Poll: How to fix missiles?

[SwingKid]

Hello all,

 

Thank you for reading this message, before voting. In a previous poll:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6654

 

some people apparently voted without understanding the question, and later wanted to start the poll all over again with a rephrased question. However, it is not a simple question here, and cannot be explained in two lines, so I am trying to encourage people to read the message, instead of just the poll question, before choosing.

 

Some users are interested in the missile modeling in Lock On. It is a complex topic with many concepts – lead, pure, and lag pursuit, proportional navigation (PN), home-on-jam (HOJ), ballistic loft trajectories, active jamming triangulation, chaff and decoy effects, radar “burn-through,” what is displayed on the target’s radar warning receiver, etc.

 

In addition to being an already complex topic, it is also a very secretive topic, and difficult to research. Many users have ideas and opinions about how missiles should work in real life, that are difficult to prove – and sometimes, these opinions disagree. Websites also often advertise missile performance statistics that are contradictory or misleading, if they only apply at extreme launch altitude and speed.

 

One thing that can be demonstrated is that the missiles and other weapons in Lock On do not always strictly obey “laws of physics.” For example, missiles accelerate to the same constant speed every time, independent of the altitude or speed of the launching aircraft. The missile performance is somewhat “scripted,” to help it always fly out to a realistic, or at least expected, maximum range.

 

It would be desirable to have a realistic physics model for missiles, but – believe me – this is a very difficult task. We would probably end up with missiles that obey some physical laws, but not others – and as a result, not have the range or other performance characteristics that many people expect. There is a very high chance of failure – that is, of “breaking” the missile model – if ED suddenly tries to introduce realistic physics.

 

On the other hand, if a physics model will one day be created, then it makes little sense now to make any other corrections to the missiles, since they would all depend on the missile flight model first. You must lay the foundation of the house before the roof.

 

The result is a sort of “quagmire”. ED is locked in an endless cycle of making minor tweaks to missile behavior, and somewhere, people are always dissatisfied. But there is a hesitancy to change the missile physics too much, for fear of making it worse – or at least, less predictable and controllable. (In a scripted model, it is much easier to give the missile the exact range that you want it to have.)

 

The purpose of this poll is to gauge the amount of risk that users who request changes to the missile modeling are really willing to accept. The poll options are as follows:

 

(A) The most important thing is that the missiles have realistic, “published” range, speed and maneuverability, even if they must be scripted to accomplish this. Good behavior can be achieved with some minor tweaks to the current missile model. If “realistic physics” might make the missiles behave in a way that is even less like they should, then we should keep a scripted missile model. Don’t mess up multiplayer!

 

(B) The most important thing is that the missiles obey as many consistent physical laws as possible, even if they cannot obey all of them, and as a result their performance does not exactly match real world expectations. Even an imperfect physics model is always better than a scripted model. Don’t be afraid to make dramatic changes!

 

Possibly neither option will express exactly what you want to say, and this poll does not mean that more detailed messages in other discussions are going to be ignored. Simply, select the option that most closely matches what you would like to express.

 

Once again, this poll is not sponsored by ED in any way, no decisions will be based on it, it is just for my own curiosity, to help make my own opinion.

 

Thanks for interest,

 

-SK