F15c is not the TANK

[GGTharos]

I disagree with this notion Ceasar, I mean - yes, the pilot would wish to save himself, but if he was deep in a fight, and his engines were working and parts of his weapons system (eg. radar) was damaged, but the plane is flying ... this is what back up modes like LNGT/VISUAL are for.

 

Of course, I also will add that this is an exception to the rule, but basically if you eliminate this possibility, you are losing a little something (not necessarily a big something, but a little something). :)

When you are damaged in Su-27, can you not use heat seekers in LNGT mode?

 

The difference with F-15 is that the AMRAAM is very dangerous, even in LNGT, but this is just the nature of the beast.

 

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.

[GGTharos]

Specifically we found that the AMRAAM's fuzing capability had pretty good range, and the explosive damage calculation was incapable of dealing with it; a 120 could approach you, hit you in the face - or rather, exactly fuze_distance in front of your face, and result in doing nothing bug making it look like you're flying through flak.

 

This is a code issue. If the fuze could be re-shaped, and directed blasts modeled, you might still get similar results since it would cut up your plane pretty good - but eh, just educated speculation on my part.

 

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.

[Steel Jaw]

Good point.

[nscode]

Sorry if this was already posted, but the most unrealistic part here is the actuall message that you get that someone is "dead". Remove those, and the problem is solved :)

[GGTharos]

+100000000 sensible :P

 

Sorry if this was already posted, but the most unrealistic part here is the actuall message that you get that someone is "dead". Remove those, and the problem is solved :)

[combatace]

warheads["R_550"] = simple_warhead(13.0);

warheads["MICA_T"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(12.0);

warheads["MICA_R"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(12.0);

warheads["Super_530F"] = simple_warhead(27.0);

warheads["P_40T"] = simple_warhead(38.0);

warheads["P_40R"] = simple_warhead(38.0);

warheads["P_24R"] = simple_warhead(25.0);

warheads["P_24T"] = simple_warhead(25.0);

warheads["P_60"] = simple_warhead(3.5);

warheads["P_33E"] = simple_warhead(47.0);

warheads["P_27AE"] = simple_warhead(39.0);

warheads["P_27P"] = simple_warhead(39.0);

warheads["P_27PE"] = simple_warhead(39.0);

warheads["P_27T"] = simple_warhead(39.0);

warheads["P_27TE"] = simple_warhead(39.0);

warheads["P_27EM"] = simple_warhead(39.0);

warheads["P_73"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(8.0);

warheads["P_77"] = directional_a2a_warhead(22.0);

warheads["P_37"] = simple_warhead(60.0);

warheads["AIM_7"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(39.0);

warheads["AIM_9"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(10.0);

warheads["AIM_9P"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(11.0);

warheads["AIM_9X"] = directional_a2a_warhead(10.0);

warheads["AIM_54"] = simple_warhead(60.75);

warheads["AIM_120"] = directional_a2a_warhead(22.0);

warheads["AIM_120C"] = directional_a2a_warhead(22.0);

 

 

 

ER has blast/fragmentation, or continuous rod war head and 120 has WDU-41/B blast-fragmentation

 

see the actual mass of warhead in Aim-120C and compare it with game and remember that C-7 and not C-5 as in game which has even smaller warhead. Oh! and yes Aim-120B should be set to 23 as its real warhead is 23kg.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_amraam_datasheet.pdf

 

 

and here is mass of war head of R-27ER, same as in game

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/527/

 

Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

Edited September 4, 2010 by combatace

[Vecko]

Sorry if this was already posted, but the most unrealistic part here is the actuall message that you get that someone is "dead". Remove those, and the problem is solved :)

 

No, that's not solution of this problem!

The most unrealistic part here is fact that large percent of direct missile(without number 120 in his name) hits give unrealistic results. The main impression in 2.0 is that you just cant kill players avionics, sometimes, even with whole payloads on your wings. Target can lose engines(first scripted failure), second is wings and later nose tip and from that moment we have hi speed wreck glider, with happy and healthy virtual pilot in it, fully capable to fire and guide his missile! What we see and feel on servers is that most players use this new "feature" very well... This problem was very well solved in 1.12 but since 2.0 is out , thing are, not the same but very similar to 1.01

 

About kill messages,in 1.12 we could see that in chat only when pilot is dead and you see F11 view... Now is more like "Vecko(su27) kill engines and one wing of XXpilo(XXplane)t but hi is still very alive and search Vecko on his radar "...

Why is that so??? I dont know...

Edited September 4, 2010 by Vecko

[GGTharos]

Case's stats show that this true for nearly all missiles ... including 120.

[Pilotasso]

...and the problem was NOT solved in 1.12. this is old bug.

[Case]

...and the problem was NOT solved in 1.12. this is old bug.

I tend to believe GG's explanation that this is not a bug in the game but a limitation of networked gameplay, where latency can cause delays leading to missiles exploding late, and hence causing less damage.

 

It would be interesting to compare my multiplayer numbers with those of single player games.

[71st_Mastiff]

just a latency issue they need to fix IMO, in other words something like il2's version of death is more exciting and except-able to me.

 

Maybe place effects on client-side gaming instead of on the server side too, might help the latency issue with time between server and client connections. issues.

 

in tournament that extra 100,000 mil-sec of life is all-ways cherished.

[GGTharos]

See, this is where you enter the realm of time travel. While ED developers are capable, they won't be pulling any of that off.

 

Latency issues might be taken care of with tricks in SOME cases, but in general latency issues are NOT fixable. In fact, often they are not even detectable as the interpolation algorithm can make everything look very smooth if packets are not being lost at stupidly large frequencies (which would manifest as warping).

 

Again ... there are tricks for -some- things, but latency is not an issue that is fixable. You cannot make it go away with software.

 

just a latency issue they need to fix IMO, in other words something like il2's version of death is more exciting and except-able to me.

[GGTharos]

I agree, but the problem with SP games is that you have to be very picky about the AI you choose to represent the opposition.

 

I find that usually, unless on excellent, the AI will give you about 0.5pk on your 120C's in look-down shots, and close to 1 in look-up shots. Again, very very rough estimate, not worth the paper it isn't printed on, but a figure to start from :)

 

I tend to believe GG's explanation that this is not a bug in the game but a limitation of networked gameplay, where latency can cause delays leading to missiles exploding late, and hence causing less damage.

 

It would be interesting to compare my multiplayer numbers with those of single player games.

[71st_Mastiff]

LOL As ROBIN WILLIAMS character stated in Bicentennial Man. "one could only hope"

I hear what your saying; especially when I see these companies selling "Bull$h*t" to make the gamer try to buy a $300.00 dollar

LAN card speed-ed up, is laughable to me.

 

See, this is where you enter the realm of time travel. While ED developers are capable, they won't be pulling any of that off.

 

Latency issues might be taken care of with tricks in SOME cases, but in general latency issues are NOT fixable. In fact, often they are not even detectable as the interpolation algorithm can make everything look very smooth if packets are not being lost at stupidly large frequencies (which would manifest as warping).

 

Again ... there are tricks for -some- things, but latency is not an issue that is fixable. You cannot make it go away with software.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Mastiff

[SEFalcon]

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

 

Father is told all. We need fix! Im not programer. Im sure ppl like as Case, Grimes, Yoda, Moa, Panzertard, GG ...etc + ED team can find some solution to solve problem with our support of course.

[GGTharos]

I'm sorry to say Falcon, that -probably- not really fixable in FC2 ... no matter how you do it, it is another compromise.

 

As I said before, you can do 'dead is dead' somehow, but then you will never have the pleasure of telling a story of how you escaped from a fight with damage because your friends covered you.

[Pilotasso]

Will be like flying against AA missiles armed with nukes :D

[Panzertard]

Wow, what a thread-monster.. 20 pages. :surrender:

 

1. Okai, nice stats - but probably not relevant to the problem.

Just to iterate on what many of you have stated already:

It cannot tell us about when the Pilot chose to launch. With the AIM-7 as a good example - the pilots may have chosen to launch well within optimal.

But as for kill-statistics for the FC2 engine in general it's awesome.

Cheers Case :)

 

2. The problem: kill-message and the pilot isn't dead.

Obvious bug, we all have observed it. If a pilot is dead - he should be blacked out unable to perform any ingame actions.

It's relevant for all Airframes - but F-15 may be perceive to be more survivable, due to less damage output per oposition missile. Hence it's easy to believe it's a F-15 issue.

 

Unfortunately, no words on any patches yet, so we just have to keep that in mind for the next patch - if ever.

We just have to keep our hopes up, gents.

 

Workaround #1: Dead-is-Dead (Continous) trigger for all flight members within the mission.

Quite alot of work for the mission designed, if it's going to work every time you re-use that flight-slot.

 

Workaround #2: Confirm your kills and/or Server-messages = OFF.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Panzertard

[Exorcet]

I vote for 2 by infinity. Just flew some online on the 51st with messages off. Very different experience. Was also very very glad to see team work going on.

 

As for "dead", doesn't that refer to the plane, not the pilot? IE, when you get a message saying "dead", it's supposed to mean that the plane has crossed some damage threshold, and has nothing to do with the pilot. This is right, yes?

[Panzertard]

Any reference to being 'dead' should incapacitate either the pilot or the plane. So either - but the sum should be the same.

 

But the devs may be able to clarify on what went wrong with those events. It may be the event message itself that is triggered too soon, or perhaps they forgot to do some final cleanup and disable pilot actions / onboard systems.

[Frostie]

It's relevant for all Airframes - but F-15 may be perceive to be more survivable, due to less damage output per oposition missile. Hence it's easy to believe it's a F-15 issue.

Don't even go there i've tried to put this forward as a possible reason but apparently the all knowing stats say its not true. :thumbup:

 

Though I would favour latency issues over this.

[RIPTIDE]

Will be like flying against AA missiles armed with nukes :D

That would be pretty cool though just for a bit of fun. :D

[GGTharos]

Like most things, it is probably some form of unfavourable combination actually.

 

I mean, examine the effects of these same weapons in SP, you will see they hit harder.

 

What I mean is, a longer fuze with the power required to use it can give you more favourable results where latency is concerned, for what are probably obvious reasons (if they are not, I'll expound).

The stats seem to show the this problem isn't as huge in terms of disparity between missiles as people seem to think it is, but again I'm not adverse to looking at it from different angles, but once more - what metrics to use?

 

Don't even go there i've tried to put this forward as a possible reason but apparently the all knowing stats say its not true. :thumbup:

 

Though I would favour latency issues over this.

Edited September 5, 2010 by GGTharos

[SEFalcon]

Where is the father of this thread?

 

Father playing with its babies. Actually, 4 sweet babies. ;)

 

Click here: http://www.mediafire.com/?yhjipmk436ied56

 

Lets dance and volume at MAX!!!

 

:pilotfly:

[MoGas]

Father playing with its babies. Actually, 4 sweet babies. ;)

 

:pilotfly:

 

Congratz for 4 babies, where you get the time for flying then..;)