S77th-GOYA Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 With the upcoming patch, the ECM characteristics of the F-15 as opposed to the Russian planes will be correctly reversed, in regards to whether or not a warning will be given in a HOJ locked bandit. The question is: Why is it modelled incorrectly now? 1
SwingKid Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 Self-protection ECM systems don't transmit unless they have been illuminated by radar, and detected that illumination. Thus contrary to popular belief, "Sniff" and HOJ are not purely passive modes and can be detected by ESM. The reason for the change is not towards realism but rather towards playability, since the ECCM must be modelled in accordance with the existing model of ECM in the game - which in Lock On is considered to be an abstraction. -SK
S77th-GOYA Posted September 24, 2005 Author Posted September 24, 2005 ED has stated in the LOMAC manual that the F-15's HOJ is a passive system and they have reiterated this in the forums. ED has also stated that the Russian HOJ system is not a passive system. The question that remains is why were both of these knowingly modeled incorrectly. Swingkid, from your response I would gather that avionics accuracy is not a priority for the developers. If playability is the main goal, why change the current ECM models? And if all planes' ECM locks can be detected, why not model that?
SwingKid Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 ED has stated in the LOMAC manual that the F-15's HOJ is a passive system and they have reiterated this in the forums. ED has also stated that the Russian HOJ system is not a passive system. The question that remains is why were both of these knowingly modeled incorrectly. Fighter jets are not homing devices and so they don't perform "HOJ". Fighter radars can perform angle-on-jam (AOJ) tracking or "Sniff" mode. The "HOJ" cue on the HUD refers to the firing mode of the weapon - a non-lofted, pure-PN flight profile with target range unknown. The problem in Lock On is not the ECCM but rather the ECM. Accurate ECCM against deception jammers is a moot point because there is no deception jamming ECM behaviour modeled in the game, only simple noise jammers. A noise jamming target cannot detect an enemy lock regardless it is active or passive, because it is never "listening" - the lock is drowned out by the ECM's own noise. So, the accuracy of one way or the other of modelling how the ECCM should behave aginst such imaginary ECM equipment is up to the imagination and people's preferences. When it is impossible to model something accurately, such changes are made in response to reasonable requests from the user community. If those requests were not expressed here, then they may have been made in the Russian forum. Swingkid, from your response I would gather that avionics accuracy is not a priority for the developers. If playability is the main goal, why change the current ECM models? And if all planes' ECM locks can be detected, why not model that? AFAIK the ECM model is not changed. It continues to be an imaginary noise jammer with burn-through susceptibility, just as before. I'm not sure what you mean by "why not" - is it not already this way? -SK
S77th-GOYA Posted September 24, 2005 Author Posted September 24, 2005 ...is it not already this way? No, it's not. Any plane locked HOJ by an F-15 gets a lock warning. They also get a launch warning if a 120 is fired in HOJ but no launch warning if a sparrow is fired in HOJ. If the HOJ lock is from a Russian plane, no lock or launch warnings will sound in the locked a/c. ED, could one of you answer please?
Prophet_169th Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 A noise jamming target cannot detect an enemy lock regardless it is active or passive, because it is never "listening" - the lock is drowned out by the ECM's own noise. So are you saying that the russian RWR and NATO TWS should not display threat data when ECM is on? That would make things interesting. No more matrix when online =)
Weta43 Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Will you be more happy if they say it was because they got it wrong, or if they say they did it on purpose to nobble the F15 ? Surely the important thing is they've acknowledged that it's the wrong way round & they're changing it ? Cheers.
S77th-GOYA Posted October 5, 2005 Author Posted October 5, 2005 I wouldn't say I'd be happy with any answer. But I'm certainly not happy with no answer.
Prophet_169th Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 For some reason I dont think you are going to get the answer you wish to have.
DayGlow Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 I imagine is that when they started the project they had a level of realism that they developed to. Now they are adding more depth to that realism by increasing the complexity of different systems and more accuratly modelling how they work. Down side to this is that you can't do it across the board for every system in systemadic steps. The end result is that we are getting a more complex system being built into the sim, even if others lag behind for the moment. "It takes a big man to admit he is wrong...I'm not a big man" Chevy Chase, Fletch Lives 5800X3D - 64gb ram - RTX3080 - Windows 11
S77th-GOYA Posted October 10, 2005 Author Posted October 10, 2005 There is nothing more complex about the correction. It's a switch of attributes, that's all. The 15 will have nothing more than the Russian fighters incorrectly have now.
Weta43 Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 GOYA - True, and when the patch comes out it'll be the right way around... Why was it wrong? Who knows. What does it matter? Like I said before - There realy are only two options: 1/ it was a mistake - either a coding bug or someone got mixed up about which plane got a warning & which didn't. 2/ it was deliberately modelled wrongly to nobble the F15 - either for gameplay reasons or "to put those F15 flyers in their place". (My guess - you think it was the latter.) Just pick one & go with it. It doesn't look like they're going to answer, & if they do will you be any happier either way? If you think they did it maliciously, are you going to believe them if they say it was accidental, & if you think it was an accident, would you be happy to hear it was done on purpose to nobble you ? They've admitted they got it wrong and their fixing it. Why don't we all move on... Cheers.
DayGlow Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 or c) existing code was utalized to add a feature to the game. The byproduct was that the performance and function of the feature didn't quite match the real specs and is being fixed with the next patch. ie AIM-120 when actively tracking a target sends a warning to the RWR. Make it so the 120 can track a HOJ target, it still sends a warning to the RWR and was overlooked. The idea that a sim uses software to create exact models of systems and their performances shouldn't be expect. Such system modelling is done with huge supercomputers. Much of these games is smoke and mirrors to get the final result. "It takes a big man to admit he is wrong...I'm not a big man" Chevy Chase, Fletch Lives 5800X3D - 64gb ram - RTX3080 - Windows 11
S77th-GOYA Posted October 10, 2005 Author Posted October 10, 2005 Weta43, I honestly don't have a preconceived reason as to why this happened. We could all make a guess but only ED knows how it happened. It appears now that ED doesn't want the community to know how it happened. Dayglow, there are holes in your theory. The 120 is already modelled to not give a warning in TWS mode until it goes active. That's pre-existing code. Plus the fact that the plane locked in HOJ gets a warning before the shot no matter which missle is selected. And it ignores the fact that the Russian HOJ system is not passive but was modeled as passive.
GGTharos Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 We keep finding out that so called facts aren't facts everyday. ECM is a highly classified subject, so there's pretty much zero point in asking for or giving explanations, since we may indeed find out that the F-15 does cause an RWR warning tomorrow - or, we might find that HoJ modes prevent ownship's RWR from functioning properly, and so on and so forth. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Cosmonaut Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Does it really matter WHY it was the way it was? Your question alludes to a preconception you may have that ED modeled the ECM lock in an attempt to make the game unbalanced in some way. Considering the low PK of an hoj shot in the first place then IMO if that was their intention then there are far more clever and successful ways to do that. And why aren't they answering your question? Well maybe they will and if so great but to be honest it seems rather pointless for a Dev to spend time answering a question regarding a problem they have already fixed. The relationship between bugs, the correct modeling of a particular feature and game balance is something that certain types of players have created. I personally think ED just see these as problems that need addressing on a long list of things to do. Yet some players still attach a biased outcome as the main goal of the developer where its more like "ok that's one feature corrected or fixed now onto the next job", with out any importance being placed on whether it's a US or Russian plane. Cozmo. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Minimum effort, maximum satisfaction. CDDS Tutorial Version 3. | Main Screen Mods.
Prophet_169th Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Actually, at 43AGL those HOJ shots are getting pretty good Pk =)
S77th-GOYA Posted October 13, 2005 Author Posted October 13, 2005 One last time, since I know they're around today.
bflagg Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 Cosmo.. you're missing the point. Customer Support Public Relations ...I'm a firm believer in them both and imho ED has missed the airbus on this. Goya is not bashing, insulting, demeaning nor a "kiddie know it all". He posted an intelligent question. (he's not the only one to go ignored either under the same circumstances) Goya.. have you considered bablefish to russian and post on that forum? Thanks, Brett
S77th-GOYA Posted October 13, 2005 Author Posted October 13, 2005 No, I think I've wasted enough time on this.
Cosmonaut Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 I'm also a firm believer in customer support and good public relations however if ED choose not to answer the questions you feel they should then IMO that doesn't mean they have failed in either of those two categories. I would expect that they only answer questions they feel are important and a good use of their limited time in the forums. If they were to answer every single query put to them then they would never have anytime for actual development especially if its regarding issues they have already dealt with. I totally agree that Goya, isn't bashing or insulting but you can't help but see how this post could be seen as quit a provocative one which could be another reason why the DEV's have chosen to stay away. If I asked ED why I had to wait until FC before the gun piper in the Russian planes worked as the manual stated, then do you really think I could expect an answer. The fact is they knew it was porked and they rectified the problem and that is the real point. Cozmo. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Minimum effort, maximum satisfaction. CDDS Tutorial Version 3. | Main Screen Mods.
S77th-GOYA Posted October 14, 2005 Author Posted October 14, 2005 If I asked ED why I had to wait until FC before the gun piper in the Russian planes worked as the manual stated, then do you really think I could expect an answer. The fact is they knew it was porked and they rectified the problem and that is the real point. If the Su-27 pipper was added to the Su-25 instead of the Flanker, that would be a better comparison. (Though not perfect) This isn't about something not being fixed or added it's about traits being wrongly applied to a/c. That is the real point. The question is not provocative enough to provoke an response, obviously.
Recommended Posts