FC 2.0?? su27 vs f15???

[GGTharos]

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...

 

All missiles in LO have this problem (no G limit based on airspeed), however 22g is not a big deal - the AIM-120 is a 50-60g missile.

 

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...

 

Right, I wouldn't say that. A 120 is up there in maneuverability. By comparison the 77 is a little better, by having a bit more AoA authority. They are reasonably close in maneuverability.

[Frostie]

Now its the part you blind yourself narrow again to go arround and arround. Your point of view depends entirely of not getting it.

Missiles aren't realistic in Lockon whats not to get?

Are you sure your not blinding yourself that you think in 2.0 everything is going to be perfect?

[Fahhh]

Then why you don`t fly su33 on HL, cos everybody will WHOOP YR A**, cos SAR are jokes, and for me and you, i am definitly ACE pilot for you, you just don`t know that, i have kill you more then you will ever imagine:lol::lol::lol::pilotfly:

 

My squad flies MiG-29 only, does this answer your question? And yeah good for you, and congrats on your skills.

[GGTharos]

Yep, this is normal ... have you ever looked at missile DLZ charts? An aircraft can easily outrun a missile as long as it is outside the Rtr.

 

Ok, for ED testers!!?

 

What will happen with those guy`s who fire and run and i have them on my LOCK ON? I fire missile from mach 1, missile run on mach 2 and bandit goes 900Kmh!!! after that, when he show me his 6 my FAST missile can`t reach him even if he is 20, 15 Km far away from, is this question normal. I know that some pilot`s had died in this situation in real life, real situation, so how this game is realistic.

Team Tester answare this!!!!

[Pilotasso]

Missiles aren't realistic in Lockon whats not to get?

Are you sure your not blinding yourself that you think in 2.0 everything is going to be perfect?

 

Then I guess you should just stop playing the SIm untill ED gets 100% correct and accureate, and implements dumbed down missiles on your adversaries untill they do get there. :P

[AustinN360]

Why dont you guys just settle it online?

 

I personally cant wait for FC2. I have a pathological vendetta against F15s :)

 

Hey Rage. That is exactly what they are doing! If this forum weren't "online" then how are we communicating?

 

You aint the only one waiting for 2.0. My reason are for the new multiplayer server selection feature that will finally get rid of HyperLobby and the annoying idiots that just come online and spoil it for everyone before you even get start a mission.

[Frostie]

Then I guess you should just stop playing the SIm untill ED gets 100% correct and accureate, and implements dumbed down missiles on your adversaries untill they do get there. :P

No, i'll see you in 2.0 and if I shoot you down I want a nice big S! and i'll return the favour when you turn me in to spare parts also. :thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

lol sure.

 

Meanwhile I just post more and more provocative sigs to keep the Raptorsky opposition motivated :D

Edited February 7, 2010 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

In 1.02 the SAR missiles were unrealistically modeled.

They would almost never go for chaff.

The radar would almost never drop lock (what makes you think Su-33 radar is this good? It isn't. You are flying with better equipment than real)

The missiles the Su-33 uses are old. All E-series missiles should have poor performance against fighters anyway.

 

So yes, you had 'great skills' in 1.02 with a very unrealistic missile :)

 

You don't have to like it, fact is F-15s have superiority over all flyable Russian aircraft modeled in FC/FC2, in RL. They're literally a decade or more behind in technology by comparison.

Despite this, no one has asked for Russian missiles to be cut down, or for half of them to drop dead off the pylons when you launch'em, or for your radar to display a good deal of ghost contacts etc etc.

 

The Su-33 is a great plane ... for shooting down S-3 vikings, P-3C orions, anti-sub helis, and every now and then engaging an F-18A/C (prefferably without AMRAAMs) but it's not exactly a real match for an F-15. It was NEVER intended to be fighting them, its purpose has ALWAYS been to defend its fleet in RL.

 

I must say that in 1.02 su33 was the strongest plane with SAR missile`s, longer range, not loosing lock, SPLASH!!! In FC, su33 is so funny plane, he can do shtt, in 1.02 for 1 hour playing my record was 34 kills with su33, only thing that can brake my lock was mountain, if you make all this true like before, MP maps will be diferente than it is now. I don`t have nothing against for 120 to be danger efective, just make SAR as they should be, and i will deal with f15 with no problems.

[Boberro]

I must say that in 1.02 su33 was the strongest plane with SAR missile`s, longer range, not loosing lock, SPLASH!!! In FC, su33 is so funny plane, he can do shtt, in 1.02 for 1 hour playing my record was 34 kills with su33 [...]

 

I wanted to post facepalm but i don't want to be rude... so....

 

So u think about score only...

[124SqZeljava]

I wanted to post facepalm but i don't want to be rude... so....

 

So u think about score only...

Yes i am in BVR, when not thinking about score, im on Guns only server fighting, cos this BVR suks big time, cheers mate;)

[124SqZeljava]

In 1.02 the SAR missiles were unrealistically modeled.

They would almost never go for chaff.

The radar would almost never drop lock (what makes you think Su-33 radar is this good? It isn't. You are flying with better equipment than real)

The missiles the Su-33 uses are old. All E-series missiles should have poor performance against fighters anyway.

 

So yes, you had 'great skills' in 1.02 with a very unrealistic missile :)

 

You don't have to like it, fact is F-15s have superiority over all flyable Russian aircraft modeled in FC/FC2, in RL. They're literally a decade or more behind in technology by comparison.

Despite this, no one has asked for Russian missiles to be cut down, or for half of them to drop dead off the pylons when you launch'em, or for your radar to display a good deal of ghost contacts etc etc.

 

The Su-33 is a great plane ... for shooting down S-3 vikings, P-3C orions, anti-sub helis, and every now and then engaging an F-18A/C (prefferably without AMRAAMs) but it's not exactly a real match for an F-15. It was NEVER intended to be fighting them, its purpose has ALWAYS been to defend its fleet in RL.

Fair enough:)

[GGTharos]

What would be interesting is to find out what difference there is between Su-33 in the 90's and the one after 2005. I have heard it has gone through a significant modernization, but I do not have good sources about this :)

 

PS: When I mentioned superiority above, I meant in BVR. Until the AIM-9X/JHMCS combo, the R-73 plus the better turning ability of the flanker gave it the dogfight edge :)

[Teknetinium]

Lets hope for all missiles to get more accurate then they are now and continue to whine after the F2.0 when we find new problems. This will never end.

No one can even prove who would come out alive from a clash between 4xFlankers vs 4xF-15s, My guise would be F-15s, not because of the technology but because of more training behind thire back. Its therefore 51st gets out almost always as winners in 4vs4 or more against F-15s even if the F-15 is clearly superior in most points in lomac.

Remember that no missiles fixes will make ur game more realistic, This patch will only make it harder for those who are not used to guide their missiles.

 

This game is not a test platform for realistic missiles behavior this game is made for A2A combat. Instead of spending ur time on proving things to each other you should train whit at least 4 buddies to get some teamwork going. And when you feel ready, Challenge 51st at 51st.org.

 

Dont blame the missiles if you cant score a kill, Killing a bandit is about fooling him or lurk him in a trap, this is how u kill bandits whit as good technology as you.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Teknetinium

[124SqZeljava]

I am just wondering, what you will make when "stealthy" crap show on the sky, what missile will hit him when now we cant hit nothing far away more then 5 km with SAR missile. I need to enter in dogfight to shot ER, EM etc...last night, guy on my 2 o`clo., 10 km ahead, ER on it`s way, and stupid missile just go straight ahead, well that is reality from ED. K np guy`s, i will wait for somebody else to buy that game and hear impresion, before that no way.

[GGTharos]

I will say again that while I appreciate the spirit of your post Tek, you are wrong about the missile thing.

 

If you don't have well modeled missiles - or other systems, then you cannot have a good A2A simulation.

 

What do I mean by 'well modeled'? I mean it should force your target to do something about them, as opposed to the current situation (bandit flies straight past your missile head-on ... ridiculous, isn't it?). This results in unrealistic BVR tactics at minimum.

 

While some of these discussions are really nothing more than bravado, or misguided feelings or this or that, actually proving things is important because then you have something that can be modeled.

 

But you can't just say something like 'everyone know the flanker turns better ...' and say it's proof. You need to have data, you need to know when why and how it is better at turning, and by how much.

The only way to KNOW this, is to get data for both planes separately (not COMPARISON charts, though these too are useful), model them both to match this data, and then do the comparison this way.

 

In other words, any claim must undergo careful analysis and be furnished with proof as minimum.

 

And here's the reason: You say teamwork and pilot skill are important, and you're right - but your aircraft's equipment, and its flight characteristics will affect your skill, your tactics, etc etc. So every time you model something that you have discovered and found proof for it you (hopefuly) make your A2A experience a little more realistic.

 

The other side of the coin here is that you have to be careful not to model things too one-sided. FC/FC2 is actually reasonably 'fair' in this respect.

[GGTharos]

Yes well, we actually did our best when speaking with ED to try and eliminate such problems, and developers did their best also.

 

You may have also experienced shooting at someone who is lagging, which makes things really strange - had the same experience myself last night, got shot down due to subterrenean Su-33 :(

 

But like I said, there are improvements for the russian missiles also, and they should be noticeable I hope.

 

One problem is that right now, these missiles are based on old code, and it is prefferable to only improve them a little while waiting for DCS A2A missiles (ie: why improve old code a lot when you are going to write new code?)

 

So unfortunately, while there will be improvements for all missiles in FC2, there will still be reasons to complain as always. IN general however, you will find missiles all around will become deadlier, including SARH ;)

 

I am just wondering, what you will make when "stealthy" crap show on the sky, what missile will hit him when now we cant hit nothing far away more then 5 km with SAR missile. I need to enter in dogfight to shot ER, EM etc...last night, guy on my 2 o`clo., 10 km ahead, ER on it`s way, and stupid missile just go straight ahead, well that is reality from ED. K np guy`s, i will wait for somebody else to buy that game and hear impresion, before that no way.

[Teknetinium]

The problem is that we dont really know how good missiles hit, No one would come out whit data that was not good enough its national security :), But as history shows you would go to war whit that shit anyway.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Teknetinium

[124SqZeljava]

I will say again that while I appreciate the spirit of your post Tek, you are wrong about the missile thing.

 

If you don't have well modeled missiles - or other systems, then you cannot have a good A2A simulation.

 

What do I mean by 'well modeled'? I mean it should force your target to do something about them, as opposed to the current situation (bandit flies straight past your missile head-on ... ridiculous, isn't it?). This results in unrealistic BVR tactics at minimum.

 

While some of these discussions are really nothing more than bravado, or misguided feelings or this or that, actually proving things is important because then you have something that can be modeled.

 

But you can't just say something like 'everyone know the flanker turns better ...' and say it's proof. You need to have data, you need to know when why and how it is better at turning, and by how much.

The only way to KNOW this, is to get data for both planes separately (not COMPARISON charts, though these too are useful), model them both to match this data, and then do the comparison this way.

 

In other words, any claim must undergo careful analysis and be furnished with proof as minimum.

 

And here's the reason: You say teamwork and pilot skill are important, and you're right - but your aircraft's equipment, and its flight characteristics will affect your skill, your tactics, etc etc. So every time you model something that you have discovered and found proof for it you (hopefuly) make your A2A experience a little more realistic.

 

The other side of the coin here is that you have to be careful not to model things too one-sided. FC/FC2 is actually reasonably 'fair' in this respect.

This is the bigest problem OMG, if one aircraft is better then the other one, why make it model equal for both side, well that is the MANAGER MARKET problems:thumbup: what i said in very 1st post:music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

We don't have perfect data on this, but we do have some reasonable indications.

 

For example, we have great data on flight physics (ie missile speeds, ranges, etc). On guidance, not so much.

 

We know that successive generations are better (more Pk) and approximately by how much. While attempting to model this requires some guesswork, our only other option is to model F-86 v MiG-15 :D

 

If you want modern A2A you have to be ready to accept some guesswork that leads to the following results:

 

- Missile parameters same or similar comparatively to what data is available

- Missile Pk similar to historical missile Pk under same circumstances (where available) but possibly ignoring malfunctioning missiles (who the heck wants to push a button and launch nothing in a game? :) )

- Pilot reaction to missile launch same as what a real pilot describes his reaction would be

 

The last point might lead to a necessity of over-modelling missiles, since a vPilot will not fear for his life - so you have to punish him for not flying realistically. This is a result of simulation that we must all cope with: People are just playing a game.

[GGTharos]

Actually no, making them equal is not realistic. Want equal? Fly the same plane. If you had DCS fighters, Su-27S/P would do even worse than it does right now against an F-15C.

 

If you make everything equal, you have HAWX.

 

To put it another words, unless you really do NOT want the experience of trying to face your enemy as a pilot of the aircraft you have chosen, you're not looking for an air combat simulation ... maybe you are looking for a competition, but that's not what a simulator is about :)

 

Competition: Su v Su, MiG v MiG, F v F.

Cold war scenario: Red birds v Blue birds.

 

You cannot have equal planes for the last one if you REALLY want a cold war scenario. It just doesn't work - how will you re-enact the tactics, logic and reasoning of each side if those differences that make things unequal are not there? :)

 

 

PS: When I said 'one sided' I mean a situation like ... let's take a LOMAC example: You can't shoot anyone with a radar missile below 20 or 15m, but they can shoot up at you. The first part is somewhat realistic (the missile would still track, but it may have difficulty hitting you, especially if you are running away ... head on, much easier) while the latter isn't particularly realistic and creates a silly tactic that, AFAIK, is never, ever used in RL (flying 10m over the sea and shooting up at your enemies while they cannot shoot you)

 

This is the bigest problem OMG, if one aircraft is better then the other one, why make it model equal for both side, well that is the MANAGER MARKET problems:thumbup: what i said in very 1st post:music_whistling:

Edited February 7, 2010 by GGTharos

[Teknetinium]

agree GG, its therefore what gets most realistic in Lomac is the teamwork in my opinion. Missiles and radar is to some extend a educated guises.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Teknetinium

[Teknetinium]

We don't have perfect data on this, but we do have some reasonable indications.

 

For example, we have great data on flight physics (ie missile speeds, ranges, etc). On guidance, not so much.

 

We know that successive generations are better (more Pk) and approximately by how much. While attempting to model this requires some guesswork, our only other option is to model F-86 v MiG-15 :D

 

If you want modern A2A you have to be ready to accept some guesswork that leads to the following results:

 

- Missile parameters same or similar comparatively to what data is available

- Missile Pk similar to historical missile Pk under same circumstances (where available) but possibly ignoring malfunctioning missiles (who the heck wants to push a button and launch nothing in a game? :) )

- Pilot reaction to missile launch same as what a real pilot describes his reaction would be

 

The last point might lead to a necessity of over-modelling missiles, since a vPilot will not fear for his life - so you have to punish him for not flying realistically. This is a result of simulation that we must all cope with: People are just playing a game.

 

Good one. so lets continue our discussion, I would assume that its easier to chaff a active missile in active state rather then Sarh missile ? :)

Edited February 7, 2010 by Teknetinium

[124SqZeljava]

GG everything here in FC is competition, everybody want his kill, almost every server have kill ratio scores. I don`t have nothing against team work, but this is game and it is not realistic and it will never be. I would be happiest when all of this missile would do nothing and just go straight:), and when good wingman would do his job in dogfight like in Top Gun, with Maverick and Iceman:megalol:, most of peeps here didn`t saw sky full of planes runing for gun kill, very few of us had play that kind of game. Yesterday i was flying on akado 2vs1, i killed them both, now that was an excelent feeling, when 2 jets chaseing you, and you just wash them off:smartass::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::lol:

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but I'll give you a simple answer that maybe will cover it:

 

There's no difference in chaff resistance between a SARH and ARH missile of the same generation, or at least, in most situations there should not be a difference. There is an assumption that because the ARH uses its own radar, it may do some things a bit smarter, but that's an assumption. :)

 

Missiles of different generations will react differently to countermeasures, obviously, the newer one will usually reject the CMs better.

There are many reasons for this: Better understanding of the CMs leading to better seeker capability, faster doppler processing/rejection, as well as purely smarter guidance (ie. choosing a flight path that will make CM rejection easier).

 

Good one. so lets continue our discussion, I would assume that its easier to chaff a active missile in active state rather then Sarh missile ? :)

Edited February 7, 2010 by GGTharos