Who in the Lomac Community uses radar Automization?

[GGTharos]

This was going well until things started getting personal - shall we get back on topic, or at least a more fruitful discussion?

[Kuky]

ah this will never get sorted out... we just see things very different about this

[Groove]

@Grimes: Gamebalance is something for shooters, RPGs, MMORPGs and RTS games. As a simmer im looking for realism. How do you think the things will go with first real DCS Fighter modules?

 

The whole debate is interesting in one point, why shouldn't we forbid any mods, like different zooming. ED didn't wanted the zoom to be like that or that, so leave it alone... Same with the 6 DOF for fighters in LO 2.0. Isn't it a MP hack because one can look "better" around and see incoming missiles earlier than one without the 6 DOF on that fighter?

 

True is that if LEAVU or any other mod (like visibilty mods) would be cheating im sure they would be technically blocked by ED.

 

Embarassing tbh...

Edited April 2, 2010 by Groove

[GGTharos]

Yes, you are correct about that; that what people want is not agreed upon, but it doesn't mean that solutions for what particular servers might want cannot be sought.

 

The problem in this thread is not this:

-Some people want LEAVU

-Some people don't want LEAVU or other scripts or no control or whatever

 

The problem is this:

-Some people think people who want to use LEAVU are dishonest

-Those people who want to use LEAVU think the above are far too uptight

 

The above is quite irrelevant to the end result, but it is certainly relevant to the community itself - and discussion tends to end up turning towards this topic in the end.

 

In any case, the few solutions or possibilities that have been offered don't seem to have really been discussed. Instead, a guided attempt to marginalize people is being made and not just here.

 

So, if we're going to go around in circles with all this; I don't want to close this poll/thread, I'll just trust people for now to refrain from posting when they realize they're starting to drift back to a discussion which serves no purpose when it comes to finding solutions.

[Total]

GG, I'm not nearly as passionate about this others.

 

I'm all for people using mods. Mods make the game grow. Bringing more realism to the game is a good thing. Datalink has bene a staple of the US Military for a very long time. I lived in the middle of it when I was in. NTDS, JOTS, ets Having it limited to only AWACS-equipped missions for the US planes is a serious deficiency. In sensor situational awareness, the Russian aircraft have a far greater advantage. LEAVU cna balance this out for the US fighters.

 

My concerns with LEAVU are simple:

 

1) Gameplay balance especially when it comes to new players who have no clue about LEAVU. I'm not too concerned with experienced players who make a choice not to run a mod. Keeping new players in mind will only help the community grow. I've talked three people into getting LockOn FC2 who had never heard of it before. Need to work with them and cultivate their skills rather than slam their pp in the ground as soon as they get to altitude lol!

 

Disallowing a certain mods server side to keep the playing field level is a good solution for this. The new players can experiment with mods as they learn about them.

 

2) The potential security holes in this mod. I'm not in the constant debate and haven't kept up with LEAVU for a while, so I haven't a clue as to whether some of these potential holes have been closed off. I'd hate to see all of Yoda's hard work become the foundation for a game ruining cheat if it fell into the hands of a programmer who just wanted to be an asshat.

 

My idea is for ED to take a very good look at LEAVU and implement the parts of it they feel add to the realism of the game, but can keep things in balance. That way, everyone will be on the same page :)

Edited April 2, 2010 by Total

[Grimes]

You're saying, the more money you put into this you can get nicer features? You just lost all credibility....

 

I'm sorry how did you get to that conclusion? I just stated that mods are different from monitors because they are essentially free in comparison. You can have the most amazing set of hardware for your gaming rig, it doesn't mean you will be better because of it. It just means you have better stuff.

 

@Grimes: Gamebalance is something for shooters, RPGs, MMORPGs and RTS games. As a simmer im looking for realism. How do you think the things will go with first real DCS Fighter modules?

 

Groove I salute you for actually commenting on gamebalance and I'm glad you said something so this discussion will finally include it. Its often to confuse gamebalance in sims with the rest of the gaming world. I wasn't making the point to say that a Mig should have a better radar. In fact many of the best games revolve around assorted classes that have their own advantages/disadvantages and the balance comes from level design/ players employment of their options. LockOn does balance like that. Its not balanced if you have only Mig-29A's go up against only F-15s, but give the Migs a EWR datalink (thats built into the game) and the Migs may pull through.

 

This is a flight sim. Which means its a game that puts its efforts into recreating realism. LockOn exists in a parallel dimension of sims. Its not quite the most realistic thing out there, but its not that difficult to pick up and learn. In my opinion LockOn is 70% Sim and 30% Game.

 

Now I think realism mods have their place. They shouldn't be bannished, but they should be all set aside to play in their own little different game they created. Because thats what it is. "LockOn" and "Lockon with Realism mods" are two separate entities. They shouldn't mix.

 

Gamebalance comes into play when you mix them together. Have two players playing 2 different games in the same server doesn't exactly work. You can't have one playing the normal game and another playing it with "extra realism." It just doesn't work. You can have different players playing the same game differently. Afterall, online you see people take off from taxiways, to people using teamwork in Teamspeak, but they are still playing the same game and all of the aircraft have the same exact features.

 

So that is why I think they need to be separate from each other. LockOn and LockOn Reality Mods. Same basic game, two different modes of play. Putting a notice that people may or may not be playing with the mods seems like a "This Coffee may be hot" warning label, its only there to cover your ass and its not the solution.

[RvEYoda]

 

This is a flight sim. Which means its a game that puts its efforts into recreating realism. LockOn exists in a parallel dimension of sims. Its not quite the most realistic thing out there, but its not that difficult to pick up and learn. In my opinion LockOn is 70% Sim and 30% Game.

 

Now I think realism mods have their place. They shouldn't be bannished, but they should be all set aside to play in their own little different game they created. Because thats what it is. "LockOn" and "Lockon with Realism mods" are two separate entities. They shouldn't mix.

 

Gamebalance comes into play when you mix them together. Have two players playing 2 different games in the same server doesn't exactly work. You can't have one playing the normal game and another playing it with "extra realism." It just doesn't work. You can have different players playing the same game differently. Afterall, online you see people take off from taxiways, to people using teamwork in Teamspeak, but they are still playing the same game and all of the aircraft have the same exact features.

 

So that is why I think they need to be separate from each other. LockOn and LockOn Reality Mods. Same basic game, two different modes of play. Putting a notice that people may or may not be playing with the mods seems like a "This Coffee may be hot" warning label, its only there to cover your ass and its not the solution.

 

It is unfortunate that we do not have a built in mod control in the server browser, that would

make things far easier. If it was theoretically possible to put this control into leavu or ERI

themselves then that would also be good. However there is no good way of doing this with

any lockon mod at the moment, except for the total server lockdown.

 

 

I'm sorry how did you get to that conclusion? I just stated that mods are different from monitors because they are essentially free in comparison. You can have the most amazing set of hardware for your gaming rig, it doesn't mean you will be better because of it. It just means you have better stuff.

I think there is not much point in debating which mod will make the most difference for your ingame scores. Leavu vs Huge monitor?

For me it would prob be the monitor size increase, but it will differ from user to user.

Edited April 2, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[104th_Crunch]

It is unfortunate that we do not have a built in mod control in the server browser, that would

make things far easier. If it was theoretically possible to put this control into leavu or ERI

themselves then that would also be good. However there is no good way of doing this with

any lockon mod at the moment, except for the total server lockdown.

.

 

We have the tools that we have currently, and that's all we can utilize. The issue now is not if modders are free to pursue interests that they see fit to create, even if others don't care for them.

[RvEYoda]

Just to give an overview of what ERI does

------------------------------------------------

 

 

ERI radar -------VS--------- REAL

 

1. Elevation follows target: ....YES

2. Azimuth follows cursor: .....YES

3. Cursor follows target: .......YES

4. Long Range Boresight:...... YES

5. Target Step:................... YES

6. ECM ranging: ...................YES

 

 

-----------------

 

5. The target step changed in eri fc2 from fc1 lrm. It was noted that at least in some RL jets,

the target step is somewhat unreliable since it may snap to many different sources of data

such as datalinked contacts, track files, nav points etc. In fc2 this feature was givent a

significant track file creation delay and stepping delay. A random factor was also introduced

to simulate the idea of problematic/incorrect steps.

 

6. The ECM ranging in ERI currently has the following approximate error rates:

• at 80 nm the error is very large, about 60 nm
  
• at 60 nm the error large, about 40 nm
  
• at 40 nm the error becomes smaller, about 20 nm
  
• at 30 nm it is close to burnthrough, so error is very small
  

To make the ECM ranging algorithms more realistic, primarily three things may be introduced:

• Starting error is very large, and cursor jump rate is significantly reduced to maybe 1 jump per 2-3 seconds
  
• Ranging improves if target flies aspects not mirroring the attacker
  
• Ranging improves the more times a target is scanned (for example values may be useless the first 10-20 seconds or so)
  

Edited April 3, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[Total]

I started LockOn on a 19" CRT at 1024X768, moved to a 22" LCD at 1680X1050, and now run 3 monitors at 3840x768.

 

The larger monitors or triple monitor set up did not improve my gameplay at all. It takes the same things and makes them larger. In the case of the triple monitors, I actually LOST vertical view distance until FC 2.0.

 

Now, lemme have a 26" LCD in the center, and extracted MFD views on 17" monitors on each side - then that's a definitive hardware advantage. The trick is that it takes software to extrapolate that data to the side screens. In the end, the hardware would not be of much advatage unless there was software giving it additional data.

 

As far as realism vs game - I'm all for the realism myself.

 

In several cases LEAVU is not always "more realistic" than the vanilla game either. Case in point, here is a screenshot from a LEAVU sample vid:

 

 

 

The model of the F-15 ingame has only a single MFD. In this screenshot, the user is able to extrapolate TWO of the MFD's functions and view them simulataneously. Not possible in reality and, therefore, makes this a compeltely unrealistic function of LEAVU and, imho, accounts as an exploit by being able to view more than one function at a time.

 

I say again, I really like the features of LEAVU (bolded so not ignored), but there are things it makes possible (this being one fo them) that should be restricted. This is not realistic and should not be touted as "more realistic than the vanilla game" because while the datalink may be realistic, being able to view that much information at once in an aircraft that has only one MFD is not realistic ;)

Edited April 3, 2010 by Total

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Understand what you are saying Total and yeah I have to agree as well as the fact of the two extra MFD's being in a static position vs ingame's dynamic position given your pilots head movment. would allow a pilot with LEAVU to have better SA while maintaining greater flxibility of head movement.

 

Target Step is my biggest concern, though I like the idea of the new random failure features. It clearly gives a pilot with Target Step about a 3 seconds advantage for weapon release vs a pilot without (in regards to both coming out of a notch to face up).

[RvEYoda]

Target Step is my biggest concern, though I like the idea of the new random failure features. It clearly gives a pilot with Target Step about a 3 seconds advantage for weapon release vs a pilot without (in regards to both coming out of a notch to face up).

 

Don't know if you saw, but target step has undergone some major changes from FC1:

 

1. First of all there is a 3-4 second delay in track file creation, meaning you must wait 3-4

seconds after a target has appeared on ingame display before you can step to it.

 

2. Secondly there is a 0.5-1s delay after pressing step button until it actually steps.

 

3. Third, when you step you might actually step somewhere/someone different than

where you expected, it might even break your current tws bug.

Edited April 3, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

Total, just FYI that I am not ignoring you - thank you for the input. Good points, and well said.

 

I have no problem with servers controlling things that are allowed to be used, and frankly if I knew of a better way than locking everything out I would have suggested it already, but right now such a thing does not seem to exist. Something could be made (as per Grimes' suggestion, a la ARMA2 - and I think it is a nice suggestion) but someone has to work on it.

[Total]

GG,

 

ArmA2's ability to control mods is rudemntary at best. To specify specific mods take's some server side scripting that's not 100^ effective. Verifying signatures being turned on will not allow anyone to join if they have a signature key of a mod isntalled that the server doesn't have (that means the server has to have a cubic ton of keys installed lol).

 

I've always thought it best to not concentrate on "allowed mods" but rather "Disallowed" mods. There's far fewer mods server owners would disallow than those they don't mind lol

 

Yoda,

 

I do have one question on the target tracking in the datalink. I ask just because I haven't dived into LEAVU that deeply.

 

Are datalinked targets tracked based on input of other radars or are they tracked in real time position?

 

I ask because, when I was in the military, our datalink would track the position, heading, speed, and altitude of targets as long as they were within range of a radar hooked up to the datalink. If they went off of radar, then the system would display the contact's last known position only.

 

If LEAVU is using the X,Y,Z from the contacts position from the server instead of other radars or will track contacts even if they are not on radar, then that would be a horrid situation.

 

Just asking as I am curious as to how you have it set up :)

Edited April 3, 2010 by Total

[GGTharos]

They track a target that is displayed on player radars. That is LEAVU's only source of info for targets.

 

The server can forbid export of all objects (ie like you said, tracking xyz) but this will not affect LEAVU because the exports it uses are synced with the radar information in your game. If you don't see it on your radar (or somebody (players only! No SAMs, AI planes, etc) else's radar, for datalinked targets) you will not see it on LEAVU.

Edited April 3, 2010 by GGTharos

[RvEYoda]

Someone has to fly out there and find something on his radar.

Then his actual radar data is shared on the network, so no more information

than what is seen on the radars is shared on the datalink. The update rate

of the datalink can never exceed that of the radar (usually is significantly less)

 

When a contact is no longer tracked by anyone hooked up to the datalink, it stays

on the last known position for a while (5-10 seconds) before it finally disappears.

During this time(or earlier) you may chose to create a permanent mark point where

he disappeared, which can then also be shared over the dlink at a later time.

Edited April 3, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[Total]

Nicely done :)

 

Guess my first suggestion would be to put the limit of active MFD screens to 1. Kinda bugs me that a player can have one screen of info on the MFD in the game, one on another monitor, and an additional one on another monitor for a total of three data screens simultaneously.

 

While that sounds like some kick ass abilities for those who have the hardware to support it, it's a definitive upperhand over those who can't afford multiple monitors or are not using the addon.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Total

[104th_Crunch]

Nicely done :)

 

Guess my first suggestion would be to put the limit of active MFD screens to 1. Kinda bugs me that a player can have one screen of info on the MFD in the game, one on another monitor, and an additional one on another monitor for a total of three data screens simultaneously.

 

While that sounds like some kick ass abilities for those who have the hardware to support it, it's a definitive upperhand over those who can't afford multiple monitors or are not using the addon.

 

I respectfully disagree. It reminds me of the argument with the Battlefield series where we were being told (not sure if it was 100% true) that Devs didn't want to offer proper wide screen support because it would give an unfair advantage to owners of WS monitors over owners of 4:5 monitors. That sounds crazy to me. Yoda already mentioned some good references to this.

 

LOL, the funny thing after all this is that after trying out Leavu 2 and the big stink here about the F-15 advantages, you know who can use it to get the biggest advantage? The Russian planes lol. You get a US style RWR when flying the Rus planes including plane types, multiple contacts and you can use it with your current Rus Beryoza. I know Yoda already mentioned this but I thought it was funny.

 

Anyway the point here again in my opinion is that modders do what they feel is best, then server admins do what they feel is best to allow/disallow mods.

 

LEAVU2 ran excellent for me Yoda. You can see the hours of work you poored into it. Good work.

[GGTharos]

Total, perhaps a better suggestion might be 1 MPCD, 1 VSD, 1 RWR.

[Total]

You put it better than I did :)

 

No more than what the aircraft could have viewable at any given moment :)

[Maximus]

I have tested with the yoda ERI TWS mods, I got to say, it's defeantly not a Aimbot, (if it was aimbot, every missile I shot should made EVERY garanuteed KILL. not even miss a kill). I never had sucessfully kill using ECCM estimated range with many attempts, only made a sucessfully kill on unjammed/burn through locked target, and missles does miss also.

 

I find it very interesting mod, since It is something that I dont see it on how it works on the real F-15C. it add a "new feature" of FC2 IMHO.

 

A little off the point, F15 Radar will always show up on RWR/TEWS. while Russian has a huge advantage is the EOS, which will not alert you on RWR/TEWS, and I think Russan has advantage on using EOS while F15 Dont.

 

Now I gotta check out on His LEAVU Mods soon.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Maximus

[MoGas]

Nicely done :)

 

Guess my first suggestion would be to put the limit of active MFD screens to 1. Kinda bugs me that a player can have one screen of info on the MFD in the game, one on another monitor, and an additional one on another monitor for a total of three data screens simultaneously.

 

While that sounds like some kick ass abilities for those who have the hardware to support it, it's a definitive upperhand over those who can't afford multiple monitors or are not using the addon.

 

I'am sorry, but it seems we should not allowe the Track IR and HOTAS user as well on the server then, because people without Track IR and HOTAS systeme's have a great disadvantage as well isn't it?!

[Pilotasso]

I have tested with the yoda ERI TWS mods, I got to say, it's defeantly not a Aimbot, (if it was aimbot, every missile I shot should made EVERY garanuteed KILL. not even miss a kill). I never had sucessfully kill using ECCM estimated range with many attempts, only made a sucessfully kill on unjammed/burn through locked target, and missles does miss also.

 

I find it very interesting mod, since It is something that I dont see it on how it works on the real F-15C. it add a "new feature" of FC2 IMHO.

 

A little off the point, F15 Radar will always show up on RWR/TEWS. while Russian has a huge advantage is the EOS, which will not alert you on RWR/TEWS, and I think Russan has advantage on using EOS while F15 Dont.

 

Now I gotta check out on His LEAVU Mods soon.

 

That Su-27 advantage is relative, So far I dont remember a single Su-27 getting one missile on me, Just Mig-29's and other F-15's :)

[RvEYoda]

Leavu/eri, just in their early stage here. We could make them even better :)

[Grimes]

I'am sorry, but it seems we should not allowe the Track IR and HOTAS user as well on the server then, because people without Track IR and HOTAS systeme's have a great disadvantage as well isn't it?!

 

 

But I'll try anyways :smilewink:

 

Making the point that hardware components gives an unfair advantage is really a moot point. This is PC gaming and the beautiful and complex part of PC gaming is that everyone has different systems. Sure you can find people with the same processor,motherboard or ram, but monitors and most other components are likely to be different. HOTAS and TIR do give an advantage, an advantage you paid for. Just like buying a nice mouse that is comfortable and precise. You still payed for it because it will give you an advantage. Using a joystick is in-fact encouraged, afterall we are playing a flight sim. Like driving games without a wheel... its just not the same.

 

LEAVU on the other hand is free. Its software, you download it. Much like teamspeak is. Now I'm sure you are thinking of making the same argument for teamspeak as its software, its free, and its not part of the game. But before you do make that post which would require another /facepalm, consider this. Communication between players is the bedrock of teamwork. We can already communicate in game via text, voice comms is a necessary gaming evolution as its a natural part of daily human life.

 

But back to LEAVU/ERI. Again it is free software, all it takes is a simple download. What do you get? Its a modification to your radar systems. It may be "realistic" to what F-15s have the capability of but it wasn't modeled in the game. If those features were a standard part of every F15 (in game) these mods wouldn't need to be created.