Proper jammer usage

[S77th-GOYA]

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

 

That neither one simulates the real world is a fact.

[Ven]

Why do every title needs to be put into a category. Either sim or game. Why can't there be in between. Or why can't LOMAC exist as LOMAC. Why define it as sim or game?

 

I bet the sims that got you all started years back are far from realism. FalconAT with all that pixelated graphics and 10fps frame rate was it for me. You couldn't use real word tactics in those generations of "simulations" But I'm sure you all had fun with them.

[D-Scythe]

That neither one simulates the real world is a fact.

+1 :thumbup:

 

So, just because neither one simulates the real world means that Lock On shouldn't attempt to be more realistic? I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

Lock On is a simulation, Ace Combat an entertaining shoot'em up. Black Hawk Down belongs to a different movie genre than Legally Blonde. Physics 101 is a different course than Philosophy 200. None of the things mentioned share anything in common besides belonging to the same, general subject (video games, hollywood movies, university courses).

 

But hey, if the Lock On community doesn't see it that way, than I guess that's our problem isn't it? Personally, I can't believe that some of the more prominent members of this community would actually compare Ace Combat so favorably to Lock On, but guess you learn something new every day huh?

[GGTharos]

Rhen does have criticisms for LOMAC, and I think I'm fairly certain he'll tell ya that LOMAC does not allow you to use realistic tactics in A2A.

 

But beyond that, yes - he doesn't really get into a whole lot of tiffs, he just puts up facts.

[D-Scythe]

Dude!!! I'm sorry, but much like Boneski suggested...you are reading WAY too much into this argument.

 

No, I'm not. The only thing I'm doing is showing how Lock On is a sim and AC is a game (while pointing out how you think otherwise).

 

The simple fact of the matter is that LOMAC doesn't even COME CLOSE to modelling Western NAV systems...but do any of us who know this from experience give a s**t? Nope.

 

That's not the case I'm making. I already acknowledged and accepted all of LO's weaknesses, so I fail to see why you have to rehash everything. All I'm saying is that there isn't an excuse to not TRY to be realistic. Trying does NOT mean it HAS to be realistic.

 

Who's reading too deeply into things now?

 

But, on the other side of the coin, those of us who know this from experience also don't seem to have such an obsession with hating AC6, and bringing it up as a means to degrade our philisophical opponent in a disagreement.

 

Find anything that suggests I hate AC6. Until you do, I suggest you stop making things up.

 

Please...get off the ground every day, and do this stuff for a living...then tell me you don't think all of the "my opinion is more realistic than your's" stuff isn't a little silly.

 

Again, where did I say "my opinion is more realistic" than yours? I merely explained why people frown upon blinkers. I also said that Lock On, in its own way, should at least try to be as realistic as possible, unlike AC6, which is a game designed purely for entertainment purposes.

 

Let it all go, man! The sensor modelling sucks, as does the weapons modelling...this game can't even get basic system designations right, nor can it get simple loadouts right. Do I care? Well...a little...but I am trying my best to correct some of that. Do any of those things make it worse than any other PC sim? No.

 

So just because it's no worse than any other PC sim, we should just "accept" Lock On just the way it is? Please - if everyone here started doing that, then certainly, Lock On wouldn't be any worse than any other PC sim on the market, but it's not going to be any better either.

 

But hey, I guess mediocrity does it for some people.

 

SPJs aren't manually controlled in the real world, BTW...except to go from Off to Standby, so I'm not quite sure what all of the fuss is about on that subject.

 

That's what I've been saying. A couple pages back. As my explanation for why blinking/strobing is unrealistic, because SPJs aren't manually strobed.

 

One of the community's only IRL fighter pilots, Rhen, plays LOMAC...but, for some reason, I don't see him getting into specific "Missile X does this, when it should do this" discussions...the guy just enjoys LOMAC for what it is...a source of entertainment.

 

Great, so now Lock On is grouped into an even more general category of "a source of entertainment." Can't wait till we start comparing it to Peter Griffin, Jack Sparrow or Shrek.

 

Does Jessica Alba in a Fantastic Four suit count as a "source of entertainment"? I'd get behind that - or under it, above it...anywhere within visual range really.

[D-Scythe]

Well...I guess I can't comment on that, other than to quote Yoda. "No!!! Try not!!! Do...or do not...there is no try!!!" If all is sim does is TRY to be realistic, what makes it superior to any other?

 

All PC sims have to TRY to be realistic, because there is no way you can be 100% realistic - you'd end up building the aircraft you're simming.

 

Apparently, you, again. I'm not the guy who is here, defending LOMACs honor against being "defiled" as a "game", against the evil men who dare to speak such harmful words toward my girlfriend. :smilewink:

 

This was about ECM blinking and how it's frowned upon. In fact, I never praised Lock On once.

 

So really, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Not difficult at all...all one has to do is read your first response to Boneski. It was you who brought AC6 into the conversation. I wasn't sure of the purpose of that, by I suspected what it might be...even before you confirmed my suspicions.

 

Again, no idea what you're talking about. So what if I brought AC6 into the conversation? Never said it was "bad" or "I hated it".

 

You do this all the time, Scythe, and so do I.

 

I distinctly remember me saying "fine, whatever, it's your game, play it as you want." So no, the only one imposing anyone's opinion would be...well, let's just say it's not me and leave it at that.

 

We're both human beings with very strong opinions about things. The difference is...neither one of us have flown combat missions in these aircraft and I accept that reality. Your acceptance of this seems to be a little more blurred, but maybe I'm just misreading this from your posts about combat aviation that seem to suggest "thou shalt!!!"...rather than a statement of "well...this is how I would do it."

 

Wow, a civilian inspector by day AND a psychoanalyst by night :worthy:

 

Not sure where you got this from. Boneski and myself were expressing criticism of how LOMAC models the real world.

 

I distinctly remember Boneski talking about ECM blinking, you know, with it being a "How to use my jammer" thread and all. Could be wrong - what does the title say? Pro....Pro-per....Proper ja...jammer...u....sage? Sorry, it's been a while since I've actually read.

 

I want LOMAC to be the best that it can be, so I won't defend its inaccuracies with any degree of fervor.

 

Yet, you come to the defense of those who say that ECM blinking, missile spamming and flying 10ft above the deck to avoid radar missiles are "just part of the game." Interesting.

 

Exactly! SPJs are, in fact, strobed by equipment which is MUCH quicker than our keyboard clocks. So, the whole argument is rendered null and void...right there.

 

I could careless about how quickly SPJs can strobe - chances are, I'll never know, so I don't care. Fact is, M-A-C-R-O's can deny locks in BVR in Lock On. So no, the issue is not null and void....right there.

 

Now you're just being silly and attempting to use sarcasm to belittle your opponent. Tell you what...lets compare notes next weekend on the number of hours we spent, IRL, in which airframe. How'd that be?

 

Sure. Since this is about ECM usage in A/A, the airframes in question are the F-15, Su-27/33 and MiG-29S. We can have a little get-together to compare notes, then after we can make popcorn and braid each other's hair while telling each other how our boyfriends are so insensitive to our needs.

 

I'll even bring my spa set. This is going to be so fun!

 

On a more serious note IK, I don't even know what we're discussing anymore, and whatever it is, I'm certain that it's extremely OT.

[D-Scythe]

So...how would any "sim" or "game" be realistic if it weren't for guys like you. You are, apparently, the technical compass on which the whole military sim world swings.

 

Kay, let's keep track of how many times you berate *me* instead of addressing the issue at hand. One.

 

This is because you are incapable of reading what is written.

 

Two.

 

The simple question asked by the originating post in this thread is "What is the best way to employ ECM?" It was really no more complicated than that.

 

If you would've went through the tread more carefully, you would've noticed that I wasn't addressing the question of "What is the best way to employ ECM." I was responding to the guy who answered "Blinking."

 

Perhaps that's the problem...I DO read your post before responding to it, and you don't like it

 

Three.

 

Well...the good thing is that nobody will ever know if you are right or wrong, since STILL, nobody has quantitatively defined "blinking".

 

Turning your ECM on and off with the intention of denying your opponent a BVR HOJ/SST lock.

 

You were right, that WAS difficult.

 

Wrong, as usual. I am simply asking for a quantitative measurement. It is a bit disturbing how difficult it is to obtain this information among a few in the community who seem to obsess about it. Perhaps YOU can give the community a quantitative measurement?

 

Um, I don't recall a point in this thread where you ASKED for anything. Do you want me to define "ASK" for you too? Like I just defined "blinking"?

 

And being brave enough to pick a time measurement will put a stop to some of it. But, I suspect, if the rules were quantitative, not NEARLY as many people would be allowed the latitude to bitch about "blinking". The opponents of "blinking" have to carefully define their position...because reality may actually work against them.

 

How would reality work against people who oppose blinking? I'm sure everyone acknowledges that strobing your ECM is likely an SPJ technique. But that's not the point - the point is that the ECM system modelled in LOMAC wasn't designed to handle actual ECM employment techniques, and thus by employing one, you're giving yourself an unfair AND unrealistic advantage in multiplayer.

 

There is no manual ECCM counter to a guy who blinks his ECM. So now, you basically have ECM with no ECCM in the Lock On world. Realistic? Don't think so.

 

But hey, it's not like BVR combat is a huge part of the game, is it? I mean, who does BVR anymore? We should just accept Lock On for what it is, and eliminate BVR combat from it altogether.

 

So...in other words...you never leave the ground...probably never even touch real aircraft, and you are jealous.

 

Jealous? Sorry Pete Mitchell, but I'm not jealous. Four.

 

If you're not man enough for it...just say so. I can respect that...and, dude, nobody EVER needed to know about your homoerotic fantasies. Perhaps your speaking of them is a cry for help?

 

So, people who have homosexual thoughts should get help? Like they have something wrong with them? Well, at least your honest, but I'm counting that as number 5 because you obviously meant "homoerotic" to be derogatory.

 

But yeah, as for your invitation to get into a pissing contest with you, I will save you the trouble of pulling out your 12 whooping inches and decline from your challenge. Congrats, you are now one of the "men" of this forum. You showed me up and totally put me in my place. There's a new sheriff in town boys. A civilian tech inspector who condones blinking.

[hitman]

:megalol:

[D-Scythe]

As usual, you make the attacks against others, and try to make it look as if someone else did it to you.

 

Where did I make an attack on you personally? As far as I know, personal attacks that have NOTHING to do with the topic are your job, not mine.

 

My last comment may or may not have had something to do with your suggestion that we braid each others' hair and spend a day at the spa together. What was it that brought on your earlier comment?...Oh yeah...my previous comment that we compare notes at the end of the week about what airframes we have accumulated airborne time in and how many hours. I can certainly understand how you may have interpreted that as the sort of homoerotic fantasy that you pretty clearly laid out. Dude...I was just asking a simple question. I didn't want things to get weird and involve hair braiding or gossip about boyfriends. If that's the way you swing, I respect that, but please try to stick to the topic of discussion, and try not to get so offended when someone recognizes your preference. The record shows already that it was you who tilted things in that direction...probably due to an inability to deal with the substance of the argument.

 

So, let's forget your fantasies that have already been clearly defined by you...with absolutely no encouragement from anyone, BTW. Let's start from the beginning. Would you say that anyone who enjoys AC6 is stupid, and beneath your intellectual level? Simple yes or no question.

 

You feel better now? I know, it's sometimes easier to just vent. But, if it is possible for you to make ONE post that is actually on the topic of ECM employment in Lock On, that would be great. Thanks.

[Kuky]

That neither one simulates the real world is a fact.

 

What are you on about?

[Kuky]

So, just because neither one simulates the real world means that Lock On shouldn't attempt to be more realistic? I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

Lock On is a simulation, Ace Combat an entertaining shoot'em up. Black Hawk Down belongs to a different movie genre than Legally Blonde. Physics 101 is a different course than Philosophy 200. None of the things mentioned share anything in common besides belonging to the same, general subject (video games, hollywood movies, university courses).

 

But hey, if the Lock On community doesn't see it that way, than I guess that's our problem isn't it? Personally, I can't believe that some of the more prominent members of this community would actually compare Ace Combat so favorably to Lock On, but guess you learn something new every day huh?

 

exactly

[Kuky]

Dude!!! I'm sorry, but much like Boneski suggested...you are reading WAY too much into this argument. The simple fact of the matter is that LOMAC doesn't even COME CLOSE to modelling Western NAV systems...but do any of us who know this from experience give a s**t? Nope. But, on the other side of the coin, those of us who know this from experience also don't seem to have such an obsession with hating AC6, and bringing it up as a means to degrade our philisophical opponent in a disagreement. The simple premise of what Boneski said is...ITS A FRIGGIN' GAME MAN!!! Try to have fun with it. My read on this is that Boneski was making his "hyper real" comments about AC6 as a trip-wire to get "some" people here in a tizzy about that statement. It looks like it worked. Please...get off the ground every day, and do this stuff for a living...then tell me you don't think all of the "my opinion is more realistic than your's" stuff isn't a little silly. Once you do that, there's not as much "difference" between "sim" and "game" as you may think. Let it all go, man! The sensor modelling sucks, as does the weapons modelling...this game can't even get basic system designations right, nor can it get simple loadouts right. Do I care? Well...a little...but I am trying my best to correct some of that. Do any of those things make it worse than any other PC sim? No. Is it any better? Not really, but its engine simulates the "feel" of flight better than most, so I keep coming back to it. Is it a simulation of reality? Only in some aspects, and EW isn't one of those aspects. SPJs aren't manually controlled in the real world, BTW...except to go from Off to Standby, so I'm not quite sure what all of the fuss is about on that subject. I'm a civilian inspector, who regularly flies in a variety of aircraft, testing various systems. Again, LOMAC approximates reality, but it really isn't even close. One of the community's only IRL fighter pilots, Rhen, plays LOMAC...but, for some reason, I don't see him getting into specific "Missile X does this, when it should do this" discussions...the guy just enjoys LOMAC for what it is...a source of entertainment.

 

 

Sorry IguanaKing but even though it's true that there are quite a few things missing in LOCKON is still very incorrect to say LOCKON is far away from being realistic because of what IS in this sim is very close to real life (with exception of being hit nd dying part).

 

LOKON is a pretty good simulation and Ace Combat 6 is a pretty good arcade game. Very different the two.

[Kuky]

I also want to say that people using ECM nonstop are 99% noobs and those not flying as a team. If you fly as a team and know the sideffects of this contact jammer use, you wouldn't be having them on all the time and surely they don't teach you to use them in this manner in real life.

[Kuky]

...The way I employ ECM is to leave it on just long enough to break a lock, while I jink...then I turn it off. If I get locked again, I repeat the process. I don't use a macro. If I need to hit something on the ground that is within a SAM system's engagement envelope, I leave it on to give me just a few more miles before he can shoot at me...and hopefully, by the time I reach that point, I have already killed my targets. Now, from what I described above: Am I a blinker?

 

I do not consider this being ECM "blinking"

 

I consider "blicking" using either a macro or repeatedly pressing the ECM command... lets say, for the sake of argument, turning it on and off once/sec or less... but then again... if you do it every 2 seconds... I would say it's still "repeatedly" turning it on and off... it's not really fast enough to call it blinking... but then again I can't say it's realistic use of ECM either. See there is no such thing as a definite timeline for it as you put it.

[Kuky]

Alright... all those are fair points and what can I say... I wish for all the things to be fixed but I know they never will. To have a perfect product is pretty much impossible and I think LockOn is still a very realistic sim... on very different level from AC6.

[D-Scythe]

Oy...:doh:...as I was saying, you like to play the innocent victim. Thanks for reinforcing that.

 

That's not an answer. I asked you to provide an example where I attacked you personally, and I'm sorry, but I really have to know. I try not to attack people PERSONALLY - attack, their gaping dark holes in logic, sure.

 

I did! :doh: I asked what the exact timing was that would be considered blinking, and you responded by accusing me of supporting blinking and being a blinker myself.

 

Again, please provide an example of me accusing you of being a blinker. I freely admit that I did say you "condone blinking," so at least half your accusation is correct.

 

But since an accusation is not a fact, I don't really get why you get so upset over these things. Hell, you accused me of being gay. Repeatedly.

 

If nobody can come up with a minimum time standard, then this blinking discussion is all academic, isn't it?

 

No. If you intend to blink, then you're a blinker. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if you're successful at it or not - the fact that you TRIED to cheat ALREADY makes you a blinker.

 

Obviously, there is nothing to stop a guy from blinking, so what's the point of defining a minimum time standard? But trying to cheat, that usually pisses some people off in multiplayer - which is my whole point. Blink if you want, but don't expect to make a lot of friends along the way.

 

The way I employ ECM is to leave it on just long enough to break a lock, while I jink...then I turn it off.

 

In Lock On, ECM does NOT break a lock - it just denies your opponent range information as he is forced to switch to an HOJ lock. Part of the whole primitive ECM vs. ECCM thing.

 

The only way one SHOULD be able to break lock in LO is by notching an enemy radar.

 

Now, from what I described above: Am I a blinker?

 

Were you intending to blink? If not, then you're not a blinker - easy!

 

Can you just answer my question about the minimum timing standard without accusing me of blinking, mentioning Pete Mitchell (not sure why you did that) or talking about anybody braiding anyone else's hair?

 

You're Pete Mitchell because you think that, just because you touch aircraft for a living, I'm jealous of you. Now, why would you accuse me of being jealous or challenging me to log the number of hours I spend flying next week?

 

Sorry, but it's the sign of a weak argument to pull rank on your opponent. Means you got nothing else.

[S77th-GOYA]

In Lock On, ECM does NOT break a lock...

 

 

You are wrong. I have had many, many locks broken because the target went music on.

 

And this may have turned into one of the most pointless threads ever. Maybe PMs would be a better option.

[D-Scythe]

Goya, I stand corrected. I had the AI turn off their jammers on me and didn't break my lock, didn't know that turning on the jammer breaks that lock.

 

This suggested that you were using that game to suggest he was somehow functioning on a lower mental level than you. Then, a couple of posts later, you confirmed my suspicions by mentioning it again and saying "this should be right up your alley."

 

Haha, I can not believe that you got "I am mentally superior to you" from "AC6 might be more your type of game if you don't want to be shot at beyond 13 nm."

 

So, you make that ridiculous leap and you get upset when I ask you to compare real flight time with me?

 

The only that's upset seems to be you. Looking back, I stand by my statement that I haven't been intentionally making personal attacks or actively trying to engage you in a pissing contest.

 

I suggested that you were jealous of my real-world experience. I asked a simple question, for you to back your s**t up in claiming to have the first clue about what the real world is like...and you got upset and started talking about all of the things that were apparently bothering you at that moment.

 

I didn't get upset. I questioned how you flying civilian aircraft (well, not the F-15, Su-27/33 or MiG-29S) would be relevant to this discussion. Then, you get upset because logic kicks in, and you realize that no, it had nothing to do with the thread and that you were, in fact, trying to win the argument on the basis that you fly more aircraft than I do. Which is great, cept for the part where it's totally useless and meaningless in this discussion.

 

If you're game, and I suspect you are because you seem to be looking for a fight, we can continue this with PMs as Goya has suggested, since you seem to be getting overly riled up publicly. Otherwise, please stop trying to make me look like "the guy who's contributed nothing to this thread except flame people" - including literally calling another poster a flamer.

 

That's...well, I'm not gonna name names or point fingers, but let's just say that's not me :thumbup: