AI flight model incorrect?

[lifeliberty]

Today I watched a fully loaded F-16 chase my flanker at 1800km/hour. My flanker with missiles can only do about 1400, and only starts accelerating when I start dumping my load. But even so, the F16 seems to reach its 1800 top speed very quickly carrying ECM, 4 amraam's and 2 sidewinders. My flanker with ECM and only TWO tandem R27's can barely exceed 1600.

 

This seems wrong? I was at 13000 meters, F16 was about 2000 meters lower than me.

 

p.s. I'm using FC1.12b

Edited January 3, 2010 by lifeliberty

[Boberro]

Su's missiles are much bigger and heavier than US counterparts ones. Don't forget Su is much bigger and heavier too. And third.... it will be fixed in FC 2.0. I mean all missiles setup too heavy air resistance, this is why you fly so slow with all missiles under wings. In LO 2 this situation is corrected, so ;]

[golfsierra2]

AI capabilities are overmodelled anyway. They always fly harder turns, fire their missile from doubtfull aspects but with high lethality and can accelerate faster.

 

Hopefully they will perform more realistic in FC 2.0

[Boberro]

I remember situation where Su-25T chased me and he fired R-73 like he would do it with helmet - so huge angle....

Edited January 3, 2010 by Boberro

[monotwix]

AI are not the same species in flight and it has little to do with the planes they fly.

[theGozr]

many things should of been corrected on updates.. but instead we will get FC 2.0.. hopefully

[golfsierra2]

http://games.gamepressure.com/game_info.asp?ID=14288

 

They show LOFC 2.0 available as of 29 January 2010

[Boberro]

Interesting, hope to see Lo 2 earlier if it is possible.

[lifeliberty]

http://games.gamepressure.com/game_info.asp?ID=14288

 

They show LOFC 2.0 available as of 29 January 2010

 

By using the DCS environment, Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 2.0 users will have improved terrain, mission editor, AI flight models, 3D objects, artificial intelligence (AI), and multiplayer.

Q: Will all Flaming Cliffs 2.0 flyable aircraft now have the Advance Flight Model (AFM) system?

A: The Su-25 and Su-25T most certainly will and will have some performance tweaks. The other aircraft will have the Standard Flight Model (SFM) but will see more realistic performance in regards to such items as climb rates, acceleration, and top speeds.

The flanker is an energy fighter! Hopefully this will show in FC2.0

Edited January 3, 2010 by lifeliberty

[Vekkinho]

The flanker is an energy fighter! Hopefully this will show in FC2.0

 

Mhmm...not energy as MiG-29 but yes it's FM really needs some tweaking, I mean dirty planes (extended undercarriage) should create more drag than it does now!

 

IIRC, FC AI driven planes make no difference loaded or not, their performance isn't affected by fuel and loadout so If you see clean F-16 flying 1600km/h at low alt be sure it can do same with fuel tanks and missiles hanging from it's wings! At least in LOFC!

Edited January 4, 2010 by Vekkinho

[GGTharos]

An energy fighter compared to what? It's an angles fighter compared to an F-15.

 

The flanker is an energy fighter! Hopefully this will show in FC2.0

[Frostie]

An energy fighter compared to what? It's an angles fighter compared to an F-15.

Why?

The Flanker has more power and a faster climb rate.

[GGTharos]

No, it does not. The F-15 has more excess power.

 

Why?

The Flanker has more power and a faster climb rate.

[lifeliberty]

It's an energy fighter because

- fast climb

- huge total thrust (not as affected by load outs as a smaller plane)

- huge internal fuel for extended supersonic flight

 

The F-15 is also an energy fighter but it has only 5000kg internal fuel. The flanker can play supersonic much longer.

 

Of course it's a great angles fighter as well. But the way I see it, angles is not much advantage if you're outnumbered by cheaper planes. One flanker cannot out turn three F-5's!

[GGTharos]

People really don't the energy/angles fighter thing, huh?

 

You are an (energy/angles) fighter compared to ANOTHER fighter. Saying 'x is an energy fighter' is utterly meaningless without another aircraft to compare.

 

The Flanker isn't going to fight with more than half fuel. It is severely restricted at those weights.

[Erdem]

Oh, it's "unstoppable power-unmovable object" time again. Aren't you guys tired of this game?

[GGTharos]

No. Are you going to join us, or are you just going to sit there and babble? ;)

[Frostie]

No, it does not. The F-15 has more excess power.

Whats the climb rate of the F-15 in your eyes?

If you have some information post it, but all factual information avaliable points to the Flanker outclimbing, outpowering and also having aerodynamics near a decade more advanced.

Which means by your theory, compared to the Flanker, the F-15 isn't an energy or an angles fighter.;)

[GGTharos]

I have the Russian manual Ps graph for the F-15A vs Flanker somewhere, if I find it I'll post it up. It VERY clearly shows a climb advantage for the F-15 in in the mid-subsonic region (very slow subsonic and supersonic Ps superiority goes to the flanker).

 

Note that the F-15's engines were upgraded since (supersonic performance was taken care of, giving the edge back or at least narrowing it).

 

By the way, I like this common myth about a decade's advancedment in Aerodynamics. It is patently untrue - in fact, it's similar aerodynamics to F-16 and F-18. Further, the F-15 gave those up to reduce drag and sprint faster.

 

Despite this, the turn performance of the F-15 and the Su-27 is actually very, very similar (The flanker almost always has a slight edge, but it's slight) ... until you get slow, where the flanker has an AoA handing advantage.

 

So, according to my definition of angles and energy fighters, and actual facts, the F-15 is the energy fighter, and the Su-27 is the angles fighter. I wouldn't say they differ too much - their capabilities are actually pretty similar until the AoA handling issue comes up where the flanker has a clear advantage and is the reason you don't want to be getting slow with it when flying an F-15.

Edited January 5, 2010 by GGTharos

[EvilBivol-1]

[Aeroscout]

It's either the diagram or the explanation. Never both. :wallbash:

Could someone explain this please? I'm afraid I cannot read Russian and do not know what is being shown.

 

Aero

[X-man]

On the vertical axis, you have the vertical speed and on the horizontal axis you have the speed of the aircraft. The different curves corresponds to different altitudes :) The numbers you can figure out yourself :thumbup:

 

By the looks of it, the F-15 enjoys a slight advantage at low to medium altitude, while up high, the F-15 has better climb. All this is in the Subsonic arena...

Edited January 5, 2010 by X-man

[GGTharos]

I think the more correct interpretation is, the F-15 enjoys a slight advantage at low to medium altitude, and utterly and completely spanks the flanker at high altitude. To call something an angle/energy fighter, /if/ you were to go by Shaw, you need 10% advantage, and 20% gives you a very significant advantage, or conservatively, a definite edge. The flanker can have this in turn rate and probably turn radius at certain speeds.

 

Starting low, the F-15 has about 10% or less of an advantage, and when you reach about 20000', it's a devastating near 100% advantage. And this diagram shows you exactly why, as an F-15 pilot you want to keep the flanker fighting high, while as a flanker pilot, you want to suck the F-15 guy down low and slow.

 

Note that that, of course, if you run into a plane that's just slow, and the other at combat speed - regardless of which one - the fast plane should have the slow plane dead to rights, regardless of which altitude they're at.

 

 

PS: Thanks EB for finding that doc. I'd like to add that this doc aside, ED also has detailed flight performance charts for both aircraft as well.

PPS: This chart is for an F-15 with the old engines ... post 1986 most F-15s sport the 220/220E which alleviates the supersonic problem, as well as some serious maintenance and stalling issues of the -100.

Edited January 5, 2010 by GGTharos

[Vekkinho]

People often start thinking of real planes after playing FC, if you look at the Fulcrum in FC you'll feel that it is a rocket made to fly fast and make no turns 'til it runs out of fuel...

 

Just my 2 cents, now let's get back to AI FM...

[mikoyan]

The ai model has some bugs last sunday I made a mission to intercept 3 mig-23s and 2 su-24s. I set 2m/s wind to the North. I intercepted an destroyed 1 mig, my wingman got another from long range. after that I went to into a dogfight with the 2 su-24s. I got them but I started to wonder... hey were is the third mig? I had a ground radar set up on my mission so I found the mig on my radar display, but could not get a lock on him, so I hit f2 to see the runaway mig-23 and discovered that it was at 23000 mts and climbing doing some kind of post stall maneuver. the most astonishing thing was that the mig reached 65000 mts! doing this weird post stall thingy! I have the track if someone wants to see it!