U.S. Avionic Improvements?

[169th_DedCat]

The improvements you guys have listed here all look great. It's too bad the new high-detailed flight model won't apply to all birds, but I imagine that would require some very serious re-coding.

 

What kind of improvements can we anticipate to the U.S. avionics? A few things that immediately come to mind are related to the F-15's radar.

 

What about including a bullseye that can be set in the mission editor? The real F-15 has a digital readout on its radar of your bugged contacts heading and distance with respect to the bullseye.

 

What about some more detailed settings for the radar? The real F-15 driver can adjust both the azimuth width and the bar scan elevation height (anywhere from 2 to 6 bars of elevation I believe) right now the bar elevation is stuck to 4.

 

What about making TWS mode keep your primary target in the centre of the scan cone? Every other sim I've seen model TWS does this automatically, but in LOMAC you have adjust your scan cone manually to keep the primary target in the scan area.

 

What about fixing the azimuth slew weirdness in the F-15? Right now the only indication we have of whether the radar is slewed left or right is the what direction an already-locked contact moves when we slew left or right. It looks more like a bug than a feature. In most other sims the azimuth slew is indicated by two circles at the bottom of the radar screen, similarly to how the elevation height is indicated on the left, and slew is only available when in a narrow azimuth width.

 

What about a WACQ mode (wide-area-acquisition) radar mode?

 

What about a VWS (velocity-while-scan) radar mode?

 

Will the selectable high, medium, and auto pulse frequency settings be modeled on the U.S. radar too?

 

Lastly what about the HSI bug (this applies to both U.S. and Russian jets). Right now it displays inaccurate information unless you are in NAV mode.

 

That all said... I'm not ranting here guys, just thinking about other possibilities. :) What you've done so far with 1.1 looks awesome and I'm looking forward to its release.

[Megile]

Good points... any info would be welcome. :D

[Kula66]

This was the answer from Shepski I got to a similar question:

 

No real changes to the F-15 except that the data on the HUD was moved up on the glass allowing a better view over the nose.

 

 

James

[169th_DedCat]

That's really too bad...

[ThirdELTPoznan]

I agree but the work which was made over Su-25T and its advanced model is worth of tribute

[169th_DedCat]

True... what IS being added is quite nice. Thanks ED.

 

Maybe we'll see the types of improvements I mentioned in a later update? Please, please, please... :shock:

[Skywall23]

DedCat we better wait for news about the next project of ED. Chizh said they were going to reveal some details in the next year.

 

Be patiente.

[D-Scythe]

F-15 Avionics

 

Actually, I don't think we need so many things on the AN/APG-63/70. For example, Bullseye is not even implemented in LOMAC, so it will be useless to have a symbol there for nothing.

 

IMO, the F-15 radar only really needs several *minor* updates to bring it up to a more realistic level. Things I really want to see are:

• 1) The ACM modes (Vertical Scan and Boresight) IRL actually scan out to 15 nm, not 10

• 2) Once within burn-through range, there should be no ECM indications on the radar whatsover, even if another aircraft is also jamming further away. Currently, targeting of aircraft within burnthrough range can still be hindered by SOJ aircraft who are still further away.

• 3) An option to reduce the scan cone of the radar (e.g. reducing azimuth or elevation) so that more power is concentrated into a smaller volume of airspace, thus increasing burn-through range

• 4) A 'Sort' or 'Raid Assessment' sub-mode for the TWS, for better targeting if engaging a package of fighters from BVR.

 

IMO, this would be give a fair representation of the real AN/APG-63/70 radar. Of course, many things I mentioned can also be incorporated into the Russian systems, like reducing the scan volume to increase burn-through range, etc.

[169th_DedCat]

Re: F-15 Avionics

 

Bullseye is not even implemented in LOMAC, so it will be useless to have a symbol there for nothing.

That is my point. It SHOULD be implemented. I'm not looking for just a symbol floating around on the F-15's radar to clutter it up, I'm looking for a functional one. My squad currently uses a set waypoint for this task, but having a real bullseye would be a lot easier to use.

 

1) The ACM modes (Vertical Scan and Boresight) IRL actually scan out to 15 nm, not 10

I've argued for this point with the AACQ modes before. A lot of people don't think it is so.

 

3) An option to reduce the scan cone of the radar (e.g. reducing azimuth or elevation) so that more power is concentrated into a smaller volume of airspace, thus increasing burn-through range

This would be the adjustable bar elevation scan height I was talking about. We can already adjust the azimuth from the full 160 (?) degrees and something that looks like 80 degrees... but slewing it left or right is silly because it isn't modeled properly (see above). The radar slews the earth below the radar display icons rather than the icons themselves. The azimuth limit indicators should move from side to side instead.

 

4) A 'Sort' or 'Raid Assessment' sub-mode for the TWS, for better targeting if engaging a package of fighters from BVR.

...a zoom mode like in Jane's F/A-18. This would be nice, though I don't know if the F-15 of the LOMAC era has it IRL. Unless you're flying against AI, very few LOMAC pilots can fly in close enough formation to necessitate this tough. :)

 

I'd rather just a TWS mode that actually TRACKS while it scans. :roll:

[D-Scythe]

Re: F-15 Avionics

 

That is my point. It SHOULD be implemented. I'm not looking for just a symbol floating around on the F-15's radar to clutter it up, I'm looking for a functional one. My squad currently uses a set waypoint for this task, but having a real bullseye would be a lot easier to use.

 

My post was a suggestion of what I think should be the bare minimum if ED was to do an add-on for the West. I wasn't bashing your post - what I meant was that the coding it would take to implement Bullseye into the game, which is non-existent right now, would take far too much work and time when it could be spent on something else instead. For one, the whole AWACs/fighter declaration system currently in LOMAC would have to be re-written/modify to make such a system work.

 

Personally, more time and effort should be spent on smarter AI that uses advanced tactics (like in Falcon 4.0 - just as an example, not a comparison).

 

I've argued for this point with the AACQ modes before. A lot of people don't think it is so.

 

Tell them to argue with Steve Davies.

 

This would be the adjustable bar elevation scan height I was talking about. We can already adjust the azimuth from the full 160 (?) degrees and something that looks like 80 degrees... but slewing it left or right is silly because it isn't modeled properly (see above). The radar slews the earth below the radar display icons rather than the icons themselves. The azimuth limit indicators should move from side to side instead.

 

Actually, I think the only mode where you can slew the radar left or right is TWS, like how it was modelled in Janes F-15.

 

I'd rather just a TWS mode that actually TRACKS while it scans. :roll:

 

What do you mean? The current TWS mode works fine for me.

[GGTharos]

No, it doesn't.

 

If you burn-through on a jamming target and try to bug it the radar will jump to STT.

 

If you bug a non-jamming contact first, it'll bug the jamming one without going to STT -however-, you cannot switch contact priority either which sucks.

[Shepski]

No, it doesn't.

 

If you burn-through on a jamming target and try to bug it the radar will jump to STT.

 

If you bug a non-jamming contact first, it'll bug the jamming one without going to STT -however-, you cannot switch contact priority either which sucks.

 

I guess if you removed the ECM capability out of Lock On altogether it would make things much more simple. :)

 

I have no problem with TWS tracking targets after one or more are bugged. A RAID breakout mode would be very welcome but I have no idea if it's suitable for the APG-63v1.

 

Personally... for the first effort and the fact Eagle Dynamics also had to model the A-10A at the same time, I think they did very well with the F-15.

 

We had to wait almost 10 years for the Su-27 by Eagle Dynamics to be modeled to the standard it is now in v1.1. I doubt you'll have to wait that long for the F-15C. :)

[GGTharos]

No, it doesn't.

 

If you burn-through on a jamming target and try to bug it the radar will jump to STT.

 

If you bug a non-jamming contact first, it'll bug the jamming one without going to STT -however-, you cannot switch contact priority either which sucks.

 

I guess if you removed the ECM capability out of Lock On altogether it would make things much more simple. :)

 

I have no problem with TWS tracking targets after one or more are bugged. A RAID breakout mode would be very welcome but I have no idea if it's suitable for the APG-63v1.

 

Personally... for the first effort and the fact Eagle Dynamics also had to model the A-10A at the same time, I think they did very well with the F-15.

 

We had to wait almost 10 years for the Su-27 by Eagle Dynamics to be modeled to the standard it is now in v1.1. I doubt you'll have to wait that long for the F-15C. :)

 

What can I say - I don't know how to pu tit ... okay well, I'll be blunt.

 

I could be -completely- off the mark here, but correcting that particular bug is an issue of merely looking and changing no more than 5 lines of code - this requires reordering those lines and probably changing jsut a bit of the logic within them to have jamming targets treated just a little differently ... basically jsut add a check to see if burn-through has been achieved, and if so, if you're in TWS mode, do NOT go to STT, but to a TWS bug instead.

 

Practically nothing to it. That's why I was expecting it to be fixed.

 

As I said ... my assumption could be -way- off the mark. I'm patient though ... I've already stated that I'm getting 1.1, so far ED has delivered. Maybe they don't deliver everything at once, but I undestand that their resources are limited. They -have- proven that they listen though, and I've got ways of dealing with that bug for now ;)

 

The missile issue I mentioned is more important AFAIK.

[D-Scythe]

Sorry man!!

 

I accidentally edited your post but I quoted you in my reply on the next page.

 

:oops:

[GGTharos]

There's a bunch of new autopilot modes as I understand, and the F-15's visibility has been improved for landing ... as well, we get a Lofting AMRAAM now (the R-77 gets the same though)

[Shepski]

[

I could be -completely- off the mark here, but correcting that particular bug is an issue of merely looking and changing no more than 5 lines of code

 

I have absolutely no idea what it takes to code or change code so I have no answer... sorry.

[Shepski]

by D-Scythe

If ED modelled the AN/APG-63v1, then it would almost _definitely_ have a RAID breakout mode. The AN/APG-63v1 is the most advanced non-AESA radar available to the F-15 to date: for example, the latest F-15Es and the F-15Ks for Korea are equipped with the APG-63v1. Personally, I don't think its the AN/APG-63v1 though - it's too new.

 

Sorry but I meant the original APG-63... I forgot the "v1" model is the upgraded version.

 

The original APG-63 had no RAID mode and it's AACQ modes were only good to a range of 10nm. I think this is what you are seeing in Lock On... the first version APG-63 in the F-15C. The improved APG-63 has the RAID mode, 15nm AACQ mode range, and better look down capability but we don't have that in Lock On. MSIP II added the APG-70.

 

I sure hope so. The F-15C is a blast to fly. Speaking of which, does anyone know if there is *any* chance the F-15/A-10 would get a little update in something beyond V1.1? Or are we all wasting our time, dreaming of a perfect Western add-on that may never materialize? :wink:

 

There is always a chance. :)

[169th_DedCat]

Re: F-15 Avionics

 

I wasn't bashing your post

I didn't think you were. Sorry if you got that impression.

 

...the coding it would take to implement Bullseye into the game ... would take far too much work ... the whole AWACs/fighter declaration system currently in LOMAC would have to be re-written

I don't see why that would HAVE to be re-written, unless you are also planning to beef-up the AWACS AI. I don't want a bullseye for AWACS vectors. I want a bullseye in order to better communicate map positions to others in the game. I don't think adding that kind of compass information to the radar would be all that difficult to achieve in a follow-up patch/add-on.

 

This is a multi-player wish, not a single player one.

 

Actually, I think the only mode where you can slew the radar left or right is TWS, like how it was modelled in Janes F-15.

No you can in fact slew the F-15's radar in TWS, RWS, and even STT in LOMAC, even when TWS/RWS is at its max azimuth... it's just more difficult to tell what the hell is gong on in RWS.

 

What do you mean? The current TWS mode works fine for me.

TWS mode currently does display vector information about the contacts it finds, and it will plot a continuous course for the contacts you have bugged, but if they move above, below, or to the side of your radar scan cone limits they will quickly fade (which can easily occur if you have radically different angels from your target). The TWS mode should work to keep the primary target you have bugged close to the centre of the radar sweep pattern, just as the dish would move to keep itself centred on the contact it is tracking in STT mode. Presently you have to anticipate this yourself and slew the cone accordingly.

 

TWS currently plots a contact's expected course and updates it, but it doesn't really TRACK anything since it completely disregards its plots angels and makes no effort to maintain contact with them.

[D-Scythe]

 

Sorry but I meant the original APG-63... I forgot the "v1" model is the upgraded version.

 

The original APG-63 had no RAID mode and it's AACQ modes were only good to a range of 10nm. I think this is what you are seeing in Lock On... the first version APG-63 in the F-15C. The improved APG-63 has the RAID mode, 15nm AACQ mode range, and better look down capability but we don't have that in Lock On. MSIP II added the APG-70.

 

Actually, my assumption that the AN/APG-63V1 would have RAID is mostly due to the fact that the AN/APG-70 had it. In reality, it is the MSIP -70 radar that had the 15 nm AACQ modes, RAID etc. Once again, there is the confusion of exactly what model of the F-15C is modelled, although it -should- be the AN/APG-70, with all the bells and whistles, because the MPCD at the bottom left of the cockpit is only found in MSIP F-15Cs.

 

That's why I think that the AACQ ranges should be extended to 15 nm. Because Steve Davies says so :D

 

Cat, about the Bullseye thing, the aircraft in SP and MP are still the same, so even though what you want is mainly for MP, doesn't mean it won't affect the game adversely. Don't get me wrong, Bullseye would be fine and dandy for me, but there are other things that could do what you want just as effectively...like JTIDS, as unlikely as that may be :wink:

[169th_DedCat]

Cat, about the Bullseye thing, the aircraft in SP and MP are still the same, so even though what you want is mainly for MP, doesn't mean it won't affect the game adversely.

 

All that would be required for a bullseye is a point in space, much like a waypoint, from which course bearing and range information can be determined, much like a waypoint. The game calculates the exact latitude and longitude in degrees minutes and seconds for every object in the game, I can't imagine determining range and direction between two points with that kind of information being all that difficult. All that would be required is to display that info digitally on the radar wrt to the contact or TDC's position. Logically the game should already have most of the elements it needs to use bullseye positioning minus a couple simple mathematical operations.

[Shepski]

Actually, my assumption that the AN/APG-63V1 would have RAID is mostly due to the fact that the AN/APG-70 had it. In reality, it is the MSIP -70 radar that had the 15 nm AACQ modes, RAID etc. Once again, there is the confusion of exactly what model of the F-15C is modelled, although it -should- be the AN/APG-70, with all the bells and whistles, because the MPCD at the bottom left of the cockpit is only found in MSIP F-15Cs.

 

That's why I think that the AACQ ranges should be extended to 15 nm. Because Steve Davies says so :D

 

In Lock On I don't think there is a standard APG-63 model and it seems to combine features of the original and of v1. The full color MPCD is part of the APG-70 and replaced the PACS.

 

It's funny because I own Steve's book and that's where I get my information from. :) He says that the original-63, not the improved one, has the 10nm range AACQ modes and no RAID.

[D-Scythe]

In Lock On I don't think there is a standard APG-63 model and it seems to combine features of the original and of v1. The full color MPCD is part of the APG-70 and replaced the PACS.

 

It's funny because I own Steve's book and that's where I get my information from. :) He says that the original-63, not the improved one, has the 10nm range AACQ modes and no RAID.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant: 15 nm AACQ for the APG-70 and -63V1 and 10 nm for the vanilla 63. I was just saying that I don't think that the -63 is modelled (or if it was, it shouldn't) because the LOMAC F-15C resembles the MSIP F-15C more than the basic F-15C.

 

That's why I think that AACQ should be extended to 15nm. But whatever...