Proper jammer usage

[suntrace1]

SIMULATION of REAL LIFE is NOT EQUAL to REAL LIFE!!!

[Ven]

Real life has nothing to do with this? Last time I checked, Lock On is a SIMULATION of REAL LIFE. What happens in REAL LIFE should happen in the game, because simulations try to be REAListic. Do I have to be any more clear?

 

At the risk of being argumentative... shouldn't that be the developer's responsibility to implement that realism? It's not the consumer's responsibility to play realistically. It is a choice... If ED intended LOMAC only for hardcore sim players, why is there labels, invincible, unlimited weapons, easy radar, and easy flight built into the design? Once you play online on a server, then yea, you are responsible to follow its rules.

 

Again, I think it's possible to disagree but still respect other's way of enjoying this sim/game).

[D-Scythe]

The Netherlands F16 that shot down the serbian Mig29 was not the first to engage him. Previous F16s had to turn back and disengage as they could not aquire him and were approaching the Migs missile range.

 

I'm gonna raise the bovine fecal matter flag on this one - there is no way FOUR F-16s couldn't acquire a MIG-29 before getting into the 35 km range of its R-27R missiles.

 

Such are real life tactics that that if are not followed you end up dead or in a court marshall hearing. Does that apply to you? Do you disengage when you dont have an overwhelming and advantageous firing solution?

 

Unfortunately, there was nothing "real life" about your example. Next time, check to make sure your sources are correct please. Saves my time and yours.

 

Absolutly improve the game.....but real life does not apply.

 

How do you improve Lock On without making it more realistic - i.e. more like real life? How can you make a simulation better without applying real life concepts?

 

At the risk of being argumentative... shouldn't that be the developer's responsibility to implement that realism? It's not the consumer's responsibility to play realistically. It is a choice... If ED intended LOMAC only for hardcore sim players, why is there labels, invincible, unlimited weapons, easy radar, and easy flight built into the design? Once you play online on a server, then yea, you are responsible to follow its rules.

 

Again, I think it's possible to disagree but still respect other's way of enjoying this sim/game).

 

ED doesn't have the money, time, or the resources to model every ECM technique and every ECCM counter-technique. Thus, they "approximated" ECM vs. ECCM warfare with a very basic model that wasn't designed to handle actual ECM/ECCM techniques. Like in real life, the pilot in LOMAC is only supposed to switch the ECM "on" - from that point, the computers take over, employing the various ECM techniques, such as strobing, to confuse enemy radars.

 

The only control the pilot has over his ECM is flipping it "On." Then everything else is automatic.

 

In LOMAC, this is all approximated. The sim, however, doesn't model ACTUAL ECM/ECCM techniques - it would take way too much time and money to do so - but this is made up for because enemy radars are still "confused" - you get an AOJ lock instead of a SST lock, for example. By hitting the "E" key, you are basically flipping the "ECM" switch on as the Lock On pilot. You're not supposed to manually strobe your jammers, because IRL, the pilot doesn't manually flip his ECM switch on and off. In fact, if he did, chances are he'll screw up the pre-programmed jamming techniques his F-15 or MiG is trying to employ, and dramatically DECREASE the effectiveness of his ECM.

 

But since ED obviously don't have infinite time or money, this issue of manually strobing your ECM was overlooked, and players can use this as an exploit (hopefully it'll be patched). And since it was overlooked, there is no ECCM to your "manual" ECM - there is no ECCM/HOJ/AOJ counter, which is again unrealistic.

 

So fine, whatever, it's your money and your game, but don't expect not to take some flak for it when you hop onto multiplayer and start pissing other people off.

 

IMO, if you don't want to be shot at beyond the 13-mile magic burn-through range, you shouldn't be playing LOMAC. Realistically, I'm pretty sure the ONLY aircraft that can deny their enemy a radar lock from this range are the F-117, B-2 and F-22. Last time I checked, none of these planes were flyable.

[Frostie]

Yadda yadda yadda , whine moan bitch, we could talk about ALL the exploits in the GAME but only one seems to really gripe people. Why?

Because these whiners use all the others as they wish.:D

[S77th-GOYA]

No, it isn't. RWRs are fallible things that can mis-classify an incoming signal, and they can't read the thoughts of whoever's sitting behind that radar either; and the enemy might be using the same or similar radar parameters as your guys for whatever reason ... what business, then, does the EW system have, if any, to classify the spike as 'friend or foe'?

 

The EW system's job is quite simple: A spike is a missile launch is a jammer trigger. You leave the nails alone on the other hand.

 

The F-22's EW system might well be the only one that -might- be capable of such a feat, but then it fuses information from more sources than just the RWR to help make its determination.

 

OK, this is one of the opinions I was referring to. Unless you have any data saying that the ALR-56C could NOT identify friend from foe. I will easily grant that it is fallible, though. But, is it not trustworthy enough to jam a radar signal deemed friendly?

 

http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/brochures/pdfs/twds_56c_001.pdf

 

Reliable detection and digital preprocessing eliminates

non-threat RF signals.

 

Yes, it is a brochure. Refute it.

[Groove]

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=341331&postcount=3

[GGTharos]

OK, this is one of the opinions I was referring to. Unless you have any data saying that the ALR-56C could NOT identify friend from foe. I will easily grant that it is fallible, though. But, is it not trustworthy enough to jam a radar signal deemed friendly?

 

http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/brochures/pdfs/twds_56c_001.pdf

 

Yes, it is a brochure. Refute it.

 

Sure. Let's start with the simplest thing: A HAM radio is not a 'threat signal' so it is eliminated. Same goes for a weather radar. Same goes for an IFF transponder. Question answered, or at least you should get the gist of it. 'Eliminates non-threat signals' does not mean 'eliminates friendly signals'

 

Let's move onto what YOU meant, though:

 

Okay. This system is not integrated with IFF. So far as I can tell, there was some funding into 'Integration with the AGP-70' which could, indirectly, get access to IFF - but that would still be quite unreliable (multiple contacts on same heading etc)

 

You could simply *not program* signatures of known firnedly aircraft into it, and they will never be displayed - well, so much for a buddy spike ...

 

You could tell it to not designate your friendly as a primary threat, and never treat it as such but ... what if there's a blue on blue? Don't you WANT that jammer working for you? I mean, it's not like you're flying around with your jammer enabled all the time - you flip the switch on when you fencein, and it starts talking when you're locked up.

 

Lastly - are you aware that an F-16 stuck a HARM into a patriot because that patriot was mis-classed as an SA-2?

 

Naw, your RWR can't tell friend from foe. If you're lucky, the 'foe' isn't using the same radar sets are you, and you can filter on that. If you're not lucky, then you're SOL.

 

Also, IIRC the IFF interrogators aren't omnidirectional - not that they can't be, just the way they are implemented right now.

[S77th-GOYA]

what if there's a blue on blue? Don't you WANT that jammer working for you?

 

Only if a lock is detected and that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to a USAF F-15 in the scan cone of another USAF F-15. Jamming then would seem to increase the chances of a blue-on-blue.

 

And from what you are saying, the threat displays we see in the LOMAC TEWS should be full of errors. In your opinion, how often should a mistake be made in identifying a radar source? Of course, we also have the added confusion of the same F-15s in opposing coalitions.

[S77th-GOYA]

Now why would that happen...

 

Imagine never having to tell your side to turn off their jammers.

[GGTharos]

Only if a lock is detected and that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to a USAF F-15 in the scan cone of another USAF F-15. Jamming then would seem to increase the chances of a blue-on-blue.

 

No lock, means no operating Self-Protection-Jammer. A threat that's not spiking you is a non-threat. You can only jam a limited number of threats in each quarter, so why waste bandwidth?

There are specific jammers which will jam radars performing a search too, but so far the -typical- SPJ has been charged with brealing with STT tracks against its host aircraft.

 

This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

And from what you are saying, the threat displays we see in the LOMAC TEWS should be full of errors. In your opinion, how often should a mistake be made in identifying a radar source? Of course, we also have the added confusion of the same F-15s in opposing coalitions.

 

 

I don't know if they should be 'full' of errors, but there should be errors. What is the error rate? That's a very classified subject ... we hear about an exception here and there ... for the most part these should be reasonably reliable.

 

If you're talking about a jammer not jamming a friendly radar, then I'd say this is more of a function of Mode 4 IFF where certain data allow you to 'cut through' the jammer when the IFF response comes in - as well as datalinks.

 

Otherwise, I don't see why you'd not want the jammer doing its job. What if the enemy changes some fighter's radar properties? While that isn't a LOMAC issue, the jammer should still be reasonably able to respond to an 'unknown' threat. Moreover, if I knew your jammer would filter out friendly radars, I'd just adjust my radars to have similar transmissions if I could.

[D-Scythe]

Lastly - are you aware that an F-16 stuck a HARM into a patriot because that patriot was mis-classed as an SA-2?

 

The Patriot uses a completely different radar system (search and tracking) then the SA-2 - for one, it uses a PESA radar that provides track-via-missile guidance. Wouldn't it be more likely that it was a 'fog-of-war' thing?

[GGTharos]

No, it wouldn't be. That's what happened. So what if its a PESA radar? The only thing the RWR receives is an EM signal. It doesn't matter what generates it, really - all you need is a little EMI and poof, it mutates into something else.

[hitman]

Whoever called the inevitable flamewar at the beginning of the thread predicted right. Rep inbound, you...

[Maciver]

Now why would that happen...

 

 

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!!

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!!

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!!

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!!

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!!

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!!

3Sqn_Cali: Jammers off blue!!! :argue:

 

It's ok Cali, we feel your pain. :)

[Boneski]

Real life has nothing to do with this? Last time I checked, Lock On is a SIMULATION of REAL LIFE. What happens in REAL LIFE should happen in the game, because simulations try to be REAListic. Do I have to be any more clear?

 

No it's not... It a game marketed for the home PC. Much like Ace Combat. So Check again Bro.

 

What Lock On does and does very well is give the player some IDEA of what it would be like to fly the planes that it has modeled. For the purpose of entertainment. Not training.

 

Ace Combat gives The player a Hyper Real Combat experiance for the sole purpose of entertainment. Not training.

 

Neither is a trainer... The A-10 Stuff the group is working is a trainer... and let me tell you... it's very different from Lock On. :pilotfly:

[hitman]

How is it different from LockOn?

[Boneski]

Not too much. It's a very neat training tool!

[hitman]

Sooo...let me get this straight: Lock On (which has nothing to DO WITH IRL) is almost not dissimilar with the A-10C trainer (which has everything to do with IRL). I don't understand the logic in that at all. Im positive the key differences in both sims would be navigation and a correct weapons payload, along with a few other functions, which ED hasn't put in LOMAC for some reason or another (busy with other parts of the game, busy satisfying a RUSSIAN market?).

 

Im confused here. How is a combat sim certified declassified for public release differ greatly for IRL than a combat sim not certified for public release (which I doubt contains any classified information)?

[Boneski]

The A-10 Tool is to help the pilots learn the new switcholgy of the A-10 upgrades...

There is no mention security status

[D-Scythe]

Real life has nothing to do with this? Last time I checked, Lock On is a SIMULATION of REAL LIFE. What happens in REAL LIFE should happen in the game, because simulations try to be REAListic. Do I have to be any more clear?

 

No it's not... It a game marketed for the home PC. Much like Ace Combat. So Check again Bro.

 

And now that I know that you really don't care much for the "realism" or "simulation" aspect of Lock On, I really see no further point in discussing this more. You obviously have a different (and unyielding) view of what LOMAC is, and I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna budge on the issue either.

[hitman]

The A-10 Tool is to help the pilots learn the new switcholgy of the A-10 upgrades...

There is no mention security status

Exactly. So they get all the goodies that we want (and will possibly get in Tank Killers), and aside from that we have everything else they have. So aside from a couple of Mav aim modes, a few extra navigation configs, WAFM (?) and AFM (?) there isnt any difference. Not to mention the A-10 flight model very closely resembles the actual characteristics of the real A10, there really isnt a need for all the extra code. If it were any more real, it would be almost illegal.

[Boneski]

And now that I know that you really don't care much for the "realism" or "simulation" aspect of Lock On, I really see no further point in discussing this more. You obviously have a different (and unyielding) view of what LOMAC is, and I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna budge on the issue either.

 

 

Bro... not trying to change your opinion... Who has time to change opinions... just stating the facts.

 

To have a death grip on realism is not realistic. You have to play this game with in the context of the game world... not the real world. Reason being it's a game... that's simple.

 

The point of view that has presented has nothing to do with caring about this or that.

 

So no worries... stick to your point of view do what you do and be confident in your knowledge about what you know and what you like...:pilotfly:

[Boneski]

Exactly. So they get all the goodies that we want (and will possibly get in Tank Killers), and aside from that we have everything else they have. So aside from a couple of Mav aim modes, a few extra navigation configs, WAFM (?) and AFM (?) there isnt any difference. Not to mention the A-10 flight model very closely resembles the actual characteristics of the real A10, there really isnt a need for all the extra code. If it were any more real, it would be almost illegal.

 

 

Dude it's way more then that... Plus when you fly the jet your training tools have to be like the jet. Billy Joe Game Boy might think he wants all there is to have... but that's not the point of this thread.

Take care! :pilotfly:

[Weta43]

While at one level I get what you're talking about Boneski, Yes it's a game & h as to be fun, but I think D-Scythe is right. As a small company selling into a market that already has a plethora of arcade style flying games.

Now this - See:

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=73036

might be a lot of fun & will sell al lot of copies, but you say this:

Ace Combat gives The player a Hyper Real Combat experiance for the sole purpose of entertainment. Not training.

& miss the point. That is not a hyper real combat experience. That is a fun game with great grphics that greates its fun by IGNORING reality. There's nothing wrong with that - it's a legitimate way to enjoy yourself.

However, ED has to create a point of difference for itself in the market. There are 'gamers' who just want the action of shooting things & the 'rush' that goes with it, and there is a smaller group who want to try to do things as they might be done in real life (ARMA vs HALO). Maybe it's elitism on the part of some, maybe some just want more of a challenge, something harder to learn, but there's a definite niche market out there for flight combat 'simulator' games & you can't play in that market unless you try to make the game as representative of real life as you can. For those people the 'fun' aspect of it is that it's a simulation. If it's going to have uber weapons, unrealistic flight models - or even demonstrably wrong modelling of systems - it will detract from the experience for them.

Now to catch them you need all the bells & whistles in the right place & making the right noise. To catch the casual gamer you need something with a gentler learning curve - Which creates a catch 22 situation - make it appealing to 'simmers' (read difficult) and exclude casual gamers, make it too accessible & lose the simmers. Which is where scaleable difficulty comes in. Make it easy for the beginners & they'll enjoy it & maybe even recomend it to friends, & as they get better they'll turn off the aids.

But conciously move away from the simming part (fun through fidelity) & you've lost your core audience, and have a game that's neither one thing nor the other - which was a criticism leveled at LO when released - that it wasn't a study sim & was a 'game', but that as a game it's got too steep a learning curve.

[D-Scythe]

Bro... not trying to change your opinion... Who has time to change opinions... just stating the facts.

 

Sorry, but Ace Combat being the same as Lock On isn't a fact.