Shame on me!

[Scart]

The RWR? Or what else?

 

 

 

Overriding the ET is a bug? :D

bug is that ET can acquire target after it get's off the rail in RL it almos can't do it

[Scart]

In theory the 27's and 33's should win most of the BVR engagements. I guess we have to wait and see what BS brings to the table.

I consider the Eagle a VERY capable plane, and also it is very pilot friendly

in our in squad trainings I've managed to achive several times a one bogey splash flying 15 against two Flankers (I can't do it in Flanker) due to 2 target cap, but finally one of the ET's nailed me. also 15 has a larger countermeasures stores than any soviet fighter it's also a very nice thing to dodge missiles. The main problem from my point of view is proper tactics. Virtual pilots do not use the usual tactics of russian AF, they are not guided by ground control units, so you 15 guys can use the strong sides of 15 it has a better thrust to weight ratio, 8 missiles quite a double amount of chaff TWS mode built in ECM and so on. I definatly sure that flying 15 i'll get a better kill ratio than Flanker, but i like this plane too much ;)

[GGTharos]

So, anyway GG Tharos, like I was saying. Maybe you could mention my idea to ED...

 

You mean turning off friendly fire? :)

[GGTharos]

I would like to see in this sim... or any other for that matter... simulated real life possibilities and effects. I think replacing one issue with another is not good. If ED prohibits launch overide mode to stop people who don't know what they are doing and firing without lock and possibly killing a friendly... to me they are making this sim less realistic.

 

No, I think you've misinterpreted what's been said. Inhibiting a heater launch when it hasn't a seeker lock is a reasonable alternative to allowing its launch when it would behave unrealistically after said launch, NOT because it would hit friendlies - rather because it would not hit -anything-.

So like I said, in the current situation, you can basically have the most accuracy in the fire control system, or sacrifice just a little of that to have much more realistic air to air *combat*. You /cannot/ have both right now, though this -is- the long-term goal.

[GGTharos]

You wrong with this statement. The level of on board electronic systems modelling on the russian a/c even lower than F-15C or A-10A has.

 

No, I'd say you're definitely wrong here; the A-10 might be closer to being 'complete', but as far as fighters go, they're all nicely porked. And there's no -way- the F-15 is more complete in any way, shape or form than the russian fighters are.

 

It's still very difficult to find out reliable information on russian a/c, for ex. flight manual for Su-27S still not accesable only for the Su-27SK (K - "kommercheskii" commercial version). Althought many of wellknown systems still not represented in the game such as target distribution capability,

 

Do you mean the data-link?

 

multitarget engagement capability

 

... does not exist for the Su-27S, IIRC?

 

and some other. Even the fuel consumtion charachteristics are not properly modelled.

 

For any aircraft.

 

The same for Su-25(T). The point is nor that ED is a russian based company, it's more easier to collect open information on Eagle than on Flanker. So guys who flying Eagles you are lucky ones you have a little more useful things for combat. ;)

 

 

Let me introduce you to this thing called Ka-50 Black Shark ... ;)

You're way off-base as to the implementation details of these aircraft. They're all missing boatloads of stuff, in no way measurable as 'more' or 'less' from one or the other.

[Scart]

No, I think you've misinterpreted what's been said. Inhibiting a heater launch when it hasn't a seeker lock is a reasonable alternative to allowing its launch when it would behave unrealistically after said launch, NOT because it would hit friendlies - rather because it would not hit -anything-.

So like I said, in the current situation, you can basically have the most accuracy in the fire control system, or sacrifice just a little of that to have much more realistic air to air *combat*. You /cannot/ have both right now, though this -is- the long-term goal.

more accurate will be inhibit target acquire after off the rail - let the cheaters loose their missiles

[GGTharos]

2 Cali: most of people from russian forums consider that:

1. The 77 bleeds speed off like it has a parachute on and has a poor seeker than 120.

 

They need better statistics colelction skills then ;)

 

2. ED stealed 2 target capbility from MiG

 

And the 8-target capability from F-15 (Actually ECM just steals multi-target capability period)

 

3. ED stealed target distribution from Su

 

.. and from the F-15

 

poor ED they just between hammer and nail :)

 

Always :D

 

and R-27ER is really faster and longer range than 120, but it lacks the active seeker

 

If we forget for a moment about ECM and chaff inaccuracy, this doesn't matter in LO due to the ridiculous difference in speeds. The R-27ER is VERY deadly in the right hands.

 

oh, one more thing if MiG fires 77 in HOJ mode the target shouldn't have a launch signal on RWR and if Eagle fires 7F the target should have a llaunch signal on RWR

 

 

Why do you think that? The F-15 doesn't get launching warning from the 77 if you launch it in HoJ, no. The AIM-7 and R-27 series on the other hand - much 'iffier' issue.

[Kuky]

Cali, the reason why ET's get highest number of kills is because people hit by it never saw (hurd) it comming because IR don't give launch warning. The R-73 is fired at quite short range and in most cases you see it being fired but the R-27ET is fired at much longer range and in most cases, even myself, I don't see it comming.

 

In many cases people fire an SAR/AR then an ET straight after... naturally you hear the RWR due to SAR/AR inbound and you go evasive... because you are alerted. The ET is inbound towards you like a ghost... and that's why it's so deadly. Nothing to do with poor modeling on ED's part.

 

And there is no way to see how far enemy missile is when it's being fired on you in russian aircraft or american aircraft. The RWR in russian aircraft shows radar signal strength and you can estimate range like this... but not for the missile. You get a launch warning same like in F-15/A-10 but does not shor how far it is at any point in time.

 

The american RWR actually does represent threat "range" which is not based on distance but effective range of the weapon. You can use that to aproximate range to target same as in russian aircraft because you can see what threat is there (which you can't see on russian RWR - it only gives threat type) and if it's within inner ring it means you're within threat range. That's the guideline I use when I fly F-15/A-10.

 

Geee, there are so many things we can discuss here... and I think that's a very healthy discussion we got going on right now.

[GGTharos]

more accurate will be inhibit target acquire after off the rail - let the cheaters loose their missiles

 

Yes, I agree - but what I am saying is that I think ED will implement whatever is easiest for them - which I would guess is a launch inhibit - and they will make much, much more realistic representation in fighter project.

[Kuky]

GG, I would actually like nOObs loose the missile rather then ED guiding them when they can fire it... it's like assisting them in combat :D

[Scart]

No, I'd say you're definitely wrong here; the A-10 might be closer to being 'complete', but as far as fighters go, they're all nicely porked. And there's no -way- the F-15 is more complete in any way, shape or form than the russian fighters are.

can you imagine how difficult for me to find right words in english? :)

I can't agree, because some really important systems and capabilities are not modelled in LO, also the F-15 datalink but I'm not surely know how it works and represented IRL.

 

Do you mean the data-link?

something about this and a little more.

 

... does not exist for the Su-27S, IIRC?

surely exists and perfectly works. exept Su-27P

 

For any aircraft.

agree completely

 

Let me introduce you to this thing called Ka-50 Black Shark ... ;)

You're way off-base as to the implementation details of these aircraft. They're all missing boatloads of stuff, in no way measurable as 'more' or 'less' from one or the other.

thats a very strange exeption as for me

 

And there is no way to see how far enemy missile is when it's being fired on you in russian aircraft or american aircraft. The RWR in russian aircraft shows radar signal strength and you can estimate range like this... but not for the missile. You get a launch warning same like in F-15/A-10 but does not shor how far it is at any point in time.

not in the case you've being launched an active missile

[GGTharos]

can you imagine how difficult for me to find right words in english? :)

 

I am sorry, I did not know. :)

 

I can't agree, because some really important systems and capabilities are not modelled in LO, also the F-15 datalink but I'm not surely know how it works and represented IRL.

 

Real F-15 has 20 or so pages on the MPCD (scereen where you see armament display) and something like 13 radar modes with additional sub-modes. How much of that is in LO? :)

There is also manual selection of notch size and other radar parameters.

And what about navigation? :)

 

something about this and a little more.

 

I understand - i believe it is missing from all fighters ;)

 

surely exists and perfectly works. exept Su-27P

 

I would not think that it is something that can work very well due to the nature of SARH missiles and limitations of mechanically scanned array ...

F-14 did something like this but then F-14 used ARH missiles.

 

thats a very strange exeption as for me

 

 

What I am trying to say is that Ka-50 in Black Shark is very, very well simulated in terms of systems - and this is the future for ED products from now on.

 

If you were to see Ka-50 and compare with existing aircraft that you play with now, you would understand how much is really missing :)

[Scart]

And what about navigation? :)

yes, navigation on F-15 in LO is a complete sucks

I would not think that it is something that can work very well due to the nature of SARH missiles and limitations of mechanically scanned array ...

F-14 did something like this but then F-14 used ARH missiles.

there is no use without command tactics (2 or more planes)

when you have a team it's a great deal

What I am trying to say is that Ka-50 in Black Shark is very, very well simulated in terms of systems - and this is the future for ED products from now on.

 

If you were to see Ka-50 and compare with existing aircraft that you play with now, you would understand how much is really missing :)

trying to imagine what things are modelled in BS with Ka-50 the only thing I'm praying on is the same to Su-27 and F-15 - really the best planes in the world

[GGTharos]

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by multi-target :)

[Scart]

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by multi-target :)

2 target engagement capability for MiG-29 (9-13C)

terget distribution is that if one plane from group dion't see bogey with it's own radar station it can take bogey position from another plane for Su-27S

[GGTharos]

2 target engagement capability for MiG-29 (9-13C)

 

Ah ok. LAst I heard ED was not able to verify mechanization of this feature :)

 

terget distribution is that if one plane from group dion't see bogey with it's own radar station it can take bogey position from another plane for Su-27S

 

 

So the same as F-15 data link :)

[S77th-GOYA]

IMO, anyone that has any expectation of full representation of avionics, much less AFM, for the fighters currently modelled in LO is sadly over- optimistic. I simply want the things that are modelled to be modelled more realistically. For example, missiles biting on chaff. It can't be that difficult to reduce the parameter that controls whether or not a missile will be spoofed. It just doesn't seem possible that a change in that code would affect anything else. It is simply not related to anything else.

 

F-15 TWS locks not centering the primary is another glaring problem.

[Scart]

Ah ok. LAst I heard ED was not able to verify mechanization of this feature :)

there is even a .avi file in the internet, where simulation of it shown with HUD indication and showing how's the radar plates shaking while tracking two targets simultaneously - no way, ED just dont want coding this feature

[GGTharos]

Scart, link to the avi please! :)

[Pilotasso]

I second that, we need to see this.

[Scart]

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=14927&highlight=%E2%E8%E4%E5%EE hit the link in first post

[GGTharos]

Tanks Scart!

It's only missing some details like how targets are designated/undersignated etc but it surely proves multi-track capability. There's even vectory symbols on the targets! :)

[Scart]

Just as I've said it before :) hoping no men in black will be waiting for me outdoors:D

[GGTharos]

Hehe RGR. :D Do you know which model radar this is, etc?

[Scart]

if simply translate the post there must be the commercial version of device from 9-13C