GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 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 :( Just watch for the LA to dissapear. People launch missiles by overriding LA often. It shouldn't really work, or at least not as well as it does. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 By (game) design, the ARH seekers will scan their entire gimbal space (120deg total) in a conical pattern (or spiral if it helps you picture it) when they don't have a target. The 6deg FoV is strictly the FoV of the seeker itself, the missile's FoV is 120 deg, via seeker scan. 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
S77th-GOYA Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Yes, and if you fire at 4-5 degrees off-boresight an ARH missile shouldn't track right off the rail. That's how we tested. Any idea how long it should take the seeker to complete a full 120 degree scan?
GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Approximately 7 seconds ... so you can imagine a 4-5 degreed OB shot would have 12 deg scanned in less than 0.1sec (because the scan is tighter at the center) This is a /reasonable/ scan pattern, but probably not what's actually used in a VISUAL launch ... though in VISUAL you'd still be scanning about 12deg total (so a very fast conscan centered about whatever axis the missile is supposed to use - its own or based on g's being pulled at the time of launch) To correct this they'd have to recode seeker logic completely, implementing various scan patterns to be used under different circumstances. So we'll have to wait for a new seeker model for this to be fixed, -although- it would not be unreasonable to just have the 12deg con-scan in all cases, it would make supporting your missile much more important. Also as you know, there's a lack of inertial guidance for the missiles, meaning that if you launch a long shot and lose the lock, the missile goes traight ahead instead of arcing to reach the last computed intercept point. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RvEYoda Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 For me 7 seconds feels like way too fast to be realistic (of course I have no data to back this claim u). But imagine it this way. F-15 vertical scan i lockon sometimes takes as long as 5 seconds, and that is nowhere near the 120 degree cone of the amraam. Is this a reasonable speed? Why not datalink amraam to plane radar for close range fighting then? ==> who needs helmet mode, use amraam DL scan and always lock target within 12-13 km :) In fact. Let each amraam (8) scan different directions and you have close range super scan :D S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
S77th-GOYA Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Approximately 7 seconds ... so you can imagine a 4-5 degreed OB shot would have 12 deg scanned in less than 0.1sec (because the scan is tighter at the center) This is a /reasonable/ scan pattern, but probably not what's actually used in a VISUAL launch ... though in VISUAL you'd still be scanning about 12deg total (so a very fast conscan centered about whatever axis the missile is supposed to use - its own or based on g's being pulled at the time of launch) It seems the lost logical that for a visual launch, the seeker would be held at boresight for a relatively considerable amount of time to try and resolve a target where it should be.
GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Of course it isn't realistic - it's too fast. This is what was possible with the code at hand. That's all there is to that. I do believe this discussion has happened before, so there's no need to rehash it here. Someone asked for info/explanation ... I gave it. No need to dwell on it. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RvEYoda Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Of course it isn't realistic - it's too fast. This is what was possible with the code at hand. That's all there is to that. I do believe this discussion has happened before, so there's no need to rehash it here. Someone asked for info/explanation ... I gave it. No need to dwell on it. The code does not allow to change scan speed!? Did you encrypt the variables for the source or what :) S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 It seems the lost logical that for a visual launch, the seeker would be held at boresight for a relatively considerable amount of time to try and resolve a target where it should be. The real thing, insofar as /I/ can tell, scans a wider volume than just the seeker's own FoV. But it doesn't scan the entire gimbal space. Anyway, I described the way it works in the game ... it won't change I think until there's a new seeker model and that won't happen for a while. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RvEYoda Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Just make a quick fix (yes agaiN! =)) where you cut the sweep speed in half or so. S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
Force_Feedback Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Just watch for the LA to dissapear. People launch missiles by overriding LA often. It shouldn't really work, or at least not as well as it does. Yeah, but we still aren't able to direct a missile using its OWN seeker, not angular coordinates given by the EOS or radar systems. In real life it is possible, and it is how the helmet mounted sight is used. There is no such mode in lomac :( Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
S77th-GOYA Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 I do believe this discussion has happened before, so there's no need to rehash it here. Have the maddogged ET's parameters for locking and tracking been discussed? Meaning, max range, max off-boresight? Also, has the susceptibility of the ET to flares been compared to the R-73 suceptibility to flares? They have the same seeker, yes? But what about differences in processing data the seeker provides?
GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Yeah, but we still aren't able to direct a missile using its OWN seeker, not angular coordinates given by the EOS or radar systems. In real life it is possible, and it is how the helmet mounted sight is used. There is no such mode in lomac :( Ah yes! You're absolutely correct - there's even a mode that launches the missile the moment it has a lock. When looks can kill! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Have the maddogged ET's parameters for locking and tracking been discussed? Meaning, max range, max off-boresight? Heaters should theoretically not be scanning their gimbal space at all. Keep in mind though that 3deg at 10nm is plenty of space, too. Max range for heaters is dependent upon aspect, throttle setting etc, which makes up your aircraft's 'brightness' in the IR band ... if they are fired at you from afar, IIRC they -should- be more susceptible to flares because you can put more of'em in their FoV, and they might be quite a bit 'brighter' to the seeker too at range ... so at longer ranges missiles should theoretically show a preference for flares. Also, has the susceptibility of the ET to flares been compared to the R-73 suceptibility to flares?No, but they use the same seeker IIRC (in game). The susceptibility should then be the same, but you have some 'race issues' in that you're racing against the missile's own speed to put out your CM's at closer ranges. The 27's are pretty speedy! It's useful to have your flares out before the missile is fired ... something that is, AFAIK, relatively unique to LO. They have the same seeker, yes? But what about differences in processing data the seeker provides? Same seeker, same processing, right? Or maybe you're trying to say something else and I'm not understanding. The navigation unit might be different, because the 73 has TVC and different control surfaces. That is obviously not really modeled in LO. Edit: I /have/ withnessed very strange ET behaviour online (literally a 45deg turn into me) which indicated wide scanning, however I distinctly recall that there were some lag issues with the player who fired it, so there might be more to it than missile bugs - but obviously can't rule that out either. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RvEYoda Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 It's useful to have your flares out before the missile is fired ... something that is, AFAIK, relatively unique to LO. In fact this is something I also tried.......But for some reason I can never get early flares to affect the missiles. In fact they just seem to be giving me a false sense of security and making me end up dead. Even worse is when missiles lose lock because I go from full burn to idle engine, flare like crazy, but bastard missiles dont see my flares UNTIL it first reaquires me (very annoying, but since I started paying attention to this the ETs have been a lot easier to dodge) Edit: I /have/ withnessed very strange ET behaviour online (literally a 45deg turn into me) which indicated wide scanning, however I distinctly recall that there were some lag issues with the player who fired it, so there might be more to it than missile bugs - but obviously can't rule that out either. I have experienced the same, even with no lag or anything. I see maddog contrail going off in some direction, them boom. Nowadays when I see contrail go off into space I always barrell roll to see if any missile is tracking me and pulling high-G. Too often it is, even when it must have locked me from well beyond 30-35 deg off. S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
S77th-GOYA Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 I have had the same thing happen to me and it sucks. You see the trail and you think it's going to miss you...next thing you know BAMMMMM!!!! back at the map screen. And this is one of the things that RUINS this game. ED CANNOT leave us in this mess for BS. Supporting this software that we've all paid for has got to be part of ED's future.
Ice Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 And this is one of the things that RUINS this game. ED CANNOT leave us in this mess for BS. Supporting this software that we've all paid for has got to be part of ED's future. DROP IT! You cant let it go can you? Just as the forums start to simmer down we've got to start it all over again. Wags said in very clear english. If resoures are available there will be another Patch. that's it! end of debate. Do you guys really want to see more warnings! More bannings!
RvEYoda Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 Have we really sunk this low? When we ask for fixes we get warnings/bannings? This is pretty absurd..... We are trying to improve a product and point out the flaws, and all we get is slap in the face combined and orders to never speak of it again... S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
Pilotasso Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 Just make a quick fix (yes agaiN! =)) where you cut the sweep speed in half or so. how did you do this? Isnt it hard coded? .
britgliderpilot Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 how did you do this? Isnt it hard coded? He didn't do it, he's suggesting that ED do it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
britgliderpilot Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 Have we really sunk this low? When we ask for fixes we get warnings/bannings? This is pretty absurd..... We are trying to improve a product and point out the flaws, and all we get is slap in the face combined and orders to never speak of it again... Asking for fixes doesn't deserve a warning or a banning. However, when the asking for fixes turns into angry demands fixes that it has been repeatedly stated may be coming if you have patience, and precipitates a flamewar taking up most of the forum . . . that's just pointless. Fixes may be forthcoming if ED can do them, that's the reality, and another flameware and continued demands from the forum community does nothing to help it. I think Ice is just trying to jump on that one before it gets ahead of itself . . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
RvEYoda Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 how did you do this? Isnt it hard coded? Just gimmi the source and I guarantee I will fix it :) S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
rockwelder Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 There was no need for your post ice, your not the boss in here. Nope - He isn't the boss, but the moderators, AKA the "Boss" of this fourm thinks alot like him. Please feel free to carry on and demand that ED do this and that .... but do not be suprised to see a warning and or Ban come of it - and for pete's sake do not act like it came out of nowhere and it's 'like' so unfair... No one has to like it ... it is what it is... I for one am sick of the 'my missle does not do what I want it to do' threads. ED knows the issues better than anyone and they will deal with it as resources see fit.
Mugatu Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 In the mean time the it's supporters drop off like flies. But as you said that's ED's call. They're obviously doing better in the other markets. Nope - He isn't the boss, but the moderators, AKA the "Boss" of this fourm thinks alot like him. Please feel free to carry on and demand that ED do this and that .... but do not be suprised to see a warning and or Ban come of it - and for pete's sake do not act like it came out of nowhere and it's 'like' so unfair... No one has to like it ... it is what it is... I for one am sick of the 'my missle does not do what I want it to do' threads. ED knows the issues better than anyone and they will deal with it as resources see fit.
Recommended Posts