Statistics of the 51st PVO Regiment Server

[RIPTIDE]

I think there is always a need to carry them instead of the all 120 loadouts. I guess it all depends on how people fly. Up high and far away from the target, yeah, people like that only carry 120's. Since they never get close, they fire run and repeat. Some don't even wait til the timer goes down. Glad to see that the 120's don't have the ridicules scan zone they had before.

"pew pew pew" :):thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

Yes, but most people who dont do high flying have no Idea whats like to maintain that position without being shot down repeatedly in the first place. And wont do it because deep down they are afraid to get snipped from down below. They just complain :P

[Cali]

Yes, but most people who dont do high flying have no Idea whats like to maintain that position without being shot down repeatedly in the first place. And wont do it because deep down they are afraid to get snipped from down below. They just complain :P

 

Well, you have 2 types of people that complain. You have the 27/29 drivers calling F-15 pilot astronauts. Then you have the F-15 pilots calling 27/29 drivers lawn mowers and gophers.

 

I understand what your talking about Pilotasso, it's hard working the radar to keep it tracking.

[Breakshot]

If some of the short-range issues for AMRAAM and AIM-7 were modeled in-game (Actually, this pretty much goes for all missiles in the game be they east or west) you'd definitely see a need to pack those 9's.

 

Exactly!

 

As it stands now, the 120 is an excellent short range weapon due to it having absolutely no problems in executing crazy maneuvers during its acceleration stage, with no apparent restrictions... I would go as far as say it is the best in this department, IMO (apart from turning fight situations where 73s still pwns), as the chances of evading one which is fired from under 5km is close to 0% in MP situations... P77 is in the same boat as well, although u might get more lucky with it...

 

Meanwhile, u can dodge aim 9s, ETs, 73s, ERs and all other missiles with impunity at close range, not to mention the increased sensitivity to flares for all heaters which makes them so much easier to evade as compared to FC1... they really do love flares now... :music_whistling:

 

Also its funny how ED stated the goal was to get rid of the barelroll exploits, yadi yadi... but in reality, they have only done it for active missiles! All other missiles can be dodged easily/if not even more easily with the same exploit tactics as in FC1...

 

I think the culprit here is the crazy difference between the fuse and explosive power ratios between some of these missiles...

 

So why bother with aim-9s, really... :doh:

[RIPTIDE]

 

So why bother with aim-9s, really... :doh:

Choppers eat 9's better. :)

[GGTharos]

Can't fix everything without rewriting all the missile code (which was simply not in the cards).

[Cali]

Exactly!

 

As it stands now, the 120 is an excellent short range weapon due to it having absolutely no problems in executing crazy maneuvers during its acceleration stage, with no apparent restrictions... I would go as far as say it is the best in this department, IMO (apart from turning fight situations where 73s still pwns), as the chances of evading one which is fired from under 5km is close to 0% in MP situations... P77 is in the same boat as well, although u might get more lucky with it...

 

Meanwhile, u can dodge aim 9s, ETs, 73s, ERs and all other missiles with impunity at close range, not to mention the increased sensitivity to flares for all heaters which makes them so much easier to evade as compared to FC1... they really do love flares now... :music_whistling:

 

Also its funny how ED stated the goal was to get rid of the barelroll exploits, yadi yadi... but in reality, they have only done it for active missiles! All other missiles can be dodged easily/if not even more easily with the same exploit tactics as in FC1...

 

I think the culprit here is the crazy difference between the fuse and explosive power ratios between some of these missiles...

 

So why bother with aim-9s, really... :doh:

 

I think GG is saying that if the missiles were modeled like they should be, then the 120 and AIM-7 would not be good in short range. So in that case you would need to take AIM-9’s for short range. From the chart that Case posted, people are using AIM-9’s more. In FC1, I would not take them cause their range was guns range. I would rather have the extra long range missile then them.

[GGTharos]

Yep, the AIM-9 got 'upgraded' to a bit less than real life performance (code issues :) ) in terms of speed, and got the rocket burn time of the real thing :)

 

In general heaters tend to work well because they usually catch people unaware. As for the guidance and maneuver issues that all missiles in FC have, what can I say - it is what it is.

In the end aircraft carrying ARH will tend to have superior A2A performance over any SARH carrier as it well should be. Incidentally, it isn't like you can't use a 120 or a 7 up close - they have provisions for this, but they really shouldn't be the #1 choice for a number of a reasons that impede their maneuverability. A straight-ahead shot on a low LOS rate target though, why not.

[Case]

Did anyone find a F-15 with 8 x 120's yet? I have seen a few people in the stats board that seem to only use them.

Indeed, there are quite a few people flying with a full C loadout all the time. I have thought about putting up a rule saying this isn't allowed, but it would be hard to police and mean a lot of work.

 

Instead, last month I implemented a new rule that limits each pilot to 200 units of each air-to-air missile per month. When a pilot passes this limit of 200 units he will no longer get points or kills shown on the stats board. Also, the players he kills with these weapons will no longer get the -15 points for dying.

 

Since I implemented this rule some pilots already have diversified their flying routines :D

[GGTharos]

Did it have an effect on spammers? :)

[Cali]

Indeed, there are quite a few people flying with a full C loadout all the time. I have thought about putting up a rule saying this isn't allowed, but it would be hard to police and mean a lot of work.

 

Instead, last month I implemented a new rule that limits each pilot to 200 units of each air-to-air missile per month. When a pilot passes this limit of 200 units he will no longer get points or kills shown on the stats board. Also, the players he kills with these weapons will no longer get the -15 points for dying.

 

Since I implemented this rule some pilots already have diversified their flying routines :D

 

The stat king strikes again! I'll be flying again, just got done reformatting my computer. Seems like I haven't flown in weeks and it's only been about 5 days.

[Case]

Did it have an effect on spammers? :)

 

Yes, I think so.

[Cali]

I haven't seen the spammers like we had in FC1. Although there still are/were a few people I know how many I had coming towards me.

[Boberro]

Indeed' date=' there are quite a few people flying with a full C loadout all the time. I have thought about putting up a rule saying this isn't allowed, but it would be hard to police and mean a lot of work. [/quote']

 

Not only hard to police and require alot of work but also is sick :P

[RIPTIDE]

Indeed, there are quite a few people flying with a full C loadout all the time. I have thought about putting up a rule saying this isn't allowed, but it would be hard to police and mean a lot of work.

 

Instead, last month I implemented a new rule that limits each pilot to 200 units of each air-to-air missile per month. When a pilot passes this limit of 200 units he will no longer get points or kills shown on the stats board. Also, the players he kills with these weapons will no longer get the -15 points for dying.

 

Since I implemented this rule some pilots already have diversified their flying routines :D

Dude... when I'm on my week-off cycle from work, I could probably go through 200 in a day. lol. Here's to gunzo + Vikhrs! :megalol:

[104th_Crunch]

Originally Posted by <51>Case

Indeed, there are quite a few people flying with a full C loadout all the time. I have thought about putting up a rule saying this isn't allowed, but it would be hard to police and mean a lot of work.

 

Instead, last month I implemented a new rule that limits each pilot to 200 units of each air-to-air missile per month. When a pilot passes this limit of 200 units he will no longer get points or kills shown on the stats board. Also, the players he kills with these weapons will no longer get the -15 points for dying.

 

Since I implemented this rule some pilots already have diversified their flying routines :D

 

 

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

 

 

Locked payloads that could be set by the server would have been a nice option. It is sorley needed for sure. Nice creative thinking Case.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Crunch

[Pilotasso]

Exactly!

 

As it stands now, the 120 is an excellent short range weapon due to it having absolutely no problems in executing crazy maneuvers during its acceleration stage, with no apparent restrictions... I would go as far as say it is the best in this department, IMO (apart from turning fight situations where 73s still pwns), as the chances of evading one which is fired from under 5km is close to 0% in MP situations... P77 is in the same boat as well, although u might get more lucky with it...

 

Meanwhile, u can dodge aim 9s, ETs, 73s, ERs and all other missiles with impunity at close range, not to mention the increased sensitivity to flares for all heaters which makes them so much easier to evade as compared to FC1... they really do love flares now... :music_whistling:

 

Also its funny how ED stated the goal was to get rid of the barelroll exploits, yadi yadi... but in reality, they have only done it for active missiles! All other missiles can be dodged easily/if not even more easily with the same exploit tactics as in FC1...

 

I think the culprit here is the crazy difference between the fuse and explosive power ratios between some of these missiles...

 

So why bother with aim-9s, really... :doh:

 

Can't fix everything without rewriting all the missile code (which was simply not in the cards).

 

I think GG is saying that if the missiles were modeled like they should be, then the 120 and AIM-7 would not be good in short range. So in that case you would need to take AIM-9’s for short range. From the chart that Case posted, people are using AIM-9’s more. In FC1, I would not take them cause their range was guns range. I would rather have the extra long range missile then them.

 

Every account I heard form real pilots is that they prefer using it over the sidwinder. The AMRAAM is NOT weak at WVR. Infact in many ways it is superior.

[GGTharos]

Ask them if they'd still use it inside 3nm when merging and after the merge. You might get a slightly different answer. AMRAAM has some issues at close ranges.

[MoGas]

And if the talk about AIM-9M`s or "X", I would use the "X "with the Helmet ;), instead of a AIM-120 at close.

[Pilotasso]

Ask them if they'd still use it inside 3nm when merging and after the merge. You might get a slightly different answer. AMRAAM has some issues at close ranges.

 

the answer we might get might be conditional.

 

If the pilot decides for whatever reason to use a Sidwinder at 3 miles, he might have to wait for tone,depending on aspect, humidity and throttle setting, even target speed. By the time there is tone he might need the short turning radius then because the separation between the 2 has narrowed, or it might be the missile may still fall short or decoyed.

 

With the AMRAAM he can fire with minimal delay. The missile will rip the target at that distance because the turning radius needed wont be as short, also because the missile has lots more energy. Its well inside its NEZ and the likelihood of being decoyed is also much lower.

 

If you manage to talk tto pilots yourself ask for the general outlines of AMRAAM short range envelope parameters, and if you do manage to pull off answers from them you might be surprised. ;)

Edited November 9, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

And if the talk about AIM-9M`s or "X", I would use the "X "with the Helmet ;), instead of a AIM-120 at close.

 

That is true, if your talking about the X then the picture changes yes. However we are talking about the old sidewinder here, which is used ingame.

[RIPTIDE]

And if the talk about AIM-9M`s or "X", I would use the "X "with the Helmet ;), instead of a AIM-120 at close.

Offtopic: With the VNAO F-18 mod you can do just this. :D

[GGTharos]

I know that it's conditional. I also know that at those ranges a maneuvering target can cause the 120 to overshoot which is why your answer surprises me - maybe we're not talking about the same 120 :D

 

the answer we might get might be conditional.

 

If the pilot decides for whatever reason to use a Sidwinder at 3 miles, he might have to wait for tone,depending on aspect, humidity and throttle setting, even target speed. By the time there is tone he might need the short turning radius then because the separation between the 2 has narrowed, or it might be the missile may still fall short or decoyed.

 

With the AMRAAM he can fire with minimal delay. The missile will rip the target at that distance because the turning radius needed wont be as short, also because the missile has lots more energy. Its well inside its NEZ and the likelihood of being decoyed is also much lower.

 

If you manage to talk tto pilots yourself ask for the general outlines of AMRAAM short range envelope parameters, and if you do manage to pull off answers from them you might be surprised. ;)

[MoGas]

Offtopic: With the VNAO F-18 mod you can do just this. :D

 

Offtopic: I know :), may we have to hook up with Moa...

[Pilotasso]

My point is that unless your in a deep furball, you might as well use AMRAAM. The likelihood of getting in such furball is very low even in full blown war. I would say 95% of the times you wont need extreme manoeuvrability where the AMRAAM will not fall short or decoyed, nor overshoot its target.