Radar missiles

[GGTharos]

Yep, but according to 'those in the know', poor missile and radar performance precludes use of realistic tactics.

[Vekkinho]

I read all of Your replies and I can say that I agree with most of it.

 

I saw a video called 'blackshark_ballistics_demo.wmv' and I certainly hope that those parabellum trajectories will be implemented to all cannon equiped aircraft, not only AAA like displayed it that movie.

 

That's a major step forward, perhaps even bigger than 1.02 ->1.12a fix that provided better (more realistic) LCOS for RUSFOR fighters. Remember gunzo back in 1.02? Yes, almost impossible!

 

The major issue that I find is big weapon and avionics systems difference between AI and player controlled AC. Here's the exapmle.

 

1) Player (me) in MiG-29C @ 2000m MSL, M=0,7

2) AI (excellent) in F-15C @ 2000m MSL, M=0,7

 

We are approaching nose 2 nose (high AOT) 100 km out. I'm aware of that Eagle out there because my Beryoza keeps notifying faithfully.

 

OK.

 

I decide to engage and we increase airspeed to achieve sprint and shoot situation. Now we're 50 clicks away and I get locked. All AI aircraft fly around with their radars lit, don't they, while we (players) can toggle damn thing on/off.

 

My radar was turned off in order to reduce my RCS which is like 2-3 sq. m (Fulcrum's forward hemisphere). Eagle's much bigger and his radar's on.

 

But If I turn my radar on at this point and switch it into forward hemisphere searching mode (for approaching tgts) I still won't be able to see him and contitions won't meet for a solid lock. He's shoots...I'm still blind!

 

OK, second run...let's change seats now.

 

Same thing happens here but he's in Fulcrum now! He's smaller so I can't see him on my radar (I'm fine with that). But all of a sudden I get locked again! He's inside Rmax and he shoots!!! Shouldn't I be the one to do this while in F-15 like he did in the first run?!!

 

Sometimes I experience NEZ at 30km even though I fly perfect notch (beam & dive, chaff, chaff, chaff, turn into a missile, chaff, chaff) but I get splashed! When I shoot AIM-120 at a target @ 10 km bandit manages to evade by doing same or simmilar maneuver...

 

Second thing!

 

Let's rework AI and it's read thru way of flying. They fly all planes in a same way. They always beam to starboard, they always fly scissors, they can't tell between energy and turn fighter and two completely different ways of dogfight.

 

KC-10 in scissors with Su-27? I don't think so!

 

Enjoy!

[Rhen]

KC-10 in scissors with Su-27? I don't think so!

 

:megalol:

Why the hell not? Nearly every time I try to tank up on that guy, and a turn comes up, he gets on my 6 faster than I can get on his! :lol: If I could fly a 500,000 pound aircraft that way and still have wings and engine pylons, then Bob Hoover's got nothing on me, that's for damn sure! :P

[D-Scythe]

Wanted to repeat a point which I think slipped by unnoticed earlier. One of the main contentions seems to be that the classic air combat rules of staying high and fast appear to be reversed in LO, where it is far too easy to exploit the notch and hide in the clutter. I agree that this is the case, but the common repy to this IRL appears to center less on specific technology (radar, missile, or otherwise), but more on tactics, specifically multi-ship tactics. This is the general angle missing in LO. AI doesn't do it at all. In multiplayer, you are typically in no more than a 2v2, and even that is rarely done with proper comms, formations, etc. In reality, it is *always* done that way, and therein lies the ability to fight the notch and tag targets hiding in the clutter.

 

IMHO.

 

That's true, but that's only a measure of defense on the radars of the shooters, not the missiles. Again, if radar missiles are 100% ineffective against the notch IRL, but you can use multi-ship tactics to fight targets in the notch, than Hughes should've produced a BVR heat-seeking missile for the AMRAAM program, not an active radar one. That way, you can still maintain a track on the target BVR when it notches, but attack it with a datalinked, *silent* BVR AAM.

 

BAe, Vympl and Rafael should've come to that conclusion as well, instead of settling for active radar missiles in their respective BVR missile products.

 

No RCS characteristics, no tracking! Period! Doppler is a characteristic of the RCS, too

I'm not sure what more I can say to explain. Aircraft targets scatter RF in a very coherent (narrow frequency range) way, the ground does not (it scatters energy across a wide frequency range) ... you can therefore isolate the aircraft by gating the largest narrowband RCS spike, so long as you're close enough that it isn't dronwed out by clutter.

 

Obviously no RCS signature would mean no tracking period ;) But we're not talking stealth aircraft here - the missile is going to easily see the clutter and the target in terms of RCS. However, beyond that, I fail to see how RCS factors into tracking at all, especially this "scattering" characteristic of RCS. It's not like there are different types of RCS for the missile to distinguish like there are different doppler frequencies.

 

As far as I know, you can get the AMRAAM to shootdown a paper/wooden airplane provided that the missile can home in on its doppler return. And that would scatter RF energy differently than metal as well.

 

Sometimes I experience NEZ at 30km even though I fly perfect notch (beam & dive, chaff, chaff, chaff, turn into a missile, chaff, chaff) but I get splashed! When I shoot AIM-120 at a target @ 10 km bandit manages to evade by doing same or simmilar maneuver.

 

Notching doesn't protect you from an NEZ. The NEZ is defined as the envelope that the target cannot out-run or out-turn the missile. Notching doesn't try to out-turn or out-run the missile - it tries to "hide" from it.

[Pilotasso]

Regardless however, my general comment had less to do with this and more to do with the fact that I find F-pole and A-pole to work in the game, provided players don't exploit the code, like snipe their ETs knowing that this cannot be done IRL.

 

Unfortunatly the general philosofy is that, if exploits are there why not use them? I get this rethorical question over and over again, and to be frank it annoys the heck out of me people think this way because it ruins all the fun. Myabe its dumb for me to embark on a crusade to change peoples mind about this but Im just too stuburn to surrender this hobby to virtual hooliganism.

 

Human behaviour favours shortcuts in order to be successfull in any area of interest. They wont play "fair" if they dont have to. So the best thing to do is to drive them to do it. Like that little device on shoping karts that gets your coin stuck untill you park it after the shoping and not just leave it where you please :D

 

In my view you dont have to use WAFM now to fix most of these bad habits.

A litle less clutter sensitivity here, a litle less drag on the missile there should do it. It all comes to a smart compromise of the avaiable parameters.

 

Do you find that online IL-2 servers have much to do with WW-II air battles?

 

Most people with WW2 SIM's want an airquake. Before LOMAC I always though that complex avionics scared away the Quake likes and only atracted serious simmers. The truth reavealed not to be quite this linear, but I can still have pretty good moments of team efforts when flying sessions with several menbers of differen Squads in each side. Some missions are more oriented to tactics and objectives and others are for pure AA quakes.

 

Remenber the coin in the shoping kart. ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=16614

[Vekkinho]

Notching doesn't protect you from an NEZ. The NEZ is defined as the envelope that the target cannot out-run or out-turn the missile. Notching doesn't try to out-turn or out-run the missile - it tries to "hide" from it.

 

What I meant was that AI has bigger chances in surviving than me although we both fly same evasive maneuvers.

 

Longest stick with MiG-29A is R-27R that has a max range of cca 40 km but even when fired from R-optimal first one will usualy miss. Quite contrary when AI does the same. Missile's too 'sticky' when AI shoots, don't you think?!

 

MiG-29A should be capable of carrying R-27T but there's no such thing with default MEInit. German MiG-29G is nothing but a MiG-29B (export version) but it has R-27T option in it's payload. So I use LOPE to edit (correct) my payload for Russian A.

 

In real life, air to air missiles are less panic! They're not sticky as in LO & FC and usualy beaming and couple of chaff are all it takes to dodge 'em. All that pilot needs to know is that it's inbound and start evading ASAP.

[EvilBivol-1]

See, radar missiles in LO are too good.

 

 

 

Sorry. :D

[tflash]

To quickly summarize since we get many threads in one:

 

1) we have the missile climbing/diving performance issue, where the D-Scythe/EvilBovil discussion and tests shows that there are newton mechanics aspects not taken into account in the missile modelling: the extra potential energy a missile has because of gravity while diving. There might still be some discussion how much it impacts on tactics, but I feel there is unanimity that something can be improved in the modelling. At the moment, air pressure is taken into account whereas gravity effects are not.

 

2) we have the effectiveness and nature of chaff discussion. As I see it, the discussion portrays chaff as mimicing the RF signature of an aircraft, with a slightly bigger RCS which entails the possibility to decoy the missile seeker.

Rejection logic of the seeker should focus then on the doppler properties of the return, estimating the kinematics of the locked object.

We seem to think these rejection possibilities are insufficiently taken into account: if a chaff-cloud is in seeker FOV the missile seems consistently tracking the chaff-cloud.

 

3) The über-AI. This has been discussed in many threads before and we know exactly what is going on. The tests by Vekkinho clearly show that this has an impact on tactics, but only in a off-line scenario against AI of course.

[ericinexile]

Lock-On is to Air Combat what Jousting was to Medieval Battle Tactics. I understand the desires of the above posters to correct errors in missile/doppler physics, but let's not overlook the most important thing: ED has created the most realistic PC flight sim most of us will ever see (And I get checked once a year in a $15M sim). X-plane, MSFM, Janes, F4AF--none of them simulate the feel of flying a jet like Lock-On does.

 

So, strive for excellence certainly; but don't let the little stuff take away from the experience. Time to fly!...

[D-Scythe]

Lock-On is to Air Combat what Jousting was to Medieval Battle Tactics. I understand the desires of the above posters to correct errors in missile/doppler physics, but let's not overlook the most important thing: ED has created the most realistic PC flight sim most of us will ever see (And I get checked once a year in a $15M sim). X-plane, MSFM, Janes, F4AF--none of them simulate the feel of flying a jet like Lock-On does.

 

Again, if you consider each element of missile modelling individually, than yes, I wouldn't disagree that ED has produced the most realistic missile model so far. But again, the fact that some things are modelled well but others are undermodelled/omitted means these elements don't come together well - we can't fight realistically with radar missiles.

 

And the "feel" of flying has nothing to do with the topic and is frankly a disputable point. None of us has ever flown the Block 52 F-16CJ, an F/A-18E Super Bug AND an F-15C Eagle in our lifetimes.

[Vekkinho]

Lock-On is to Air Combat what Jousting was to Medieval Battle Tactics. I understand the desires of the above posters to correct errors in missile/doppler physics, but let's not overlook the most important thing: ED has created the most realistic PC flight sim most of us will ever see (And I get checked once a year in a $15M sim). X-plane, MSFM, Janes, F4AF--none of them simulate the feel of flying a jet like Lock-On does.

 

Exactly, I used to play with F4.0 back in '99 and checked couple of upgrades and patches (SP packs) but it just scratched the surface of Aircombat. Graphics were bad, even for 1999, those packs increased LOD significantly but Il-76 viewed from 200 m had square engines, terrain isn't modelled like it should be, misplaced airfields and runway headings etc.

 

Then came Flanker 2.0 and it kicked my ass. Realistic terrain (Crimean peninsula), detailed Aircraft, tons of ground vehicles really put a smile on my face. I decided to forget about f-16 and it's dynamic campaigns, although they're great.

 

Now LO and FC really keep the pace with everything else in computer world. I tried FS-X and it's pretty good but to be extra special we'll all need Dx10 OS (Vista). I also bought F4AF because of Balkans theatre campaigns (I come from Croatia, BTW) tried it, started studying it's manuals again, flew all training missions and started campaign but it sucked. I mean, terrain doesn't look like Balkans at all, misplaced runways and ABs, wrong spelling of major cities. Realism set to 100% but still flies like paper plane!

 

So I sitck to LOFC 1.12a for now. Dunno much about Fighter Ops but I'll buy 'em for sure when they hit the stores, but I also pray for BS...and expect better FPS (optimized engine). Those highly detailed trucks and mud movers mean nothing. Overflying such @ 500m doesn't require any hi LOD, it might just steal some FPS. They'll be destroyed within seconds with RBKs so we don't really need hi LOD.

 

Let's improve performance for massive furballs!

[Pilotasso]

Falcon 4 is a dynamic SIm with avionics. Lockon is about aerodynamics and AA combat. Period. Both are the best in their own respective area.

 

There is no defenitive SIM that bests every other in every area yet.

[tflash]

None of my comments are ever meant to detract from Lockon's merits. we're mainly discussing simulation. But back to topic: I wonder if chaff only acts as a decoy, or whether it also functions as a noise jammer: adding RF noise to the background forcing the radar to increase gain. This on its turn should lower the probability of a stable lock and effective clutter rejection.

 

I suppose that if the engaging aircraft is in a look-down position, chaff could be used effectively to break lock. I do not think it is modelled that way in Lockon: the lock is broken only by the beaming, not by releasing chaff, or am I wrong?

[GGTharos]

Yeah, you're kinda wrong.

 

Chaff -might- cause a break-lock but only in very specific situations. Chaff will have close to zero effectiveness in any shape way or form if your target is aproaching you head-on, since you can always filter it out via doppler, and chaff won't likely have a much -bigger- return that the ground in look-down.

 

But yes, it does add to noise, in almost the same way that ground clutter does ... so you should be able to use it to greate a 'look down' condition when the enemy is using 'look up' on you, theoretically, but keep in mind that this is much, much more limited than real ground clutter.

[Rhen]

Again, if you consider each element of missile modelling individually, than yes, I wouldn't disagree that ED has produced the most realistic missile model so far. But again, the fact that some things are modelled well but others are undermodelled/omitted means these elements don't come together well - we can't fight realistically with radar missiles.

 

When it comes to producing and using real world tactics, overmodeling missiles would acutally help force greater use of this type of tactic. It also would help if there was a more substantial penalty for pressing a tactical situation which would result in death of the player.

 

But getting back to the missiles. Despite all of the flaws in Falcon, the missiles, while I'd say they're a little more optimistic, than their RL counterparts, (by how much, and in what areas, is up to you to guess ;) ) having them modeled in this way forces the pilot who wants to be successful to use -more- realistic tactics and team approaches to attaining mission objectives than they would if the missiles were modeled closer to LOMAC.

 

I have respect for the R-77, and other missiles of their type, regardless of whether they're more or less sophisticated than the Slammer C. The price of not paying a missile respect is the price of a postumous Silver Star or DFC - the going price of which is a lot less than what I think I'm worth. Now, I'm not suggesting that simmers have a draconian penalty to virtual death, perhaps a 10min time out would do, but this also drives tactics. If the worst thing that happens is that you have to respawn into a shiny new fully-loaded aircraft with that "new aircraft smell," then tactics will reflect this as well.

 

But back to your topic D-Scythe, you and others are absolutely right about LOMACs missiles. While I can't speak to Russian missiles, I can tell you that if we train against them as if they are on a continuum somewhere between their RW performance and their advertized performance, then we'll be better prepared to face them.

 

Consequently, if the missiles in LOMAC were modeled somewhere between Falcon's and LOMACs, you'd be moving this game closer to it's title "Modern Air Combat."

 

And the "feel" of flying has nothing to do with the topic and is frankly a disputable point. None of us has ever flown the Block 52 F-16CJ, an F/A-18E Super Bug AND an F-15C Eagle in our lifetimes.

 

Well... some of us have. :joystick: :thumbup:

[SwingKid]

^^^^this also demonstrates that the AMRAAM is too slow. Max speed should be mach 4 and average speed should be arround mach 3.

 

What if the fighter is flying at Mach 5 at the moment of launch?

 

(or Mach 2, or Mach 0.3, or whatever... the point is, I don't believe we can be so specific, when the launch conditions are not similarly specific)

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Indeed, I second that. It is is very important to first get the physics right, so that your missiles behave in a natural way, and only then work on the pursuit algorithms. What happened now is that we have incomplete modelling coupled with algorithmic oversophistication. This gives mixed results, and a sometimes very weird missile flightpath, as you can see with Tacview. E.g. programming loft without gravity modelling (in fact, correct me but I think what we need is energy modelling taking gravity into account) was maybe not a good choice. WAFM is the way to go. Remember that you need to program the velocity vector of the launching aircraft into the equation, certainly with free-fall bombs, rockets and bullets, and apply some wind influence also.

 

I would prefer getting these basics straight before implementing advanced pursuit/midcourse correction logic on the missiles.

 

Finally!! I am not alone!!! :) You said it better than I could, for the umpteenth time.

 

Happily, "WAFM first" seems to be the route that ED is taking, fingers crossed - it just takes a long time. As heartbreaking as it is to have to wait so long, I hope they can resist the temptation to get distracted by the never-ending proposed "quick-fixes" instead.

 

Sorry guys.. I don't believe there's an alternative. Patience is a virtue.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Actually, I'm more worried about the performance of the radar seekers in the end-game as opposed to anything else. Lock On's current system is probably the most sophisticated seeker model ever put into a modern jet sim - however, because ED modelled some things well (apparently all the limitations) while modelling other things not was well, or omitting them altogether (i.e. all the advantages) actually puts it behind Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0.

 

Well put, I agree. However...

 

When it comes to producing and using real world tactics, overmodeling missiles would acutally help force greater use of this type of tactic.

 

...I don't think that using such general terms as "overmodeling" is going to be helpful. For example, Flanker 2.0's missiles had a much higher Pk, and were even less popular. tflash is more on the right path IMHO, in trying to break this discussion down into salient points. Look at the main points brought up in the first post of this topic:

 

(a) I should be able to beam in look-up

(b) I should not be able to beam in look-down

 

Do we really agree with this as the definition of "overmodeling?" Does it even make sense? What are we trying to say here?

 

Trying to rush into a realistic ECM/ECCM/IRCM/HUD/ACM tactics model when we don't even have a solid foundation in basic aerodynamics is just going to add layers of new bad code onto old bad code, making the whole thing a complex buggy mess to which making changes or additions becomes ever more impossible. In fact, we arguably passed that point long ago. We need to get back to basics and start with something simple, get it right and start building on that. e.g.:

 

1. Get the Sidewinder to fly pure pursuit, straight at the target

2. Now make the Sidewinder fly PN, increasing its drag and decreasing its range as it maneuvers

3. Now make the target IR signature depend on aspect, and

4. make the Sidewinder lock range depend on the IR signature

5. Now make the Sidewinder seeker able to lock onto vehicles, hot rocks, the sun, etc.

6. Now when the Sidewinder can lock onto heat sources, provide the target with flares and/or IRCM

7. Now when the target can use flares, provide the Sidewinder with IRCCM

 

For example - we can skip step 3, by making the Sidewinder lock range depend directly on target aspect, rather than on an IR signature that depends on target aspect. But if we make that shortcut, then we can't make it to step 5 - hot rocks and the sun can't compete with the target IR signature, when the target has no IR signature! And that's why we are where we are today, with IRH missiles that can't lock onto ground targets, and no plans to see that feature in the future.

 

The case for radar missiles is similar, but even more complex of a mess, what with illumination, PRFs, different types of ECM, etc. I agree with tflash, that we need to go back and get more basic stuff fixed first.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

While I agree with your points, I still believe that you can have missiles that fly and navigate to the target with proper physics and all that, but if in the end it's too stupid to hit anything, than there's really no point. ED can put WAFM into the radar missiles and they will *still* be porked IMO - so you get a missile that flies to the target like a real missile, but it might as well be a ballistic rocket because it STILL can't hit targets in its NEZ worth a damn. End-game behaviour should take first priority, since the problem now is the fact that the target can swim through overlapping NEZs with a high degree of security if the pilot knows what he is doing. F-pole, A-pole, get higher/faster, etc. - these *real* BVR tactics really don't have a lot of significance in Lock On. A missile is just as easily dodged when fired from the NEZ than in the outer portions of the MEZ.

 

A $30 PC entertainment product like Lock On cannot possibly be realistic in EVERY part of the missile modelling equation, and IMO, it shouldn't try to be. As long as I can fly and fight realistically, I could care less about the specifics of the AMRAAM - it's certain that the facts we need are going to be classified anyway.

[Kula66]

Well IMHO, the physics, while complex is not secret - and should be modelled as accurately as possible given the power of current CPUs. This would allow RL tactics to be used effectively in the game. Sensor modelling is also possible ... we've all seen pictures of the electronics and know how they work in theory. The tricky bit is things like ECM, sensitivity, ECCM ... and these are going to be subjective - good guesses!

 

The trouble is for an A2A sim, weapon flight/dynamics/modelling is fundamental and if the foundations of the modelling aren't right no amount of tweaking can fix it! And the more you tweak, the more anomalies you throw up and the more tweaking you have to do ... and the code gets ever more complex!

 

And, despite its £30 price tag, LO should aim for perfection ... as I am sure ED would like! I'd happliy pay £100 for LO if it included WAFM, the F-18 and AFM for all current a/c ... see SteelBeasts PRo!

[D-Scythe]

Well IMHO, the physics, while complex is not secret - and should be modelled as accurately as possible given the power of current CPUs. This would allow RL tactics to be used effectively in the game.

 

No, it wouldn't. Modern BVR tactics not only tries to increase your NEZ/MEZ, but also to avoid your opponent's NEZ while trying to catch him in yours to kill him. The philosophy is to make sure your missiles have enough energy to kill its target, but also retaining enough energy yourself to avoid any return shot.

 

But with radar missiles as dumb as they are, what's the point? With manouevers that work 100% against incoming missiles whether you are in the NEZ or not, then it doesn't matter if you have a missile that arrives on target at Mach 4 because you painstakingly worked your radar right, found your target quickly, climbed and accelerated to give your missiles more energy - all your missiles are gonna miss.

 

And, despite its £30 price tag, LO should aim for perfection ... as I am sure ED would like! I'd happliy pay £100 for LO if it included WAFM, the F-18 and AFM for all current a/c ... see SteelBeasts PRo!

 

I disagree with this. A $30 product like LOMAC should not aim to deliver the same results as a $250 product like SBProPE. Yes, it should try to be as realistic as possible given the scope of its purpose, but really, it's a PC product of entertainment - we don't need it to be so realistic that pilots can actually use it as a training tool.

[Ardillita]

I disagree with this. A $30 product like LOMAC should not aim to deliver the same results as a $250 product like SBProPE. Yes, it should try to be as realistic as possible given the scope of its purpose, but really, it's a PC product of entertainment - we don't need it to be so realistic that pilots can actually use it as a training tool.

 

Why not? There are much more complex, far much more complex simulations that are for... free! Example: Orbiter. It is a space simulator, that simulates EXACTLY every phisics of flying (in atmosphere and in space). And this sim is for free, developed i a community.

 

The cost we are talking about can never be measured in terms of $$$ because we are talking about a product that will be sold in all the world, so in end terms can talk about how much money wants the developer to earn with his sales. The development of a very realistic sim doesn´t really depends on money, but of the programmers team. The development team quality will say how long will take to develop the sim, how good it will be, and etc´s.

 

At the end, with your final product ready for sale, you will sell thousand in the world. It is imposible not to earn enough money to cover the development costs, right? So, it is completly posible to sell such a compelx sim at $30, of course that if you can sell it at $250, you wouyld earn a lot more... may be because how much people would want to pay such a price for a sim

 

In my opinion, it is comletly posible to develope a very accurate sim at $30 or so, if it has been done for free, it is posible. What small companies like ED should learn is to learn from others and not push things in their own ways, like it is doing now (come on, the develpment times of lock on are somehow too large, and also too much important bugs for such times)

[Kula66]

No, it wouldn't. Modern BVR tactics not only tries to increase your NEZ/MEZ, but also to avoid your opponent's NEZ while trying to catch him in yours to kill him. The philosophy is to make sure your missiles have enough energy to kill its target, but also retaining enough energy yourself to avoid any return shot.

 

All this NEZ/MEZ/A-pole/f-pole .... its all about physics! These are tactics because of the physics of AAMs. Get the physics right, which it currently is not and the tactics you mention will work ...

[Rhen]

Well put, I agree. However...

 

 

 

...I don't think that using such general terms as "overmodeling" ...

-SK

 

It's a good sentiment & in principle, I agree with you. However...

 

 

 

...The majority of (you pick the country)AF pilots train with missiles having no physics modeling. ACMI doesn't require this. Without getting into the parameters of making a kill or missing your shot, all that's required is for the program to take "a couple of variables into account" and then script the missile hitting or missing the targeted aircraft. Throw in the possibility of hitting a secondary target (i.e. an aircraft flying in front of an AMRAAM that wasn't a designated target) & you save a couple of thousand calculations and a few CPU cycles.

 

Now, having said that, I would much rather have your system with true physics modeling. But as said previously, without proper or at least - how shall I put it "overmodelled(?)" (compared to what's currently in LOMAC :smilewink: ) missiles you still have a nice flying bullet without the brains required to force proper (real world) tactics.

 

We're basically having a discussion about semantics. Like I've said, I agree with you, but within the constraints of current PC technology.:thumbup: