Hyperlobby Server with 80s weapons only

[RvEYoda]

.

 

Hyperlobby Server with 80s weapons only

 

.

 

I'm writing this to see how much interest there is in

playing on a "80s style" lockon server with strict weapon rules.

I'm also interested in knowledge of what weapons would need to be cut!

 

Missions will be rotated based on the outcome of previous ones

(semi-dynamic linear two way campaign)

 

Essentially what this means is that you are only allowed to

use predefined loadouts of weapons that match air combat

before active missiles. For me it feels like the semi-active missiles

and heatseekers in lockon are modelled in such a way that creates a more

consistent type of combat. Statistically this should also reduce the number of exploits used.

 

What kind of experience might this give for a2a combat online?

Naturally no Amraam or Adder. Whether other weapons should

be cut we will have to see. There would be a lot more close combat

and ... generally more dogfighting :). Team tactics would also become

more important since engaging multiple targets at one would be more difficult

 

What I'm thinking is the following :

 

Mig-29A : All standard lockon weapons allowed

Su-27 : R-73, R-27T(does this fit on su27?), R-27R (No R-27E..)

F-15 : Aim-7 and Aim-9

Mig-29S : Don't include this plane

 

archers are going to kick *ss....

 

1. What weapons should be cut?

 

1. What ground units should be cut?

 

.

Edited August 12, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[X-man]

1. R-27E series became operational in early 90's...

 

2. Tor, Avenger

Edited August 12, 2008 by X-man

[RvEYoda]

1. R-27E series became operational in early 90's...

 

2. Tor, Avenger

 

 

Perfect info :)

Edited August 12, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Dunkan Aidaho]

I think Mig-29S cut is a very good idea if you ask me.

[wildcat EAF51]

Nice I think that best age for jet simulator is 70's to midle 90's

[Boberro]

Cool idea! I always prefered semi-active missile fight than boring fire&forget.

 

IMO cut weapons should be:

AIM-120

R-77

R-27ET

 

So with R-27R\ER\EM\T, R-73 and AIM-7 and AIM-9 we can fight well :)

 

oh I didn't notice that some were in service in 1990 :S

Edited August 12, 2008 by Boberro

[RvEYoda]

Ok I'm suggesting all R-27E are removed following the post by X-man!

[RedTiger]

I don't do multiplayer, but I still think this is a cool idea. Looks like you have all your bases covered. You might want to check on ECM. Did the flanker have ECM capability in the 80s?

[RvEYoda]

I don't do multiplayer, but I still think this is a cool idea. Looks like you have all your bases covered. You might want to check on ECM. Did flanker have ECM capability in the 80s?

 

 

Good point.

Anyone know?

[A.S]

Combined with Campaign-Style based missionrotations and nicely desinged missions (up to help here) i think this can become a really good idea.

 

Meanwhile the popularity and the usabilty of exploits became so standart that you cant blame ppl thinking they do the right thing only because it works. (The days of BVR without using radar and brains)

 

As far WE can not change the missile codes ourself by making patches we can still make our scenario more enjoyable on a more interesting level.

[RvETito]

Did the flanker have ECM capability in the 80s?

 

Affrimative. The Su-27P/S is seen with Sorbtsya pods even during tests in mid '80s.

 

I admire that idea. I really enjoyed the '80's weekend at the 51st PVO some time ago though it was only about MiG-29 (9-12) and Su-25. The R-27T has been in the Su-27 arsenal from scratch so it must be in.

 

However, if we have to be so strict that means that the Su-25T also goes out of the game which I'll hardly accept :(

 

Also, no german MiG's neither.

[GGTharos]

If you want 80's, you need the following:

 

No AIM-120 (obviously). No E version of any missiles (no ER/EM/ET) ... no MiG-29S, and few IF ANY flankers (they didn't start entering service in good numbers until 86 - numbers built per year are probably not that great) .. unless you want to play -very- late 80's ... ;)

Edited August 12, 2008 by GGTharos

[wildcat EAF51]

maybe more fun will be if add less skill for missile?

[RvEYoda]

Maybe, Wildcat.

But we would first need to know EXACTLY what it does.

 

From what I can tell the missile efficiency slider does not affect

CM resistance. It only seems to tell the missile if it is allowed to do

a certain maneuver or not. Please correct me if im wrong if you know

what exactly the slider does!

[GGTharos]

The missile has a bit of error in its aimpoint. Reducing missile accuracy increases this error. In other words, it will physically miss you. There's no point in doing this as these missiles already reasonably reflect a vietnam-era Pk.

[RvEYoda]

The missile has a bit of error in its aimpoint. Reducing missile accuracy increases this error. In other words, it will physically miss you. There's no point in doing this as these missiles already reasonably reflect a vietnam-era Pk.

 

ok :)

 

Edit : What i noticed is that this error seems much LARGER for R-77 and Amraam compared to R-27 and Aim-7.

Edited August 12, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[A.S]

Yeah just to mention ongoing talks... only 80s SAMs :smilewink:

[Dunkan Aidaho]

Affrimative. The Su-27P/S is seen with Sorbtsya pods even during tests in mid '80s.

Yes, but airwar.ru saying that Su-27 were officialy put in service only in 1990 due to electronic incompleteness, mainly ECM.

Однако некоторые системы бортового радиоэлектронного оборудования (в первую очередь, аппаратура РЭП и система управлении групповыми действиями) требовали дополнительных испытаний, которые проводились по специальным программам уже посте окончания ГСИ. После отладки всего комплекса БРЭО Постановлением Совета Министров СССР от 23 aвгycra 1990 г. Су-27 был официально принят на вооружение ВВС и авиации ПВО Советского Союза.

[GGTharos]

It's probably (wild guess) due to their lower speed and higher g-loading ability. No, don't ask for an explanation. ;)

 

Kinda funny considering that the APN onboard those would be much better behaved than on the SARH missiles.

 

ok :)

 

Edit : What i noticed is that this error seems much LARGER for R-77 and Amraam compared to R-27 and Aim-7.

[RvEYoda]

What does APN stand for?

A-something Proportional Navigation?

[GGTharos]

Well, you only didn't get the 'Advanced' part ;)

 

The difference is that (commonly, or at least publicly) APN also incorporates the known closure into the equation, not just the LOS - so LOS can be allowed to drift based on closure, allowing the missile to do a single lead-turn and avoid further corrections due to the nature of normal PN.

[GGTharos]

Further I ask - are you going to try to produce a mission where the fighter employment is realistic - ie. the F-15's would have to fly a long way to the front, where MiGs would be stationed within 100nm of it (the 'dash, shoot, go back home' principle of MiG-29 use) ... ?

 

I guess people probably won't be wanting to play this sort of thing.

[Case]

Excellent idea Yoda! S!

[RvEYoda]

The concept will be there, but I would maybe not go to the full extent of of

500 nm flights ;).

 

F-15s will have longer to fly yes. Not full Locerf length though

 

What I'm thinking is a ratio or

NATO : 3 f-15

USSR : 4 Mig29A + 1 Su-27

 

Tasks would be assigned based on takeoff airfield and plane type

[GGTharos]

If the distances aren't long enough, then it's pretty much pointless IMHO - but I view it in a different way I suppose ... it's just going to be airquake with '80's weapons'. ;)

 

Sticking MiG-29A's 100nm (or a little less) from the front and F-15's 200nm away should do ... IMHO. Anyway ... just my 2c on that.

 

Also, how will you police payloads?