LRM 2.0 Released!

[RvEYoda]

I'm going to ask the person who I got this data again about the numbers

just to be safe, but i believe they are correct. I'll get back to you if it

turns out they need to be adjusted. If you don't hear from me, that probably

means I got the *they are ok* answer back ;)

[Frostie]

Are you still talking about F-15 versus Mig ans Su tactics?

 

You might think that no one should be able to mess with an entire squad and get away with it but the Real F-15 does just that. The one on LOMAC fails miserably and leaves the impression its another single engagement head t head fighter. Fixing the game and the missiles might cure the repetitive split-S re engagemente tactic, but you and your wingmen would still be challenged by a single Eagle anyway.

 

I not excusing the missbehaviour in Spli S's but end result will still be the same. I think you and the rest of the people have to face these BVR tactics in different point of view. Not how they are donne but how you would expect different planes handle BVR combat for different capabilities.

Im quite sure a single Eagle would suffer against at least 2 Flankers in real life. TWS ain't going to save you against fast moving ships working notches individually to press a single ship. Eagles greatest tactic in LO unfortunately is due to the lack of importance on mid course updates. Just ask the RAF how important this is to 120 perfomance.

[Moa]

Im quite sure a single Eagle would suffer against at least 2 Flankers in real life. TWS ain't going to save you against fast moving ships working notches individually to press a single ship. Eagles greatest tactic in LO unfortunately is due to the lack of importance on mid course updates. Just ask the RAF how important this is to 120 perfomance.

 

As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine".

 

This is the reason pilots such as yourself, Ice, MoGas, Crunch, Zerol etc can whip most other pilots no matter what you are flying (just this month MoGas has a lot of a2a kills against fighters when flying the Su-25T).

 

The F-15 pilots in the USAF are the best it has to offer, same with the Eagle drivers in the IDF etc. The Eagle is a great ship but its the pilots that really make the difference - they get more flight hours and simulated air-to-air combat than any other group of pilots in history.

 

I'm sure there are great Russian pilots, and equally others in other airforces such as China etc. However, if we now quote Josef Stalin, "Quantity has a quality of its own". In this area the USAF has all other airforces beaten hands down (apart from the USN).

 

The other factor which has not yet been fully tested is quality of electronics and software. We can only speculate on this but I'm guessing the balance must be tilted in the same direction.

 

Anyway, arguing aircraft based on paper specifications seems a bit moot. It is the rest of the battle environment (start, support, fuel state, numbers etc) that makes more of a difference.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Moa
typo

[RvEYoda]

Please keep this thread to its subject :P

 

I'm out 10 days from now on, and I'd like this thread not to be deleted/locked

when i get back. It's always the evil circe.

 

Some guys say "We must have documentation to support mods, cause pilots' word is just their personal opinion".

And the other team says "We must have pilots' word, cause documentation is probably fake or too classified".

and the third says "we must have war records, cause the rest dont prove anything"....

THe truth is you listen to all three, make your own decisions based on it and what others believe,

and what mathematical models tell you.

 

And then comes the best situation "We dont have accurate data so lets not change anything".

Let's say we have the speed of a missile for example. Current state is "10".

Then we get 3 sources, A,B,C, telling us they have experience RL with this system.

 

Source A says 45, source B says 65, source C says 50. Mathematical simulations says 55.

it would be absolutely STUPID to keep our value at 10. We could at least make it 40-50.

Especially if it turns out that these were sources from different Sides ;)

 

We're not talking about introducing fine tuned flight physics 0.1%.

We're trying to bring the capabilities of a system up to at least 60-80% of the real state,

compared to a current setup where it performs like 20%

 

And the next rule is you NEVER use Wikipedia as a source for missile data ;)

Edited July 12, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[A.S]

And the next rule is you NEVER use Wikipedia as a source for missile data ;)

 

:blow:

 

.

.

.

 

 

Just in case, you missed your pm.

 

http://books.google.de/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC&lpg=PA490&ots=H_vgqwJJni&dq=flightmodel%20coding&pg=PP1

[A.S]

or this.....

 

 

Written by an expert with more than 30 years of experience, Modern Missile Guidance contains new analytical results, obtained by the author, that can be used for analysis and design of missile guidance and control systems. This book covers not just new methods nor is it merely a compilation of older methods, although it includes both. The book discusses, in a logical progression, with its clear elucidation of the guidance laws, the entire field from missile dynamics to modeling and testing missile guidance and control systems. In contrast to existing books that discuss very simple and often unrealistic guidance system models, this book presents missile guidance models that describe more precisely the dynamics of the missile flight control system, making analytical results more effective in practice. The analysis of missile guidance system models in the time-domain and in the frequency-domain allows the generation of different guidance laws that supplement each other. Taking modern, rigorous approach that leads to improved performance in missile guidance applications, the book examines new guidance laws, and corresponding algorithms for generating and testing these laws, and includes effective new software programs developed by the author. The author provides an innovative presentation of the theoretical aspects of modern missile guidance that quite possibly cannot be found in any other book. It delineates new ideas that, once crystallized, will significantly improve missile systems performance

 

t m if u n it......:smilewink:

Edited July 14, 2009 by A.S

[3Sqn_Sven]

Dont get me wrong but the source of your evil is mach 2.5 AMRAAM's otherwise you woudnt see F-15's doing Split-S's repeatedly to re-engage for low PK missiles. Had it been a mach 4+ missile in the first place, what would you see would be F-15's doing F poles and drive you defensive the moment the missile goes active without giving you the chance of keeping the lock while dodging.

ED needs fixing the missile so you wont have to be frustrated by this tactic. theres nothing LRM can do to avoid it.

 

BTW migs do the same "tactic" as well, just as the flankers do with ET's. And they all have donne this for years. Dont blame LRM for this missbehaviour.

 

Hey Pilotasso (and others) - is there any way to change loadouts so that Eagles can load the R77 with the Aim-120 skin? Might help drive some more realistic tactics seeing as the Aim120 is so outclassed by the R77 in Lock on. Alternatively, we could all reload 1.01. I remember the Eagle/Aim120 combination to be vastly more effective back then.

[104th_Crunch]

Sven, this thread might interest you.

 

http://169thpanthers.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1175

 

(link added)

Edited July 22, 2009 by Crunch

[Boberro]

Hey Pilotasso (and others) - is there any way to change loadouts so that Eagles can load the R77 with the Aim-120 skin? Might help drive some more realistic tactics seeing as the Aim120 is so outclassed by the R77 in Lock on. Alternatively, we could all reload 1.01. I remember the Eagle/Aim120 combination to be vastly more effective back then.

 

IIRC in LO 1.12 there two types of AIM-120 in game - one for normal and second for fuelsage (?). But dunno if it is possible to have two CLSIDs... - I mean normal R77 and for AIM-120. Also don't know if this second model of AIM-120 doesn't use same skin as normal 120.

[Kuky]

the 2 CCSID's for 120 are for different shape/rotation of the missile.. it's same performance 120. To answer Sven's question, you can make R-77 look like AIM-120, but only look to those that would modify their Meinit.xml. Basically you'd add R-77 to F-15 payload then copy/paste R-77 and rename it to AIM-120. The missile would look like AIm-120 on aircraft but would perform like R-77... and that includes smoking engine meaning no smokeless shots in TWS.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Kuky

[Presing]

Now guy's you are ballansing the game and you put Su-27 and Su-33 in bad position. I know this Su-27 (don't know about Su-33) version is not be able to carry R77 but you can make the rule to make 2 r77 for sukhoi. I think that will be far.

 

Best Regards

Presing

[3Sqn_Sven]

So seeing as most people would agree that the 120's PK is severely under modelled, and seeing as it will be a cold day in hell before ED changes this in a patch, shall we make an executive decision and use LRM to load suedo R77's onto the F15?

 

As a reminder, this in effect would restore the game balance in some ways back to how it was in 1.01.

[Boberro]

What are differences between R-77 and 120? Only 400 km\h slower?

[goro]

Missiles speed and other data, from BS.

http://goro1.land.ru/missiles_data.lua

[MoGas]

Would you like to see the F-15 be able to carry the R-77?

Yes, the AIM-120 is too slow and undermodelled. 30% [ 8 ]xNo, even though the AIM-120 is slower than it's real life counterpart. 69% [ 18 ]Total votes : 26

 

That was a poll on our forum, from the last couple weeks. :) @Sven

[MoGas]

So seeing as most people would agree that the 120's PK is severely under modelled, and seeing as it will be a cold day in hell before ED changes this in a patch, shall we make an executive decision and use LRM to load suedo R77's onto the F15?

 

As a reminder, this in effect would restore the game balance in some ways back to how it was in 1.01.

 

All none F-15 pilots would speek against, because the see the F-15 as strong enough, even with those "joke" missile's.

[GGTharos]

You mean the guys who never fly F-15Cs in LOMAC and claim it's a superplane and a n00b plane? :)

 

There is a LOT to be done for the F-15 and its missiles, more so than for any other aircraft. This has been discussed before so I won't re-hash it.

Having said that, the flankers and migs are also missing things as is as well, but this in no way makes it 'correct'. Maybe it makes it someone's weird idea of 'even', but it's not that, either ;)

 

ED is aware of all this in any case, and you can look forward to a very different missile and sensor performance in DCS.

[Pilotasso]

IIRC in LO 1.12 there two types of AIM-120 in game - one for normal and second for fuelsage (?). But dunno if it is possible to have two CLSIDs... - I mean normal R77 and for AIM-120. Also don't know if this second model of AIM-120 doesn't use same skin as normal 120.

 

Theres a simple way to do it without messing the SSID's. Albeit easely spoted online if the server is running anti cheat scripts, or if you check missile speed in tacview, there will be tons of people wanting to do it and the servers will be flooded by people using transvesti missiles :D

 

Hold it till the patch or whatever ED is coocking for LOMAC in the next few months. Well see if ED fixes the missiles.

 

R77-->120 transvestization screws up TTA counter also.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Pilotasso

[104th_Crunch]

So seeing as most people would agree that the 120's PK is severely under modelled, and seeing as it will be a cold day in hell before ED changes this in a patch, shall we make an executive decision and use LRM to load suedo R77's onto the F15?

 

As a reminder, this in effect would restore the game balance in some ways back to how it was in 1.01.

 

 

I think if you do anything like this that isn't official on an online server you will meet great reistance. ED have announced officially some form of update to LO so maybe we'll get lucky, or as GG said, we wait for DCS. Screw balance. If I wanted balance I'd play Battlefield 2. Give me realism.

 

 

http://169thpanthers.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1175

[3Sqn_Sven]

All valid counter arguments. Thanks for the results of that poll Mogas. Crunch, I can see where you are coming from, but LRM is not official either, yet it has been embraced. I agree with your views on "balance", as does the rest of my squad.

 

I'm thinking of even running 1.01 or 1.02 on our servers for a bit. If the only big ticket item that you loose is the T Frog, but you regain better missile PK, I can handle that.

 

As for waiting for ED..well. It's been three years since the last patch, glad we didn't hold our breath!

[Frostie]

1.02 the AMRAAM which is way overmodeled. :D People are happy to point out the 120's flaws but never mention the outrageous moves it manages to pull off.

 

A patch is the only way to solve these long standing issues IMO.

[A.S]

You know what i would prefer to see (in any sim)=?

 

A fact sheet showing, explaining and consolidating mechanics, physics and functions of things.

 

• Missiles act like this, because we did this, used this ....tested with this....its accurate here, but lacks here cuz classified...etc
  
• Flight Dynamics do this because its based on....etc etc etc....we do use this methods to simulate this and that...
  

Everything else is mostly rubish or FAkE simulation, using simplified patterns, effects and scripts.etc etc etc ..makin it "seem" good, but act totally pfffffff off

Edited July 23, 2009 by A.S

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Yeah, but you're just crazy. If you want all that, you're welcome to spending a few hundred thousand for a development company to do things your way! ;)

[A.S]

dont overdrive GG .....just few foundations .... giving a glimps and also ...no, even....underlining the quality of a product

 

(of course noone requests the source code and all secrets ...but selling eggs as gold becomes old man)

 

:smilewink:

[Kuky]

well actually stating how and why certain coding is done (not revealing the code actually) I think would be very good idea