FC 2.0?? su27 vs f15???

[monotwix]

I can’t zoom out.

[4csNIp]

open it in new window or download it.

[Pilotasso]

Whats with the weels down?

 

btw your going to be shot down for intentionaly barely obscuring the name of the pilot. :)

[Kuky]

I think sNip counter-photo posted the Reason's one.. with style :D

[Renato71]

Many of us have experienced smooth play with 50 in a server. I would say if you cannot, then the problem lies on your end I believe. Really, I think much of the MP code for Lock On is pretty excellent considering there are many games with a much smaller player limit.

 

If LO 2 matches DCS:BS in stability, then you will be pleasantly surprised in that department.

 

sry for OT post

 

Many of us have experienced something VERY opposite. It is easy to blame individual users if there is a network problem, but why I do not have such problems with other games?

Why do I have to spend so much time trying to fix it, thats my point. It should be playable out of the box.

 

Not OT, cos topic like this are OT for much bigger problems.

Developers invested so much time to create and introduce Su-25, then Su-25T and later Ka-50, yet their environments are nothing but salt figures and mirages. Su-25T has AFM, yet it is used to fight against cardboard boxes and road trains. And still, only thing that I hear is "it is SO complicated to simulate radar and radar guided missiles". Is it more complicated then fixing pathfinding? Or damage models for ships? I ask this honestly, not rhetorically.

[124SqZeljava]

Ok, new stuff for Mig29, better in dogfight`s in FC 2.0 then it was in 1.12, thx Yoda.

 

And guy`s, don`t tell nothing bad anymore for 1.12, cos the FC 2.0 WILL NEVER EVER COME OUT STFKUP SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Grimes]

And still, only thing that I hear is "it is SO complicated to simulate radar and radar guided missiles". Is it more complicated then fixing pathfinding? Or damage models for ships? I ask this honestly, not rhetorically.

 

Yes it probably is because all of the pathfinding present in the game is "baked in" as a result you get very bland and basic interactions with them. To an extent you have some degree of intelligence behind AI aircraft but not very much, for them its more of an issue of "am I out of fuel?" and "is someone attacking me?" at which case they respond accordingly, yet not very well. I mean look at a AI doing SEAD. Their mission is to take out sam sites, so obviously once a Sam fires on them the prime directive kicks in and they jettison ALL of your weapons... which make them useless at their task!

 

IMO, its time better spent complaining about stuff outside of our control (read AI) than stuff that is based more on how humans play the game.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Grimes

[Renato71]

Yes it probably is because all of the pathfinding present in the game is "baked in" as a result you get very bland and basic interactions with them. To an extent you have some degree of intelligence behind AI aircraft but not very much, for them its more of an issue of "am I out of fuel?" and "is someone attacking me?" at which case they respond accordingly, yet not very well. I mean look at a AI doing SEAD. Their mission is to take out sam sites, so obviously once a Sam fires on them the prime directive kicks in and they jettison ALL of your weapons... which make them useless at their task!

 

IMO, its time better spent complaining about stuff outside of our control (read AI) than stuff that is based more on how humans play the game.

 

Yeah, that is a great example of real problems :thumbup:

[The Flying Goose]

Bob feels many pages :D

 

WOW. Mr. Boberro,

189 (sorry 190) posts later, I couldn't have said it better ;)

 

(This has gone on for too long, Zeljava) ... However, I do hope something was accomplished:joystick:

[Prophet]

Like I said 2.0 should be sorted for F-15 pilots but sadly not for Flanker ones.

 

When talking about the missile and radar the F-15, realistically, is far superior.

 

Seems to me you are the one who only cares about realism when it suits you.

 

I cant wait to see what 2.0 has to offer. And I hope I live to see a fighter DCS series. But I really, really cant wait to see the tears when both come.

[vrv]

Ok, new stuff for Mig29, better in dogfight`s in FC 2.0 then it was in 1.12, thx Yoda.

 

And guy`s, don`t tell nothing bad anymore for 1.12, cos the FC 2.0 WILL NEVER EVER COME OUT STFKUP SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:lol: :D :chair::dunno::yay:

[shu77]

[foxwxl]

I think I might understand what Forst1e is concerned about, there were too many “MISSILE TRUCK”s in the FC1, just sending out a dozen of 120, 77 or ET and just run away back to the Airfield, and the flanker have no way to deal with this kind of situation~:cry:

 

And we always got a magic seeker of the ARHs......can make a Magic turn..:pilotfly:

 

[3Sqn_Sven]

 

That's got my vote for post of the year!

[GGTharos]

Yeah, there's been a little measure implemented that will hopefully lessen the pain of having to deal with 'missile truckers'. Or well, missile spammers. You'll still have to live with people who are smart enough to disengage outside of the range you can get them at ;)

 

I think I might understand what Forst1e is concerned about, there were too many “MISSILE TRUCK”s in the FC1, just sending out a dozen of 120, 77 or ET and just run away back to the Airfield, and the flanker have no way to deal with this kind of situation~:cry::pilotfly:

[shu77]

Edited February 7, 2010 by shu77

[A.S]

rofl :megalol:

 

besides .....it is definitly not "unbalance" im afraid of ...i fly all planes anyways and can deal with given circumtances.. BUT ..i NEED consistency !!!!!! in that what is happening according to

that, what im doing ... no random game-dynamic-specific wieerd outcomes in BVR scenarios...me out.

Edited February 7, 2010 by A.S

[foxwxl]

Yeah, there's been a little measure implemented that will hopefully lessen the pain of having to deal with 'missile truckers'. Or well, missile spammers. You'll still have to live with people who are smart enough to disengage outside of the range you can get them at ;)

 

 

That sound's great~Cut down the scan cone of the ARH missile to a reasonable vaule is enough, that will make a lot of "WORNG USED" ARH missile kissing the ground~

When there are ARH missiles ,there are always the runners:D, we know...

 

And another problem the ARHs get in the FC1 is the pulling G problem. If an ARH's seeker found someone , the missile will make a full G turn to the target even if the missile don't have such speed to do thus high G turn , like a 120 make a 22G turn @ 1200KM/H and this lead to some magic turns like the pic I post up there...

But if the seeker has already lock up to the target, the missile often can't do enough high G turn even it has the speed....especially the aim120s.....make the missile passing 10 meters under a high G turned target...

Edited February 7, 2010 by foxwxl

[Moa]

^

+1

 

Those who say that AMRAAM is bad and Eagles are too are those who say there's 4:1 ratio of red vs Blue IRL.

 

Can we expect FC2 servers with realistic AMRAAMs and 4 slots of realistic Eagles against 16 Su-27/MiG-29 with R-27R (no ETs)?!

 

It's OK with me!

 

 

I get what you are trying to say (your joke). Extending on that idea though I have some FYI. These not exact figures, but close enough

 

High-value A2A

Number of F-15 produced: around 1500 (shown as ~1500)

Number of Su-27 produced: ~700

 

Low-value A2A

Number of F-16 produced: ~4500

Number of MiG-29 produced: ~1600

 

Naval

Number of F-18 produced: 1480

Number of Su-33 produced: 24

 

Attack Helo:

Number of AH-64 produced: 1158

Number of Ka-50/52 produced: 26

 

Ok, the exact numbers of variants and sub-variants will change these figures, but certainly not enough to appreciably change the balance (and aircraft of US and Russian allies of other types are also excluded).

 

So, the realistic scenario is actually to have more F-15s and F-16s with better electronics, weaponry and logistics against fewer Su-27 and MiG-29 with fewer advanced weapons (and with likely lower reliability in use). The games we have now are balanced by scenario designers (which is a good thing so everyone can enjoy it!) in terms of numbers of platforms. In real life this is not a likely scenario at all. Please accept this so we can move on.

 

So, my point is, folks here are complaining about minor variations in engine thrust or missile seekers for their various favourite platforms while deliberately ignoring "The Elephant in the Room" - the fact that the colossal economy of the USA not only produced arguably better stuff for its specialised purpose (USAF has more aircraft specialised for particular tasks), but also a significantly larger quantity of it.

 

You all accept this unrealistic aspect of the game without thinking much about it - which makes sense since the game is much more fun that way - but then why do you all insist on bickering over small aspects that ED have recognised as being incorrect and been moved to be more slightly more realistic ? (without being really 'real' which would give the crushing dominance you would expect in real life).

 

I for one am looking forward to missiles with more restricted parameters. That way we have to get closer for a kill which is much more exciting.

 

Shame we won't get seeker slew rate limitations and a whole bunch of other stuff that I guess is too much of a pain to model, but as a developer I understand the trade-offs completely (not everyone can afford the latest and greatest hardware). I feel sorry for the ED developers who get bad (and badly informed) comments no matter what they try to do - the upside is, at least they make products with passionate users.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Moa

[Moa]

That sound's great~Cut down the scan cone of the ARH missile to a reasonable vaule is enough, that will make a lot of "WORNG USED" ARH missile kissing the ground~

When there are ARH missiles ,there are always the runners:D, we know...

 

And another problem the ARHs get in the FC1 is the pulling G problem. If an ARH's seeker found someone , the missile will make a full G turn to the target even if the missile don't have such speed to do thus high G turn , like a 120 make a 22G turn @ 1200KM/H and this lead to some magic turns like the pic I post up there...

But if the seeker has already lock up to the target, the missile often can't do enough high G turn even it has the speed....especially the aim120s.....make the missile passing 10 meters under a high G turned target...

 

There is another G-pulling problem I don't think is modeled (perhaps I'm wrong). Most missiles cannot be launched at the maximum G of the launching aircraft. Many missiles have launch envelopes that are a few G lower than the aircraft's maximum dogfighting G. Yet plenty of people take Shlem shots at 9 G. Hope DCS has that among other fixes.

[shu77]

OK and with this final photo I think I've pretty much summed the rest of the thread up.

[golfsierra2]

I think I might understand what Forst1e is concerned about, there were too many “MISSILE TRUCK”s in the FC1, just sending out a dozen of 120, 77 or ET and just run away back to the Airfield, and the flanker have no way to deal with this kind of situation~:cry:

 

ET /R-77/Aim-120 are the same threat for all aircraft. Why do you think that Flanker pilots suffer more from them than others do ?

 

Makes no sense to me.

[Haukka81]

Yes it probably is because all of the pathfinding present in the game is "baked in" as a result you get very bland and basic interactions with them. To an extent you have some degree of intelligence behind AI aircraft but not very much, for them its more of an issue of "am I out of fuel?" and "is someone attacking me?" at which case they respond accordingly, yet not very well. I mean look at a AI doing SEAD. Their mission is to take out sam sites, so obviously once a Sam fires on them the prime directive kicks in and they jettison ALL of your weapons... which make them useless at their task!

 

IMO, its time better spent complaining about stuff outside of our control (read AI) than stuff that is based more on how humans play the game.

 

 

And they still jett their weapons in black shark too , WTF dev's think?? :mad:

 

 

-haukka81

[4csNIp]

I think sNip counter-photo posted the Reason's one.. with style :D

 

that is right..I just want to show that Lock On is just game,and the best players happening of such errors..

 

sry for bad language.

Edited February 7, 2010 by =4c=sNIp

[foxwxl]

ET /R-77/Aim-120 are the same threat for all aircraft. Why do you think that Flanker pilots suffer more from them than others do ?

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

 

To a Mig or Eagle pliot,after throwing a dozen of ET/ R-77/ AIM-120 and then turn away , the WORST he got is : not scoring a kill.

 

To a flanker pliot facing a "missile trucker", the BEST he got is :not getting killed. (Of course, the flanker is also mounted 2 ETs, but I'm rather glad ED fixed the “alien technology” ETs in FC2)

 

That's the difference......

 

For a flanker pliot for over 8 years, I'm not fear to use R-27 against AIM-120s(R-27 even the EM model in FC1 is a powerful weapon if you use it wisely), we just getting annoyed by those damn "missile trucker"s , throwing ARHs everywhere and run away , and you have no way to deal with them , the best you can get is just suivived after wasting some chaffs and flares;)