F-15 Aim 120 Lob shot does not work?

[cool_t]

Well,

 

I was doing some off line flying and stuff and I realised that when I point the F-15 up for a lob-shot the AIM 120 just shoots to the stars.

 

Even when the "Active" lights go on the 120 will not track a locked target.

 

So an Aim 120 when launched is first comand guided, then it goes active, then terminal, right?

 

There must be gimbal limits or somthing?

 

Is it the same for all Air to Air missiles?

 

:detective:

[STRIKER]

Trust me, you dont want to go down this road trying to figure out why the AIM-120 is crap in this game...then end result will not please you, especially concerning LOFT or any guidance issues with the 120.

[cool_t]

Servey Says!?

 

Im wondering about the "gimbal" limitations reguardles of the 120s programing.

 

:pilotfly:

[rogue_blade]

whats gimbal?

[Mugatu]

Seeker view limits, but it shouldn't be an issue at launch.

[cool_t]

Huuu?

 

Ya its strange.

 

If im at 15,000 ft at a 45* angle and theres a bandit 20nm away from me at 10,000 ft, the 120 should "arc" to the target, correct?

 

Well the theory is that as the missile is launched upwards it encounters less paracidic drag due to the atmosperic density loss, right.

 

So, with the closure rates of both aircraft (No defencive manuvering) the missile will travel faster to the target even though the "Arc" deveates from the shortest distance to the target.

 

Concluding the 120 not only encounters less paracidic drag but on its "Downward" approach to the target it also uses the earths gravity more efficiantly than in the case of a straight on shot.

 

?

[Colt40Five]

You can't apply real world tactics to in-game missile performance. At least not as currently modeled....

[rogue_blade]

i know its been talked about ALOTTTTTTTTT but im just wondering out of sheer interest. what makes is SO hard to model the physics of the AMRAAM?? i mean all the others missiles arnt complained about much so they must be Decent. and if the other missles were modelled Ok then why was the AMRAAM ****ed up so bad?

:D

[Weta43]

As far as modelling active radar missiles goes the AMRAAM in LO is the same as the R-77, with a couple of figures adjusted.

From reading these forums for a while it seems to me that (ignoring the AFM Su-25 & T):

In LO there is one SFM flight model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one (Fighter borne) radar systems model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one passive radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one active radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one infra-red seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

Whatever systemic faults one has so do the others to some degree.

Which is why asking for some fixes is impossible without a re-write of the code (of course some fixes don't require this, just a qualitatively smaller allocation of man-hours)

& which is why we should encourage ED fix the easy stuff for LO/FC in a patch (if there can be such a thing in software development) to begin the next series (the Flanker/LO successor) that won't have these limitations, rather than hoping for the present series to 'morph' into something it can never be.

Don't get me wrong - I love LO (ask my girlfriend :-), but there are limitations built into it that need a fresh start to overcome.

regarding this:

i mean all the others missiles arnt complained about much so they must be Decent. and if the other missles were modelled Ok then why was the AMRAAM ****ed up so bad?

 

It's not that the AMRAAM is So Much Worse, than other missiles, it's just that the people who use it have higher expectations of it & are more vocal

[rogue_blade]

As far as modelling active radar missiles goes the AMRAAM in LO is the same as the R-77, with a couple of figures adjusted.

From reading these forums for a while it seems to me that (ignoring the AFM Su-25 & T):

In LO there is one SFM flight model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one (Fighter borne) radar systems model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one passive radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one active radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one infra-red seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

Whatever systemic faults one has so do the others to some degree.

Which is why asking for some fixes is impossible without a re-write of the code (of course some fixes don't require this, just a qualitatively smaller allocation of man-hours)

& which is why we should encourage ED fix the easy stuff for LO/FC in a patch (if there can be such a thing in software development) to begin the next series (the Flanker/LO successor) that won't have these limitations, rather than hoping for the present series to 'morph' into something it can never be.

Don't get me wrong - I love LO (ask my girlfriend :-), but there are limitations built into it that need a fresh start to overcome.

regarding this:

 

It's not that the AMRAAM is So Much Worse, than other missiles, it's just that the people who use it have higher expectations of it & are more vocal

 

wow i never knew that. if your actually right.......my liking of lockon just depreciated alot :(

[TekaTeka]

wow i never knew that. if your actually right.......my liking of lockon just depreciated alot :(

 

What's strange? I think every flight simulator uses its own one basic flight and weapon model for all planes in it...usually.

[Weta43]

This is just my (perhaps incorrect) deduction from reading here.

Don't go getting all dejected about LO though - how else would you have done it ? There's actually nothing wrong with there being one radar system tweaked to fit all planes, if the basic system is flexible enough to cover all the planes you model (it would be insane to start from scratch for every one).

This is basically what ED are doing with LOBS - creating a single (modular) system that is detailed & flexible enough to model whatever they chose with a good degree of fidelity.

The problem with LO's single radar (PRHM, ARHM, IRHM,etc) model is that it's not flexible enough to model (say) the F-15's radar modes correctly, as it doesn't include systems to portray some modes that plane actualy has.

[Pilotasso]

The worst problem with LOMAC right now is that it doesnt require to support your shots to achieve kills. Thus it preverts the truth of combat out of the game. If every seeker was to be inhibited from accidentaly aquire targets without guidance when outside of parameters, the way combat is made online would be radicaly diferent.

[3Sqn_Fudd]

As far as modelling active radar missiles goes the AMRAAM in LO is the same as the R-77, with a couple of figures adjusted.

From reading these forums for a while it seems to me that (ignoring the AFM Su-25 & T):

In LO there is one SFM flight model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one (Fighter borne) radar systems model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one passive radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one active radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one infra-red seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

Whatever systemic faults one has so do the others to some degree.

Which is why asking for some fixes is impossible without a re-write of the code (of course some fixes don't require this, just a qualitatively smaller allocation of man-hours)

& which is why we should encourage ED fix the easy stuff for LO/FC in a patch (if there can be such a thing in software development) to begin the next series (the Flanker/LO successor) that won't have these limitations, rather than hoping for the present series to 'morph' into something it can never be.

Don't get me wrong - I love LO (ask my girlfriend :-), but there are limitations built into it that need a fresh start to overcome.

regarding this:

 

It's not that the AMRAAM is So Much Worse, than other missiles, it's just that the people who use it have higher expectations of it & are more vocal

 

I have generally trained myself to peruse but not obsess over the lines in the "mega" threads... you know, the ones where someone asks one question and 30 pages later nothing is solved.

 

Given this context of Wetas, it again brings me to one thought. It's not a surprise to have one tweakable model for each plane or missile, but it does detract from the general notion that a (any) sim maker can't change something because the data cant be certain... Why cling to grand statements about accuracy when the fundamental core of missile X and missile Y has merely been tweaked from a baseline model?

 

In a secret world I would think it best to read between the aggregate lines of what knowledgeable people are telling you (and certain cyber space slip ups)... I know some of them and you do too...

 

I'd encourage ED as well Weta...

 

One thing though, I use all planes, and I would like to see what I am relatively certain of, be seen in the sim. Those are expectations that aren't so "great."

 

Feel free to chime in, I could be wrong...

 

lol... I feel I have just jumped into a thread that will be ... hrmmmmm... somewhere in the range of 15 pages. :D

[GGTharos]

And ED is aware of all this, which is why in the future there'll be a new missile FM, new sensor model, and so on and so forth.

But not in Black Shark.

 

As for tweaking the missiles? Some knowledgeable people have pointed out that the way to making BVR more realistic is to make the missiles more dangerous.

[tflash]

As for tweaking the missiles? Some knowledgeable people have pointed out that the way to making BVR more realistic is to make the missiles more dangerous.

 

Very true, if the missiles would have higher Pk my on-line life would be even shorter than it is now, so there are always two sides to the equation, and the game is very playable right now.

 

On the loft thing: anyway, if I understand it right IRL a pilot does not have to aim to the skies to obtain a loft shot with an amraam: the missile logic will itself implement a loft routine given a parameter evaluation?

 

This brings us to the original question: is it important IRL to take into account the missile FOV (as cool_t calls it the gimball limit) BEFORE launch?

 

I doubt so. I know that with older Sparrow missiles, on the Phantom, you had to "center the dot before the shot" to have max Pk.

 

Anyway, I have the impression that in single player, when I shoot the ET with some "lead" so that in fact the bandit is flying into the FOV "basket", I have a higher Pk. Is this the same for SAHM and AHM missiles?

[GGTharos]

Very true, if the missiles would have higher Pk my on-line life would be even shorter than it is now, so there are always two sides to the equation, and the game is very playable right now.

 

It'd rather have to implement more realistic tactics than claim it's 'playable'...it would still be playable.

 

On the loft thing: anyway, if I understand it right IRL a pilot does not have to aim to the skies to obtain a loft shot with an amraam: the missile logic will itself implement a loft routine given a parameter evaluation?

 

You don't have to, but you can. The F-18 has a loft cue in the HUD for example, you pull the nose up to center it and fire.

 

This brings us to the original question: is it important IRL to take into account the missile FOV (as cool_t calls it the gimball limit) BEFORE launch?

 

I doubt so. I know that with older Sparrow missiles, on the Phantom, you had to "center the dot before the shot" to have max Pk.

 

In the case of the sparrow, it is because it was a beam-rider up to where its seeker would take over, so you had to fire it such that it capture the beam to begin with.

When you have INS/Datalink, things change - but obviously the target ought be in the FoV at the intercept point (Where the missiles goes active)

 

Anyway, I have the impression that in single player, when I shoot the ET with some "lead" so that in fact the bandit is flying into the FOV "basket", I have a higher Pk. Is this the same for SAHM and AHM missiles?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean ... shoot the bandit from how far? Do you have a seeker lock already?

[tflash]

I'm not sure what you mean ... shoot the bandit from how far? Do you have a seeker lock already?

 

Yes, I have to qualify; of course in the ET case the target is already locked by the seeker and thus in its FOV before launch. But, since on this powerful but not so manoevrable long-range missile the first phase of flight is rather "straight", I have the impression that when I aim it al little more to where the bandit is flying instead of right to him, the missile has more chance to keep the lock, because the bandit is not going to fly that easily outside the FOV "basket".

[GGTharos]

If you're close to the target, that might well be true. If you're not, then yeah, it's probably just your imagination :) Not that taking lead is bad in any way ... it reduces maneuvers made by the missile.

[S77th-GOYA]

The worst problem with LOMAC right now is that it doesnt require to support your shots to achieve kills. Thus it preverts the truth of combat out of the game. If every seeker was to be inhibited from accidentaly aquire targets without guidance when outside of parameters, the way combat is made online would be radicaly diferent.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I could not disagree more. At least with the "worst problem" part. I really don't think the active missiles, even if they are aquiring outside of parameters, are hitting enough to really be a problem. The ET might be the missile to give your argument merit. But if the 77, 120, ER missiles were as dangerous as they should be, the ET wouldn't stand out so much.

 

That is NOT to say that the ET doesn't need to be fixed.

[Pilotasso]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I could not disagree more. At least with the "worst problem" part. I really don't think the active missiles, even if they are aquiring outside of parameters, are hitting enough to really be a problem. The ET might be the missile to give your argument merit. But if the 77, 120, ER missiles were as dangerous as they should be, the ET wouldn't stand out so much.

 

That is NOT to say that the ET doesn't need to be fixed.

 

Supporting your shots means you get to TTA before breaking away. What your saying aplies to IR missile maddoging, not the same thing heh? But yes its also one of the related problems. The ET needs a similar fix to AMRAAM though this last one can be maddoged at only 10 miles, no other should at all. I also have to remind, maddoging is not a reccomended mothod of use because it usualy means your in trouble IRL. Ingame its another matter.

[S77th-GOYA]

What your saying aplies to IR missile maddoging, not the same thing heh?

 

...aquire targets without guidance when outside of parameters

 

That's the same thing.

 

I would assume that a post launch ET seeker does not scan to its gimbals limits searching for heat sources so even if the ET were capable of achieving a lock after launch, it would be heat sources within the FOV of the seeker itself. (2 degrees?)

 

Has anyone tested how far off-boresight the LOMAC ET will lock a heat source?

 

S77th-Dante and I did some testing of the 120 after the 1.11 patch and the FOV seemed like it was not too wide laterally but did pick up a target that was either above or below the 6 degree seeker. Perhaps it should be re-tested too.

[Kula66]

On the loft thing: anyway, if I understand it right IRL a pilot does not have to aim to the skies to obtain a loft shot with an amraam: the missile logic will itself implement a loft routine given a parameter evaluation?

 

There was an F-18 HUD video ages ago that showed the pilot do a 25deg pull up before a loft shot ... he was getting steering queues from the HUD. All helps the missile!

[Force_Feedback]

Has anyone tested how far off-boresight the LOMAC ET will lock a heat source?

.

 

It's impossible, when you turn of the radar and EOS you can't lock any targets with heatseekers, not even with the R-73 :(

[S77th-GOYA]

Then what is all the talk about maddogged ETs?