Missle Realism (Is realism a word?)

[obct]

We all know that the missiles in lomac under perform, but why is this?

Is it the way they detonate?

The way the fly? (Pulling less g's than a real one could etc)

Are the guidance systems underdeveloped?

All of the above?

 

I know it doesn't make any difference but I'm curious. :)

If it's the way they detonate, does changing the 'Missile Effectiveness' make any difference in how realistically they perform?

 

Cheers.

[Pilotasso]

Not all missiles in LOMAc underperform, some overperform.

 

Some people claim missiles underperform because they use inadequate tactics. While others die despite after achieved favourable tactical position sugesting that something is wrong.

[Groove]

Well to sum it all up: Missile performances are highly classified.

[Pilotasso]

But there are educated guesses and uneducated guesses. Even then you are wrong because there are missile manuals out, and we found out the Sidewinder in LOMAC for example is half the missile it is IRL.

[Allochtoon]

But there are educated guesses and uneducated guesses. Even then you are wrong because there are missile manuals out, and we found out the Sidewinder in LOMAC for example is half the missile it is IRL.

 

How do you know that? Maybe the military wants you to think that ;) .

[Pilotasso]

USe the search button. There are scans of Sidwinder perfomance figures.

[obct]

I've seen numerous posts before about people asking why aim9's suck so much.

I personally thought it's all about where and when you use them, not just in the game but irl as well.

A number of people replied saying they under perform.

 

So really this is because no one knows 100% for sure?

It's all observational stuff and no solid data?

If anything I imagine that the Military wants the American public to think they over perform so that their tax dollars are going to good use. ;)

And that China for example, think think they under perform so they take risks they usually wouldn't. :p

 

Compared to the aim9's that were first developed that missed when you're maybe a hundred feet from a nice hot after burner that would miss and the ones today that can tell the difference between a flare and an engine from a lot further, maybe it's just modeled to suit the mid 80's to early 90's period when the game is based?

 

I'm talking crap I know, because it's only a game but I'm just interested to see how many people who make these claims know what they're talking about.

[D-Scythe]

So really this is because no one knows 100% for sure?

It's all observational stuff and no solid data?

If anything I imagine that the Military wants the American public to think they over perform so that their tax dollars are going to good use. ;)

And that China for example, think think they under perform so they take risks they usually wouldn't. :p

 

Yes, it's all a U.S. conspiracy to fool the world. Not like the Russians or the Chinese ever exaggerated the performance of their missiles. No, those Russians and Chinese are honest people when they're trying to sell you that R-77 with a 100 km range.

[Cosmonaut]

Sometimes on these boards you will read some pretty bizarre comments as if the poster has actual top secret military knowledge but as Pilotasso suggested you can make an educated guess as to what the performance and parameters might be so you can approximate what would actually happen in a real life engagement. Although you then have the arm chair g-less pilot pulling off some crazy ass evasive maneuvers that real fighters might be capable of doing, but are highly unlikely to perform. So the missile might still miss even though it's tracking quite accurately but nothings perfect which is why flightsims need developing right through their entire playable life span.

 

As for the Aim9 well I've seen footage of drones evading them at very close range and its pretty close to what you see in Lomac,... even seen an F4 appear to escape the proximity detonation just by pulling up with out using counter measures. That's no to say that the ED produced Aim9 is working perfectly but I do feel that even if we had a simulator with all the correct numbers punched in the missile performance would still be less than what you would expect in real life. Why is that? Well because we can spend as much virtual dollars as we like ruining as many fighters as we can just to figure out how to get around a certain situation and there's nothing you can really do about that unless you fly with a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you get blown out of the sky ;) .

[Boneski]

There is no such thing as missile manual that's going to give you the performance "facts" about the stick... sorry. Like Groove said that stuff is not for public consumption. Most of the theories seen on game forums are classic! Most public company data is disinformation, or more correctly generalizations of quantized data.

It's so funny to hear “desktop fighter pilots” talk about stuff related to combat aviation and weapon systems. They know so much… even more then the fighter pilots that have a bunch of hours and training.

I have been on the static line at air shows and listen to guys spew out numbers and ranges wanting to know if XWZ is that really true… Do you really think you are going to get an answer???… Classic!!

A large number of real pilots have never fired a missile in combat... missile simulation in real combat simulators is just as classified as the real deal.

In Lock on the missiles slider should be as far to the right as the player can stand... When a missile is fired it is meant to hit something...The goal is not to get fired at. T

A lot of gamers don’t understand that concept.

Learn and understand that.. That will be all you really need to know about missiles! LOL!

This post may sound so arrogant but it is not meant to be….