Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 I would agree with GG here. IMHO People are really making a moutain out of a mole hill. Afterall Excellent skill means just that, excellent. Yes, just like the "Suicidal" level I made a reference to earlier. ;)
Kula66 Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Was this from an enemy vessel in a combat situation? That was the point of my question. ;) Sorry, IguanaKing ... it was a test. In combat in 1982 it suffered alot of glitches, computer resets, problems with micro-switches and sea, problems tracking 2 a/c close together ... usual teething problems! Goes to show, a brilliant performance on the test range doesn't always mean brilliant in RL.
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Yes, that's a pre-requisite for the C-RAM as well ... they tend to get their data from a bigger surveillance radar first. THat's why I'm saying, when you launch a maverick at a Tunguska in LOMAC you can consider that it's already 'looking at you' and it sees the missile separation. Maybe in the future a scan pattern can be implemented for some of the SAMs, and they may have to limit where they're looking to get reasonable tracking and so on ;) For now, they insta-see everything. I haven't tried it yet, but is anybody still getting clobbered the instant they come out of terrain mask? Did the patch pix that? I'm going to stop playing if it didn't. Heh...JUST KIDDING. :icon_jook
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Sorry, IguanaKing ... it was a test. In combat in 1982 it suffered alot of glitches, computer resets, problems with micro-switches and sea, problems tracking 2 a/c close together ... usual teething problems! Goes to show, a brilliant performance on the test range doesn't always mean brilliant in RL. Agreed...but as long as they work on it and don't ignore its problems...it can be a great weapon. ;) I won't deny that. :beer:
tflash Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 The diameter of the maverick and the harpoon differs only by about 4-5cm. (About 30 vs 34cm). They should be equally detectable head-on just from that figure - of course, other factors may apply. And as I have -already- said, shooting down ARMs is at the same time a placeholder for shutting down radars (and likely moving, for the systems that are capable of this, as well as buddy illumination to draw the missile elsewhere and radar emitter decoys) WHICH AT THIS POINT IS NOT SUPPORTED by the AI code. I realize a lot of people would have preferred the SAMs to continue being sitting ducks. But GG, that's the whole point: if patches become focussed on preferences rather than correcting bugs and improving performance, you will always run into debate. Where did you spot the possible consensus on having this solution as a placeholder for something that cannot be modelled in the game? I prefer a game to model things according to its engine's capabilities. This placeholder isn't helping at all in coming to more realistic simulations. On the contrary, the fact that radar beams do not any longer cut through mountains is a real, fundamental addition to the game that immediately leads to a better simulation. I do not like Sam's to be sitting ducks, but I do not need fake capabilities to compensate for this. Without this unneccessary feature, SAM-systems are already very capabale in the game and allow you to make a MEZ that is really difficult to knock-out, considering you can spread a BUK/KUB site over several tens of square miles. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 They're not really fake capabilities, but they're somewhat exaggerated, much like airborne AI having perma-padlock on you. In any case, I just did a whole bunch of tests. No strela or igla engaged the mavericks - the TUnguska did, but a double-tap would kill it. The Tor prefers to lock onto the launching aircraft so early that it ignores the missile. ... so what are you testing? Pre 1.11 missions? [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
Weta43 Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 tflash, $0.05 It seems a fairly artificial distinction you're making between "bug fixes" and changes that have a bearing on game play. Are you suggesting that the FOV of ARH missiles should have been reduced, but the simulation of a search pattern should have been left for another update? They both affect gameplay Or that the radar seeing jamming targets through mountains should have been fixed, but the various new limitations on AWAC & radar detection generaly should have been left out? They both affect gameplay Most of the changes made have some effect on gameplay at one level or another. Plus - What would you gain - it's not a democracy - E.D. make the changes that they see fit & put out as an .EXE If you want to play against others on line you're going to have to install it , so why not just bundle them together. re the "realilty" issue. The jamming in this game is a compromise to have 'something' in the game. From the posts here I'd come down on the side of Tungusta at least being capable of knocking a Maveric down occasionaly with their cannon. Realistically if they know the plane is coming they should at least have a go, which it sounds like is about as far as they get when set below Expert. Cheers.
aimmaverick Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 I like this new feature of SAMs i have been missing it from all the beginning. The problem is that after this radar "optimizations" all SAM sites have got this sideeffect capability. Which is now confirmed bug btw. only s-300, Patriot, Tunguska and particuly Tor can do this but not "old" Hawk and Kub sites lol. This here is a simulation not some fancy movie. PS: Is S-300 command post which has been missing from day 1 finnaly in game?
MBot Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Just a little input into the discussion without supporting a particular side: In the Falkland war the Argentines claim to have shot down a 1000lb bomb tossed towards Stanley airfield by a Sea Harrier with a Roland SAM.
192nd_Erdem Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 To replace some of the lack of this capability, some SAMs were made capable of shooting down ARM-sized targets. Lies.I'll only believe Alfa,Han or Chizh about this... ...and Alfa says they can in third and fourth pages :) But I understand,everything west is undermodelled and everthing Russian is overmodelled in this game ;)
tflash Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 tflash, $0.05 It seems a fairly artificial distinction you're making between "bug fixes" and changes that have a bearing on game play. I agree i'm a little overstating the issue anyway. Whatever we think of the capability of the Tunguska in this regard, it's no big deal. For me, the bottom line is this patch as a whole is a big improvement. The game is increasingly fun to play, is smoother and performs better. And of course, as you remind, the radar coverage fix is a major advancement. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
EvilBivol-1 Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Wow, three pages of controversy just to reaffirm my dedication to ED? Nice... Have faith guys! - EB [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer. The Parable of Jane's A-10 Forum Rules
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Heh...some of us read you, Tflash. ;) We have a realistic expectation of this sim...which means reality could NEVER be modelled with full fidelity and then marketed to civilians...but we also don't quite accept IADS assets with supernatural powers. :cool: But, as a few have said, this kind of thing happens on the excellent setting which is a "I'm a bada** and not even the real world is man enough to stop me" kind of level. I guess its just a new addition that adds a new visual wrinkle for the usual player, and a new "overall" wrinkle for the hard-core player. :D
Alfa Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 I like this new feature of SAMs i have been missing it from all the beginning. The problem is that after this radar "optimizations" all SAM sites have got this sideeffect capability. Which is now confirmed bug btw. only s-300, Patriot, Tunguska and particuly Tor can do this but not "old" Hawk and Kub sites lol. This here is a simulation not some fancy movie. PS: Is S-300 command post which has been missing from day 1 finnaly in game? aimmaverick, I was responsible for the testing of S-300, Buk and Kub against ARMs(HARM and ALARM), and at no point during this testing did I ever see the Kub site even attempt to intercept an ARM. Did you actually experience this or are you just assuming that it can/will?. Something tells me that it is the latter - you seem to have the impression that all SAM systems in V1.11 are capable of intercepting ARMs and AGMs......that is far from being the case. Another matter I would like to add to this discussion is this - I hear a lot of rather bombastic statements about the ability of SAM systems to intercept ARMs and AGMs in V1.11 - yet my own experience during testing was that the same simple scenario(exact same mission) would show 3 radically different outcomes in as many runs. Example: 2x F/A-18C armed with 2x AGM-88 each attacking a full Buk site(1x tracking radar + 4x launcher vehicles) - I ran the mission twice and saw the Buk site intercept 3 out of 4 HARMs after which the Hornets would either be destroyed(if the fourth succesful missile was to take out a launcher vehicle) or succeded in disabling the Buk site if the fourth missile was to take out the tracking radar - then I started writing my report thinking that I had a clear picture of how effective the Buk site is against HARMs, but just for good meassure ran the mission a third time for confirmation.....only to see the first launched HARM getting right through the Buk defences, taking out the tracking radar and thus rendering the Buk site as such completely useless....with one missile. My point being - please dont base your opinions on this new feature on the outcome of a few quick test missions. You will find that the new SAM logic is a lot more "dynamic" in nature than the kind of "static" or "scripted" stuff that we are used to. Secondly, as GG indicated, adapt your tactics......while you might feel that a SAM system intercepting your Maverick is "unrealistic", you will find that it is quite easy to overwhelm them simply by firing two ;) Cheers, - JJ. JJ
Yellonet Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 What kind of ammo does a Tunguska use for it's guns? If the rounds have proximity fuses and the gunner is given sufficient time to aim and fire, then I think it is possible. But, the calibre of the guns are too small for that kind of ammo, right? i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 What kind of ammo does a Tunguska use for it's guns? If the rounds have proximity fuses and the gunner is given sufficient time to aim and fire, then I think it is possible. But, the calibre of the guns are too small for that kind of ammo, right? Nope...in fact, the 20mm ammo of an experimental secondary weapon for infantry troops is HE with a proximity detonator. Its definitely possible. ;)
Alfa Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 What kind of ammo does a Tunguska use for it's guns? 30mm HE rounds :) Cheers, - JJ. JJ
SimFreak Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 If Tanguska has ability to switch its systems to auto mode, just as ship’s defense, it should be capable of engaging anything incoming towards may it be shells, friendly aircraft or AGMs. Human response time to ID, classify, calculate and attack is too slow to do such task for that reason AI does a much better job in ‘auto mode’, also its much more dangerous as someone noted here with example of GW2 and Tornado. This becomes argument of not if system sensors can detect, but if Tanguska has ‘auto’ mode. I place ПЗРК taking down AGMS in category of bugs.
Yellonet Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 However, after I tested this, I saw that the Tunguska were shooting down the Mavericks with its missiles... it apparently has no problem tracking such a man-sized object with its radar... the missiles most likely have proximity fuses so as long as they (the tunguska's) can track the incoming missile a near hit will do. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Just out of curiosity, what level of difficulty did you have the AI on, Yellonet?
D-Scythe Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 You'll get wildly different test results depending on the missile effectiveness slider setting...I play at 100%, because the R-77 and AIM-120 are basically a joke otherwise, and so far, no ARMs have scored against a Buk, S300 or Patriot site. What I don't understand is why weren't things that we KNOW are true were not implemented (like the F-15's CAC modes being effective at 15 nm), while some questionable things (like this) were.
Yellonet Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Just out of curiosity, what level of difficulty did you have the AI on, Yellonet?Excellent. Edit: But they shoot them down quite often on average too... i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 In that case, I'd say the AD behavior should be expected. ;)
aimmaverick Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 aimmaverick, Example: 2x F/A-18C armed with 2x AGM-88 each attacking a full Buk site(1x tracking radar + 4x launcher vehicles) - I ran the mission twice and saw the Buk site intercept 3 out of 4 HARMs after which the Hornets would either be destroyed(if the fourth succesful missile was to take out a launcher vehicle) or succeded in disabling the Buk site if the fourth missile was to take out the tracking radar - then I started writing my report thinking that I had a clear picture of how effective the Buk site is against HARMs, but just for good meassure ran the mission a third time for confirmation.....only to see the first launched HARM getting right through the Buk defences, taking out the tracking radar and thus rendering the Buk site as such completely useless....with one missile. Cheers, - JJ. Well the Buk system modelled in Lomac shouldnt intercept anykind of missiles unless it is the most recent version with added anti ARM capability. Obviously you gave it such capability to be more lethal.
tflash Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 Example: 2x F/A-18C armed with 2x AGM-88 each attacking a full Buk site(1x tracking radar + 4x launcher vehicles) - I ran the mission twice and saw the Buk site intercept 3 out of 4 HARMs after which the Hornets would either be destroyed(if the fourth succesful missile was to take out a launcher vehicle) or succeded in disabling the Buk site if the fourth missile was to take out the tracking radar - then I started writing my report thinking that I had a clear picture of how effective the Buk site is against HARMs, but just for good meassure ran the mission a third time for confirmation.....only to see the first launched HARM getting right through the Buk defences, taking out the tracking radar and thus rendering the Buk site as such completely useless....with one missile. My point being - please dont base your opinions on this new feature on the outcome of a few quick test missions. You will find that the new SAM logic is a lot more "dynamic" in nature than the kind of "static" or "scripted" stuff that we are used to. Secondly, as GG indicated, adapt your tactics......while you might feel that a SAM system intercepting your Maverick is "unrealistic", you will find that it is quite easy to overwhelm them simply by firing two ;) Cheers, - JJ. I do not really agree, Alfa: adapting your tactics is only possible if there are some regular patterns to be discerned in enemy capability. According to your story, however, chances are that sometimes a SEAD package will be decimated (I want to stress this is unseen in the last 25 years!), sometimes one plane makes the kill: no military force would take such a risk. I am running through all the missions I have with BUK/Tunguska/S-300 sites, and unfortunately: these missions have all to be modified, since no way I am getting through with my strike packages anymore. Certainly if you put your launchers well apart and have multiple radars in the running, SAM sites are very, very hard to disable in 1.11. In the gulf war, the frustrating thing was radars were shut down, so that although strike packages went in with no problems, the SAM sites kept intact: more than a thousand HARMS have been fired. This has led to the more modern combined tactic of "DEAD": you shoot HARMS, then a high-flying block 40 or mudhen drops an LGB to the same site. Even this tactic is impossible in 1.11 world: the sams just blow everything out of the sky. So even if we find and develop new tactics, it won't be very realistic ones, certainly not the ones of the F-15C/A-10A timeframe. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts