Debunking RVE MOD myths.

[A.S]

post #89

[RvEYoda]

Kuky all engineering and math are in the basics based

on reasonable estimation and approximate facts. None are black

and white. We have not taken numbers our of nowhere, but simply

moved closer to what can be reasonably and statistically assumed as

the truth. This is the basis for all new tech and simulation. There is no

such thing as a golden number of what is right and wrong.

 

All estimations have been made out of sources such as flight manuals,

pilots, aircraft crew and people with extensive avionics knowledge

like your own squad's STRIKER for example. None are pure speculation.

 

About flaps automatic control. The automatic retract is not always as realistic

in the sense of retracting.

 

But ask yourself why we do it : What is the reason we implement it?

 

The reason is that lockon flaps in LANDING position offer too much extra lift

and instantaneous turn rate and real flaps would also take damage, possibly

rip off (variations in production, stress, age, usage, etc would make the exact number

impossible and you would get a probability range to deal with instead). So what happens

with allowing flaps?

 

You create flight envelopes especially in dogfighting that simply do not exist in the real jets.

You create maneuvers and approaches that should simply not exist.

So the choice of realism becomes : Do we want to have these unrealistic maneuvers available

or do we want flaps retracting instead of breaking? - THAT and nothing else is the reason for the flaps code.

 

Gear airbrake/code can be debated in the same way, but it's really only critical for the case of the flaps

Edited October 7, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

Just to make this point further, and a bit of an answer to Kuky:

 

Using flaps with Aileron defelction at slow speed/high AoA in a manner consistent with BFM not only can over-stress the flaps (and the wing, as the flaps are part of the structural integrity), but it WILL make the aircraft extremely prone to stalling one wing or the other.

There is a reason why a prohibition exists against fighting with the flaps down for many aircraft; these are swept-wing jet fighters, not your WW2 straight-wing fighters where this was in fact a viable use of flaps.

 

What G's and speeds to those things happen at? A number of those conditions are well described in aircraft flight manuals, along with prohibited maneuvers, performance parameters, etc etc.

 

The purpose of LRM has a secondary function of making an aircraft behave realistically, and a PRIMARY function of forcing realistic air combat behavior.

 

And before you say we're guessing as to what realistic behavior in air combat is ... no, we aren't. ;)

You have a great resource to ask yourself in the 3rd, Kuky, and that's Sven. So I really suggest you go asking about before you accuse us of guesswork again - where we did make guesses, they're well educated. Where we did things that the 'real plane doesn't do', we did so for a reason - and that reason again, is that we're limited in what we CAN do, but what we CAN do also suits our primary goal:

 

More realistic air to air combat behavior.

Edited October 7, 2008 by GGTharos

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

post #89

Thanks.

[DarkWanderer]

All estimations have been made out of sources such as flight manuals,

pilots, aircraft crew and people with extensive avionics knowledge

like your own squad's STRIKER for example. None are pure speculation.

...except AMRAAM tweaking.

 

A number of those conditions are well described in aircraft flight manuals, along with prohibited maneuvers, performance parameters, etc etc.

I think, providing exact citations from manuals will do much better than a big bunch of loud words.

[A.S]

...except AMRAAM tweaking.

 

 

I think, providing exact citations from manuals will do much better than a big bunch of loud words.

 

would you please ask THIS to ED why lockon is how it is ? :music_whistling:

 

PS: Amraams havent been touched AT ALL in all its behaviour ;)

[Pilotasso]

...except AMRAAM tweaking.

 

 

I think, providing exact citations from manuals will do much better than a big bunch of loud words.

 

AFAIk the AMRAAM hanst been touched, AND the real thing is mach 4+ not mach 2.5 FYI.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Pilotasso

[A.S]

pilotasso...i think most ppl have right to question new changes ...why ...and based on what ..etc etc...all fair.

 

but i also think they dont have much comparsions with sources or other sims to analyse the missing parts or lacks...to understand WHY this all is done.

 

sometimes i hear from others...Lockon is the most realistic sim ever :doh: .. i understand why they feel so...cuz the immersion and the gfx....and that little bit shaking in pit......but not alot are really going deep down in the topic with math and datas ....and lots of studies.

 

the problem here is (for new changes) to explain this in such a way it can be trusted.....

i mean we dont use the brand ED and all is accepted...we just try to improve things... if you understand. ..

but not out of the blue !

Edited October 7, 2008 by A.S

[mibsk]

There's just too many subtypes for each missile mentioned ... so discusion if the modelling is accurrate (or how much accurate) is off the road ... (some nice reading: http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html

or more preciselly: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html )

 

There's not much real data ... but there might be quite funded info of what real pilots would do or not/what are they trained for/what they should avoid etc. ... If what guys do will force us to approximate that behaviour ... we should be fine with that ... "as the same rules apply for both sides" (as RedTiger said ) ...

[Pilotasso]

AS I was replying to Darkwonderer :)

 

EDIT: added his quote.

[A.S]

I strongly believe (for some reason) that DCS can in future deliver way more accurate things. Starting from the complexity of already made systems down to more accurate datas related to missile performances and seaker logics....and FlightModels (Su-25T was a nice approach)

THEN alot here will defintily see a HUGE difference...hopefully :thumbup:

 

PS: i know pilotasso....still i had to say these words...cuz thats the problem....getting things explained and accepted.

Edited October 7, 2008 by A.S

[Pilotasso]

I strongly believe (for some reason) that DCS can in future deliver way more accurate things. Starting from the complexity of already made systems down to more accurate data related to missile performances and seaker logics....

THEN alot here will defintily see a HUGE difference...hopefully :thumbup:

 

There's just too many subtypes for each missile mentioned ... so discusion if the modelling is accurrate (or how much accurate) is off the road ... (some nice reading: http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html

or more preciselly: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html )

 

There's not much real data ... but there might be quite funded info of what real pilots would do or not/what are they trained for/what they should avoid etc. ... If what guys do will force us to approximate that behaviour ... we should be fine with that ... "as the same rules apply for both sides" (as RedTiger said ) ...

 

thing is that while there are many subvariants we will only see few of them modeled. Plus even in DCS we will only have good guesses because search patterns, exact range (and no escape zones) are/will be still very classified. ED has in posession of a few contrabanded videos wich give a few clues though ;)

 

the only thing you might expect about different versions of missiles will probabbly be range (estimated) and ecm/clutter tolerance.

 

the AMRAAM ingame doesnt belong to any particular variant even though its listed as the AIM-120C.

 

Its speed should be closer to 4000km/h (and I suspect Im am subtracting at çeast 500km/h) in standar launch conditions (3000 feet at mach 0.9) and have a max range in the area of 30 miles for A and B versions, 40+ miles for C and probably more for D.

 

LOMAC AMRAAM flies at 3000km a max range of arround 25 miles but it drops short very early if the target manuevers at all. LOMAC AMRAAM also accelerates instantly to max speed while the real thing accelerates slower and its speed is limited by burn time and not by drag.

 

So while we supposedly have the AIM-120C in the game it behaves worse than an A version with the mottor of the sidwinder (thsts why its nicknamed RAMwinder ;) )

 

That is something we cant change and would make things feel very different at BVR.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Pilotasso

[A.S]

thing is that while there are many subvariants we will only see few of them modeled. Plus even in DCS we will only have good guesses because search patterns, exact range (and no escape zones) are/will be still very classified. ED has in posession of a few contrabanded videos wich give a few clues though ;)

 

the only thing you might expect about different versions of missiles will probabbly be range (estimated) and ecm/clutter tolerance.

 

 

hmm well...in falcon community things are well documented..why they are made how they are....and knowing right ppl you get deep explanations to track down the prescission.

there are really good sources out there..i agree hard to find ..but very accurate....and the highly classified parts...well thats the part to improvise for coders..but in a smart reasonable way !

 

one simple example: Lockon 120 scans better then my radar ..so why i shouldnt maddog ? << and folks think thats real....thats where all the irritations start already.

 

try AF....shoot an 120 on target....tape it...and watch its flight geometry and data (its like tacview) :) <<< new worlds :))

Edited October 7, 2008 by A.S

[Boneski]

No, never used the mod because.

 

There is no need. It would do nothing to enhance the gaming experience beyond what the game offers now. (Please understand that is just an opinion... a single opinion nothing more. In no way is that statement true for any of you that have used and enjoyed the mod)

 

The reason for not using the mod is that Lock On as is works great when used with the understanding of what it is the game represents.

Does that mean the mod is wrong... no! Does that mean the mod is right? no. It means that the mod is going to be great for those that feel this is a good fix for what ever issues they perceive.

 

 

Side Note. This mod makes changes today... Tomorrow, A new Group may makes a mod that builds on what the current group has done but changes something they feel needs to be changed and changes something back that the current group's mod changed. For example control surface scheduling.

They too will claim they have talked to people and read about data to support their idea of realism.... Whose mode is correct?

 

With RVE and the New mod creators battle it out. Will sever owners be torn between the old mod and the new mod?

Because you know there are teams right now working on script changes… Changes that will make something better and more “realistic”.

Basically what you end up with in the end. Is a customize application that fits your personal concept of reality.

 

Interpretation and guess work has very little to do with realism that fact should be accepted. And that’s okay. This is a game and it should and will remain that way... If the kids over at ED pick up this mod and add it to the official game then it becomes cannon with in the Lock On world. All will accept it.

 

As for book, data, videos and information... Awesome! Keep reading.. keep up the good work. Knowledge is key. This community is full of smart people with great

ideas. The people behind this mod and the mods to come are very smart people. They should be very proud of their creation. This is what makes the Flight Sim community very cool. People’s willingness to help.

 

As for posting for Banter... < 250 post is a very low number bro. So banter is not a catalyst.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Boneski

[RvEFuSiOn]

No, never used the mod because.

 

There is no need. It would do nothing to enhance the gaming experience beyond what the game offers now. (Please understand that is just an opinion... a single opinion nothing more. In no way is that statement true for any of you that have used and enjoyed the mod)

 

The reason for not using the mod is that Lock On as is works great when used with the understanding of what it is the game represents.

Does that mean the mod is wrong... no! Does that mean the mod is right? no. It means that the mod is going to be great for those that feel this is a good fix for what ever issues they perceive.

 

 

Side Note. This mod makes changes today... Tomorrow, A new Group may makes a mod that builds on what the current group has done but changes something they feel needs to be changed and changes something back that the current group's mod changed. For example control surface scheduling.

They too will claim they have talked to people and read about data to support their idea of realism.... Whose mode is correct?

 

With RVE and the New mod creators battle it out. Will sever owners be torn between the old mod and the new mod?

Because you know there are teams right now working on script changes… Changes that will make something better and more “realistic”.

Basically what you end up with in the end. Is a customize application that fits your personal concept of reality.

 

Interpretation and guess work has very little to do with realism that fact should be accepted. And that’s okay. This is a game and it should and will remain that way... If the kids over at ED pick up this mod and add it to the official game then it becomes cannon with in the Lock On world. All will accept it.

 

As for book, data, videos and information... Awesome! Keep reading.. keep up the good work. Knowledge is key. This community is full of smart people with great

ideas. The people behind this mod and the mods to come are very smart people. They should be very proud of their creation. This is what makes the Flight Sim community very cool. People’s willingness to help.

 

As for posting for Banter... < 250 post is a very low number bro. So banter is not a catalyst.

 

 

 

Again from your post i can see you are here for nothing but the banter. I haven't read a single objective thing in there.

You talk about "fits your personal concept of reality" and if u actually read through this entire thread, you would realize that these things implemented are as close to realism as Lockon's code allows us to get.

 

Don't sit there and lecture about things you have absolutely no clue about, you are doing a big disservice to the people that actually look for information on this thread, as I have said before and im saying again, I havent read a single objective thing in any of your posts regarding this modification. The mere fact that you post nonsense in different words every single post is testimony enough to the fact you have no clue about what you are talking about.

So here is my next question to you, have you actually gone through the Mod manual to see what it fixes? Because i suspect that's a big NO too?

 

 

Ehhh.... More i read More im shocked at the ignorance

 

[ScEBlack1]

Hello guys, is there a possibility that this Mod will be available for single player, I understand it wont affect A.I. but it would still be beneficial to those of us who enjoy "more realistic" gameplay, thanks for creating this mod to begin with, it is great for the lockon community.

[RvEYoda]

Yeah, once the few problems with it have been ironed out and all

the numbers and tweaking have been settled, then we can start thinking

about single player implementations. However many things will be unavailable

due to LUA nature of the mod.

Edited October 7, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Pilotasso]

Boneski, get a clue and then opiniate, otherwise your just talking cheap.

[Frostie]

One thing in this mod im unsure about is the Mig's Radar.

 

Changes when flying 150m-500m:

Mig-29 has a very small chance of losing lock.

 

Why punish the Mig which already by default has realistically the weakest radar in the game.

This seems to me an unproven case which could be misinterpreted as a FanBois opinion rather than actual fact.

[Boneski]

You should stop reading the post... How many ways can it be said that what has been done is great worK??? Maybe there is a disconnect there.???

 

I havent read a single objective thing in any of your posts regarding this modification. The mere fact that you post nonsense in different words every single post is testimony enough to the fact you have no clue about what you are talking about.

So here is my next question to you, have you actually gone through the Mod manual to see what it fixes? Because i suspect that's a big NO too?

 

 

Ehhh.... More i read More im shocked at the ignorance

 

[GGTharos]

One thing in this mod im unsure about is the Mig's Radar.

 

Changes when flying 150m-500m:

Mig-29 has a very small chance of losing lock.

 

Why punish the Mig which already by default has realistically the weakest radar in the game.

This seems to me an unproven case which could be misinterpreted as a FanBois opinion rather than actual fact.

 

 

You could always go ahead and try to find out why sidelobes near the ground could be a serious problem for a cassegrain antenna.

 

Or you could also listen to pilot testimony, or ... but we wouldn't do anything like that, we just guessed and happened to be right after all - magic ;)

Edited October 7, 2008 by GGTharos

[Pilotasso]

You should stop reading the post...

 

we could, but your influencing other readers negatively for nothing but clueless claims. Since its their work I think they have the right to defend it instead of shuting up and swalow everything you say, dont you think?

[RvEYoda]

One thing in this mod im unsure about is the Mig's Radar.

 

Changes when flying 150m-500m:

Mig-29 has a very small chance of losing lock.

 

Why punish the Mig which already by default has realistically the weakest radar in the game.

This seems to me an unproven case which could be misinterpreted as a FanBois opinion rather than actual fact.

 

its neither a fanboy thing or unproven (I'll try to get back to you with the proof if you would like),

however in this case it's probably not even necessary, so the 150-500 m

interval will probably be cut out in later versions. The effect in that interval

is so negligible anyway, so that there is no realy point in keeping it just

for the sake of it. It's like gaining 1% more realism for lots more processing

and argument. the important part is how we deal with the sub 20m-bullshit

 

The sensitivity of self-jamming in combination with mig-29 radar is noted

as radar problems below a certain altitude range in the Mig-29 flight manual.

However I don't know russian but we'll see if we can find the page and have

maybe Tito translate it :). From what I recall in the mig-29 case we are actually

not exaggerating the effect....almost the opposite.

Edited October 7, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Boneski]

No one on this thread has yet said anything negative about their work... It's very good work.

No one is trying to influence anyone... the public will accept it or not accept it. They don't have

to defend anything... nothing is being attacked.

 

The thread starter is clearing up the Myths around their work. They could have asked to have the thread

locked or just posted their info on a website. It is safe to assume they don't mind public comment on their

work.

 

RVE guys... did you intend this to be a comment thread? If not Please forgive the comments..

Do you mind the comments?

 

The comments that Pilotasso has deemed as negatively influential can be deleted if you want....

no big deal just ask.. no biggie...

 

Feel free to PM... that way the thread stays clear of name calling and directives

like shut up and get a clue.... and all sorts of other words that have no place on

this thread. Thanks

 

we could, but your influencing other readers negatively for nothing but clueless claims. Since its their work I think they have the right to defend it instead of shuting up and swalow everything you say, dont you think?

Edited October 7, 2008 by Boneski

[Pilotasso]

Nope, but your lifting up doubts for nothing. I will wait untill--just like you said-- the next person comes arround and makes a MOD like this based on his own pilots testimonies as an alternative to RVE's MOD. But I'll make the wait while sit down, it could be a long one... :D

 

After all LOMAC was released 5 years ago and nobody lifted a finger to improve it like this before.