Does Flaming Cliffs have flanker 2.5 missiles?

[jhfighter2]

Does Flaming Cliffs use the missile moddelling found in Flanker 2.5? Are the missiles any harder to dodge than in Lock on 1.02? Does anyone know of a mod that will change the missiles in lock on so that they are like those in Flanker 2.5?

[Witchking]

set the slider to 100% . probably then they are like that. In flanker 2.5 the missile performance was over exaggerated. This is how missiles are susceptable to countermeasures. I think FC models missiles pretty well...except characteristics of its physics like weight etc.

[jhfighter2]

set the slider to 100% . probably then they are like that. In flanker 2.5 the missile performance was over exaggerated. This is how missiles are susceptable to countermeasures. I think FC models missiles pretty well...except characteristics of its physics like weight etc.

 

Are the missiles in Flaming Cliffs any different than Lock On 1.02? I really like the performance of the Iglas which are way too easy to dodge in other games. The people in the Flanker forum prefer the flanker missiles because the missiles in Lock On 1.02 were no real challenge. One person claims to be able to dodge them 95% of the time when the slider is set to 100% and likes the satisfaction that dodging a missile in Flanker brings. Are the missiles in Flaming Cliffs any closer to the missile behavior in Flanker 2.5 in terms of difficulty in dodging.

 

I am kind of on the fence about purchasing Flaming Cliffs. Unless the difficulty of the missiles is improved to Falcon 4.0 Superpak and Flanker 2.5 standards, I'm not very interested in Flaming Cliffs. One thing that would make me change my mind is if the Kub SAM fires more than one missile at a time like in Flanker 2.5.

[GGTharos]

But why would you think that the Kub can guide multiple missiles on multiple targets? Or do you mean multiple missiles on a asingle target? THat I can see.

 

 

As for missile performance, neither Flanker's nor Falcon's are particularely realistic either, but if you do like the challenge, sure, go put the slider all the way up to 100%. You still won't have to dodge missiles if you beat their kinematic range, regardless of which sim you play.

[jhfighter2]

Falcon 4.0 and Flanker 2.5 missiles not realistic?

 

But why would you think that the Kub can guide multiple missiles on multiple targets? Or do you mean multiple missiles on a asingle target? THat I can see.

 

 

As for missile performance, neither Flanker's nor Falcon's are particularely realistic either, but if you do like the challenge, sure, go put the slider all the way up to 100%. You still won't have to dodge missiles if you beat their kinematic range, regardless of which sim you play.

 

How can you say both Flanker and Falcon missiles are not realistic? How about if I add in Jane's F/A-18. The missiles are probably harder to dodge in Jane's F/A-18. Can Falcon, your Flanker 2.5, and Jane's all be wrong? Why not make the missiles in lock on like Flanker 2.5, which were like Falcon And Jane's F/A-18? :icon_roll One thing particularly missing in Lock on 1.02 is the S-300 sam's great speed, which is reflected in Flanker 2.5 and Falcon. And I am talking about the missile slider put up to 100%. The slider put up to 100% is not challenging enough. In Flanker 2.5, you must use both countermeasures and sophisticated manuevers to defeat missiles. How about increasing the speed of the S-300 like it is in Falcon and Flanker 2.5. Isn't there any consideration of making the missiles like Falcon and Flanker 2.5 on the development team, atleast as an option. Are the missiles improved in Flaming Cliffs. Should I buy it?

[Weta43]

Sorry jhfighter2, but I don't understand your post or your indignation. If you want to play a game / fly a SIM where everything is just like it is in Flanker 2.5, play Flanker 2.5. (no ???)

Yes - he can say that Flanker 2.5 & Janes are both unrealistic because they ARE - they're the developers interpretation of data from reality tempered by allowances for gameplay, simulated in a game... He can say FC is "more" realistic because while they're all just approximations, on the basis of his research he reckons this one is the more accurate.

The fact that 2 other SIMs are more like each other than FC is neither here nor there. The old flight modes in FC resemble those of other sims more than the AFM's for the SU25 & SU25T, that doesn't make the old models more accurate than the new, just the way things used to be done.

Is ther eany challenge to be had in the game ? If you want a bit of a challenge load up the SU25T with gas, stick A2A's on the 4 outside pylons & guns on the inner then go & find yourself an F15 to play with.

[GGTharos]

How can you say both Flanker and Falcon missiles are not realistic? How about if I add in Jane's F/A-18. The missiles are probably harder to dodge in Jane's F/A-18. Can Falcon, your Flanker 2.5, and Jane's all be wrong? Why not make the missiles in lock on like Flanker 2.5, which were like Falcon And Jane's F/A-18? :icon_roll One thing particularly missing in Lock on 1.02 is the S-300 sam's great speed, which is reflected in Flanker 2.5 and Falcon. And I am talking about the missile slider put up to 100%. The slider put up to 100% is not challenging enough. In Flanker 2.5, you must use both countermeasures and sophisticated manuevers to defeat missiles. How about increasing the speed of the S-300 like it is in Falcon and Flanker 2.5. Isn't there any consideration of making the missiles like Falcon and Flanker 2.5 on the development team, atleast as an option. Are the missiles improved in Flaming Cliffs. Should I buy it?

 

Maybe because the real hit ratio of SARH missioles hovers at around 35% even today? Try shooting things down with sparrows in Jane's. Yes, the ARH's are somewhat buggered.

 

As for the S300, it suffers what the other missiles suffer: very simple physics model ... the missile has the speed, about mach 4-5 when it launches, but the problem is that somehow inertia isn't taken into account much, so it slows down too fast after te rocket is exhausted (according to some research the missile ranges in LOMAC are currently fairly realistic anyway) but we've got little data on their aerodynamic maneuvering capabilities, and I see some other little flaws as well, but mostly with the sensor model and not with the kinematics so far. In other words, the missiles aren't that bad; and I had a pretty easy time dodging the ones in Jane's, too.

 

SK might be able to better answer that anyway.

 

The missiles in FC are in a lot of ways like the missiles in 1.02.

[Invicta]

Sorry jhfighter2, but I don't understand your post or your indignation. If you want to play a game / fly a SIM where everything is just like it is in Flanker 2.5, play Flanker 2.5. (no ???)

Yes - he can say that Flanker 2.5 & Janes are both unrealistic because they ARE - they're the developers interpretation of data from reality tempered by allowances for gameplay, simulated in a game... He can say FC is "more" realistic because while they're all just approximations, on the basis of his research he reckons this one is the more accurate.

The fact that 2 other SIMs are more like each other than FC is neither here nor there. The old flight modes in FC resemble those of other sims more than the AFM's for the SU25 & SU25T, that doesn't make the old models more accurate than the new, just the way things used to be done.

Is ther eany challenge to be had in the game ? If you want a bit of a challenge load up the SU25T with gas, stick A2A's on the 4 outside pylons & guns on the inner then go & find yourself an F15 to play with.

 

You said it all Weta43

[Kuma]

Missiles are always a touchy subject especially to those who like SAM hunting or BVR. While its just my opinion I prefered missiles in Falcon 4 over missiles in LOMAC. And missiles in Janes F18 were fun to play around with but were painfully easy to spoof. I think Janes did a nice job on modeling but I felt it was too easy to force an overshoot.

 

I spent most of my time flying online and missile modeling may be different online vs. offline. But online pilots could do a rolling manuever and easily spoof the missile. The missile would try to track a particular spot on the aircraft and once the aircraft would start to roll the missile was still trying to hit that spot. What ended up happening was the missile would miss, just barely and whiz right by without proximity fusing. Needless to say once people started noticing this it was being heavily exploited online. Not everybody was doing it but that didn't really matter. If you were going head to head vs. someone who knew about this it would become a missile slinging match in hopes that one missile might actually hit. If the missile would simply have proximity fused there would be no problem. But unfortunately they didn't.

 

Those 2 things added to the fact that everybody wanted to fly with external views really put a damper on it for me.

[GGTharos]

Missiles are always a touchy subject especially to those who like SAM hunting or BVR. While its just my opinion I prefered missiles in Falcon 4 over missiles in LOMAC. And missiles in Janes F18 were fun to play around with but were painfully easy to spoof. I think Janes did a nice job on modeling but I felt it was too easy to force an overshoot.

 

I spent most of my time flying online and missile modeling may be different online vs. offline. But online pilots could do a rolling manuever and easily spoof the missile. The missile would try to track a particular spot on the aircraft and once the aircraft would start to roll the missile was still trying to hit that spot. What ended up happening was the missile would miss, just barely and whiz right by without proximity fusing. Needless to say once people started noticing this it was being heavily exploited online. Not everybody was doing it but that didn't really matter. If you were going head to head vs. someone who knew about this it would become a missile slinging match in hopes that one missile might actually hit. If the missile would simply have proximity fused there would be no problem. But unfortunately they didn't.

 

Those 2 things added to the fact that everybody wanted to fly with external views really put a damper on it for me.

 

 

JF18 has it 'more right' than F4 IMHO. An AMRAAM study defines a 'hit' as falling within 5m of the aircraft for example.

 

You'll find that LOMAC 1.1 missiles works better - you can still barrel roll them but you are less likely to do it sucessfuly unless you do it -exactly- right. And prox fuzes work now ;)

[Kuma]

JF18 has it 'more right' than F4 IMHO. An AMRAAM study defines a 'hit' as falling within 5m of the aircraft for example.

 

You'll find that LOMAC 1.1 missiles works better - you can still barrel roll them but you are less likely to do it sucessfuly unless you do it -exactly- right. And prox fuzes work now ;)

 

Well... to me missile modeling seems better in certain respects in JF18. But I think there p/k isn't good enough. I felt that JF15 was better in that respect even though there were bug issues in JF15. While its not a missile issue I always felt that the "notch" gate in F4 was too small but maybe thats changed in recent patches as well. JF18's gate felt huge by comparison.

 

Its great to hear they continued work on the missiles. I'm a big fan of BVR and A2A in general so things like that are so important for me to enjoy a sim. And its great to hear you can get proximity hits now. There was no bigger turnoff than watching a missile whiz by someones cockpit and continue on its way. I wish I could try it out on someone elses computer. I'm not a big fan of the Frog so I'd have to justify buying it for some other reason.

 

So there is going to be one more patch (addon) and then thats it? And then they will be moving onto other projects?

[GGTharos]

Sure there's reasons other than the frog (and I think you'll have some fun trying the frog; I don't fly it but I've tried it and it's interesting to fly)

 

The F-15's radar works better, specifically in TWS for example. Russian birds have had their instrumentation redone with a more realistic radar display now and hoJ capability as well.

 

Other features include SAM enhancements, ground-pounder enhancements and so on.

 

Yes, there will be only one more add on, the Ka-50 (with numerous tweaks, updates and changes to other things along the way) and then they are moving onto a more hardcore like project to be more like JF18 or Falcon.

 

 

Insofar as the gates go: Who the heck knows; a slower aircraft will get in teh notch much easier, for example. Anyway, that debate's been done no doubt.

[Sulman]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I find this topic interesting. I thought the missile modelling in Flanker 2.0 and 2.5 was manifestly the toughest I've encountered in any sim, easily. Falcon, JF18, and Even Flanker 1.0 & 1.5 weren't as difficult. It was one thing that really upset me about a sequel I was so looking forward to.

 

I really like where it's at in 1.1; feels just right to me, hard enough in that you have to do some work, but not so harsh they take the fun out of it.

[GGTharos]

It'll get better ... if ED has time, they will model some very interesting behaviour in the missiles.