Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[Boneski]

So let me reiterate ... I expect missiles to be made respectable again in a manner that will lead to use of at least the basics of realistic tactics, as judged by real pilots. That's /my/ desired benchmark. Absolute realism in missile simulation is not required to achieve this - it's certainly not done for the real red flag, for example.

 

(And yeah ... there is support documentation)

 

So you want this realism to be limited to 1 v 1 or multi contact / multi ship engagement?

 

How will you make one part of the game ultra "realistic" without re-writing the application?

 

It's the issue that has been following sim development for a long time.

 

To have realism to a high degree.. the very core of the programs has to support it from top to bottom.

 

Also the other problem is that user defined "Realistic Tactics" are really not realistic...

 

Lock on does not support the concept of the Airwar very well. It's more of a 1 v 1 type of sim... AI or Human vs Human. It shines in the area of ACM and BFM.

 

Realistic BVR is hard to do in a sim.

 

But your point is understood... Good luck!

 

One day we will have to fly online… it would be nice to see how realistic your flying is... :joystick::pilotfly:

 

07-05-2007, 11:56 AM #133 D-Scythe vbmenu_register("postmenu_349666", true);

ED Testers Team

 

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 2,064

Reputation: 9

 

 

 

 

Wow... how did that happen....??? Any way D... YOu are not flying an 15 vs and Su27... You are playing a game that represents what it might be like... cut it some slack bro...

 

The problem you guys are running into is that first you guys grow a single eyebrow and engage no matter the odds... You fly nose on and wait for the HUD to que you and you fire. That is not a wise tactic or realistic tactic...

 

So even if the developers "fix" the missiles to your liking it will matter not... It seems like you are asking for the "So easy that a Caveman can do it" attack / engagement profile... with missiles. You fire them and you hit it and win it. That could be done for sure.

 

But single ship nose hot engagements are things that don't really happen all that often in real life bro...

no matter how big your sticks are... you are asking for a jacked up outcome...

[D-Scythe]

The biggest beef I have with the -ET is its ability to engage targets from all aspect with uncanny performance. Wasn't this missile designed straight from the book as a rear aspect only? The AIM-9 later series are all aspect and they suck. I might even say the -73's suck just as bad, but Ive had a few good nights and a lot more bad nights with these.

 

Now...if we were to say there were any unbalanced features in-game, then may I make a small suggestion: since the AA-10D is an all aspect (IRL rear aspect) and the AIM-9 is a rear aspect (IRL all aspect), why not swap code, but keep the range figures the same? Im not saying lets engage with 'winders at Rmax 10nm and expect a 65%pk and lets shoot -10D at Rmax 3nm and expect a 25%pk, but just the seeker heads.

 

The R-27ET is programmed with exactly the same code as the R-73. Now, I'm not sure if the AIM-9M has the same flare rejection ability as the R-73, but I think it's similar (if not equal). So in the end, there really isn't going to be a huge difference. The perceived lethality of the R-27ET I think has more to do with speed (it is MUCH faster than any other IR missile) and its "silent" kill capability.

 

And the R-27ET is not rear-aspect only - it's just that it's seeker has much better range and performance from the rear aspect. In reality, I doubt its seeker can pick up a target from any other aspect beyond 13-15 km.

 

Hope that helps.

[HubMan]

Hi all :)

 

Before being a "realistic flight sim", Lockon is a game. A game is fun when the different units you can play are balanced.

 

A "real" F-15 just would be -no- fun, fighting against a fighter that :

 

- carries 8 AMRAAMs almost immune to chaff and beam manoeuver once they get pitbull and only raise a launch alert 10s before impact.

- has a very powerfull radar with very high multitargeting capability.

- has a RWR that can identify and gives an estimation of the distance to the threats / gives the opportunity to use the good tactic for a given situation (close/medium/far spike)

- has evenually a link 16 display.

- can eat alive in the transonic / supersonic envelope any of its contemporary fighters

 

...just would be no fun and spoiling : everybody would play the Eagle and the ones who wouldn't would just die (virtually).

 

You cannot have a -fair- fight against a BVR monster like that with a Fox 1 and "realistic" Alamo equipped Su 27... It's a simple as that. An eagle can be shot down, but the fight won't be "equal" : it would be about playing the "underdog" against the "Über Killing Machine". Not much fun for the russian players :)

 

As a result, keeping the game fun and balanced with a "realistic" F-15 would require an absolutely "unrealistic" overpowered Su27, probably carrying R77s or soupped up Alamo with a 95% pk. That would not be that much fun either, for US fan boys at least... :)

 

That's the reason why the Lockon team went halfway : they undermodelized the pair F-15 / AMRAAMs and overmodelized the couple Su (Mig) / Mig R27ET. That way, things are balanced : each side has more or less the same kill capability (8 AMRAAMS vs 2R27 ET + a couple of ER/R73).

 

Honestly, a russian company, selling a game on the russian and occidental market, -has- to produce a balanced game between Su/Mig and US F-15 :)

 

I'm not saying that I enjoy this situation : I hate the way this "balance" was reached : the very poor lookdown radar capability, chaff over efficiency, missile maximum speed not being related to the launcher speed and seeker behavior against ECM (blink, blink...) just spoils what could have been left of "realistic" BVR. Altitude in BVR is supposed to be good for you. In Lomac, that's just the other way around : the benefits of flying high are far too much spoiled by the game modelization.

 

On the other hand, another consequence of this game "balance" is to reduce the distance at which a kill can be made : this way, the probability to end up in a dogfight is greater.

And dogfights are fun, because you can see your opponent, put some BFM moves in practice and even use your gun ! :)

 

Unfortunatly, before getting into some good old CAC, you need to survive to the BVR weapons, that are almost efficient, while used in the far CAC / very close BVR... As a result, you end up with no real BVR and no fun furball ! :) You die in the between ! And I hate that as well, because survival in this area is mostly about game "exploit" (chaff spam/maddogged R27ET/AMRAAM spam/altitude tracking limit/holly barrel roll...), no BFM or BVR knowledge.

 

Anyway. I love this game. :D I'm sure the developpers did everything they could to create the best flight sim they could produce, while getting probably more frustrated in the process than we are... I just wish that "balance" adjustement patches would be more frequent than the official big releases like FC or BS. A couple of very small iterations would probably have saved a lot of frustration :)

 

Cheers all :)

 

Hub out.

 

 

PS : Don't flame me too much : I would be the first one to love a "realistic" Lockon... :)

[HubMan]

The R-27ET is programmed with exactly the same code as the R-73. Now, I'm not sure if the AIM-9M has the same flare rejection ability as the R-73, but I think it's similar (if not equal). So in the end, there really isn't going to be a huge difference. The perceived lethality of the R-27ET I think has more to do with speed (it is MUCH faster than any other IR missile) and its "silent" kill capability.

 

And the R-27ET is not rear-aspect only - it's just that it's seeker has much better range and performance from the rear aspect. In reality, I doubt its seeker can pick up a target from any other aspect beyond 13-15 km.

 

Hope that helps.

+1 :)

 

And in real life, R27ET seeker has more or less the same capability than the one of the R73... The R27T being more or less in the same class than the R60... :)

 

Hub.

[D-Scythe]

Hi all :)

 

Before being a "realistic flight sim", Lockon is a game. A game is fun when the different units you can play are balanced.

 

A "real" F-15 just would be -no- fun, fighting against a fighter that :

 

- carries 8 AMRAAMs almost immune to chaff and beam manoeuver once they get pitbull and only raise a launch alert 10s before impact.

- has a very powerfull radar with very high multitargeting capability.

- has a RWR that can identify and gives an estimation of the distance to the threats / gives the opportunity to use the good tactic for a given situation (close/medium/far spike)

- has evenually a link 16 display.

- can eat alive in the transonic / supersonic envelope any of its contemporary fighters

 

...just would be no fun and spoiling : everybody would play the Eagle and the ones who wouldn't would just die (virtually).

 

You cannot have a -fair- fight against a BVR monster like that with a Fox 1 and "realistic" Alamo equipped Su 27... It's a simple as that. An eagle can be shot down, but the fight won't be "equal" : it would be about playing the "underdog" against the "Ьber Killing Machine". Not much fun for the russian players :)

 

As a result, keeping the game fun and balanced with a "realistic" F-15 would require an absolutely "unrealistic" overpowered Su27, probably carrying R77s or soupped up Alamo with a 95% pk. That would not be that much fun either, for US fan boys at least... :)

 

That's the reason why the Lockon team went halfway : they undermodelized the pair F-15 / AMRAAMs and overmodelized the couple Su (Mig) / Mig R27ET. That way, things are balanced : each side has more or less the same kill capability (8 AMRAAMS vs 2R27 ET + a couple of ER/R73).

 

Honestly, a russian company, selling a game on the russian and occidental market, -has- to produce a balanced game between Su/Mig and US F-15 :)

 

I'm not saying that I enjoy this situation : I hate the way this "balance" was reached : the very poor lookdown radar capability, chaff over efficiency, missile maximum speed not being related to the launcher speed and seeker behavior against ECM (blink, blink...) just spoils what could have been left of "realistic" BVR. Altitude in BVR is supposed to be good for you. In Lomac, that's just the other way around : the benefits of flying high are far too much spoiled by the game modelization.

 

On the other hand, another consequence of this game "balance" is to reduce the distance at which a kill can be made : this way, the probability to end up in a dogfight is greater.

And dogfights are fun, because you can see your opponent, put some BFM moves in practice and even use your gun ! :)

 

Unfortunatly, before getting into some good old CAC, you need to survive to the BVR weapons, that are almost efficient, while used in the far CAC / very close BVR... As a result, you end up with no real BVR and no fun furball ! :) You die in the between ! And I hate that as well, because survival in this area is mostly about game "exploit" (chaff spam/maddogged R27ET/AMRAAM spam/altitude tracking limit/holly barrel roll...), no BFM or BVR knowledge.

 

While I agree that the F-15 should be without doubt the best straight-up BVR fighter, having it this way in Lock On doesn't necessarily mean that everything else just "dies." If anything, it would encourage pilots of other fighters to use team-tactics, and place more emphasis on strategies/methods intended to lure the Eagle pilots into a WVR fight.

 

And in the end, that is not only more realistic, but more fun. There are plenty of other games you can play where you can hop into a jet and mindlessly blow things up - on the other hand, in a simulation, the fact that you can (and often need to) execute realistic tactics and strategies to overcome your enemies should be where the fun is at.

 

Having climbed higher and flying faster to get that first look, first shot, only to see your radar missiles run out of juice 6 miles before the target while you get swatted by an R-27ET fired by a guy who's executing NO tactics at all is a pretty big buzz kill I'd imagine.

[Boneski]

You should play Crimson Skies then. Missile performance should be as close to as it is IRL. The '33 way outranges the F15 with it's EM's and if you fight the '33 then you use that to your advantage. The Mig with R77's is dangerous down low because of it's size and difficulty in seeing it, and the Helmet sight and Archer make it dangerous WVR, just like IRL.

 

We don't need "balanced" gameplay. It needs to be more realistic.

 

 

R60 and R73 differ quite a bit. The only reason you're stating they're in the same class is cuz they're IR missiles. The AIM9F and AIM9X have the same names and are both IR missiles, but they're completely different.

 

See Rugg there you go... how about you coming to the Air Force and fly the Eagle...

Then you will see how pointless all this really is. I will even help you put your package together....

 

Hub is spot on.

 

C Skies is no different then Lock on in the fact that it's a game. (yes they are different since they focus on different markets)

With that said, you would be better off talking about Both games as games then trying to relate Lock on to Real Air combat.

 

The developers will tell you the same thing...

 

Guys for all of that stuff to work.... Lock On will need to be re-written from the ground up as a Air War Simulation.

So the Advantages that Hub points out can be balanced against other systems. Like SAMS, Patrols. etc....

 

ALSO, Most of you guys are tying to Fly Blue on Blue style tactics... Without all of the support that Blue would have...

Mainly other flights and Datalinks etc.

 

ALSO Time Frame is important... Today's Viper is much different then the Viper circa 1995... So when you read

the latest and greatest tactic in a glossy tech rag... Lock on does not have the stuff to support that...

 

Red Air tactics are the most under disccused topic on these boards. Why because the point is moot... Most of you

don't know how other Air Forces operate. How would you unless you are briefed about it??

 

 

So Rugg don't diss Hub because you want to be or wanted to be in the Air force... Join up if you are not too old and

Step Into The Blue!!!!!!

 

With your skills, kills and game knowledge, I'm sure you will make the F-15 Class of 2010. Heck you might even get 22's

if you have good Bow hunting skills!:smartass:

 

But let the game be the game man! If you are chasing your dream... then do that...

But this box pc sim should not be your gateway to Valhalla... :(

[D-Scythe]

Guys....this thread is probably attracting attention from important people....

[Boneski]

While I agree that the F-15 should be without doubt the best straight-up BVR fighter, having it this way in Lock On doesn't necessarily mean that everything else just "dies." If anything, it would encourage pilots of other fighters to use team-tactics, and place more emphasis on strategies/methods intended to lure the Eagle pilots into a WVR fight.

 

And in the end, that is not only more realistic, but more fun. There are plenty of other games you can play where you can hop into a jet and mindlessly blow things up - on the other hand, in a simulation, the fact that you can (and often need to) execute realistic tactics and strategies to overcome your enemies should be where the fun is at.

 

Having climbed higher and flying faster to get that first look, first shot, only to see your radar missiles run out of juice 6 miles before the target while you get swatted by an R-27ET fired by a guy who's executing NO tactics at all is a pretty big buzz kill I'd imagine.

 

Dude... most people play against the AI.

 

This program is not marketed as a Massively Multi-Player Application. The game has to first be Fun for the solo player which makes up the Bulk of the game's owners...:pilotfly:

[hitman]

Guys....this thread is probably attracting attention from important people....

How so?

[S77th-GOYA]

Dude... most people play against the AI.

 

And you base that statement on what data? Sales figures? And what does it have to do with missile modelling?

 

This is getting way to complicated. We can talk about exact physics and radar properties and modes and classified and tactics and anything you want but we simply want the game to give results we expect to see from real world information. When ED puts out a readme and states that missile susceptibility to chaff has been "tuned" it is not a great leap in logic to expect that retuning it would be a reasonable request.

 

It would be very helpful if someone from ED would chime in with their opinion on the missile modelling and the chances of anything getting changed. Yes, I know, they're very busy.

[Boneski]

And you base that statement on what data? Sales figures? And what does it have to do with missile modelling?

 

This is getting way to complicated. We can talk about exact physics and radar properties and modes and classified and tactics and anything you want but we simply want the game to give results we expect to see from real world information. When ED puts out a readme and states that missile susceptibility to chaff has been "tuned" it is not a great leap in logic to expect that retuning it would be a reasonable request.

 

It would be very helpful if someone from ED would chime in with their opinion on the missile modelling and the chances of anything getting changed. Yes, I know, they're very busy.

 

Hey G,

The statement is based on facts.

It has a lot to do with many things. The single player experience is key to this type of game's success. If not then there would not be any AI. The Multiplayer is an option that is there… It works pretty well. Based on all of the formation demos… it works really well!

My Friend... Information is Disinformation.... The fact that no one on these boards can say what they want or what the problem is speaks volumes...

So far all that has been said is that the F-15 should beat the Flanker. Okay… fair enough.

The quick fix would be to set the Sliders for the AI down a notch and if you are playing with human players, have them Fly using the proper tactics that will let you win. That's what happens at Flag....

Look... If the developers put out a read me stating that the game is working like it should based on the information they have... I think some of you guys would pass out and die from outrage at such a statement... LOL!

[RvEYoda]

Well I guess its a grey area. Mid 80's to mid 90's. My point being that quoting the advanced capabilities of the AIM-120 B/C would not be correct for Lock On Flaming Cliffs.

 

 

You got me a bit lost here. I will say my source, even if it is the worst.

Wiki claims the first time an amraam was brought into active service was 1991.

R-77 same official number would be 1994.

 

To estimate when planes would reasonably carry them?....perhaps 1992-1994 for amraams and late 90s for r-77s. For me this is quite a huge leap from mid-80s to early 90s.

 

Now here is the big deal. late 90s stuff is ofc way too classified to make any good implementation of it. We COULD call this game LO-ENAC (-Early Nineties Air Combat =))

 

We could have aim120B and some r-77 prototype. Could be interesting indeed.

 

 

This program is not marketed as a Massively Multi-Player Application. :pilotfly:

 

But would a more extensive multiplayer approach not be a lot more fun?

 

 

 

Guys....this thread is probably attracting attention from important people....

 

Let us hope so. But last time I started whining in the forums result was pretty much zip :)

[S77th-GOYA]

Hey G,

 

The statement is based on facts.

 

It has a lot to do with many things. The single player experience is key to this type of game's success. If not then there would not be any AI. The Multiplayer is an option that is there… It works pretty well. Based on all of the formation demos… it works really well!

 

My Friend... Information is Disinformation.... The fact that no one on these boards can say what they want or what the problem is speaks volumes...

 

So far all that has been said is that the F-15 should beat the Flanker. Okay… fair enough.

 

The quick fix would be to set the Sliders for the AI down a notch and if you are playing with human players, have them Fly using the proper tactics that will let you win. That's what happens at Flag....

 

Look... If the developers put out a read me stating that the game is working like it should based on the information they have... I think some of you guys would pass out and die from outrage at such a statement... LOL!

 

Hey B,

 

Which facts? Can you cite a source?

 

And If you think that so far all that has been said is that the F-15 should beat the Flanker you really should read the thread again. You've missed quite a lot.

[D-Scythe]

How so?

 

Haha, busted. Sorry, but I just didn't want this thread degenerating into another flame-fest.

 

Dude... most people play against the AI.

 

This program is not marketed as a Massively Multi-Player Application. The game has to first be Fun for the solo player which makes up the Bulk of the game's owners...:pilotfly:

 

What does single player have to do with this? My point was simply that although a simulation is a game, a product of PC entertainment, what sets it apart from other type of games is that you have to execute realistic tactics and strategy to win, in order to blow things up. In a game, like AC 6, you can go ahead a blow things up without any need for realistic tactics.

 

Sure, you can blow things up in both Falcon 4.0 and AC 6, but what sets F4 apart is how you go about destroying stuff. This matters in single player AND multiplayer.

 

So really, I don't see what you're getting at. If the F-15 is the better BVR fighter IRL, than naturally Su and MiG pilots would try to draw the Eagle in a WVR fight to win. And the "fun factor" isn't any less just because you have to adapt your tactics to play to your strengths and not your weaknesses.

[Boneski]

Hey B,

 

Which facts? Can you cite a source?

 

And If you think that so far all that has been said is that the F-15 should beat the Flanker you really should read the thread again. You've missed quite a lot.

 

Hey G,

 

As for hardcore data.... That's not my bag... But if that statement is incorrect then the gang should meet at the Eagle Dynamics Run servers and have some multi player fun with thousands of other owners....

 

Sure it's clear that you guys want much more then a winning F15... the point of the retort has been that it would not matter

much if the missiles/ecm were tweaked... since it is not balance you guys are asking for.

 

It's all good... These post are not about proof... they are just observations of observations...

;)

[RvEYoda]

Look at GG's post #123 the devs are are mixing timeframes so we have NO IDEA what is going on. But one thing we do know is that we don't have a F-18 or F-16 to even out the sides, yet the chose to add a helicopter......that makes perfect sense to me now :music_whistling:

 

IC... thats what the words mean :). I did not understand the expression "mixing timeframes" - now I do.

 

Sure it makes sense! money :).

[tflash]

The problem you guys are running into is that first you guys grow a single eyebrow and engage no matter the odds... You fly nose on and wait for the HUD to que you and you fire. That is not a wise tactic or realistic tactic...

 

So even if the developers "fix" the missiles to your liking it will matter not... It seems like you are asking for the "So easy that a Caveman can do it" attack / engagement profile... with missiles. You fire them and you hit it and win it. That could be done for sure.

Could you specify who these "you guys" are and how you came to these assumptions about how they play?

 

But single ship nose hot engagements are things that don't really happen all that often in real life bro...

no matter how big your sticks are... you are asking for a jacked up outcome...

 

So I assume real pilots do not exercise these engagements because they do not happen to often IRL? Like you wouldn't take off twice on a simulator because you are supposed to take off only once IRL?

 

I guess the problem is we do not need someone who tries to explain to us that we are playing a game. Hell man, I even remember where I bought it and I still have the box.

 

The game is about simulating air engagements. So, it seems not so surprising to me that we are discussing just about that in these forums no? If you want, we will always put the word play in front of our remarks, like:

 

"while I played as if I was firing an Amraam it went bananas instead of heading for what was my supposed target, a piece of computer code run by another human who is also playing the same game over the internet and does as if he wants to evade a real missile, knowing off course that in fact he is at home in his seat, and thus making no assumptions whatsoever that this has any connection with the real thing because how on earth could he know since he is way to fat to be a real pilot and even to old and maybe better to lazy but he didn't sort all this out yet, etc. etc. "

 

If you want Fawlty Towers, be my guest.

[hitman]

Haha, busted. Sorry, but I just didn't want this thread degenerating into another flame-fest.

Don't know what your getting at, last thing I want is a flame war, just asking why you think this thread is getting attention high up , thats all. I mean surely...if the devs are listening and taking notes, then hell yeah Ill keep t3h yap shut. Till then I ask dumb questions. :P

[D-Scythe]

Don't know what your getting at, last thing I want is a flame war, just asking why you think this thread is getting attention high up , thats all. I mean surely...if the devs are listening and taking notes, then hell yeah Ill keep t3h yap shut. Till then I ask dumb questions. :P

 

No, I wasn't referring to you. And who knows, maybe important people are tuning in...

[Boneski]

Haha, busted. Sorry, but I just didn't want this thread degenerating into another flame-fest.

 

 

 

What does single player have to do with this? My point was simply that although a simulation is a game, a product of PC entertainment, what sets it apart from other type of games is that you have to execute realistic tactics and strategy to win, in order to blow things up. In a game, like AC 6, you can go ahead a blow things up without any need for realistic tactics.

 

Sure, you can blow things up in both Falcon 4.0 and AC 6, but what sets F4 apart is how you go about destroying stuff. This matters in single player AND multiplayer.

 

So really, I don't see what you're getting at. If the F-15 is the better BVR fighter IRL, than naturally Su and MiG pilots would try to draw the Eagle in a WVR fight to win. And the "fun factor" isn't any less just because you have to adapt your tactics to play to your strengths and not your weaknesses.

 

 

Hey D,

 

Solo play has a lot to do with it. Not worth explaining why. You just have to be there when a program is in early lifecycle….

 

The other point is that you are Not playing realistically... That can be said without even playing the game with you... You may think you are… and that’s all that matters.

 

Hey T,

 

no worries... it's the nature of posting on the net. Noting bad is meant by the blanket statements.

People want improvements... and they may or may not come. Nothings wrong with pointing out

flaws, issues, and the other things. Enjoy the game they way that wroks for you.

 

Gotta Have more Cowbell!

[hitman]

Dont get me wrong but you did quote me on that. Either way moot point.

[GGTharos]

Well ain't this thread derailed.

 

Let's recap: There are issues that make this game more of a game than a simulation when it comes to BVR combat. These issues have to do mostly with missiles, and also radar, but radar won't -really- be getting looked into that much, I'm sure.

 

Oh - wait, how do I -know- it's 'less realistic'? I heard from someone who does this stuff for real.

 

But unlike you Boneski, this person was actually helpful and pointed out some of the behavioural problems with missiles, for example, rather than rag on and on like you do.

 

He also mentioned that training and tactics and stuff that people do or don't do in HL is unrealistic, or not - the discussion went deep enough for me, without classified info.

 

So, we could bring BVR a little closer to reality but fixing some issues with the missiles. It won't be perfect, it won't really be 'just like RL', but if someone in the know can tell me 'yes, this is much better' I'll take it.

 

Some of you (you know who you are) are blowing the scope out of proportions here - if you think that hasn't been talked about or thought about before, you are DEAD wrong. DEAD wrong.

 

When the ONLY avenue right now, for the most part (And IMHO), is to fix up the missiles, then darn right we'll focus on /that/.

Actual tactics will remain up to the players, who'll have to adapt to lack of supporting services and devices, and the horrible, maintenance-free operation of their aircraft.

[golfsierra2]

Till then I ask dumb questions. :P

 

There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers...

 

Just go ahead and make your point..

[D-Scythe]

Dont get me wrong but you did quote me on that. Either way moot point.

 

I know it's a moot point, but I didn't quote you on it. It was a page back, I posted after Boneski after he replied to Ruggbutt.

 

Well ain't this thread derailed.

 

Well, nobody seems to oppose the idea of making radar missiles immune to chaff from virtually every aspect (except of course the beam). However, the fact that many people would like the "balance" to return to V1.02 levels is a bit of a concern - I have a feeling that making radar missiles completely immune to chaff would raise the PK significantly, to the point where we can expect many people to start complaining about "unbalance."

 

Just out of curiosity, how many people here have played at 100% missile slider, and what did you guys think about it?

 

 

Hey D,

 

Solo play has a lot to do with it. Not worth explaining why. You just have to be there when a program is in early lifecycle….

 

The other point is that you are Not playing realistically... That can be said without even playing the game with you... You may think you are… and that’s all that matters.

 

I know solo play is a huge part of any game, but just because you play solo doesn't mean you cannot execute realistic tactics. Furthermore, I am playing realistically - Higher+faster = more missile smash, F/A-pole, notching, dogfighting at corner....those are real techniques/tactics that real pilots use all the time.

 

Sure, speaking absolutely, I may not be flying my F-15 100% realistically, but I am flying it MORE realistically than in other games like AC6. As said before, realism is relative - I may not be flying 100% realistically, but there is no doubt that in a flight simulation I'm flying more realistically.

 

Take the technique/strategy of max-performing your jet - ED may not get the corner speed for the F-15 right, but as long as there is a corner speed, and I can out-turn my opponents by sticking with it, then that is relatively more realistic than a "game." Yes, it's not 100% realistic because the corner speed of LO's F-15 does not match the real F-15, but even so, it forces us to fly our F-15 more realistically than say an F-15 from AC 6.

 

So in the end, it doesn't matter if the sim is not realistic, as long as the sim allows us to fly and fight in a realistic manner. Absolute realism is not that important in the "bigger" picture - you're never gonna find out the activation range of the AMRAAM's terminal seeker. But that doesn't change the fact that it can be employed realistically as an active radar missile in Lock On, just like it can IRL.

[golfsierra2]

He also mentioned that training and tactics and stuff that people do or don't do in HL is unrealistic, or not - the discussion went deep enough for me, without classified info.

 

So, we could bring BVR a little closer to reality but fixing some issues with the missiles. It won't be perfect, it won't really be 'just like RL', but if someone in the know can tell me 'yes, this is much better' I'll take it.

 

Of course HL is unrealistic most of the times. That is because

tactical buffs meet noobs and arcade style pilots. Usually, IRL in one coalition there is a team of pilots sharing a certain standard of skills.

 

I join HL very seldom, and if I do, just for fun - that is kill as much as possible of the opponent coalition, usually it ends up 1vs many (1 is me...)

 

Flying with my squad, it is a total different thing. I know my playmates since months or even years, we do a lot of training and established a minimum level of common tactics and gameplans. And we communicate a lot, so this is always a team versus others (AI or another squad) or we do training 3vs3, 4vs4 with two teams of our own squad. We gain most of our fun from developing and testing TACTICS, which is the major point why at least I am still with Flanker/Lock-On/Flaming Cliffs. That's our motivation flying this sim.

 

Some of you (you know who you are) are blowing the scope out of proportions here - if you think that hasn't been talked about or thought about before, you are DEAD wrong. DEAD wrong.

 

When the ONLY avenue right now, for the most part (And IMHO), is to fix up the missiles, then darn right we'll focus on /that/.

Actual tactics will remain up to the players, who'll have to adapt to lack of supporting services and devices, and the horrible, maintenance-free operation of their aircraft.

 

I subscribe that. In the end, it doesn't really matter, if a missile is modelled 100% correct or not. If you are going into tactics, you have to cope with the situation as it is. You have to find workarounds and tactics to deal with your disadvantages and to make most from the opponents vulnerabilities - and ...

that is like IRL again !

 

LO/FC is a great game the way it is !