Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[Boneski]

Ofc winning would make me happy :).

Now even better if I can do this in a way where I use what I believe to be realistic tactics BETTER than the enemy. If he does it better HE should win.

 

Currently we're not seeing this though.

Most data is classified, sure, But I'm pretty sure that ET launches at 75-80% Rmax of the amraam should not be possible in the situation I described in my first post, just like a pitbull amraam with very good energy should not just be swept aside and ignored. Should the amount of classification stop us from what we believe is improving the game? Same goes for VERY high energy ERs where people almost hit E-pole with this sit.

 

"Oh shit it's an ER, better just make two turns" :D

 

But What if that is how it really is?

[Kula66]

The physics isn't classified ... its all public domain!

 

We also have some poorly documented cases to work against and some dubious data from manufacturers etc. We have an understanding of current tactics DESIGNED to use the missiles - so we know what should work. Plus some very smart people ...

 

We could certainly come up with something better than the arcade missile behaviour we have now!

 

I thought 1.02 was significantly more believable than current.

[RvEYoda]

But What if that is how it really is?

 

Why don't we give up alltogether then and ban everything except guns ?

[RvEYoda]

The physics isn't classified ... its all public domain!

 

We also have some poorly documented cases to work against and some dubious data from manufacturers etc. We have an understanding of current tactics DESIGNED to use the missiles - so we know what should work. Plus some very smart people ...

 

We could certainly come up with something better than the arcade missile behaviour we have now!

 

 

YES! I agree. Although I don't know if most physics data for mssiles is classified or not, we do know some of the more important evasion tactics. Kinematic implementation should be able to make fairly realistic. We fill in the blanks to the best of our knowlegde and understanding. This should provide the best gaming experience as well.

[Mugatu]

deleted, thread was going well :(

[tflash]

Boneski, I think second-guessing is part of the art, not to say the whole charm of these forums. We try to understand how it works by:

 

- using our knowledge of physics

- using our knowledge about published radar technology

- what we read in publicly available magazines and journals like AFM

- logical reasoning

 

Specially the last part is interesting, since that is what the engineers of the classified systems also have to do when they want to anticipate unknown threats.

 

When you engage in these kinds of activities you will certainly be able to gain a well-founded opinion on the matter, and even if this doesn't qualify as knowledge, it sure is worth it for me.

 

Lockon as a simulation tries to realize a valid implementation of some of the concepts involved. Everyone could anticipate this would be a hard catch regarding ECM/ECCM. But as the game shows, you can do an implementation that makes up for sufficient complex behaviour so that it is playable.

 

Realistic or not, ECM MEANS something in the game, you have to take it into account. And it is not trivial: some people can exploit it, others don't.

 

So to some extent, the simulation has made part of the concept usable. The discussions at hand are, using valid logical reasoning, to see how this can even be improved. Many VERY valid suggestions have been made in these forums by the very people, Boneski, that you accuse of knowing nothing.

 

Some of these suggestions might even make it in BS.

[vistrel]

Let me guess. After spamming those amraams you turned 180 degrees back ? That's exactly what the other guy did.

[Pilotasso]

There should be fixes in BS to prevent people from shotting missiles without suporting them with the radar untill TTA (by severely limiting their functions beyond 10 miles). The ET will be fixed in a similar way, I dont see why the AMRAAM shouldnt.

[Ice]

All this debate is well and good. Nobody really seems to know what they want from thr AIM120. Only what they dont want.

 

One thing i'd like to remind everyone when talking about what the AIM120 can or cant do. Even tho LockOn is not oficially set in a time period. We are looking at mid 80's technology. so what an AIM 120 in the USAF can do today might not be relevant.

[RvEYoda]

All this debate is well and good. Nobody really seems to know what they want from thr AIM120. Only what they dont want.

 

One thing i'd like to remind everyone when talking about what the AIM120 can or cant do. Even tho LockOn is not oficially set in a time period. We are looking at mid 80's technology. so what an AIM 120 in the USAF can do today might not be relevant.

 

Err....So lomac amraam is not amraam?. I thought Amraams and R-77s started being put on planes 91 and later?

[Ice]

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.

[Kula66]

But Ice, we know a missile fired from 40k' will go much further than one fired from 1k' ... I've seen figures like x3

 

We know a missile from from an a/c at 150kts will not have as much energy as one fired at 1000kts ...

 

These things are the basics! Regardless of the time period of the sim, this is how missiles work.

[tflash]

Yes, but there are several distinct issues at stake:

 

- flight dynamics of the missile

- seeker performance

 

For the flight dynamics issues, I guess we wait for WAFM. Would also be very nice for rockets (e.g. if you are in a sideslip, this should affect rocket trajectory).

[GGTharos]

There is no 'gray area'. The devs said they're mixing periods freely.

That's all there is to it.

 

And yeah, some of us know what we want from the AIM-120, and every other ARH and SARH in the game, too ... naysayers aside.

[GGTharos]

But you don't really even need the WAFM - sure, it makes a difference in kinematics - but so long as the range is somewhat believable, what you -really- need is a missile that WILL MAKE THE OTHER GUY THINK OF NOTHING BUT TRYING TO EVADE IT. Nothing fancier than that is needed, the rest is just icing on the cake.

 

There are a -lot- of differences between missiles that -could- be modeled, given a fairly advanced missile model, but this isn't going to happen - it is wise then, to simply make the missiles RESPECTABLE.

 

But it seems like a lot of people just don't get that.

 

Yes, but there are several distinct issues at stake:

 

- flight dynamics of the missile

- seeker performance

 

For the flight dynamics issues, I guess we wait for WAFM. Would also be very nice for rockets (e.g. if you are in a sideslip, this should affect rocket trajectory).

[S77th-GOYA]

 

This is from the dreaded fas.org. No idea where they got it or where the data came from. But it is interesting.

[GGTharos]

And there's no scale - also, does it include the AIM-7's 'long loft' option? AIM-7's used to be beam-riders until they could pick up the target with their own seeker, IIRC - only the most modern 7's sported a datalink.

 

But in any case, if you want ranges, and you have some relatively accurate data pertaining to the rocket motors, minizap does a pretty good job of approximating!

 

It'll give you a -slightly- optimistic ballistic range due to some missing factors - but it works.

[Alfa]

Well looking at the drawing, the illustration for the AIM-7M doesn't indicate any datalink support either - only terminal SARH, which I guess would mean "beam riding" in cruise stage :) .

[Boneski]

Guys....

 

The point is still being missed here. And that is context.

 

Words like flight dynamics and seeker performance, charts, graphs.... have no place in this discussion... There are no "dynamics" there is no "seeker" in the physical sense.

 

When you start to realize that (clearly some of you do) you will have the proper context for a logical discussion of the problem that might exist.

 

What is there, are lines of code... code that can change how the game presents data to you the player...

 

Your missile, it is safe to say are nothing more then C++ function/methods.

 

There may exist stuff called AirMissiles() as well as another method call MisData()… there may even be a method called AA_Seeker() that contains code on how all the missiles operate in this game.

 

It is doubtful there is a method for each missile represented in the game. So changing the code that controls the thing you call the Aim120 may affect all the missiles in the game… breaking everything. So maybe this programmed behavior was a compromise to insure everything else work well.

 

 

Bottom line is that this is a well written Object Oriented program, not Seekers, RCS, and Flight Dynamics. Those things do not apply here.

 

You guys will never get what you want if you continue to fail to understand the context you are working in.

 

You are not in a cockpit.

You are not and Aerospace Athlete

You are not flying and fighting the Jet.

 

You are playing a game/simulation or whatever makes you happy.

You have to understand that and speak to the situation in that context.

 

Also keep in mind something else... The people that build these applications called flight sims are some of the smartest people in the industry. Not only are they smart. They want to build the best product they can.

 

They are fans for the genre.... They are dreamers and doe’s just like you.

They know the shortcomings of their applications. They know why they made compromises to portions of the application.

 

You the fans are not telling them anything new that they don’t already know.

Again you have to understand the context.

 

You the player, you want the PERFECT product... they, the people with the know how can only build a better product. Based on what they know about the topic and with in the boundaries of computer programming. Lock on represents that concept very well.

 

Black shark and future titles from this group and others will build on the success and failures of past products. Each iteration and release better then the one before.

 

Fans and users will need to compromise and accept what they have and try to enjoy it the best they can. The laws of Physics are bound by what your computer can do. You have to accept that.

 

When you were a kid you use to use your imagination to get you through. Now that you are an adult you are too lazy or too stubborn to do it. That’s unfortunate.

If you play the game worrying that what you are doing or using is not exactly like the stuff a million dollar trained fighter pilot is using… you are restricting yourself from having a good time….

 

Having worked continuously with people in this industry you get to see how much they love this genre. They are fans just like you. They have a goal for their products that go far beyond profit making.

 

The sad part is that Fans that buy these products verbally trash them without understanding what they are talking about. Not that that is going on in this thread.

 

But the context of the problem is wrong and shows a lack of understanding despite the vast knowledge of real world ideas displayed in this thread and others.

 

Good luck with your campaign to bring change to the missile code... The developers are no doubt listening!!

[Frostie]

Im sure the problem is not just the AMRAAM as the Active missiles ARE the best Radar missiles in the game ,all are bested with chaff. But Actives are the hardest missiles to defeat and they also allow the user to leave the danger area before impact, so whats the problem with F-15 pilots?

 

I know they perform badly with a valid lock but so do all not just AMRAAM.

 

AS I see it, their problem starts with the ET.

These guys fear ET launches so they extend before they're AMRAAMs go active so as not to get an 30km override ET in the face.

So making their AMRAAMs less effective and more likely to be defeated.

 

 

With this subconsciously in mind [and also adding a misconception** into the equation with the history of the F-15 never being shot down in A2A] they demand MUCH IMPROVED performance from they're AMRAAM so as they can launch and run knowing they'll get a PK of 70+ so as to never be in danger and always running.

Pretty lame future for BVR in LOMAC IMO.

 

 

 

My conclusion of this study is (all will surely help push the use of the AMRAAM closer to realism)

 

ET override needs to be abolished

 

Chaff needs to be less effective to help ALL radar missiles.

 

And nothing about making AMRAAMs better, if anything their scan cone needs reducing when in maddog.

 

 

**If you mistake my misconception as being F-15's not being shotdown then don't post back as I already know they have an outstanding record , my meaning is that you can't use this notion that it will own all in LO considering the quality of opposition , the SeaHarrier also has an exemplary record I don't think it would own all in this game though , and just to cover more bases im not comparing SeaHarrier with F-15 just the notion.

 

 

WTF Boneski's post is longer than mine u Bastage.:D

This is my longest post

ever so please

respect

it.:megalol:

[GGTharos]

Boneski, I think I know what you're getting at - the way you're saying it makes it sound like you're saying something negative ... and you aren't helping. :)

 

Like I said ... there is a general goal in mind, and while we cannot simulate each missile with its individual faults and such not (it's all classified after all!) there are enough details that can be implemented in simulation to bring tactical maneuvering to something resembling reality - the goal /is/ to have a fighter pilot say 'yeah, this is more or less how we'd do things if things were equal' (because things have to be somewhat equal when we don't know what -makes- them unequal)

 

There's nothing else we -can- do ... but you're coming across as if you're saying that it doesn't really matter what we do or why, we might as well leave LO as it is!

[Boneski]

 

WTF Boneski's post is longer than mine u Bastage.:D

This is my longest post

ever so please

respect

it.:megalol:

 

RESPECT!!!!!!!! (I an ALi G Voice)!:pilotfly:

 

G Money... not saying that all... If they "fix" it they will want support documentation to back up the change. Rags that say this or that will not rise to the standard.

So if the Russian team has docs in Russia that say the way it is now is correct then what? Should they change it because the fans thinks it's wrong?

Again it is not clear what fans want....

There has been posted all sorts of fun data about the western systems.... that has not been the case for the Russian systems on the EN forums.... Post up some charts about the Russian systems if you have them... maybe that can better explain what the code in the game is doing...

Question:

Would the fans accept a more balanced outcome? Meaning that you change the missile code for both teams to be the same in their respective performance would that be acceptable?

Giving no user has an advantage over the other? Forcing the user to employ good tactics...

This would make for fair game play.... putting victory in the hands of the better user.

So is it fair game play you guys want... YOda?

Or do you want as said in the post above to have the code for the F15 have an advantage over everything else in the game.

Clear that up will you... thanks!

G the tone of the post should not be taken to have any negativity....

[GGTharos]

I personally don't care that much about balance, though I understand the need for it in some cases.

In other words, if you need 4 MiG-29A's to defeat an F-15, that's the way it ought be in LO. That'll likely not happen, but hey.

(Disclaimer: Of course, the F-15 is my virtual ride)

 

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)

[D-Scythe]

Im sure the problem is not just the AMRAAM as the Active missiles ARE the best Radar missiles in the game ,all are bested with chaff. But Actives are the hardest missiles to defeat and they also allow the user to leave the danger area before impact, so whats the problem with F-15 pilots?

 

The problem is that radar missiles suck in general, even the best (i.e. active) ones. The (proposed) fix addresses ALL radar missiles.

 

So nothing being discussed here is AMRAAM specific - AMRAAM is brought up a lot because it's the primary weapon of the F-15, that's all.

 

I know they perform badly with a valid lock but so do all not just AMRAAM.

 

Exactly - all radar missiles perform badly. And this is what needs to be addressed.

 

AS I see it, their problem starts with the ET.

These guys fear ET launches so they extend before they're AMRAAMs go active so as not to get an 30km override ET in the face.

So making their AMRAAMs less effective and more likely to be defeated.

 

Well, it would be unwise IMO to blame the performance of AMRAAM on a single factor - the R-27ET. Yes, the -27ET may very well be one factor, but to say it's the only factor is gonna be a mistake.

 

And again, it's not just the AMRAAM. For example, the R-27ER performance, or rather the lack thereof, has been discussed here as well.

 

With this subconsciously in mind [and also adding a misconception** into the equation with the history of the F-15 never being shot down in A2A] they demand MUCH IMPROVED performance from they're AMRAAM so as they can launch and run knowing they'll get a PK of 70+ so as to never be in danger and always running.

Pretty lame future for BVR in LOMAC IMO.

 

I don't know where you got this. Any proposed "fix" for AMRAAM would also carry over to every other doppler radar missile in the game. The point is to return the BVR arena back into the playground of these radar guided missiles (R-27R/ER, R-77, R-33, MICA, AIM-7M, AIM-120).

 

If the consequence of doing so results in the R-77 and AIM-120 becoming the most effective weapons in the BVR, then c'est la vie. It may be "lame" - but also entirely realistic. Nobody would expect a vanilla, first generation Su-27 (limited to R-27ERs) to be a 1-to-1 match for an F-15C/AIM-120 combo in BVR anyway.

 

My conclusion of this study is (all will surely help push the use of the AMRAAM closer to realism)

 

ET override needs to be abolished

 

Chaff needs to be less effective to help ALL radar missiles.

 

And nothing about making AMRAAMs better, if anything their scan cone needs reducing when in maddog.

 

Well, I don't know about having the missile over-ride for *just* the ET abolished (is that realistic?), but we're definitely on the same page - especially regarding fixes being done collectively to ALL radar missiles.

[hitman]

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.