Patch 1.13 Requested Features/Fixes List (*Merged)

[Pilotasso]

If you want more realistic missile behavior, you're playing the wrong game ;)

 

No game at all. Not falcon 4 or anything else to this moment. DCS may just be the first to do things properly, maybe not entirely accurate but at least properly guessed and calculated.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

I used the qualified 'more' ... Falcon's missiles definitely behave in a more realistic manner than LOMAC's. I know they have their own quirks. ;)

[A.S]

thats what i wanted to have said : maddog in real live = VERY RARE

 

(why?? ...it makes no sense at all execpt few very rare conditions and its NOT a standart "tactic" as so often believed in)

 

thx you GG

[Pilotasso]

To be honest I dont think "more" is even appliable at this moment. Just modeled wrong on the oppsosite way. ;)

[RedTiger]

MADDOG!

Sort it out, it totally ruins BVR.

 

Whether its an ET, 77 or 120 it just makes engagements a joke.

Im tired of seeing streams of people living of this tactic all day every day, mostly in Mig's, maddog missiles from 20-30km then RTB and wait for the kills to rack up its pathetic and makes LO BVR tactics a joke.

 

Ive seen dead 120's and 77's suddenly acquire targets upto 90deg off the nose, WTF this is a 180deg scan cone ffs when in reality it should have a boremode size scan.

Active missile maddog is a real life tactic but in LO its a ridiculous arcade function.

 

People actually do this? Yuck! Sounds like the Napoleonic Warfare approach to BVR.

[GGTharos]

It actually works nicely in LO and makes up for other defficiencies - it is basically unfixable in its current state.

 

And yes Pilotasso, 'more'. More because it makes you fly more like a real pilot would fly his BVR, and that's the important part ;)

[RedTiger]

**Disclaimer: I have never played Red Viper, OF, or the original Falcon 4.0 in any form. Only Allied Force. I have never played against another human opponent.

 

Pilotasso, what aspect of Falcon's missiles do think is modeled 'the wrong way'?

 

I'll refrain from commmenting on SARH missiles since those are avoided by standard and realistic tactics. Also R-27Ts and ETs have a datalink in AF, which makes them unrealistically deadly, but thats a different story. As far as ARH missiles go, since thats what started this, what part of them is not realistic in Falcon?

 

You get first get nails on the RWR. MAYBE a spike, maybe not. Whatever it is, its brief and quite unassuming. In reality you've just been bugged and you probably have an R-77 or slammer coming your way. If you do nothing at the time, you're chances of survival are not great. Once you get the warning that the missile has gone active and is now homing in on you...you be dead. Spoofing or shakeing either one of those at that point is very, very, VERY difficult. You have to really work to try and get a first launch or remain undetected. Once you get that RWR contact, you had better start thinking about notching the bandit or dragging the missile immediately.

 

Isn't this exactly what gets discussed to death about the Aim-120? No launch warning? A RWR spike at the last minute when it goes active, and at that point, futility in avoiding it?

 

The R-77 in Falcon is an Aim-120 painted red, which isn't realistic. The R-77 is also as common as dirt, also unrealistic. But the overall behavior of ARHs in general seems very realistic.

[GGTharos]

Allied Force has poor IR seeker modeling in the opposite direction of that from LOMAC's ... ie ... too hard to break lock.

[monotwix]

What would happen if you paste Allied Force into LOMAC?

Answer: LOMAC pastry.

[A.S]

Anyone here ever extensivly tried AF and met Devs and Testers from old to nowadays.....and asked them how things were made?

 

You would be suprised i guess.

[monotwix]

I would be surprised to know how LOMAC was made as well, please tell.

[RedTiger]

Anyone here ever extensivly tried AF and met Devs and Testers from old to nowadays.....and asked them how things were made?

 

You would be surprised i guess.

 

I'd like to know where they did their research for OpFor aircraft. There's little details in them that are pretty accurate (like the MiG-29 FM for example. Even the simplified AI model has some of the halmarks of the real thing). Others seem to be just speculation and the dreaded "Blue painted Red" syndrome I somehow always go on and on about. :D

[A.S]

for this we could go deep and best with right persons...but

 

what i just say myself after all this, is this.

 

Simulator: tries to get all cruicial variables responsible for behaviours like radar, missiles, Seaker (the hard part cuz classified) flight physic) and tries to use all these fundemental variables implemented in order to simulate real conditions based on these real circumstances.

This required deep research, as good and as real as possible (datas and math and code)

 

Game: generates a graphical user interface or surface appearing as a almost simulated environment with such functions.

 

:megalol:

[GGTharos]

Which is exactly why just about any 'simulator' you play on your PC is a game ... some get it a little better than others, but in the end, the only people who wish to make the simulator v game distinction are those who are into wishful thinking ;)

[A.S]

weren´t most things not just wishfull thinkings before they become reality :smilewink:

 

Im not talking bout a CrayII PC able to calculate worlds weahter on Home PC and then this in a sim.

Just basic things, like locking-NOT-locking ECMs until burn-through...and how .....Flaps with 500km/h..at 5 Gs .better missile seaker cones....

very very simple things easy to change (should be) ....so finally gameplay becomes more "real" <<< what ugly word.

 

It might sound like critics....but positiv critics....development lives from critics and evolution...

Edited September 17, 2008 by A.S

[Frostie]

You expecting GG to contradict himself, now thats wishful thinking.:D

[GGTharos]

Yes. I am posting from the bridge of the USS Enterprise right now ;)

[Frostie]

Back on topic any news of the change to straight and narrow scan active missiles?:cheer3nc:

[GGTharos]

No. Why break them even worse than they are broken already? There would be a good number of things that would need to be fixed up to not make missiles WORSE than they already are before the scan zone can be narrowed. And it's just highly unlikely that it'll happen in LO ... (on the other hand, reducing to something a little more reasonable than scanning the ENTIRE scan zone ... )

[monotwix]

An ass of a fighter couldn’t make a sense of it either.

[hitman]

Yes. I am posting from the bridge of the USS Enterprise right now ;)

Coooooool!:D

[EFcrazy]

Hey Peyoteros your avatar pic is awesome!

[GTengineer]

Which is exactly why just about any 'simulator' you play on your PC is a game ... some get it a little better than others, but in the end, the only people who wish to make the simulator v game distinction are those who are into wishful thinking ;)

 

Back in 1998, we used to call this a "simulator" :lol:

 

I will never call anything a simulator again because in 5-6 years from now I will feel silly once again for doing so :D

[Ironhand]

VSD Aspect Angle Fix

 

As it currently exists in FC 1.12, the VSD does not display the Aspect Angle. Rather it displays the DTG (Degrees-to-go): Aspect Angle Fix. The complete thread is here: ATTN: F-15 Drivers: Aspect Angle ?. Sure would be nice to include the fix in a patch. Unless I'm completely mistaken as to how the sim is calculating the angles, it's a matter of substituting the bearing-to-bogie value (already calculated and displayed on the VSD) for the player a/c heading in the formula being used.

 

Rich

Edited September 29, 2008 by Ironhand

[A.S]

As it currently exists in FC 1.12, the VSD does not display the Aspect Angle. Rather it displays the DTG (Degrees-to-go): Aspect Angle Fix. The complete thread is here: ATTN: F-15 Drivers: Aspect Angle ?. Sure would be nice to include the fix in a patch. Unless I'm completely mistaken as to how the sim is calculating the angles, it's a matter of substituting the bearing-to-bogie value (already calculated and displayed on the VSD) for the player a/c heading in the formula being used.

 

Rich

 

 

Corrected bugs and added features 1.12b

Compatibility with the Windows Vista Operating System.

"Ghost" spikes and nails on RWR SPO-15 and TEWS bug fixed.

Corrected target acquisition for SAM depending on range to given target. SAM's will now engage the closest target first.

Random MP ("Multiplayer") black screens fixed.

Fixed incorrect MP flaps animation on A-10A. Removed combat flaps position on F-15C and Su-33.

Engine sound on MP aircraft will play correctly now according to actual RPM.

Upper inlet animation on MP MiG-29 during engine startup sequence is fixed.

Canopy open/close speed on all MP aircraft is now correct.

Increased the power of the anti tank mine (landmine object in the Static Objects list).

F-15 HUD target designator "freeze" bug fixed.

The target range is no longer displayed on the F-15 HUD in HOJ mode.

F-15 VSD target bearing indication fixed.

F-15 radar scan width settings no longer reset after locking a target.

F-15 range to target HUD indication when AIM-9 selected is fixed.

F-15 TWS designated targets are no longer tracked when a target goes out of radar FOV when using a narrow azimuth.

Su-27/33 and MiG-29A/S/G HPRF and MPRF head-on detection range is fixed.

Jammer detection range logic fixed.

Spectator's ping logic fixed.

SAM missiles can not longer see targets thought terrain.

Ship Fiendly Fire bug fixed.

Application/PC freeze when changing object in mission editor when summary window is active is fixed.

A2A missiles resistance to passive counter-measures is tuned.

Standard Flight Model aircraft take-off shaking effect in MP removed.

Game block during mission loading which was appearing at the end of month is fixed.

Implemented a new joystick profile system. Now a player can use several joysticks of the same type and name. Each joystick instance will have a unique configuration file by way of a uniquely assigned GUID.

Axis smooth logic fixed.

The drag index for ECM MPS-410 "Omul", L-081 "Fantasmagoria", ODAB-500 has been decreased.

AGM-114 and AGM-65E missiles now have the proportional navigation type homing.

BGM-109, P-700 and P-500 missiles main engine operation time is fixed.

CH-47D, SH-53E, AH-1W, UH-60A, Mi-8 will operate from carrier deck now.

Target aspect indication in track mode is fixed.

STT track memory logic fixed.

F-15 radar freeze bug fixed.

Rearm using Alt-R is fixed.

The indication in STT mode on Russian fighters with range to target more than 100km is fixed.

Kh-55 cruise missile removed.

Tu-22M3 is no longer carries the Kh-65 missiles.

The bug with vehicles positions located over structures in MP is fixed.

EOS lock range is fixed.

9M114 ATGM warhead strength is tuned.

 

:music_whistling: