GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 I think most people men something else without realizing it. It's not the trajectory, it's the missile logic. It is quite reasonable to use lead collision against a non-maneuvering target. The problem is, what do you do once the target starts maneuvering? There are a number of ways to deal with this, such as completely switching trajectory to say, pure pursuit while the target it maneuvering (up to the point where the missile is say, 2nm away from the target, then you go lead pursiot again) to limiting thow many g's the missile can pull at longer ranges while chasing the target, to combining the two - as an example. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
169th_Jaws Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Oh oh. Just when I thought I was safe from any 1.1 bugs I too have been struck down this evening. Input from my joystick seems to gradually decline with play, making it almost impossible to control my aircraft. It's like the nose just wants to keep dropping, the stick on the screen flickers and the whole airframe shakes in an abnormal fasion. Bummer, hope this is isolated to the demo only. :( This is really bad, makes it unplayable. Just when you thought it was safe to go back over the water... Flight Lieutenant "Jaws" 169th Panthers
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Update: According to Pilotasso's post on Ubi.com, this problem is taken care of by turning VSync off. I'll test this later ... could anyone try to explain how this could be causing the problem? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Manta Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Re: FSAA Bug Hi there! Up to the GUI as soon as I make my choice and hit the button, the game freezes up and it compells me to reboot. I discovered tha the issue depends on my FSAA 2x settings (ATI 9700Pro 128Mbytes Drvs CAT 4.7). As I turn them off I can have access to the training, mission and tracks session. I was able to solve the issue. I updated my drivers to 5.2 Vers. and now the Demo runs smoother and @ FSAA 2x 150GCT_Manta http://www.150gct.it/
Gel214th Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Disabling Force feedback in producer.cfg solved the 'sticky' joystick command bug for me.
Bug11 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 In 1.02 I know the slammers fly a lead pursuit course their whole flight path until they get within their detonation range... BAD vs a beaming target. It's a known issue and I have seen discussion on it in various forums. I have to say I watched this whole debate with some frustration. It's not bad against a beaming target, but rather against a maneuvering target. But that's the whole point - if the missile wasn't flying a lead pursuit, then the target wouldn't have to maneuver to defeat it. It was as if nobody read Robert Shaw's "Fighter Tactics and Maneuvering", where this optimal intercept trajectory is described quite well. I can imagine a lot of improvements for the missile modelling, but this isn't one of them, and it quite surprised me that so many people could be agreeing to make the missile trajectories worse! (at least, according to Shaw..?) -SK The problem is that the missile seems to be maintaining a lead pursuit course even if it means that it does not have enough energy to complete an intercept. If it switches to lead collision during the end phase (the most efficient trajectory - see page 36 - paragraph 4 of shaw) it will improve the missile's performance. I haven't tested this in 1.1 (I don't like to modify software...).
eXor Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 How far did you shoot from? ... I've downed MiGs from 30-40nm away. Rear aspect shot from 9.9 nm with a positive rate of closure. Angels 16 500 knots The missile appears to track normally until the last couple of seconds then it loses interest. Avaritia bona est.
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Not surprised (for Lock on) ... rear-aspect shots should be done at under 6nm in this game, at least until missile phsyics are corrected. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Disabling Force feedback in producer.cfg solved the 'sticky' joystick command bug for me. But not for me :( James
Kula66 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Certainly finding that 1:1 15 v 27, AMRAAMs seem far less effective ... even head on at <20miles and ER seem to be doing home of jam ... no launch warning - boom! James
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Notch, man, notch. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Yes, I usually drag (run) rather than notch ... means once I'm safe I can loop over the top, converting speed for height and fire again in the face :) Notching, I'm never sure if I'm 'in the notch' or not ... Looks like I'm going to have to change tactics! Also, the AI seems happy to launch more shots ... I was being chased by 5 ERs eariler ... I kept turning, locking and lobbing and AMRAAM, but none of them hit! Also, the AMRAAM seems to bleed speed faster that the ER ... surprising give it is smaller and with fewer appendages ... James PS> The new blackout model is 'interesting' when flying external view ... you ease off on the stick when you back out!
ALDEGA Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 x45 trim to rotory works for a10 does not work for su25. :( works when mapped to keyboard though bummer. Hope this is fixed in 1.1. Edit.... Out of curiosity i plugged in my ffb2 stick set pitch to throttle seems its not just an x45 bug but an axis bug alltogether. The su25 will not trim on any axis. A10 works fine though. My big thought is how was this overlooked :?: Would have been the first thing I noticed in testing. Fix it plz dont want 1.1 if I have to use the keyboard on a hotas setup. :oops: It's not a bug: http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=3326
ALDEGA Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 I also have the bug that has been reported - it looks like after a short time the game starts to respond very slowly to inputs - or, specifically, there is great lag between input and action. This applies to keyboard and stick, and it isn't really acceptable. ED, have you guys encountered this before? Is there a fix? Is there anything we can do to help you debug it? It doesn't seem to be easily reproducible - it is consistently reproducible only on some machines, as youc an see. Without right way or track for reproduction that issue, we can't fix it. If that depend of machines that may be a configuration problem with memory or not proper memory management or driver problems, anything... I experienced the input lag and "sticky keys" with the 1.1 demo, while in 1.1 preview version I did not have this problem. Input lag is experienced with keyboard, joystick, TrackIR.
Bug11 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Not surprised (for Lock on) ... rear-aspect shots should be done at under 6nm in this game, at least until missile phsyics are corrected. any official word on them being fixed?
Bug11 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 I also have the bug that has been reported - it looks like after a short time the game starts to respond very slowly to inputs - or, specifically, there is great lag between input and action. This applies to keyboard and stick, and it isn't really acceptable. ED, have you guys encountered this before? Is there a fix? Is there anything we can do to help you debug it? It doesn't seem to be easily reproducible - it is consistently reproducible only on some machines, as youc an see. Without right way or track for reproduction that issue, we can't fix it. If that depend of machines that may be a configuration problem with memory or not proper memory management or driver problems, anything... I experienced the input lag and "sticky keys" with the 1.1 demo, while in 1.1 preview version I did not have this problem. Input lag is experienced with keyboard, joystick, TrackIR. do you know what the build difference is between the exe and data in the demo and in the full version?
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Maybe 1.2? Maybe. No real word on this. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
eXor Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Not surprised (for Lock on) ... rear-aspect shots should be done at under 6nm in this game, at least until missile phsyics are corrected. I performed the same test with an Adder ( 16 km ) and it had no problems hitting the target. Interesting, to say the least. Avaritia bona est.
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Well, we'll see how it is in the full version ... if it is liek that then ED has some amendments to make ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 In terms of missile modelling (i.e. HOJ, etc.), V1.1 is a lot more like V1.00 than V1.02. Whether that's a bad thing, I guess we'll see.
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Well, the missile physics are not up to snuff apaprently, at least accoridn gto SK's minizap. They slow down too fast in most cases, and now it -seems- that ED has given the R-77 greater range which is not really correct. AFAIK, in Minizap in fact the R-77 UNDERperforms for range compared to the 120, but not very significantly. This would also be why the RuAF wants an 'E' version, I imagine. Each major iteration fo the AMRAAM has received a rocket upgrade if I recall correctly, with the original AIM-120A having a 'starting engagement' range of 40nm ... who knows what the C can do. And remember, the Navy's having no qualms about replacing their F-14's and AIM-54C's with superbugs armed with AIM-120Cs. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
ALDEGA Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 I experienced the input lag and "sticky keys" with the 1.1 demo, while in 1.1 preview version I did not have this problem. Input lag is experienced with keyboard, joystick, TrackIR. do you know what the build difference is between the exe and data in the demo and in the full version?It's several months older than the demo.
Bug11 Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 I experienced the input lag and "sticky keys" with the 1.1 demo, while in 1.1 preview version I did not have this problem. Input lag is experienced with keyboard, joystick, TrackIR. do you know what the build difference is between the exe and data in the demo and in the full version?It's several months older than the demo. I'll take it that you mean the exe and data in the demo is several months older than the retail ;) It's better to shut up than to having nothing nice to say about that - so i'll shut up :D How much is several? and what did you base that conclusion on. enquiring minds wish to know :)
D-Scythe Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 AFAIK, in Minizap in fact the R-77 UNDERperforms for range compared to the 120, but not very significantly. This would also be why the RuAF wants an 'E' version, I imagine. Each major iteration fo the AMRAAM has received a rocket upgrade if I recall correctly, with the original AIM-120A having a 'starting engagement' range of 40nm ... who knows what the C can do. And remember, the Navy's having no qualms about replacing their F-14's and AIM-54C's with superbugs armed with AIM-120Cs. Nope. Each version of the AIM-120 (i.e. A/B/C) featured improvements to the seeker, guidance components and fuze/warhead, but the rocket motor have not been changed so far. The AIM-120C-5 (should be just coming into service) had an extra 125 mm for a bigger motor, but IIRC, it hasn't been taken advantage of. However, the AIM-120C should be so much smarter than the AIM-120A that in most cases the guidance computers should be able to squeeze a few extra miles in range. Thus, the AIM-120C should be by FAR the most lethal and versatile missile in the West, simply because so much money and tech has been put into making the missile as smart as possible. But you'd never be able to tell with the way Lock On is modelling it. In Lock On, I'd actually feel better if I have an AIM-7 homing in on a target, so long as I can hold or regain lock (not too hard with the CAC modes). From all the accounts I've read, this is completely wrong - pilots should never feel better with an AIM-7 than an AIM-120.
E.v.i.l.-JOE Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 I found this bug of the landing lights after the AI aircraft lost its wings ... http://www.erbseweb.de/lockon/forum/DemoBug.jpg Evil-JOE
Recommended Posts