Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[GGTharos]

Because there's no point in talking about the 120D.

[GGTharos]

Try no chaff at all, and no 'lomacisms' like the things you demonstrated ... if you recall, the head-on oscillation, or co-axis/in-plane barrel rolling.

Then you might have a more realistic fight ;)

 

flying f-15 v f-15 is pretty interesting with rams if you put up rules like flat land only + hard deck 5.000 ft, no jamming and only 30 chaff each :)

 

Did it once (except for chaff limit) with a guy in HL and we had some great energy fights.

[Boneski]

Realistic. And by realistic, I mean: People have to respect them, or die.

 

 

Do the missile slider settings help?

[D-Scythe]

Do the missile slider settings help?

 

No.

[GGTharos]

Do the missile slider settings help?

 

No, and I will explain why:

 

The missile slider affects missile 'aimpoint wandering' ... the aimpoint can wander up to 20m (Slider at 0) IIRC, to nothing (slider at 100) ... the 'most realistic' setting is at 50%, where you have a little wavering, but personally I'd say each missile needs to have a different 'waver amount' ... the older the missile, the more its aimpoint should wander.

 

The problem that you're reading about in these threads is caused by the seeker and kinematic programming, and is threefold:

 

1. Missile sensor update rate is something like 1/10 second ... once you get close enough to the target, this translates to 10deg/sec angle tracking rate, and closer than that, even less angle tracking rate. This allows the use of some maneuvers to break seeker lock that normally would not work.

 

2. Missile sensors - especially radar - are -far- too sensitive to chaff ... chaff should have nearly nil effect in aspects other than beam to the missile. There are exceptions, and different techniques (when employing huge, huge amounts of chaff for creating chaff corridors for example) but none of these apply to LOMAC. As is, right now, there are situations where you can basically release chaff and not bother maneuvering to defeat a radar guided missile in LO.

 

3. Missiles are unable to 'pull up' with their target. If you get the maneuver and timing just right, this works 100% of the time. This is realistic when the missile is out of energy, but otherwise it is a gamble. Not in LO! A missile will happily fail to 'pull up' with you even while its rocket motor is going!

 

 

Right now, 1 and 2 are the worst offenders.

[Boneski]

Ok...

 

You know that if the developers make the missiles act like real missile... in most cases the player will not be able to evade them.... right?

 

You know they can make the missiles behave like real missiles without one line of data about the real missile…

 

The simple solution is once fired it flies out and hits what was being targeted… it just that easy… using if then logic.

 

Is that what you want or do you want the game to behave like a game meaning that it will be fun... giving the player a chance to evade and make a battle out of his computer gaming experience?

 

Can you imagine the outrage if people get kill every time someone fires a missile with in proper parameters…

 

People would say the AI is cheating… blah blah blah!

 

You see that stuff you listed means very little in the big picture... it's very technical in terms of what the computer is doing based on CPU cycles…

 

It has noting to do with Air denesity/ tempratures / Signatures / pre and post target data processing/ Dynamics / and many more things that make a missile effective against a moving and evading target.

 

Too many people(not anyone here) are looking for air combat careers to come in the form of a 35 euro

game box. It’s just not going to happen….

 

There has to be a balance of fun and identifiable behaviors to give the user a good gaming experience.

YOur detail tweaks could kill the game for others....

[centermass]

SHmIssT happens , yesterday I had an ER and ET both go dead of the rail well within 10kliks. What did I do? moan , nah not me;)

I did what any good VPilot would do...... I crapped myself cos I was winchester 500 fuel and the wrong side of homeplate.

 

Missile failure is different than missile suckage. :lol:

 

Missile failure adds to realism while missile suckage, unless realistic justs sucks.

 

The ability to disable non-combat related failure is a nice touch. :thumbup:

________

launch box

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Cosmonaut]

Ok...

You know that if they make the missiles act like real missile... in most cases the player will not be able to evade them.... right?

Is that what you want or do you want the game to behave like a game meaning that it will be fun...

Can you imagine the outrage if people get kill every time someone fires a missile?

 

Even real missiles can be evaded but there's just a lot of loop holes in Lockon right now. And if things were more realistic and players ended up getting shot down more often then they'd adapt and start using more realistic evasion techniques. IMO it would make the sim much more fun than it is now and I don't think kill ratios would alter much either but tactics would definitely need to change all round.

[GGTharos]

Ok...

 

You know that if the developers make the missiles act like real missile... in most cases the player will not be able to evade them.... right?

 

Wrong. Real missiles can be and have been evaded. But they're not pitifully impotent like LOMAC's missiles.

 

You know they can make the missiles behave like real missiles without one line of data about the real missile…

 

General knowledge and understanding of their behavior is required, as well as some data.

 

The simple solution is once fired it flies out and hits what was being targeted… it just that easy… using if then logic.

 

How is this realistic, again?

 

Is that what you want or do you want the game to behave like a game meaning that it will be fun... giving the player a chance to evade and make a battle out of his computer gaming experience?

 

I'm sorry, but if you want to evade hundreds of missiles that have been shot in good parameters, play something that isn't a 'Modern Air Combat' simulator? :)

 

Can you imagine the outrage if people get kill every time someone fires a missile with in proper parameters…

 

People would say the AI is cheating… blah blah blah!

 

You see that stuff you listed means very little in the big picture... it's very technical in terms of what the computer is doing based on CPU cycles…

 

Actually it means a lot in the big picture. Fixing those closes loopholes, forcing more realistic tactics to be used as missiles become deadlier.

 

It has noting to do with Air denesity/ tempratures / Signatures / pre and post target data processing/ Dynamics / and may more things that make a missile effective against a moving and evading target.

 

Too many people are looking for air combat careers to come in the form of a 35 euro game. It’s just not going to happen….

 

There has to be a balance of fun and identifiable behaviors to give the user a good gaming experience.

 

 

Okay. So you stick with this version of the game, and I'll keep on pushing for it to become more and more realistic. Have your fun. It's not my idea of fun when it comes to air combat simulation.

[centermass]

,,,,

 

I think I'm in love. :worthy:

 

Should we start talking about realistic G while we're at it? :mad:

________

weed vaporizer

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Falco77]

Ok...

 

You know that if the developers make the missiles act like real missile... in most cases the player will not be able to evade them.... right?

 

 

What, do you work for Raytheon??? C'mon - missles are becoming better (a bit faster, more manuevarable and less suseptable to counter measures) but even now it's still far from a garaunteed kill even when launched in "no escape" parameters in RL.

[S77th-GOYA]

Do the missile slider settings help?

 

Yes.

 

But the slider doesn't fix the missile problems. The end result is a more deadly missile at 100% than 50% and the basic problem is that missiles aren't deadly enough.

[hitman]

Missile failure is different than missile suckage. :lol:

 

Missile failure adds to realism while missile suckage, unless realistic justs sucks.

 

The ability to disable non-combat related failure is a nice touch. :thumbup:

I have to rep this one. Its true, and yet...simplified...for everyone. Instead of missile suckage, missile pwnage should be included and upgraded (Or downgraded). This should apply to every missile, and the AA-10D is a prime example and Ill use my last session for the set:

 

I fire my -120 from Rmax at Ice, he ducks and weaves behind a mountain the instant my missile was supposed to hit him (and makes my missile hit the mountain) while in the meantime, his rear aspect 10D hits me in the face at its Rmax. I would believe an ARM would have done the same thing, but...it was a heater.

[GGTharos]

Naturally, as always, no promises, however I believe that Yo-Yo has been convinced to re-examine realistic G with some new things being brought to his attention by someone in the know :)

 

In addition, it was proven that the F-15 is significantly underpowered at altitude, which also paves the way for examining the FM's of other aircraft in this respect (in particular the Su-27 and A-10) ... so hopefully we might see these aircraft's FM's recalibrated in a patch.

 

You can find both threads (both of them quite long, I believe) using a search :)

 

I think I'm in love. :worthy:

 

Should we start talking about realistic G while we're at it? :mad:

[GGTharos]

I fire my -120 from Rmax at Ice, he ducks and weaves behind a mountain the instant my missile was supposed to hit him (and makes my missile hit the mountain) while in the meantime, his rear aspect 10D hits me in the face at its Rmax.

 

I'm pretty sure he waited until you were closer ... of course if he fired it without a seeker lock, that's unrealistic and it needs to be dropped - and will be. But in general, a real pilot could pull something like this on you, so you have a way to deal with this here ... when you see someone breaking away like this and you haven't got a launch warning, assume that ET is coming for you, and start your flare program/macro ... weave a bit ... you ought to be ok. Just don't be in afterburner. A flare every 3 sec works here.

This behaviour of heaters is on the list ...

 

I would believe an ARM would have done the same thing, but...it was a heater.

 

 

Nope, not either! :) ARMs -might- hit, but they're not quite as accurate because the signal they track can be pretty intermittent :)

[GGTharos]

What, do you work for Raytheon??? C'mon - missles are becoming better (a bit faster, more manuevarable and less suseptable to counter measures) but even now it's still far from a garaunteed kill even when launched in "no escape" parameters in RL.

 

Which is exactly why it was renamed to Rtr, or 'Range turn and run'!

However, the missiles we're using right now in LO are basically vietnam era weapons in terms of Pk - though I suppose a lot of this has to do with people shooting weapons at Rmax or beyond Rtr in order to scare the opponent defensive but ... the problem is, you launch'em inside 6nm, and they refuse to even track because there's chaff in the air already. It's not that it couldn't happen in RL, it's that it isn't quite as likely.

[centermass]

You can find both threads (both of them quite long, I believe) using a search :)

 

Read them, and the one on the Fighter Ops forum...

 

http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6724

________

herbalaire

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[D-Scythe]

Yes.

 

But the slider doesn't fix the missile problems. The end result is a more deadly missile at 100% than 50% and the basic problem is that missiles aren't deadly enough.

 

A missile at 100% may be more deadly to the AI, but against barrel rolling, 5 m flying players, it's just as useless. For the player, it usually means just having to pump out a few extra chaff.

 

Anyway, I'd love to hear what you guys would want for A/A missiles. I mean, most of the time, it's usually just complaints, people venting - but no suggestions for improvement.... Is this simply because everyone agree with GGTharos on this issue? I can't imagine that EVERYONE would be happy with decreasing the capabilities of the R-27ET, for example.

 

The reason I'm asking is, it seems to me that WAFM and WASM would not be implemented by LOBS, so in all likelihood I think we're gonna be stuck with the current missile system for a while. Moreover, it's been stated repeatedly that ED's focus in LOBS is A/G combat - therefore, with the new Mission Editor, Ka-50, etc., any change to A/A stuff would likely be minimal in comparison. Thus, it's best for everybody if this issue is fixed on the first try - it would be best to have everyone behind EVERY proposed change/fix. I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the the "Strelas shooting Mavs" down issue.

 

Moreover, if we agree on exactly what is needed (needed because it's realistic of course), they're much more likely to ALL get fixed.

 

You said it firing a ET without lock is unrealistic, but 99% of people do this exact thing. The ET's are the deadliest missile in the game, hope BS fixes that, I know it's been said before.

 

I think MICA IR is the deadliest missile in the game.

[S77th-GOYA]

A missile at 100% may be more deadly to the AI, but against barrel rolling, 5 m flying players, it's just as useless. For the player, it usually means just having to pump out a few extra chaff.

 

It is more deadly to humans. If anyone tells you different they don't know HL.

 

Anyway, I'd love to hear what you guys would want for A/A missiles. I mean, most of the time, it's usually just complaints, people venting - but no suggestions for improvement.... Is this simply because everyone agree with GGTharos on this issue? I can't imagine that EVERYONE would be happy with decreasing the capabilities of the R-27ET, for example.

There have been plenty of complaints that point out what needs to be fixed. It starts with backing down the chaff vulnerability. How hard could it be? It was just added in the last patch so just reduce whatever was done. It's worth a shot. Right now it is a joke. I can't tell you how many times I've spoofed an ER with a single chaff. It's ridiculous. I don't know how ED could even consider not fixing it. In 1.12 it was descibed as "tuned" so simply detune it. And just add a little thrust to the Winder. It won't be perfect but that should be an easy adjustment and get it closer to realistic. A 1.11 "feature" has needed fixing for quite a while. The F-15's ability to identify a friendly jammer. Hell, there's a laundry list of things for the F-15 but I'll keep to the missiles. The inability of missiles to pull enough Gs to hit a climbing target is a real problem too. That seemed to come into the game when the AI started porpoising to evade a shot. There are many things about 1.02 that were much better than what we've had to deal with over the last year+ with 1.12. Yes, those things added in 1.1, 1.11 and 1.12 were meant to be improvements but they were poorly implemented or poorly tested and ended being detriments rather than improvements. The Tung/Mav Fiasco is a prime example. Chaff vulnerability is another.

[Boneski]

"Wrong. Real missiles can be and have been evaded...."

 

Oh really... when? How?

[D-Scythe]

It is more deadly to humans. If anyone tells you different they don't know HL.

 

Really? Every evasive tactic that works against missiles at 50% would work against missiles at 100%. It's just the tactics that involve chaff require the target to pump out more chaff.

 

There have been plenty of complaints that point out what needs to be fixed. It starts with backing down the chaff vulnerability. How hard could it be? It was just added in the last patch so just reduce whatever was done. It's worth a shot.

 

IIRC, a new model was implemented that affected seeker behaviour of radar missiles - it's entirely new code. Thus, I don't think it can simply be "undone". I'll ask though.

 

Right now it is a joke. I can't tell you how many times I've spoofed an ER with a single chaff. It's ridiculous. I don't know how ED could even consider not fixing it. In 1.12 it was descibed as "tuned" so simply detune it.

 

So you want things to return to the way it was in V1.02?

 

And just add a little thrust to the Winder. It won't be perfect but that should be an easy adjustment and get it closer to realistic.

 

AIM-9M thrust, noted. Though this should be strictly about radar missiles...

 

The inability of missiles to pull enough Gs to hit a climbing target is a real problem too.

 

Actually, I think that's a problem with the seeker. I'm pretty sure the missiles can physically pull more G's to deal with a climbing target, but for some reason they don't.

 

Yes, those things added in 1.1, 1.11 and 1.12 were meant to be improvements but they were poorly implemented or poorly tested and ended being detriments rather than improvements. The Tung/Mav Fiasco is a prime example. Chaff vulnerability is another.

 

Yup, for sure. Maybe if some of the others start chiming in, everyone can get a better idea of what is needed to fix things and then a case can be made to ED. It's just that personally, (ED has nothing to do with this) as a member of this community and not a beta tester, my opinion would be in something big and important like this, it is good to get the community involved, so that when the final thing does roll out, there won't be any surprise and people know what they're gonna be getting.

 

I think it's in everyone's best interest to avoid a public riot like the SAMs vs. AGMs thing.

[S77th-GOYA]

Really?

 

Really.

 

Do you think every missile that doesn't hit is because of chaff? And remember some missiles DO hit even in the area of chaff.

 

I wouldn't prefer to go back to 1.02 overall, but it was better gameplay. (Please don't start with the game v sim thing. I know where you stand.) It used to be that if you got yourself in position for a very high PK launch, you could count on it hitting. Now it's a crapshoot. The frustrations that go along with that crapshoot are making it less entertaining to fly. I can't help but think that that is a factor in LOMAC being less popular now than before 1.1.

[RvEYoda]

IIRC, a new model was implemented that affected seeker behaviour of radar missiles - it's entirely new code. Thus, I don't think it can simply be "undone". I'll ask though.

.

 

 

 

I beg to differ. As we saw earlier in the thread, changing chaff resistance is an easy thing, but ED don't feel like it's worth going through the effort of fixing SF for that "hotfix/patch"

[Pilotasso]

I can't tell you how many times I've spoofed an ER with a single chaff. It's ridiculous. I don't know how ED could even consider not fixing it.

 

ER wont be spoofed with a single chaff cartrige. Sudden aspect change will, wich is realistic. Most people never do it except when they turn to run away.

 

The vast majority of ER misses are due to radar lock loss. Also you shouldnt shoot against a target that is already chaffing a missile because it takes about 10 seconds for it to clear from the view cone of any further missile you launch. ECM spiking just-in-time has been very popular recently to this efect. I believe this will be adressed as well and afetc this missiles PK indirectly. Im not worried because I have other tactics to deal with it that wont change with BS.

[Ice]

I beg to differ. As we saw earlier in the thread, changing chaff resistance is an easy thing, but ED don't feel like it's worth going through the effort of fixing SF for that "hotfix/patch"

 

Starforce has nothing to do with fixing elements of Lock On.

 

All good things come to those who wait.