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

[Kula66]

Rich,

The 15 v 29/27/33 battle is what makes this sim Soooo great! The great East v West contest - waves of Flankers and Migs with longer reach v fewer Eagles with smarter systems. Pure 27 v 27 would seem just so false!

 

Its just a great shame that the missile/radar modelling is so difficult to do right ... I'm sure if it was easy ED would have fixed it by now! Numerous tweaks to the current model has just led to more and more things that don't work right!

 

Seems like we are moving to an A2G focused sim ... which without a super smart AI behind it will be very sterile IMHO.

[tflash]

I am also surprised Ironhand!

 

When I bought Lockon, it was for the F-15 & Flanker. Then came the add-on Flaming Cliffs, which I only bought to have some bug fixes. My interest in the Su-25T is equal to 0 (nada, niente, zero). If Flaming Cliffs would have been released as a separate title, as it should have been, I would never have bought it.

 

My God, I would trade Lockon 1.03 over FC anyday.

 

I think online A2A in Lockon is unique. No other Sim offers this kinda excitement (and yes I own and know the other titles). I honestly prefer flight dynamics and kinematics over switchology.

 

We just want some fixes to Amraam and R-27ER. Look at it from an ecological point of view: we just feel you have to waste to much of these missiles to have a hit currently. This isn't good for the great Caucasus region. ;)

[Pilotasso]

Most people who complain about Flankers missile LOW PK (wich arent that serious) considering that real russian missiles have such problems, plus they have never tried the F-15 for comparison, or just plain dislike it and dont give a damn.

 

On top of that, one more thing: the best missile in this game is russian but has been recognized by its own engineers IRL as, and I quote " to have disapointing perfomance".

If you havent guessed by now thats the R-77 ;)

WORSE! Its not even in RU or UKR airforces service (although compatible), talk about game balance and uber AMRAAM's!

 

 

If you want your fav plane to own everyone else better stick with Novalogic SIM's. They'll satisfy you on that respect, but have the realism of Super Mario Brothers.

[Pilotasso]

And someone posted a link saying that the 27ER is better then the R-77, that was a nice read. I think it was tflash that posted it. :lookaround:

 

Better as in seeker reliability? wow I would like to read that. If you could find the link... :)

[GGTharos]

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! :)

 

That is actually not an unlikely outcome ... there's a report by the USAF where they worry that about the AIM-120's ability to engage stealth aircraft.

[SUBS17]

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.

 

Then you would be very wrong on both accounts, AI fill the gaps when people aren't available to fill them. How can you expect to improve realism without addressing the coms situation. :doh: Being able to switch channels, Tacan and Havquick is a big plus on immersion for a start. This is good in AF as when I decide to land at the alternate airfield I must switch Tacan chanels to get coms with the alternate airbase tower. :joystick: If you don't believe me then try AF and see for yourself. And also read "Vipers in the Storm"

[Pilotasso]

Didnt say Comms should be discarted as an improvment rather not as critical if you have humans on the other side of the line.

 

That is actually not an unlikely outcome ... there's a report by the USAF where they worry that about the AIM-120's ability to engage stealth aircraft.

 

The real chalenge would be to provide the missile initial targeting cues first. :)

[GGTharos]

The R-77 is not to be dissed - USAF pilots sure don't!

The R-27 is an older missile with less seeker capability, and also it is less maneuverable. Right now though we don't have the means to simulate differences between say, R-77 and AIM-120.

 

And BTW, do you guys really /really/ think that the 120 would be slower than the 7 or the 27, both of these being -much- older missiles?

 

I think ED has done the flanker and mig pilots a /huge/ favor personally, not to mention how poorly the F-15's radar fares (it's right now modelled as a touch worse than the flanker's in -some- respects) where the MiG at the least, and to some extent the flanker, should REALLY be suffering in terms of radar use by comparison, and should REALLY want to have a datalink.

 

Is this the case in the game as it is? No.

 

So anyone who's whining that the game isn't balanced basically doesn't know what they're talking about. While weapons and weapon systems are in -some- ways dissimilar, they are in fact nicely balanced out in other ways.

 

And, Rich ... what the heck man?

 

The Su-27 /IS/ a pure air to air bird. It's just that people like to use them as bomb trucks because its fast, convenient, and they suffer NOT the penalties that they SHOULD for it.

[GGTharos]

Didnt say Comms should be discarted as an improvment rather not as critical if you have humans on the other side of the line.

 

 

 

The real chalenge would be to provide the missile initial targeting cues first. :)

 

Even if you do, when you launch it it'll be singing on the other gys RWR well before it detects him ... and the issue there of course is that this guy will then fly right out of the kill basket :)

[GGTharos]

The F-15 can carry bombs too ... it could from the very start, just like the 27. What happened is that the USAF decided on a 'no pound for air to ground' policy, and removed the ground attack software (most of it, anyway) and that was basically that.

 

In the gulf war a couple of F-15Cs strafed some trucks after a call for help and the pilots were then given a 'talking to' and told to never, ever do ground attack again, as that isn't their job. Leave it to the proper F-16/F-15E flights to do, or A-10's.

 

As far as LO goes, ED did the same thing the USAF did, technically speaking: They removed the ground attack software from the F-15 ;)

[Ironhand]

..Im a bit appalled that you think this way...

Well, relax, because I don't. Sometimes I just feel like being irreverent. And, perhaps, irrelevant. I have to admit, though, looked at from that side of the equation, getting rid of the F-15 is definitely a quick fix to a host of ills. There is a definite perverted logic to it.

 

That being said, I'd love to see the F-15 brought up to snuff along with the other aircrafts' systems. And I don't particularly care about balance. If the F-15 actually is in a league of it's own and nothing can touch it, fine. Just model weapons systems as authentically as practical. The rest will sort itself out. I wouldn't mind a few shortcuts in the cockpit, though. I really don't want to have to spend months learning how fire a missile. Pressing one button instead of throwing 15 switches is fine with me.

 

BUT...I do wish ED would pick a time period and stick to it. If this is a sim based in the late-80s to early-90's then don't model weapons systems that weren't in active service then. AIM-9X? Sorry. The latest do-dads for the A-10? Sorry. R-77. If active Su-27 units were carrying them then, fine. If not. Sorry.

 

Rich

[D-Scythe]

The R-27RE is kinematically superior to the R-77. The actual R-77 (the baseline version, the one modelled in LOMAC) was like the AIM-120A in many respects (kinematically) - it didn't have loft. In fact, the AIM-120A still probably out-ranges it. The original claims that the R-77 out-ranged the AMRAAM are just BS as the Russians tried to sell stuff in the '90s...they also claimed that the MiG 1.4X would be stealthy, and look how that turned out. Everyone BS's when advertising, it's just that they sorta overdid it. Ooops. Convinced the public though - people think the R-77 should outrange even the AIM-120C, because of it's 100km range.

 

Not to say that the R-77 is a terrible weapon, but in reality, it actually isn't a match *at all* for the AIM-120C. Kinematically and technologically, I guess it can be considered on par with the AIM-120A - still a weapon to be respected, but the AIM-120B and -120C are *much* better missiles.

 

Just like if you wanted "balance," model the Su-27SM. Pitting the baseline Su-27 vs. an MSIP II F-15C (that's porked) is stupid - it's like pitting the F-15A vs. a porked Su-27SM. The only way to maintain balance *is* to undermodel the F-15C and AIM-120.

[RvEFuSiOn]

Seems like everyone is a know it all on the forums?

Where do you get your info from ? Internet?

Anyone here a fighterpilot or fired any sort of missile IRL?

Amazing how some come out with some facts, but have never even been near aircraft let alone talk about them.

Seems that if anyone suggests anything here there are always a few people insulting or flaming others for no reason.

GJ

Your Flight Degrees are waiting at the door.

 

:thumbup:

[D-Scythe]

Seems like everyone is a know it all on the forums?

Where do you get your info from ? Internet?

Anyone here a fighterpilot or fired any sort of missile IRL?

Amazing how some come out with some facts, but have never even been near aircraft let alone talk about them.

Seems that if anyone suggests anything here there are always a few people insulting or flaming others for no reason.

GJ

Your Flight Degrees are waiting at the door.

 

:thumbup:

 

Internet articles, papers, (actual) simulations, etc. If you really want to know why the baseline R-77 cannot loft, PM Swingkid.

 

Nothing I claimed was over-the-top. The R-77 is physically about the same size as the AMRAAM - thus, there is physically only so much rocket fuel you can pack into the airframe, so it is simply not physically possible to DOUBLE the range. Furthermore, the R-77 also is about the same tech level as the AIM-120A - their in-service entry dates/research/development/testing dates basically overlap (i.e. the mid/late-80s). So, in the absence of unclassified information, we assume that they're basically the same technology-wise - no reason to assume one is superior to the other. The AIM-120B and -C came much later, in the mid/late-90s. Do you expect a weapon developed in the -90s to be INFERIOR to the baseline version of the SAME weapon developed 10 years prior?

 

And the baseline Su-27 IS what is modelled in LOMAC (about late 1970s technology, put in service in the 80s though), and the F-15C MSIP II with AIM-120C capability IS what is modelled in LOMAC as well (about 1990s technology). Do you honestly expect something from the 1970s can be SUPERIOR to something from the 90s, when BOTH are designed to do the same thing?

 

The logic is simple. Can't see where you're getting lost.

[RvEFuSiOn]

D-scythe i totally agree with you on that, thats why the flankers need a major overhaul.

and btw my post was not intended for you, but for others around ;-)

It just happened to be after yours.

[hitman]

The R-77 is physically about the same size as the AMRAAM - thus, there is physically only so much rocket fuel you can pack into the airframe, so it is simply not physically possible to DOUBLE the range.

 

I beg to differ, although this isnt hardly the case, solid rocket fuel vs liquid rocket fuel. Different formulas on types of liquid and solid fuel can extend or shorten range and even in some cases lighten the payload.

 

Example: The AIM-120 uses solid fuel, vs. the AIM-7 that uses Thiokol liquid fuel. Most of you know the ranges between these 2 weapons so you can judge on that better...but which one gets the longer range vs the bigger and better bang?

[D-Scythe]

D-scythe i totally agree with you on that, thats why the flankers need a major overhaul.

and btw my post was not intended for you, but for others around ;-)

It just happened to be after yours.

 

Ok, then in that case...thanks.

 

I beg to differ, although this isnt hardly the case, solid rocket fuel vs liquid rocket fuel. Different formulas on types of liquid and solid fuel can extend or shorten range and even in some cases lighten the payload.

 

Now you're nitpicking. My assumption of course would only be right if the propellant was of the same type, which it is. Both the AIM-120 and R-77 uses the same propellant, probably a form of HTPB.

 

And last I checked, the AIM-7 also uses solid rocket propellant, not liquid fuel.

 

From the manufacturer's site, about the AIM-7 Mk-58 motor.

 

http://www.atk.com/internationalproducts/interprod_sparrow.asp

[hitman]

For some of you who dont know what everyones talking about:

 

Differences between the AMRAAM vs. R-77 found in wikipedia:

 

Range

The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120 AMRAAM (or at least, according to published data available on the earlier AIM-120A and AIM-120B), is in range. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant. Like most AAM weapons, the claimed range is for a non-maneuvering target, at a high altitude, and probably on a head on aspect with a respectable closing rate. Lower altitudes, rear aspect, or maneuvering targets will all reduce this range.

 

However, the planned upgrade of the AIM-120, the AIM-120D, is to have a much greater (+50%) range and no-escape zone which is believed to exceed that of the standard R-77.

 

BTW Im just pretending I know what Im talking about. :P

[GGTharos]

Hitman, the thiokol rocket was replaced with a solid propellant one for two reasons:

 

1) At the time, the performance of solid rocekt motors caught up significantly

2) Solid fueld rockets are safer. MUCH safer. Especially on carriers.

[D-Scythe]

For some of you who dont know what everyones talking about:

 

Differences between the AMRAAM vs. R-77 found in wikipedia:

 

Range

The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120 AMRAAM (or at least, according to published data available on the earlier AIM-120A and AIM-120B), is in range. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant. Like most AAM weapons, the claimed range is for a non-maneuvering target, at a high altitude, and probably on a head on aspect with a respectable closing rate. Lower altitudes, rear aspect, or maneuvering targets will all reduce this range.

 

However, the planned upgrade of the AIM-120, the AIM-120D, is to have a much greater (+50%) range and no-escape zone which is believed to exceed that of the standard R-77.

 

Wikipedia? Okay, so the R-77 is 2 cm thicker and 50 lbs heavier. The difference hardly is significant - the increased planar surfaces or the lattice wings (compared to planar wings) can account for the increased weight, and we don't know the interior arrangement of the R-77 vs. the AIM-120 to know just how that extra 2 cm in diameter is being used.

 

Furthermore, any miniscule increase in propellant mass would also have to power a HEAVIER missile that also happens to be more "draggy" because of the lattice fins (which create more drag than planar fins during level flight). So you get an extra 5% propellant, but now you're powering an almost 400lb missile that also happens to be more DRAGGY.

 

You were wrong about the AIM-7's propellant, and you're incorrect about this as well.

[GGTharos]

Actually the difference in rocket burn aera -is- significant, and the difference in propelant /weight/ is significant. The R-77 has a more powerful rockets, but it's all boost, no boost-sustain.

 

If you noticed, the USAF is making 'NEZ improvements' to the AIM-120, and any /max/ range improvements that result from this are merely a bonus.

 

Also to give you an idea why the R-77 not lofting is significant, or specifically to give you a number, at say, 30000' the R-77 loses some 4nm of range. 4nm is quite significant - it'll take an aircraft some 20-30 sec to cross this distance ... meaning your opponent with a lofting R77 (or an AMRAAM) has the missile on you that much sooner, and if he cranks, your missile won't reach him.

 

Now, going back to the NEZ issue:

 

You can kinematically evade a missile past its NEZ range by using say, an orthogonal barrel roll. Therefore, max range becomes a little less important ... if your NEZ is /longer/ than the other guys, you can fly in to your NEZ, launch, crank, and always know that you can dodge his missile while he cannot dodge yours, at least not without some help from coutnermeasures which may or may not work.

 

Further, IIRC according to Chizh or Han, Russian engineers have stated that R-77's actuators and fuze (I don't recall if they mentioned the seeker) are inferior to AMRAAM's.

 

This means that these missiles are easier to dodge, again, at least outside of the NEZ, and with the fuze not being so good means that there's less chance they'llc ause you damage if they -do- get near you.

 

As with everything, this is speculation based on 'something someone said' but it looks like there's an undeniable link between 'money spent on weapon' and 'quality of weapon' .. or more precicely, R&D dollars. The R-77, like the AMRAAM, has a new version(s) in the work with better components, but this isn't even a factor right now - AMRAAM is already well ahead.

[hitman]

 

You were wrong about the AIM-7's propellant, and you're incorrect about this as well.

 

Actually I am not incorrect about the AIM-7's propellant. GGTharos just proved me correct, however the only thing that I was incorrect about was that it is currently no longer used. This would apply to older and obsolete models of the AIM-7 missiles.

 

Furthermore, any miniscule increase in propellant mass would also have to power a HEAVIER missile that also happens to be more "draggy" because of the lattice fins (which create more drag than planar fins during level flight). So you get an extra 5% propellant, but now you're powering an almost 400lb missile that also happens to be more DRAGGY.

OK I stated first hand that this wasnt my own words, I copied and pasted this straight from Wikipedia so others can understand the basic properties of what you are talking about...ie RVE-Fusion. I dont know how I can "possibly" be incorrect over something that I didnt state in the first place.

[hitman]

Hitman, the thiokol rocket was replaced with a solid propellant one for two reasons:

 

1) At the time, the performance of solid rocekt motors caught up significantly

2) Solid fueld rockets are safer. MUCH safer. Especially on carriers.

 

I wanted to point out that liquid fuel is much heavier than solid state fuel boosters but burns just as efficiently if not far more efficiently than solid state boosters. A good example of this would be an Estes model rocket engine. You cant get decent combustion out of a similar sized liquid fuel type rocket unless you sacrifice size and weight limits.

[TucksonSonny]

Wikipedia? Okay, so the R-77 is 2 cm thicker and 50 lbs heavier. The difference hardly is significant - the increased planar surfaces or the lattice wings (compared to planar wings) can account for the increased weight, and we don't know the interior arrangement of the R-77 vs. the AIM-120 to know just how that extra 2 cm in diameter is being used.

 

Furthermore, any miniscule increase in propellant mass would also have to power a HEAVIER missile that also happens to be more "draggy" because of the lattice fins (which create more drag than planar fins during level flight). So you get an extra 5% propellant, but now you're powering an almost 400lb missile that also happens to be more DRAGGY.

 

You were wrong about the AIM-7's propellant, and you're incorrect about this as well.

 

The latest R-77 missile has practically the same dual propulsion system as the Kh-31P (rocket/ramjet).

The Kh-31 features a unique dual propulsion system designed by the Soyuz Design Bureau in Turayevo near Moscow. First the missile is accelerated by its solid-fuel rocket engine to a speed of Mach 1.8, then the engine is discarded and the interior of the missile is converted into the combustion chamber of the missile's jet engine. The latter accelerates the missile to a speed of almost Mach 4.5, while four air intake holes on the sides of the missile body open up.

I'd rather be in an R-77 armed Fulcrum than in a AMRAAM armed F-16 or F/A-18. :D

My 2 cents....

[GGTharos]

Hehe rgr :D

 

Liquid fuel is better in some cases, and solid in others. Note the space shuttle for example, it uses both. In this case the big advantage of the liquid fueled rocket is controlled thrust :)

 

Control of thrust with SRB's comes with different rocket propellant grain - ie. once you set it, it's how it is, period ... and once you light it, it doesn't stop 'till the rocket's spent. The liquid fuel rocket will burn as fast or as slow as you want it to, giving you control over thrust, and of course, you can turn it off whenever you like.