AIM 120 is undermodelled? no!

[GGTharos]

It's funny how this is turning into another flame war.

 

AMRAAM is undermodelled in range, and so is the sidewinder, in LOMAC. There's enough HUD tape footage to prove this.

 

/All/ missiles are undermodelled in one way or another when it comes to seekers, though the heaters seem to be doing just about as they should.

 

This ACMI demonstrates a common seeker or network effect problem, which happens with -any- missile. Anyone remember the R-73 ACMI?

 

Yeah. So why's this flame war still on?

[Pilotasso]

correction: ACMI reports false missile decoyed events. I have hit flares only in the moment on enemy plane impact. My bad.

[192nd_Erdem]

No, it's not. In fact, I agree with you completely.

 

I'll even state it again. AMRAAM and F-15 is completely undermodelled. You can spoof not AMRAAM's, but F-15's by just typing "ROFLMAO" in the global chat. I witnessed it last night in TAF server. I have proof.

 

/All/ missiles are undermolled in one way or another when it comes to seekers' date=' though the ehaters seem to be doing just about as they should. [/quote']

 

How true. Added to your rep. But especially US missiles feel much more undermolled.

[GGTharos]

Will it make you feel better if I fix my typos? ;)

[192nd_Erdem]

Will it make you feel better if I fix my typos? ;)

 

Please, we're talking about a serious matter.

[3Sqn_Sven]

Except that commercial PC combat simulations never aim to achieve that affect - that is, having the user be able to cold start a jet fighter and take off. This is not and never was how "realism" is defined.

 

That's a weak argument.

 

 

 

Nothing constructive to base it on? I'm pretty sure there has been PLENTY of evidence to suggest that all doppler radar missiles should be immune to chaff, because chaff produces no doppler.

 

Furthermore, as this isn't a million dollar military sim, realism doesn't have to be black and white - it's not a question if something is absolutely realistic, or not. What happened to degrees of realism? A commercial PC sim should never aim to achieve anything more than being realistic enough so that the user can play the experience of air combat in a realistic fashion. This can be achieved without being perfectly realistic.

 

Your point of "stuff being an ongoing story of never being realistic" is irrelevant because a PC sim like Lock On never aimed to achieve realism in the first place, but rather to portray the air combat experience in a realistic manner. PC sims are never a 1:1 replica of reality, and why should they be? F-15s never fight against Su-27s IRL, the Cold War ended without a single shot being fired in anger, S300s have never fired a shot against U.S. aircraft IRL...how boring would a perfectly realistic combat simulation be if there was never any combat?

 

+1

[nscode]

Will it make you feel better if I fix my typos? ;)

 

Yes. If you have some inside info on the correct spelling, please share it with uthers.

 

(and be sure to state your sources..)

 

:smilewink:

[D-Scythe]

Yeah. So why's this flame war still on?

 

I'm lookin', but I don't see a flamewar. Strange.

[S77th-GOYA]

I'm lookin', but I don't see a flamewar. Strange.

 

Ditto. It seems any debate gets labelled a flame war.

[Force_Feedback]

Oh, it will happen, if not soon, then in 5-10 pages.

[Frostie]

Nothing constructive to base it on? I'm pretty sure there has been PLENTY of evidence to suggest that all doppler radar missiles should be immune to chaff, because chaff produces no doppler.

 

Immune? Are you sure or have you just created an aura of invincibilty to a notion you've developed.

 

Chaff should be effective in the beam against all radars, less effective against doppler is what you mean.

Its a well known fact that 'chaff is overmodelled' in LOMAC and this effects ALL radar missiles drastically, that should be your argument and not fixed on one missile.

[D-Scythe]

Immune? Are you sure or have you just created an aura of invincibilty to a notion you've developed.

 

Chaff should be effective in the beam against all radars, less effective against doppler is what you mean.

Its a well known fact that 'chaff is overmodelled' in LOMAC and this effects ALL radar missiles drastically, that should be your argument and not fixed on one missile.

 

Um, read what I wrote. Chaff is ineffective against doppler missiles because it has no doppler - if the target has no doppler (i.e. it's beaming the radar), then obviously the missile would find itself in a bit of a doozy. And last time I checked, "doppler missiles" was NOT the same as "only the AIM-120," so I have no idea why you're going on with this "you only want the AMRAAM fixed!" nonsense.

 

Please, let's not prove FF right and have this degenerate into a flame war. If I show you the courtesy of fully reading your posts, the least you can do is do the same for me.

[Frostie]

Um, read what I wrote. Chaff is ineffective against doppler missiles because it has no doppler - if the target has no doppler (i.e. it's beaming the radar), then obviously the missile would find itself in a bit of a doozy. And last time I checked, "doppler missiles" was NOT the same as "only the AIM-120," so I have no idea why you're going on with this "you only want the AMRAAM fixed!" nonsense.

 

Please, let's not prove FF right and have this degenerate into a flame war. If I show you the courtesy of fully reading your posts, the least you can do is do the same for me.

You didn't notice that I stated you should have chosen less effective instead of immune, where is the mis-read?

Beam means at an approx. right angle not necessarily invisible 70-110deg.

[rogue_blade]

man when i go to missile view on my fired AMRAAMs and look at their airspeed it looks as if they fired a drag chute