's, right?)were well documented to be inferior to the R73's but I beleive this comparison has been just a tad exxagerated in present day LOMAC. I know they are not "X's", but they suck BIG time ATM..

 

Again, comparing E-E to other conflicts, the R-73 has half to one third the hit-rate of the AIM-9M in the iraqi conflicts. I think the source is acig.org, but feel free to doubt me because I don't remember the source.

The AIM-9M is 'inferior' in that it has a lower gimbal limit, no TVC, and so on and so forth - all this stuff limits the engagement envelope compared to the 73 - however the 9's seeker is allegedly more resistant to flares.

As far as range is concerned, last time I ran a rocket simulation, they both seemed to have a very similar range ... however this is misleading because they might use different methods of navigation (9 used bang-bang, don't know if it still does ... this is an EXTREMELY draggy way to maneuver the missile - it means the controls are always fully deflected to steer the missile, no inbetweens).

You're right, the 9's suck big in LO.

 

Fixing the radar & ECM.. well seems to me that this has always gotten a lot of attention. On the Russian side-It's 180 degrees bass ackwards from the release! We had no TWS at all,(don't really have it now, either but..)

 

Actually according to the manuals, and other sources, the Russian birds - specifically the ones presented in LOMAC - have fairly poor radar and potentnially ECM also. A matter of the physical attributes of the radar to some degree, and the processing power. The red birds need advanced versions of these ... keep in mind that the RuAF however hasn't really upgraded its AF for a long time, changes are being implemented just now.

Realistically, AFAIK, if right now RuAF and USAF were to clash using say, MiGs, Flankers and F-15's and F-16's, RuAF would probably get owned due to their (literally) out-dated avionics. But please, no Russia v USA, I'm only putting forth an example y'all know is true! :P So don't turn it into anything else.

 

jammers from God himself, no HOJ capability, a dysfunctional RHAW, VS had no auto acquire, certain EOS modes could IFF, plenty more... Don't know if they had no info, bad info, or had to fake it to appease NUBi- but work on this they have, and look at how much more there is to do/ or what we would LIKE for them to do.

 

 

There's quite a bit to do, yeah. It will get done, eventually :)

[Ardillita]

Any of The option in the poll don´t fit my requirements. I won´t request features, and also, the option more close to my opinion says "minor issues...", and the issues are not minor to me.

 

I would like one, just one thing: the actual failure in the game to be fixed and improve, nothing more nothing elase than that: teh radar issues (from fighters and ewr statios for example), weapons issues, , etc

[SUBS17]

I did not expect the path my previous poll took, so I decided to make this poll to complement the previous one given that the vast majority want the game to be as close as a desktop trainer can be.

 

However despite over 2/3 of the people had voted for such a level of realism one must specify, without any ambiguosities his/her defenition of realism in this SIM.

 

Im sure that within the 70 people or so that constitutes those 2/3 of votes have very different views of what realism is depending of his nationality or virtual hardware they preffer to use.

 

So lets hear it:

 

None of the above polls will dramatically change lockons gameplay to make the improvements significant. The key issue here is imersion and its missing in both missions and in the way the player interacts and uses the sim. This isn't just improving the comms it also requires significant changes to the way missions are created and used. The comms need to be expanded for a start and not just in a way that allows you to hear other strike packages but also to be able to change channels and interact with the AI on a more realistic level. You can also script a better interaction with the AI in missions using the coms. For example the wingmen checkout the coms in the Bill and John movies, they aren't robots as they are in normal missions. The missions themselves need to involve a whole squadron, Air Tasking Order and the Squadrons status as well as the remaining friendly forces. The aircraft type is also another key area which could dramatically impact gameplay. Online play and missions could be better if an automatic switch between client and AI aircraft were allowed instead of having to create separate missions create the slots available so missions can be used for both online and offline and same with campaign. Mission planning and recce views are another thing missing as in most missions planning is not done in enough detail to make it as rewarding as it could be.

[SUBS17]

Here's my wish list.

 

AFM for all A/C and weapons.

 

Realistic Avionics for the F-15C.

 

Comms

 

Comms

 

Comms

 

I agree the F-15C is much better IRL than the way it is in lockon- its record speaks for itself as does the Mig29s.

[Floyd]

Online play and missions could be better if an automatic switch between client and AI aircraft were allowed instead of having to create separate missions create the slots available so missions can be used for both online and offline and same with campaign.

 

This "feature" is still awaiting the Oscar for the most ugly thing implemented

in a (flight-)sim EVER. It is - IMHO - so braindead that i would like to meet

the designer IRL to ask him what he thought back then when he came up

with that bright idea :noexpression:

 

On the other hand it tells big on the developer's idea about 'gameplay'.

Sterile athmosphere, spare comms, bla bla hubba bubba - all discussed for

years - without improvement. Back then a newcomer on Frugal's was asking

what is so great about this 'dynamic campaign' in Falcon, and the answer

that told all about it was "It feels alive" - and i thought, hwg, really, that's

it. Sad to say my squadron put so many hopes in this sim and it failed so

bad; few other squads have adapted - or should i say 'lost hope' - and

we see these threads despite one addon and a few patches.

 

But there are these wonderful screenshots and you can always promote

the sequel. And not to forget: it's always the next sim! Just make sure

you're not getting too old for this sh!t :thumbup:

[S77th-konkussion]

Correct, GG- I was only comparing changes within LOMAC modeling- not trying to make real life comparisons. It will always be difficult to obtain & maintain accurate info.

[A.S]

Why vote? Think bout all!

 

-For better balance why not add the R-77 on Flankers too?

-Russian missiles are undermodeled. They need better PK in general. -American stuff aint that grand.

-Its as good as it gets. R-27ET is a good weapon balance if used accordingly.

-Its good even though minor issues should be fixed (specify).

-I think its optimistic to the US side. (specify)

-I think its slighly optimistic to the russian side. (specify)

-Minor issues with AMRAAM, the rest can be left as it is.

-I would be happy if they only fixed the ECM and radar issues/exploits.

-Lets Improve AMRAAM & AIM-9. No Standoff ECM bs. Let the RUS fans prove their stuff.

[SUBS17]

Removing the Aim120 won't improve the sim at all, the F-15C is quite undermodeled compared to its real life capabilities. The 120 is what makes it the most effective interceptor.

[SUBS17]

This "feature" is still awaiting the Oscar for the most ugly thing implemented

in a (flight-)sim EVER. It is - IMHO - so braindead that i would like to meet

the designer IRL to ask him what he thought back then when he came up

with that bright idea :noexpression:

 

On the other hand it tells big on the developer's idea about 'gameplay'.

Sterile athmosphere, spare comms, bla bla hubba bubba - all discussed for

years - without improvement. Back then a newcomer on Frugal's was asking

what is so great about this 'dynamic campaign' in Falcon, and the answer

that told all about it was "It feels alive" - and i thought, hwg, really, that's

it. Sad to say my squadron put so many hopes in this sim and it failed so

bad; few other squads have adapted - or should i say 'lost hope' - and

we see these threads despite one addon and a few patches.

 

But there are these wonderful screenshots and you can always promote

the sequel. And not to forget: it's always the next sim! Just make sure

you're not getting too old for this sh!t :thumbup:

 

Such things take time to implement in a sim, I remember Falcon 3 and F-16 combat pilot are really what makes Falcon 4 what it is today. Hopefully ED might put such features in their next sim it doesn't need to have a dynamic campaign as such just an immersive approach.:pilotfly: As it is Black Shark is a sign of what future sims are going to look like it looks awesome. I wonder if Tank Killers could possibly use scripted missions and dialogue in places to make things more immersive similar to Topgun Fire at will but with AFs level of mission planning.

[Pilotasso]

Another point of view. Some have commented that AI has never been hardly will be in the near future anything realy credible. I think with broadband SIm's future lie in complex Online scenarios. Me thinks its the only way to go.

 

Then this thing about comms wont be as critical as pilot to pilot comms are up to the players.

[D-Scythe]

Single play is always the way to go, simply because it's simpler. Games like Falcon 4.0, Jane's Longbow 2, F-15 and F/A-18 didn't build such a strong community because of their multiplayer dimensions.

 

Also consider that while not all multiplayer features can be applied to singleplay, all single player features can be applied to multiplay.

 

I can't name one extremely successful game (excluding the arcade and fighting/streetfighter-type) off the top of my head that relied solely on multiplay.

[RvEFuSiOn]

I think what this sim needs is its missiles changed in order to be more fun and competitive for all.

You want to test metal of a pilot, put equal advantages to both.

IMO remove aim120 or add the r-77 adder to the flanker series, reasons are as follows.

 

1.All SAR missiles fired by the flanker can be easily spoofed, easy ECM ON OFF 50 times and your precious ER payload is useless, people seem to program a macro function to their sticks just to do this.I kinda find it annoying knowing that the missiles i carry on my flanker are nothing more than rockets as soon as someone starts doing that.

 

2. What fun is it to get a whole payload of 8 amraams fired on you out of no where, when you cant reply back with a proper answer? Su27 Flanker can hold its own with an f15 in a 1v1 fight "at times", but in a multiple engagement situation the f15 outclasses it.

 

3.Isnt this for fun and competition amongst the community? I know many will argue that its not realistic or so on and so forth, but do you think this kind of realism is needed where it causes huge divides?(small thing like addition of a perfectly realistic missile put on a platform that might be able to support it) Flanker IMO has been castrated everystep of the way. So has the F15 in manyways. (G-forces are way to unrealistic and thus screws the f15 in a dogfight)

 

What i would like to see is some sort of AR missile on the flanker, and advanced EWS system on the F15. I think this would be a very enjoyable solution.

 

Well those are my 2 cents, think of it what you will, but i see great squad wars and competitions with these kinds of changes, implementations.

Then again its my oppinion.

 

:beer:

[EvilBivol-1]

There's something you don't see everyday on the English forum...

[tflash]

I agree putting the R-77 on the Flanker would give a more balanced fight, as it is modelled in Lockon.

 

An alternative is however to fix the R-27ER, which is now to easily spoofed and flies to slow. The Eritrea conflict seems no valid statistical basis to judge the missile performance. It is safer to assume, like NATO planners have always done, that it performs as claimed.

 

Fixing the Amraam is simple: just make it a tad faster, and scrap the silly attempt to give it some advanced missile logic. I just want to know where my missile flies and not wait till it has finished sightseeing the beautiful Caucasus highlights before it decides finally to go for the target. So less will be more in this case.

[dongo]

Fight on line of economic wear, if you shoot many missiles or very expensive missiles, you will exhaust rapidly the bag of money, if you use economic planes the loss in case of death will be minor.

Finally there will win the one who could support in flight his planes with the economic box that has been allowed him.

 

This is the more ralistic case, if you have money you cant ger more misiles and planes, if you don`t money, don`t plane, don`t have whife, you lost the game.

 

sorry for my little english.

[TucksonSonny]

Flyable F-18C would be a major add-on. :thumbup:

The CVN-70 is now just a nice-looking target and a toy for the AI.

Think of realistic carrier battles. This would result in better online balance with realistic war scenarios (Not all the time Red vs. Red but real Blue vs. Red air war scenarios).

The map just asks for naval warfare (+60% of the map is water).

I like the F-16 and the Mirage too but considering these arguments the F-18C is the best option.

[TucksonSonny]

Actually the only account that we have of R-27's in actualy combat use is the E-E conflict. Despite massive spammage of these missiles from both sides, only one actually hit, and that was a proximity hit, too.

Now you might argue that they were poorly maintained, etc etc but I personally think that the poor radar, and other things contributed to the problem ...

 

GG, I have a question for you:

What would be the outcome of a Raptor F-22 versus Raptor F-22 BVR fight?

I guess spamming a lot of AMRAAMS and no kills! :)

[Pilotasso]

I think what this sim needs is its missiles changed in order to be more fun and competitive for all.

You want to test metal of a pilot, put equal advantages to both.

IMO remove aim120 or add the r-77 adder to the flanker series, reasons are as follows.

 

1.All SAR missiles fired by the flanker can be easily spoofed, easy ECM ON OFF 50 times and your precious ER payload is useless, people seem to program a macro function to their sticks just to do this.I kinda find it annoying knowing that the missiles i carry on my flanker are nothing more than rockets as soon as someone starts doing that.

 

2. What fun is it to get a whole payload of 8 amraams fired on you out of no where, when you cant reply back with a proper answer? Su27 Flanker can hold its own with an f15 in a 1v1 fight "at times", but in a multiple engagement situation the f15 outclasses it.

 

3.Isnt this for fun and competition amongst the community? I know many will argue that its not realistic or so on and so forth, but do you think this kind of realism is needed where it causes huge divides?(small thing like addition of a perfectly realistic missile put on a platform that might be able to support it) Flanker IMO has been castrated everystep of the way. So has the F15 in manyways. (G-forces are way to unrealistic and thus screws the f15 in a dogfight)

 

What i would like to see is some sort of AR missile on the flanker, and advanced EWS system on the F15. I think this would be a very enjoyable solution.

 

Well those are my 2 cents, think of it what you will, but i see great squad wars and competitions with these kinds of changes, implementations.

Then again its my oppinion.

 

:beer:

 

I agree putting the R-77 on the Flanker would give a more balanced fight, as it is modelled in Lockon.

 

An alternative is however to fix the R-27ER, which is now to easily spoofed and flies to slow. The Eritrea conflict seems no valid statistical basis to judge the missile performance. It is safer to assume, like NATO planners have always done, that it performs as claimed.

 

Fixing the Amraam is simple: just make it a tad faster, and scrap the silly attempt to give it some advanced missile logic. I just want to know where my missile flies and not wait till it has finished sightseeing the beautiful Caucasus highlights before it decides finally to go for the target. So less will be more in this case.

 

 

One game that did this for balance was F-22 TAW where even mig-21's were happy to engage the 22 from BVR.

 

I do not think Scraping the AMRAAM for F-15 would be a very good idea.

 

1)because its the planes primary missile,

2)without it, in turn, its the eagle who comes at grave disavantage. The ER is alot faster than the Sparrow and had much more range and no AWACS link.

3) The sparrow looks pale compared to EM and ER missiles because of its range and its as easely spoofed as they are.

4) the ET has no equivalent in the NATO, plus it can be maddoged from BVR. Even if this was to be fixed it continues to be a missile that gives tremendows fire and forget range.

5)The F-15 is already hampered by standoff ECM wich denies the Eagles fundamental BVR capability of multi engagement.

6) The R-77 is not in service with either the UKR nor RUS airforce anyway.

 

On another curious note, it is widely claimed arround here that the Su-27 is superior to the F-15 in BVR. Why do they claim otherwise ingame? SPecialy after everything that seems to have been done to hamper some of F-15 typical capabilities?

ED chose to give incomplete link system to flanker while ommiting the one on the F-15 because info on it was incomplete? :huh: Common!

 

 

From my point of view then it is legitimate that realism issues like the AMRAAM being fixed, and then russian fans have to prove their mettle and hardware through tactics.

 

The fact that ECM has standoff range already makes it difficult enough, without the AMRAAM the F-15 will work as a dumbed down short range version of the flanker.

 

The biggest asset in this game is that we can fly assimetric combat. We should focus on this, and resist the temptation to turn this game into a western aircraft turkey shoot.

 

If you want to win, do so by using each planes strengths. For the F-15 is the ability to multi engage at BVR, for flanker is about sniping with EOS, ambush and standoff BVR dance. Removing standoff JAmming would also help the flanker in this aspect.

 

Flying low and slow all the time, maddoging missiles form 20 miles or blink ECM is for first person shooter quake like noobish tactics.

 

 

F-15 should fly high and get its targets in TWS, the flanker should seek to force it defensive where it will gain the davantage with the longer rear aspect reach for chases. The fact Flanker has AWACS link and eagle does not in this game, is another thing flanker drivers can use to their advantage and if they still loose they deserve it.

 

Flying straight line to enemies base will turn the game into a lottery of death. You need tactics.

 

Puting it short, give as much realsism to the game as it is possible with all known compromises, if its hard for russ aircraft fliers...tough, its their responsability to use the proper tactics. LEt them prove the claims the flanker is better. Go fetch the tactics USAF says that defeats the F-15 everytime. ;)

 

High scorers online will usualy win no matter the aircraft they use.

[tflash]

I agree the jamming circus is one of the big annoyances in this game. You cannot go online or your hud lights up with plenty of strobes. Once everyone is within burn-through range, it becomes kinda Unreal Tournament Deathmatch.

[RvEFuSiOn]

Im kinda confused, Pilotasso we flew a few nights ago together and we had this dicussion and when i said removal of aim120 is a good idea you agreed with it.

Maybe i heard it wrong but seeing here you think otherwise.

 

Tactics are all well and good, but how often does the russian side get awacs?

 

And dude you cannot maddog the ET as effectively as the aim120.

F-15 may be a very great plane, but giving the flanker a missile(s) that barely works shouldnt do that.

Im all for upping the F-15's datalink capabilities and EWS. I in no way want to see the F-15 downgraded, but at the same time i dont like the fact that the flanker is.

 

Peace

[Ironhand]

Personally, I think they ought to remove the F-15 from the sim as a flyable. That would quickly solve a host of issues concerning bugs and systems modeling. Besides, this is a mud moving sim. What the hell is a pure A2A bird doing in it as a flyable, anyway? Removing it would allow them to stay focussed on improving A2G weapons delivery modeling, ground vehicle AI, etc.--the real work of this sim.

 

But if it stays, in the interest of realism and balance, I think the Russian side should have a pure A2A bird included as well. After all, there's one on the Blue team. There should be one for the Red team as well. In the interest of balance. But that would just create more work and draw manhours away from improving the real focus of this sim--moving mud. So I'm back to my first statement. Get rid of the F-15.

 

Rich

[Pilotasso]

Im kinda confused, Pilotasso we flew a few nights ago together and we had this dicussion and when i said removal of aim120 is a good idea you agreed with it.

Peace

 

 

Hell no, What I said was that they should fix the missiles, and if anyone found it to be harder, tough. We must use proper tactics.

 

Personally, I think they ought to remove the F-15 from the sim as a flyable. That would quickly solve a host of issues concerning bugs and systems modeling. Besides, this is a mud moving sim. What the hell is a pure A2A bird doing in it as a flyable, anyway? Removing it would allow them to stay focussed on improving A2G weapons delivery modeling, ground vehicle AI, etc.--the real work of this sim.

 

But if it stays, in the interest of realism and balance, I think the Russian side should have a pure A2A bird included as well. After all, there's one on the Blue team. There should be one for the Red team as well. In the interest of balance. But that would just create more work and draw manhours away from improving the real focus of this sim--moving mud. So I'm back to my first statement. Get rid of the F-15.

 

Rich

 

Im a bit appalled that you think this way. While you may think removing the F-15 would be ok for you, I think removing the flanker would be preferrable for me and then we are stuck and not getting anywhere.

 

Most of the AG ordnace is downright primitive anyway. The only reason why F-15 doesnt use AG bombs much like the flanker is because ED thinks it was later fallen underused and not relevant for the SIM.

This vision that this should be AG focused SIM and ditch the rest of the features would be an outrage for those who bough the 1.0 and wish to be up to date with the improvments.

 

This is your opinion of course but in mine Your suggestions would cut this SIM in half of its features just for shuting up crybabies and that would destroy any game as there will be always crybabies for everything.