Outstanding Major Bugs in FC2

[GGTharos]

My answer to this is a cautious 'maybe', for the following reason: Once you abandon a target, the FCR should cease to generate the m-link (I believe in the case of the Su-27 and MiG-29 you have a 2 second grace time, but I am not certain). Once it ceases generating it, it should in theory switch channels for the next missile so that things don't get confusing between friendly radars (ie. friendly missiles picking up and using your m-link, etc). For that reason, I believe if you unlock a target, you're very likely to lose the missile. This is why you have radar memory ... as long as the designated (ie locked) radar attempts to predict, and waits for the target to re-appear, it will continue to generate the m-link. Once the track clears though, it's over, or should be.

[combatace]

It isn't a bug as such - it is a design "Feature". That may sound silly, but it was designed this way, back in the early days of Lock On/Flanker 2.5.

 

So it isn't a bug to be "Fixed" so to speak, it requires a much more substantial redesign of the Lock on Avionics system.

 

That said everything is being considered at this point.

 

Nate

 

Lol!!

 

So you want to sell the same thing to the people yet again and that will be what 5th time you will be doing that?

 

Hope to see some ethics.

Edited December 17, 2011 by 159th_Viper
Rule 1.3

[159th_Viper]

Lol!!

 

So you want to sell the same thing to the people yet again and that will be what 5th time you will be doing that?

 

Hope to see some ethics.

 

If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the discussion then you'll be well advised to remain silent ;)

[combatace]

I would like to see the extra layer of texture on terrains for the forests like in FC1.12. Because from low and medium height the terrain looks terrible with noise texture repeating itself.

Edited December 17, 2011 by 159th_Viper
Rule 1.10

[Pilotasso]

My answer to this is a cautious 'maybe', for the following reason: Once you abandon a target, the FCR should cease to generate the m-link (I believe in the case of the Su-27 and MiG-29 you have a 2 second grace time, but I am not certain). Once it ceases generating it, it should in theory switch channels for the next missile so that things don't get confusing between friendly radars (ie. friendly missiles picking up and using your m-link, etc). For that reason, I believe if you unlock a target, you're very likely to lose the missile. This is why you have radar memory ... as long as the designated (ie locked) radar attempts to predict, and waits for the target to re-appear, it will continue to generate the m-link. Once the track clears though, it's over, or should be.

 

well the r27er is no heater :-)

 

but the m-link, well it should make it possible to switch targets, my 2 cent, because, actually, the missle will only get new datainput of a new cours correction when i lock a diffrent target for example and as far we talk about SARH it uses the reflected radar beams just for a precise course data comparison, cause a SARH shot with datalink could just fly straight, when i lock nochting, which they do, but when i shot at a target, they get course data constantly, which i can break up too and relock again, which works in lomac, but when the target moves to far outside although i have a constant radar picture, the missle will not correct its course. which i would understand when there is for example no radar working at all for some time, but when i have data, or an radar activated, the missle should still wait for informations from its datalink.

 

but right now it is very late here an di should discuss this maybe over the weekend, cause it is hard for me to express my thoughts in a good constructed way right now.

 

Correct if Im wrong but dont the missiles compute a waypoint course from the radars target location info prior to launch? Doesnt this take an ammount of measurable time? I mean even if you could send the new targets position to the missile during flight it probably would fail to reaquire due to time lag and incremental inertical error?

 

 

 

 

Speaking of wich the AMRAAM in LOMAC can switch tragets if you have more then one locked in TWS and un-designate the 1st priority target. The missile will then head torwards the next priority target. is this correct? :huh:

Edited December 17, 2011 by Pilotasso

[Vekkinho]

Speaking of wich the AMRAAM in LOMAC can switch tragets if you have more then one locked in TWS and un-designate the 1st priority target. The missile will then head torwards the next priority target. is this correct?

 

Should be! Same goes with Mavs.

[Pilotasso]

Mavs can switch targets in mid flight??? :huh:

[Vekkinho]

Perhaps I should post this to a FC3 wishlist but here it goes:

 

Ability to change formations (shape and separation) between steerpoints for AI flights. They always fly echelon so no fingertips, trail, stack or abreast for AI pilots...

 

4 ship F-15C flight in echelon during CAP is highly unlikely IRL!

 

Ability to create triggers upon reaching waypoints that split 4 ship formations into 2*2ship or 3ship/1solo for making opposed surface attacks.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Vekkinho

[combatace]

Anyone who has fired AmRAAMs in BMS would know when the Aim-120 will switch target.

[borchi_2b]

well BMS is a diffent sim and we do not know how close to reality this sim is. i do not want to attack that sim, but we just do not know where these guys got thier informations from, o maybe it would be nice to have some input from the misslie companies, so things could be corrected in the right way

[zzzspace]

Nate, have you any comment yet regarding the Track 5 link that I posted of the B1-B actually flying Low-level (at about 270ft), properly, with respect to the situation of al the other aircraft?

 

See : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1351262&postcount=115

 

For your info, I have determined that ALL of the bombers in FC2.1 and in DCS, can fly low-level, but only *IF* you can mess around long enough to convince the LOW LEVEL alt settings for each waypoint to actually lock-in the low alt setting you want at each waypoint within FC2.1's mission editor

 

I also found that the S3 is likewise able fly low-level terrain-following mode with no problems.

 

But if you then take a properly functioning mission and set of waypoints, and substitute an S3 with a fighter or multirole attack aircraft, the plan then ceases to execute as planned, and the low-level flight becomes unworkable - a useless nonsense within both FC2.1 and DCS.

 

People who have actually watched those tracks will want an explanation as to what ED intends to do to put an end to this mess.

 

May I suggest a patch, in the very near future, to actually repair it. I say repair, not just a debug, because as the tracks I supplied show, a vital and very large portion of ED's sim(s) simply don't work, as a result to it.

 

Tell me your company is not contemplating just leaving FC2.1 in this untenable state, and selling more of it to people like me in the interim.

[Nate--IRL--]

Nate, have you any comment yet regarding the Track 5 link that I posted of the B1-B actually flying Low-level (at about 270ft), properly, with respect to the situation of al the other aircraft?

 

See : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1351262&postcount=115

 

For your info, I have determined that ALL of the bombers in FC2.1 and in DCS, can fly low-level, but only *IF* you can mess around long enough to convince the LOW LEVEL alt settings for each waypoint to actually lock-in the low alt setting you want at each waypoint within FC2.1's mission editor

 

I also found that the S3 is likewise able fly low-level terrain-following mode with no problems.

 

But if you then take a properly functioning mission and set of waypoints, and substitute an S3 with a fighter or multirole attack aircraft, the plan then ceases to execute as planned, and the low-level flight becomes unworkable - a useless nonsense within both FC2.1 and DCS.

 

People who have actually watched those tracks will want an explanation as to what ED intends to do to put an end to this mess.

 

May I suggest a patch, in the very near future, to actually repair it. I say repair, not just a debug, because as the tracks I supplied show, a vital and very large portion of ED's sim(s) simply don't work, as a result to it.

 

Tell me your company is not contemplating just leaving FC2.1 in this untenable state, and selling more of it to people like me in the interim.

 

Not my company BTW. I have no say on what gets patched or not. However, I don't expect FC2 will see another patch.

 

As for the problem itself I have been looking at it, as well as viewing your tracks, and have come to much the same conclusion about the problems with Terrain Avoidance behaviour. I will be submitting a formal report on the issue when I get the time. This does not mean it will be fixed quickly however.

 

It is not being ignored - it just happens to join a list of a million other equally important things to do, such is software development.

 

Nate

[Alfa]

ok, so did you get that info about the su27 and the mig29 from the companies? or is it just an assumtion, cause i heared diffent things, even from a pilot about the tws lock capability.

would be interesing to know

 

The functionality of the N019 and N001 radars(MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively) is described quite well in unclassified material and, with the changes made to the radar code in Lock-on FC, this is quite closely represented in the game.

 

The purpose of the TWS mode is to help the pilot assess the tactical situation by collecting track data for up to 10 contacts and based on this determine which one will enter own weapon range first - then prepare weapon for engagement and ultimately switch to STT mode automatically when the target falls within launch parameters of the weapon.

 

At the time these radars were designed there were no ARH weapons available, so the fire control system was configured to go through the sequence required for engagement with a SARH weapon. Therefore there was no reason for the SNP(TWS) mode to be able to "bug" two targets for simultaneous engagement, since subsequent switch to STT(Single Target Track) mode is necessary anyway in order to support terminal SARH operation of the missile.

 

The exception to this would relate to the MiG-29S, for which the radar was modified for support of the R-77 missile. Since the R-77 is ARH and therefore doesn't need support at terminal stage of engagement, it should be possible to launch it directly from TWS mode - some published info claims that the radar modifications indeed included a new TWS routine that could prioritize two targets for simultaneous engagement. However, there is not much information available concerning this modified radar(N019M) and how it would work - which I guess is the reason why such a feature isn't implemented for the MiG-29S in the game.

 

ok, when the r27er have datalink in the game, then to be honest, the relockability of the r27er in the game needs to be improved alot, cause the relock, well it is really bad, and a datalink would stear the missle right, even when you switch a target, but it does not at all.

 

i will make some testing on that relock and show what i mean, cause datalink is not dependend on the reflection to stear a missle. datalink stears to midflightupdates which does not happen in fc2 as far i can tell.

 

Well transmission of course correction is dependant on the radar being able to follow the target, so as GG said, chances are that the WCS will simply close the link if the target lock is lost.....but I don't really know :)

[GGTharos]

However, there is not much information available concerning this modified radar(N019M) and how it would work - which I guess is the reason why such a feature isn't implemented for the MiG-29S in the game.

 

There's a video showing some of the hud symbology in testing for this. I may still have it. It looked different from what we have now, obviously.

 

Well transmission of course correction is dependant on the radar being able to follow the target, so as GG said, chances are that the WCS will simply close the link if the target lock is lost.....but I don't really know :)

 

These things had limited memory etc, and they need to prepare for the next shot, so this is a pretty good guess IMHO. :)

[Alfa]

Correct if Im wrong but dont the missiles compute a waypoint course from the radars target location info prior to launch? Doesnt this take an ammount of measurable time? I mean even if you could send the new targets position to the missile during flight it probably would fail to reaquire due to time lag and incremental inertical error?

 

Good point Pilotasso.

 

 

Speaking of wich the AMRAAM in LOMAC can switch tragets if you have more then one locked in TWS and un-designate the 1st priority target. The missile will then head torwards the next priority target. is this correct? :huh:

 

I don't know, but it sounds plausible.

[GGTharos]

Plausible but not too much: Each AMRAAM has its own M-link channel and no reason to pick up another missile's channel. It wouldn't make sense to do it this way ... I think realistically, with the m-link gone, the missile should go inertial rather than picking up another m-link channel.

[Alfa]

There's a video showing some of the hud symbology in testing for this. I may still have it. It looked different from what we have now, obviously.

 

Interesting :) .

 

These things had limited memory etc, and they need to prepare for the next shot, so this is a pretty good guess IMHO. :)

 

Yeah I think so too.

[Alfa]

Plausible but not too much: Each AMRAAM has its own M-link channel and no reason to pick up another missile's channel. It wouldn't make sense to do it this way ...

 

No you are right.

 

If you "bug" the first priority target and launch a missile, then the whole point to a multi-channel system is that you can switch to a secondary target and launch a second missile towards this without affecting the first launch.

[zzzspace]

Not my company BTW. I have no say on what gets patched or not. However, I don't expect FC2 will see another patch.

 

As for the problem itself I have been looking at it, as well as viewing your tracks, and have come to much the same conclusion about the problems with Terrain Avoidance behaviour. I will be submitting a formal report on the issue when I get the time. This does not mean it will be fixed quickly however.

 

It is not being ignored - it just happens to join a list of a million other equally important things to do, such is software development.

 

Nate

 

 

Well thank you Nate for viewing those tracks and undertaking to formally report it.

 

Two things:

 

(1) I think selling a sim this fundamentally broken in low-level flight demands it be patched, and users should demand this of ED.

 

(2) A buyer and user like me should not have had to be the one to point out an issue that's so dramatically obvious, as to how blatantly dysfunctional low-level flight is within these sims.

 

I've wasted almost $200 dollars AUD buying these ED titles, and little prospect of patching it.

 

Not impressed.

 

I don't intend to repeat the mistake via buying FC3.0, nor DCS v2.0

[borchi_2b]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilotasso

Correct if Im wrong but dont the missiles compute a waypoint course from the radars target location info prior to launch? Doesnt this take an ammount of measurable time? I mean even if you could send the new targets position to the missile during flight it probably would fail to reaquire due to time lag and incremental inertical error?

 

Good point Pilotasso.

 

 

Quote:

Speaking of wich the AMRAAM in LOMAC can switch tragets if you have more then one locked in TWS and un-designate the 1st priority target. The missile will then head torwards the next priority target. is this correct?

I don't know, but it sounds plausible.

 

well to me it does not sound plausable, cause the amraam is basically nothing else then a SARH until it goes pitbull. it requires data from the datalink which gets the data from the reflected beams.

 

so acctually, when you fire a R27ER, the courseupdate would be provided by datalink too, right?

thats what i understood here from your decriptions. so what comes to my mind now is, when you fire a SARH missle with a datalink and you get a good picture on radar and good data, the SARH does not really need the reflections from the target until a few sec before impact right, cause the datalink will stear the r27er in a proper way. so acctuyll even the last few sec are not needed, actually the SARH missle could be guided into the target only by datalink, cause do to the fact that it is an SARH, it needs the reflections or datalink updates constantly, so it would make sence to me if a bandit shot by an SARH missle from a su27 would never ever get an indication at all, cause it is not needed, do to the fact that there is datalink informations. same would also aplly to any mordern ARH missle, but why ARH was designed, the mainreason is, that the pilots do not have to fly into the NEZ of the enemy and can turn away before they are shot. thats the actual idea of the ARH, but without thier own radar, they could be steared into the target just by the datalink.

what i do not know though is, if the modern radars from the 90ties were capable to provide such percise data of the target, that this tiny sopt could be hit by a fast moving little peace of metal.

 

but about the datalink, well now i can explain my thought a bit more precise.

 

lets go through this step by step, also easier for me :-)

 

first fact:

we have an SARH missle which needs target information for terminal impact situation and is not automated by istelf, so there is no danger of hitting the wrong target, cause i have full control of the missle itself and the target decision.

2nd fact:

when there is a datalink to the missle, why then are the reflections needed for the whole flight? only needed for the terminal phase, cause radar can direct the missle all the way near enough and needs to be pointed at the target for the terminal phase anyways, cause we use SARH

 

3rd fact:

when we talk about the datalink and it needs to be fired a 2nd missle, the computer needs a little time to set all data into the flight comp of the missle, thats the reason why the missles need to be pickeled longer then in most of the sims. i think in reality it is something around 3 sec, as far i can remember the f4 pilot i talked to, who transitions to the eurofighter now.

so do to this timeissue i can imagine, that datalink is still linked to the missle last shot, which would make sence to me and is broken when the 2nd missle is fired, so then i would need the SARH functionality of the system, cause the first missle still needs soem guidence, but the 2nd can still fly on datalink. right?

makes sence, or doesn´t it?

so for my understanding the datalink would be provided till 2nd missle launch, makes alot of sence to me and it does not matter if a target is locked, the datalink should still be there all the time, cause i have full control of the missles, cause they are not autonomic like the ARH.

 

4th fact:

the missles cannot be guided anywhere, but inside some territory of the radar azimuth cause datalink could be send through radar towards the missle, so anthing in the azimuth and infront of the plane and the missles could be steared too. i cannot expect the mssile make a 180, although they might be capable of that.

to make it very simple, datalink update actually works like RC planes. they get course informations from some radiosource, in basic.

 

5th fact:

when the r27er have datalink, then they should be capable in modern days, like the 90ties, to give back thier own possition to the datalink system like the amraams allready do and many other missles. so there can be computed a time to impact.

 

6th fact:

lets set up the situation of a single SARH shot with datalink.

actually how i allready said, the aim120 is nothing else then a SARH on datalink untill it goes pitbull, cause it needs target information to be guided, right?

so why should it not be possible to just use the target refelction on the terminal phase of the flight, cause the other flight could be steared like an ARH missle via datalink, so the enemy would get the indication only on the terminal phase, a few sec before impact, like in lomac a HOJ shot with an ARH, same principels.

 

7th:

when i have datalink to my SARH i should be able to turn out compleatly and come back hot and still use my first shot missle before i turned out, do to the fact, that i have datalink and can give informations to the missile. just becuse i turn i do not need to use datalink unless it is maintained through the radar, then i have to stay in my target.

if it is not maintained through my radar, then i can tunr and burn all the time, cause i am linked to my baby.

do to the fact that i am linked i have information of the distance actually between missle and my own plane.

so when i know the badit is still further away, a good pliot can compute it in his brain, then i can back hot again and lock him and have my terminal phase of my missle attack.

 

all these thought they i came up with are thought of a civilian, and i can imagine that the russian military brains got these thoguth too, cause they now even more then i know about fighting in a a2a role and thier requires.

and the have the brainpower and money to develop such things.

these are reason for me, as outsider, thoguth that explain why the russian stayed with the SARH for thier main frontline fighter, instead of switching to the ARH, which give away thier positon anyways at some point, so they warn the opponentand make him react.

 

further the russians developed the r27pe, the spassiva, which is homing on the radar beams which functions acctually like a air to sam missle, or HARM and is fire and forget for that reason.

there must be some reason why the developed this way, nt just for killing awacs, although the missles are made for that.

 

so you see this is a very tricky content and many things could be discovered just by some brainstorming and focus on a task.

 

acctually i belive that if the r27er have datalink in real life, what they are supposed to have, that a silent kill on an enemy would be possible, just by flying over the posted facts.

 

hope you guys understand what i mean, not sure if all my thoughts are clearly understandable

[GGTharos]

^^^^ ... what?

 

1. That isn't necessarily correct. The missile will do a search for its homing target and may pick the wrong target. This is why pre-emptive chaffing helps (aside from the fact that it could potentially defeat the radar).

 

2. They're not. It's not just about the missile. The radar is designed and mechanized in a specific way also. For whatever reason (I'd say interface, susceptibility to ECM, etc) you don't get the radar to launch the R-27 without a lock. And the radar doesn't generate an M-link without a lock and a missile being launched. That's all there is to this, don't try to overthink it.

 

3. The radar might well be capable of two channels - you'll see often in some literature radars being described as 'capable of tracking x targets and guiding y missiles per target'. That y is the number of m-link channels ... allocated to each x. For the Su-27S, x=1.

 

4. Something like that, except they may well inhibit the m-link once they transition to homing.

 

5. Wrong. Right now, I've not heard of any AAM but 120D having this capability, and that's supposedly a new capability ... until now, at least AFAIK, only some SAMs had this capability.

 

6. The 120 doesn't have a SARH component to the best of anyone's knowledge here. It's Mid-course update to inertial followed by active homing. What you're trying to describe was allegedly done by AIM-54, and no other missile that I can recall. As for HoJ, there does not exist a sim that I can recall that did ECM/ECCM and thus HoJ well.

 

7. No, you should not, because your M-link is cleared by then and ready for the next shot. It will NOT be generated again until you launch a missile. The M-link is generated from target data and transmitted on the radar side-lobes most often, IIRC. No radar, no m-link.

 

The R-27P is not even in the RuAF stock last I heard, which wasn't too long ago.

 

There is no tricky content to any of this. The way it is mechanized in-game is pretty close to how things work RL. There are some differences, but nothing like you're suggesting.

[Nate--IRL--]

Well thank you Nate for viewing those tracks and undertaking to formally report it.

 

Two things:

 

(1) I think selling a sim this fundamentally broken in low-level flight demands it be patched, and users should demand this of ED.

 

(2) A buyer and user like me should not have had to be the one to point out an issue that's so dramatically obvious, as to how blatantly dysfunctional low-level flight is within these sims.

 

I've wasted almost $200 dollars AUD buying these ED titles, and little prospect of patching it.

 

Not impressed.

 

I don't intend to repeat the mistake via buying FC3.0, nor DCS v2.0

 

I can only do so much. I can only try to address your problem within the scope I have. If you still feel aggrieved, there isn't anything I can do about that.

 

Nate

[Pilotasso]

Borchi, the SARH and ARH missiles you are discussing are on 2 different levels of technology entirely. If you could cram that much computing power in a SARH you might as well make it ARH. The latter is flying computer the first is an amalgamation of electronics from the times of the hippies. :)

 

Theres a reason why the AMRAAM took so long to develop, if both were so close, all it would take was a homing head switch. Thats not what hapenned.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Pilotasso

[borchi_2b]

true at some point but i cannot imagine the RuAF has not upgraded the r27er in all these years.

 

i am pretty sure they did!!! otherwise there would be no reason for them to stick to it as main weapon for the su27 family

[Pilotasso]

There were atempts to make the R-27ER seeker exchangeable with an ARH unit but that was cancelled in favour of the R-77 (for good reason) and then when the country split this too was halted. Its not that they couldnt, it simpy wasnt a priority. Today this is about to change as russia shifted its priorities around again.