F15c is not the TANK

[Frostie]

No claims, mere observations heh?

 

Your facts seem not to correlate with real data extracted from the game.

120 proximity hitting is more likely to kill than an ER proximity hitting

Fact

R-27ER = 39.0 with no multiplier (simplified warhead)

AIM-120 = 22.0 with a multiplier of 3.5 (directional warhead)

Actual data from the game not a collection of stats from different events.

[Pilotasso]

You know exactly what the multiplier means or does? It multiplies what? radius? percentage of hit? power of detonation? How does it work in the code? you have no idea.

 

Hence you cannot establish the link between your empiric observation with the sats shown. They clearly contradict. And im my book as long as theres some data contradiction the claim cannot be accepted.

[Frostie]

You know exactly what the multiplier means or does? It multiplies what? radius? percentage of hit? power of detonation? How does it work in the code? you have no idea.

 

Hence you cannot establish the link between your empiric observation with the sats shown. They clearly contradict. And im my book as long as theres some data contradiction the claim cannot be accepted.

res.expl_mass = 3.5*power;

 

What were you saying about denial?

[Pilotasso]

And again the stats show its not reflecting a 3.5 deadlier warhead therefore more proof is needed to back your claim.

 

That multiplier means nothing to me without knowing how it plays in the code. You still dont know what it means or does in the code. Neither do I for that matter.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[nomdeplume]

120 proximity hitting is more likely to kill than an ER proximity hitting

Fact

R-27ER = 39.0 with no multiplier (simplified warhead)

AIM-120 = 22.0 with a multiplier of 3.5 (directional warhead)

Actual data from the game not a collection of stats from different events.

 

Keep in mind that a game is a complex collection of moving parts, all interacting in various ways. Just because the AIM-120 has considerably more explosive power doesn't mean it's automatically going to decimate any target it explodes near.

 

If you were take an R-27ER and an AIM-120 and blow them up in the exact same place, you'd expect more damage to occur from the AIM-120. But what is the actual likelihood of the two missiles ending up in the exact same place?

 

I don't know exactly the detail of the modeling in FC2, but they may have different guidance systems, the radar of the firing aircraft may play a big role, they may take different trajectories, their different speeds and maneuverability may have big affect during the terminal phase, etc.

 

It could even be that the AIM-120 has a habit of missing its target by more than the other missiles do, and to make up for that the developers gave a boost to its explosive power. Much easier than making it more accurate in that final moment.

 

The point of all this is that the stats Case provided are more interesting in terms of the overall gameplay effect, as they show the end result after all variables are taken into account -- even including average player skill, which you won't find defined anywhere in the game's scripts. ;)

[Pilotasso]

^^^^precisely, well put

[Frostie]

Keep in mind that a game is a complex collection of moving parts, all interacting in various ways. Just because the AIM-120 has considerably more explosive power doesn't mean it's automatically going to decimate any target it explodes near.

 

If you were take an R-27ER and an AIM-120 and blow them up in the exact same place, you'd expect more damage to occur from the AIM-120. But what is the actual likelihood of the two missiles ending up in the exact same place?

 

I don't know exactly the detail of the modeling in FC2, but they may have different guidance systems, the radar of the firing aircraft may play a big role, they may take different trajectories, their different speeds and maneuverability may have big affect during the terminal phase, etc.

 

It could even be that the AIM-120 has a habit of missing its target by more than the other missiles do, and to make up for that the developers gave a boost to its explosive power. Much easier than making it more accurate in that final moment.

 

The point of all this is that the stats Case provided are more interesting in terms of the overall gameplay effect, as they show the end result after all variables are taken into account -- even including average player skill, which you won't find defined anywhere in the game's scripts. ;)

This is exactly the point im making that the stats do not represent the full story.

[Pilotasso]

wich makes you point the more irrelevant, contrary to the stats.

 

your just giving the first handy excuse. In what planet empiric feelings are more important then actual related events to prove anything?

Edited September 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Frostie]

wich makes you point the more irrelevant, contrary to the stats.

 

your just giving the first handy excuse. In what planet does empiric feelings are more important then actual related events to prove anything?

So what are you claiming ? That the ER has a higher proximity effect than the 120? Or are they the same? Or you don't know and are using the stats as the answer?

[SECeasar]

Yeah, who em I to judge great ED :)

 

Just wont to focus little bit on philosophy of BVR combat. No pilot in RL is allowed to fire missiles if its hit or had some malfunction (life is to precious and expensive) that would be unnecessary lost. Maybe we could just adopt the exist death is death to death is cannot fire solution - because maybe its the same rate (for F15 and Su27) hit and kill ratio but with Su27 you to often cannot fire missiles cause you have electronic failure.

[nomdeplume]

This is exactly the point im making that the stats do not represent the full story.

 

Hmm my point was actually the opposite: the value of one particular variable does not represent the full story as far as gameplay goes.

 

Edit: the stats Case kindly presented do suggest that this particular value is irrelevant to the thread's topic, though.

Edited September 4, 2010 by nomdeplume

[Pilotasso]

So what are you claiming ? That the ER has a higher proximity effect than the 120? Or are they the same? Or you don't know and are using the stats as the answer?

 

Never made such claim. Just because I said yours was not verified with ingame data doesnt mean I support the the same about R-27ER. You have tremendous difficulty trying to find meanings on your reading. And I though I have written English well enough.

 

 

EDIT:

This is exactly the point im making that the stats do not represent the full story.

 

Hmm my point was actually the opposite: the value of one particular variable does not represent the full story as far as gameplay goes.

 

see what I mean? :rolleyes:

Edited September 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[MoGas]

I think a simple dead is dead, is not enough. Maybe Yoda can explain more about a possible MOD, but for example A2G plane gets small too medium hits, and I have to RTB already, because 7 or 50 cal. did a scratch somewhere? Same goes for the fighter plane..., there must be a really good MOD, who knows where you are hit and wich possible systeme is hit, otherwise I don't like it. But maybe Yoda can do it, I don't know..?

[MoGas]

Never made such claim. Just because I said yours was not verified with ingame data doesnt mean I support the the same about R-27ER. You have tremendous difficulty trying to find meanings on your reading. And I though I have written English well enough.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

see what I mean? :rolleyes:

 

I understand youre english, don't worry, and my english is not the best..:)

[nomdeplume]

I think a simple dead is dead, is not enough. Maybe Yoda can explain more about a possible MOD, but for example A2G plane gets small too medium hits, and I have to RTB already, because 7 or 50 cal. did a scratch somewhere?

 

Well, that's a good point, and what I guess it really comes down to is:

 

1. limitations of the game engine to model damage
   
2. real-life differences in the aircraft
   

Obviously the game's going to have a simplified damage model; I think what's present is quite adequate and realistically speaking, unlikely to be dramatically improved.

 

Question 2 is therefore more interesting. However, I think there'd not really be any authoritative information as to what happens to an F-15 when an R27 explodes 15 metres from it, vs what happens to a Su-27 when an AIM-120C explodes 15 metres from it. So perhaps, the internal damage modeling should be essentially identical for balance reasons?

 

On the other hand, it's certainly not inconceivable that some aircraft are engineered in ways that allow them to be more functional than others after receiving damage -- whether by careful design in terms of system redundancies and placement of critical things, or just through blind luck. So making all aircraft identical would then be unrealistic.

 

@Case - do the server logs provide enough information to be able to generate stats on the number of players who manage to fire weapons after being "killed" (and obviously, before respawning)?

[Frostie]

Hmm my point was actually the opposite: the value of one particular variable does not represent the full story as far as gameplay goes.

 

Edit: the stats Case kindly presented do suggest that this particular value is irrelevant to the thread's topic, though.

Your point is all well and good but your not taking into account from what range fired these missiles are actually being presented in these stats.

 

My point is that it could be more 120's are hitting from long range than ER's, causing more proximity hits to occur for 120's.

[Pilotasso]

theres is not much we can fix but to hurt someone elses sensitivity who thinks differently.

[nomdeplume]

Your point is all well and good but your not taking into account from what range fired these missiles are actually being presented in these stats.

 

My point is that it could be more 120's are hitting from long range than ER's, causing more proximity hits to occur for 120's.

 

But you're just guessing that might be the case, so what value is it in this discussion? Do you regularly argue about unprovable things?

 

I also don't see why you're making that guess. Most missiles hits are proximity hits (after all, they're missiles!) and there's no particular reason to think the majority of ER 'hits' will be while the missile is still under power.

 

Finally, I don't see the relevance to the thread. The problem that was originally being discussed was that F-15's which the game has declared "dead" are often still able to fight, while other aircraft are not. Exactly how they ended up "dead" is immaterial to that discussion.

[MoGas]

Your point is all well and good but your not taking into account from what range fired these missiles are actually being presented in these stats.

 

My point is that it could be more 120's are hitting from long range than ER's, causing more proximity hits to occur for 120's.

 

hmm, but I guess this is how it should be, trough the fact that a F-15 fires with TWS on you from 45 miles, and the SU-27 with a noise STT lock from 45 miles for example, and the enemy is already in defensive mode, while a sporty MiG or Flanker, is not getting such early warning?

 

EDIT: that results that fact....on a statsboard..

Edited September 4, 2010 by MoGas

[Pilotasso]

Its a bit dumb inst it? ;)

 

I already explained all this before.

[MoGas]

Its a bit dumb inst it? ;)

 

I already explained all this before.

 

yes, but you need several hits in this topic..:smilewink:

[Frostie]

But you're just guessing that might be the case, so what value is it in this discussion? Do you regularly argue about unprovable things?

 

I also don't see why you're making that guess. Most missiles hits are proximity hits (after all, they're missiles!) and there's no particular reason to think the majority of ER 'hits' will be while the missile is still under power.

Im not arguing that this is right, its an alternative that is closer to the idea that a collection of stats representing missiles being succesful at extremely different parameters is the proof, it is also an unproven route.

So claiming stats represent what missile works and what doesn't is not guessing? Ofcourse your guessing also.

You said the stats account for all variables, they dont, there is no parameter thats states 120 v ER long range - the ER kills more.

This is either a guess or ignored on your part.

Finally, I don't see the relevance to the thread. The problem that was originally being discussed was that F-15's which the game has declared "dead" are often still able to fight, while other aircraft are not. Exactly how they ended up "dead" is immaterial to that discussion.

Ofcourse it is, if the F-15 doesn't recieve as much damage when hit by an R-27 rather than a 120 then this would explain why it would seem F-15's tend to survive more often when engaged by R-27's. Which in turn is answering the OP's question.

 

hmm, but I guess this is how it should be, trough the fact that a F-15 fires with TWS on you from 45 miles, and the SU-27 with a noise STT lock from 45 miles for example, and the enemy is already in defensive mode, while a sporty MiG or Flanker, is not getting such early warning?

 

EDIT: that results that fact....on a statsboard..

Exactly, this isn't represented in the stats which incidently are an unprovable way of showing which missile does more proximity damage.

[combatace]

Where is the father of this thread? not seen him on last 4 pages.

[nomdeplume]

You said the stats account for all variables, they dont, there is no parameter thats states 120 v ER long range - the ER kills more.

 

The stats do represent all variables, but they don't allow you to extract particular variables. The different characteristics of the different missiles and aircraft is taken into account by the players and how they use them in their actual real-world gameplay. This is much more valuable/informative/important than theoretical comparisons of particular variables.

 

What the stats show is that there is not much variation in the effectiveness of the different missiles, in terms of "killing" an aircraft when it is hit. They don't show much besides this.

 

Of course it is, if the F-15 doesn't receive as much damage when hit by an R-27 rather than a 120 then this would explain why it would seem F-15's tend to survive more often when engaged by R-27's. Which in turn is answering the OP's question.

The question was about people being able to continue fighting after the game declared them "dead". What's of interest then is exactly what causes an aircraft to be declared by the game as "dead" but still having a flyable plane, and whether or not this happens with other airframes to a similar extent.

 

The original complaint is not "I hit Eagles with a missile but they keep fighting", it's "I hit Eagles with a missile and the game says they're dead but they keep fighting".

 

Possibly the AMRAAM's greater explosive yield causes its victims to become "more dead", but that doesn't really help matters; and it's also not really been proven to be the case. "More dead" also doesn't make a lot of sense, so if this is really happening, it's confirmation of a bug.

 

Theories however don't equate to proof. Having read back a bit, GGTharos did actually say that the reason the AMRAAMs have an increased warhead was because they were often doing nothing when they detonated, and this was the most practical way of solving that problem. So while they are more powerful, they may also miss by more, meaning the actual damage done under actual game conditions could be similar.

 

Probably the only way to know for sure would be to have two forces of F-15s go at eachother with AMRAAMs and see if there's a statistically significant reduction in the number of zombies making kills.

Edited September 4, 2010 by nomdeplume

[GGTharos]

Okay, while I have answers to my own questions, why is this even important when in reality what you really want to know is, in fact, how many of your missiles are hitting/killing anything over-all? The over-all picture is very important.

 

What metric would you choose, and is it a metric we CAN have?

 

On AIM-120 causing more damage on proximity hits:

Whether it does or not appears irrelevant, as demonstrated by the hit/kill ratios, at least IMHO.

 

Does it do more damage per unit distance? Yes, up to some point.

It is realistic for it to be more effective than an R-27? It certainly is; but it isn't like there are no mathematical issues.

 

Certainly if we take warhead weight as 'damage caused' then at zero distance this is an incorrect result, since we have - what - nearly twice the damage from a 120 than an R-27.

 

But is that even important? In FC2, real direct hits are probably not very common because the fuze detonates the missile without giving it a chance to cause a direct hit usually.

 

Thanks to a directed warhead, even in RL it would not take a lot of distance to overtake the damage caused by the R-27's warhead (if you imagine a graph of damage v distance, the two curves would cross, with R-27 starting at higher damage at zero distance (warhead must almost ENTER the target for this), and the AMRAAM over-taking it after some number of meters). Once more, that sort of thing is simply not represented and CANNOT be represented in FC2 since we do not have a representation of a directed blast in terms of physics. Increasing warhead power is the ONLY way to do it.

 

If worse comes to worse, maybe use enhanced_warhead for the R-27 family, but given the statistics shown, I don't really see the point. I am certainly willing to change my opinion IF you (or someone) can provide convincing evidence that things are really, horrifically wrong.

 

If it's just 'the plane with the better missile has more success and I don't think it should be that way' then I opine this is the way it ought to be, and I'd rather ask for a solution that deals with damage modeling for the fire/weapon control system which IMHO is the real problem here (ie. since players don't seem to want to save themselves, take their ability to do what they shouldn't be doing away).

 

Exactly, this isn't represented in the stats which incidently are an unprovable way of showing which missile does more proximity damage.

Edited September 4, 2010 by GGTharos