Debunking RVE MOD myths.

[Mustang]

Good work on the IFF for the Eagle, :thumbup: That itself is awesome :D

 

Did you try the auto slewing TWS? :D

[TheMoose]

Did you try the auto slewing TWS? :D

Serious?:huh: LoL no I haven't, will try that tomorrow :D Sure hope your aren't pulling my leg, lol ;) I'm not used to all these perks on the Eagle :smartass:, I need time to get accustomed to them. :book:

 

 

 

RvE, Awesome work all around :beer: S! Makes me want to fly more online.

 

Watch out the Moose is Back, lol :D ;)

 

Cheers

Edited October 8, 2008 by TheMoose

[RvEYoda]

For test purposes the RvE server is currently running a

"light version" of LRM. This light version contains :

 

* Anti Barrell Exploit

* Reduced Chaff Importance

* Anti low-flight exploit

* F-15 IFF

* TWS/RWS radar follows target ( F-15 only )

 

But does not contain :

* Auto Flaps/Gear/brake

* Anti Maddog (incl amraam launch delay between shots)

* New ECM and ECCM logic

Edited October 8, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Kuky]

For test purposes the RvE server is currently running a

"light version" of LRM. This light version contains :

 

* Anti Barrell Exploit

* Reduced Chaff Importance

* Anti low-flight exploit

* F-15 IFF

* TWS/RWS radar follows target ( F-15 only )

 

But does not contain :

* Auto Flaps/Gear/brake

* Anti Maddog (incl amraam launch delay between shots)

* New ECM and ECCM logic

 

I actually like this one: "New ECM and ECCM logic"

[DarkWanderer]

AFAIK the AMRAAM hanst been touched

There's a clear phrase in the docs:

Upgraded terminal stage ARH missile maneuverability

....

I just hope RvE wouldn't try to play gods and will remain with really useful and needed changes, not balance tweaking.

Edited October 8, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[RvETito]

Well ARH includes also R-77 so this is affected too, not only the F-15. Something had to be done, because it's not normal SARH to be more maneuverable than ARH, like it is now in LO.

[DarkWanderer]

Well ARH includes also R-77 so this is affected too, not only the F-15.

Who says so? We didn't see neither source texts, neither even clean description of this modification.

 

because it's not normal SARH to be more maneuverable than ARH, like it is now in LO.

This is a common myth.

R-27E has much more fuel, so it will have much more energy at the "maximum" range, because the latter is limited by seeker.

ARH missiles have Beryoza RWR and greater "LA range/kinematic range" ratio due to greater seeker possibilities against - that is what makes them "less maneuverable".

Is R-27R really harder to dodge than AMRAAM in LO? And... Does R-77 really need to be "upgraded"?

Edited October 8, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[RvETito]

Well if you're not aware the R-77 and AIM-120 use exactly the same seeker model in LO, so they go hand by hand.

 

The maneuverability of the missiles is given not by their enegry but rather how many G's they can pull. If you don't believe me watch from externals single player how R-27 and AIM-7 are turning compared to R-77/AIM-120. That is especially well seen in close range when you can make some crazy off-bore shots by SARH while ARH can't turn the same rate. I'm not saying that SARH are harder to dodge, they are some stupid chaff eaters, but in LO they turn like no other missiles, even R-73. So I'm affraid that is not a myth..

[Pilotasso]

Who says so? We didn't see neither source texts, neither even clean description of this modification.

 

 

This is a common myth.

R-27E has much more fuel, so it will have much more energy at the "maximum" range, because the latter is limited by seeker.

 

Well if you're not aware the R-77 and AIM-120 use exactly the same seeker model in LO, so they go hand by hand.

 

The maneuverability of the missiles is given not by their enegry but rather how many G's they can pull. If you don't believe me watch from externals single player how R-27 and AIM-7 are turning compared to R-77/AIM-120. That is especially well seen in close range when you can make some crazy off-bore shots by SARH while ARH can't turn the same rate. I'm not saying that SARH are harder to dodge, they are some stupid chaff eaters, but in LO they turn like no other missiles, even R-73. So I'm affraid that is not a myth..

 

While the AIm-120 and R-77 have same seeker logic they do not have the same perfomance. R-77 is faster and it will guide better simply for this fact. It causes better doppler effect and chaff leaves its field of view faster. I notice this when using the mig, R-77 has very good PK below 25km whereas the 120 will almost always drop to the ground. The AIM-7 is a good AIM-9 replacement because it guides in circuntances where the 120 drops to the ground. It has almost the same exact range therefore it cant be attributed to more energy specialy when its fired well under 10 miles.

[nscode]

Or in cloud. That's how it's meant to work in the 29/27- slaving the radar to the EOS. For sneak attack in close range you use the EOS while radar is on stand-by, your bandit goes into a cloud, in that moment the radar automaticaly takes over to not lose him and give warning. You go out of the cloud and the radar goes quiet again, automaticaly. Note, in both cases the two systems exchange data (bandits last known position)so you don't lose lock. The radar is not emitting but it knows where to look when called.

 

I imagine that require a lot of new physics modelling which, apparently, won't happen in LO. Hopefully in DCS...

 

Yeah, but I was pretty sure LUA can't let you know if you're in a cloud or not, so I thought maybe it could at least be done for fog... but apparently it can't.

[RvEYoda]

We're not talking about kinetic range Dark. We're talking about missile G performance

when at the same speed as it's semiactive counterpart.

 

That is neither myth nor speculation. You can get it off the manufacturer sites or simply

by looking at the intended performance in many different sims and documents. Then you also have

to remember the actives are literally replacing the semis. The actives are newer developments and

newer missiles with inherently better structural limits.

Edited October 8, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[DarkWanderer]

That is neither myth nor speculation. You can get it off the manufacturer sites or simply

by looking at the intended performance in many different sims and documents

In the official documents I should find evidence of Lock On missile mismodelling?

 

Yoda, please look what you're arguing with.

 

While the AIm-120 and R-77 have same seeker logic they do not have the same perfomance. R-77 is faster and it will guide better simply for this fact. It causes better doppler effect and chaff leaves its field of view faster. I notice this when using the mig, R-77 has very good PK below 25km whereas the 120 will almost always drop to the ground.

So, leaving the question about SARH/ARH, the real reason for AMRAAM weakness is its lesser energy, not lesser G. Then... Will it be real to compensate it by cheated maneuvrability?..

[nscode]

That's the "how it should be" talk, but things don't always work out that way. Old technologies sometimes do better in some situations than new, "improved" ones. Examples are plenty. Older SAMs being immune against HARMs and better against stealth; old generation Strela MANPAD is better against small targets like drones and cruise missiles than newer Igla that includes improved terminal guidance algorithms that manouver it so it would hit the body of an airplane and not the engines but in case of a drone it just moves away just about it's going to hit it (looking like it freaked out at the last moment :D); ultimatly, there's the old tehcnology called the gun and we all know that story.

 

But I agree that old technology being better should not be a rule, but new technology being better should be a rule with exceptions. As for how this should apply to the sims - make it better, only not too much ;)

[GGTharos]

The idea is to prevent the silly head-on barrel roll dodge, that's all.

As for actual energy - the 120A had more energy than LO's 120C ... how do we know? There's HUD DLZ footage.

 

So, leaving the question about SARH/ARH, the real reason for AMRAAM weakness is its lesser energy, not lesser G. Then... Will it be real to compensate it by cheated maneuvrability?..

[RvEYoda]

In the official documents I should find evidence of Lock On missile mismodelling?

 

Yoda, please look what you're arguing with.

 

 

So, leaving the question about SARH/ARH, the real reason for AMRAAM weakness is its lesser energy, not lesser G. Then... Will it be real to compensate it by cheated maneuvrability?..

 

 

Look at youtube lockon exploits video, barrell rolls.

That problem is much deeper in ARH than SARH in lo.

Tell me after that that it doesn't need adjusting :)

[DarkWanderer]

There's HUD DLZ footage.

Can you give me a link, please?

 

Look at youtube lockon exploits video, barrell rolls.

That problem is much deeper in ARH than SARH in lo.

Tell me after that that it doesn't need adjusting

Ahem... Physics laws are to be adjusted too after "the Matrix" release? :D

 

Ok, let's just leave it and see how it will do "in the field". But don't say I haven't warned...

 

Yoda, what's the reason of not mentioning this change in the mod description topic?

[RvEYoda]

The ARH change is not mentioned? Can you please show me where we

mentioned to tell this and i'll try to correct it asap.

[DarkWanderer]

This. Not critical, but a bit confusing.

UPD: Question removed. Was distracted by topic title.

[GGTharos]

I can't. It was pulled down from Patrick's aviation by someone's request, I assume USAF. I still have it, ED has it, etc etc :)

 

Can you give me a link, please?

[RvEYoda]

This. Not critical, but a bit confusing.

UPD: Question removed. Was distracted by topic title.

 

Ah yes that was LRM RC4.

We are now in Rc5 moving to Rc6 ;)

[Pilotasso]

In the official documents I should find evidence of Lock On missile mismodelling?

 

Yoda, please look what you're arguing with.

 

 

So, leaving the question about SARH/ARH, the real reason for AMRAAM weakness is its lesser energy, not lesser G. Then... Will it be real to compensate it by cheated maneuvrability?..

 

Carefull with the choice of words you use. "cheat" is a strong word considering that everybody playing with the MOD has the same benifits under his belt.

 

ED made it wrong for this survey SIM, thats how it is, this is an alternative way of doing things wich ED itself could very well find a good idea and adopt themselves for an eventual patch.

 

I didnt say it was a cheat when the AMRAAM was deballed into a mach 2.5 missile for balancing when it should be mach 4+ but I guess no one flying russian planes only will complain then, and call it a cheat either. Will they? ;)

 

It seems to me everybody contesting any changes made are not being impartial at all. " I feel threatened for my flying style" for option 1 in this poll aplies here better than you think.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Pilotasso

[DarkWanderer]

I didnt say it was a cheat when the AMRAAM was deballed into a mach 2.5 missile when it should be mach 4+ but I guess no one flying russian planes will complain and call it a cheat either.

I'm glad for your restraint, Pilotasso, but the same applies to you, as a known F-Driver; and it's definitely not you to blame me for wrong choosed words, talking about your poll.

 

BTW, is it possible to change missile speed instead of position/attitude?..

[RvEYoda]

i wish. =/

[Pilotasso]

I'm glad for your restraint, Pilotasso, but the same applies to you, as a known F-Driver; and it's definitely not you to blame me for wrong choosed words, talking about your poll.

 

BTW, is it possible to change missile speed instead of position/attitude?..

 

You know me as an F driver but the sad reality is that I can fly the mig just as well and when I jump inside it I am able to rack up kills faster. May 08 169 stats proves this elegantly, even though I flew about 1/3 of the sorties in mig I achieved 49% of the total kills with it using very similar tactics.

 

Interesting isnt it? :)

[RvEYoda]

Flying the mig29 and getting kills in a public server is

much easier than any other plane, be it su27 or F-15. You

could argue that Su27 is the most difficult in an "airquake server".

 

The thing is that mig drives can in these servers normally just lay

down a cloud of radioactive chaff, fly below 10 meters, make some

last second jinks based on super-warning system or barrell rolls,

all of which completely neglect any Su27 or F-15 bvr capability.

 

Naturally the roll problem is far less for semi-actives and heaters, as

already mentioned, so the ERs become very deadly when you kick out the

lowflight exploit and super chaff.