Rusky radar question

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I was watching the server status. You were shot down by an F-15 with an AIM-7M whiel flying a MiG-29S. You're grasping for straws ;)

I’ve been watched now! :)

 

So what if I was shot down by AIM-7? By the way, F-15 carry 4 AIM-120’s and few more AIM-7’s. AIM-120’s are used to force you defensive and then you can be finished even with AIM-9, let alone AIM-7’s. F-15 is faster then MiG-29. F-15 carries more fuel then MiG-29. F-15 has more powerful and more sophisticated radar. Only rookie F-15 pilot can loose against MiG-29 or Su-27!

 

That’s why Su-27 has a data-link. And that’s why there is AWACS/GCI. And that is what F-15 pilots are afraid of. :)

[GGTharos]

Straws ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Straws ;)

Fear. :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I was watching the server status.

BTW, since you were watching the server, who was on top of the list? Was it F-15 or Su-27?

[GGTharos]

I don't know, that's something that wasn't displayed. I was looking at this:

 

http://www.syn-ack.com/vvs504/serverstatus.shtml

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I don't know,...

:)

[S77th-GOYA]

That’s why Su-27 has a data-link. And that’s why there is AWACS/GCI. And that is what F-15 pilots are afraid of. :)

 

You're right. I'm afraid I'd freak and strangle that stupid woman. If mission makers want to give the Red birds datalink, please do it with EWR. Besides, AWACS get shot down pretty quick anyway.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hi Goya,

 

I am glad you joined this discussion. You are among the best F-15 pilots out there. I personally had more then one fight with you and most of the time it was me who lost it. You are among F-15 pilots, and don’t get me wrong I would do the same if I had a chance doing it with Su-27, so you also use launch and run tactic with AIM-120.

 

I can see that you are not afraid (unlike GGTharos :) ) of including AWACS/GCI in on-line maps. Any additional comments from good F-15 pilot perspective?

 

BTW, AWACS can be assigned couple of escort aircraft and then it is not very easy to take AWACS down.

[S77th-GOYA]

Launch and run is what a 15 pilot has to do against a Su the vast majority of time. We have to go inside your kill envelope to get to the threshold of our kill envelope, get our shot(s) off, and get away. That's the best way to survive multiple ER/ET shots. Su pilots don't like it. They're not supposed to.

 

As far as AWACS, I think the way they are modeled is very much in the Russian planes' favor. Sure the 15 didn't have a datalink, but the information we get from AWACS is poor. Plus the wench won't shut up. It's much harder to find bandits on radar now for all planes. I think datalink would be a bit lopsided against the F-15 but I wouldn't avoid a server that had it. Extra challenge is good sometimes.

[wsoul2k]

Any comments

 

 

Ok now im confused....

 

Force_feedback found this in the Su-27sk manual

 

I found the datalink-section!

 

As explained before, the datalink can work in the following modes:

 

-In a single airgroup, linking all the members together, on initiative of the flight leader.

 

So an SU-27 airgroup can share information from Another SU airgroup ?

 

-In a combined flight (of multiple groups), by the commanding officer.

 

Multiple groups can share informaton with other group ??

 

something like a CAP group can share information they receave with an a strike group behind then ??

[Guest ruggbutt]

I can see that you are not afraid (unlike GGTharos :) ) of including AWACS/GCI in on-line maps.

Instead of insulting GG and crying about why don't you host your own server and put up your own missions. The AWACS have been removed from most of the m/p servers for good reason.

[Cosmonaut]

First those data link pics are damn cool..!

 

 

This thread could've ended on page 2 with this statement.

 

I'm not saying the 27 isn't disadvantaged - it is, and it's supposed to be, but it isn't impossible to play. I does take more work for sure, but again, not impossible.

 

The Su's are the toughest, as they should be but IMHO I don't like the idea of trying to give one side special treatment no matter how porked their weapons systems are ;) .. that's for the pilot to overcome. Anyway it makes the kill that much more satisfying .. hmm and gives you a good excuse when you get shot down lol.

 

Secondly what's the point of pushing ED into producing ever more realistic fighters and then complaining about one fighter being too good.

 

As for spammers, well nothing you can do but leave the server if it gets too painful.

 

[OT] My vote for quote of the year goes to!!

Hold your lock like a man :D

[wsoul2k]

PLz can someone explain to me if the info posted by Force_feedback about data-link in the Su is correct ...im not talking about data-link with an EWR or AWACS im talking about data-link fron one airgroup of SU to other airgroup

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Instead of insulting GG and crying about…

Take it easy amigo. I am not insulting GGTharos. If he tells me that he does not like the way I talk to him, I will take necessary steps to correct that.

.. why don't you host your own server and put up your own missions.

I would love to! I don’t have technical nor financial ability to do it.

The AWACS have been removed from most of the m/p servers for good reason.

The AWACS have been removed, however, the AIM-120 has not? Hmm, let me think …

[S77th-GOYA]

Hajduk, do you have any problems with MiGs carrying R-77s?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

...but IMHO I don't like the idea of trying to give one side special treatment no matter how porked their weapons systems are ;) .. that's for the pilot to overcome.

That is exactly my point as well! Let F-15 pilots deal with reality! Reality is that Su-27S, as modeled in Lock On has a data link capability that works with AWACS and CGI! It is nobudy's (not ED, not yours not mine) fault that F-15 wireless networking sucked! :) and that F-15's weapons system was "PORKY"! That's for the (F-15) pilots to overcome!

 

Besides, it is not that one side only would be favored with including AWACS! Both sides, BLUE and RED use Su-27's in lock on! It is one weapons platform that was inferior at the time, the F-15, that would have to "deal" with its deficiencies.

[GGTharos]

The reality is that F-15C's had excellent AWACS support, which is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

The reality is also that a Su-27S cannot receive a datalink when it is out of LOS with a DL repeater. This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

The reality ALSO happens to be that teh Su-27S receives a 'tactical picture' dictated by GCI and NOT a 'god's eye view'. This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

Additionally, reality happens to be that the F-15 has an extremely sophisticated and powerful radar set compared to the Su-27S. This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

Also, the AMRAAM is quite the 'killer missile' in reality, at least insofar as real launches go. This also happens not to be modelled in LOMAC.

 

So instead of trying to tell people what 'reality' is, why don't you go study it beforehand instead of only listening to the bits and pieces of 'reality' that are convenient to you?

[wsoul2k]

GG and what about the data-link from one air=group to other ?

[Weta43]

Do the Russian's who host MP put in AWAC / EWR ?

 

Also - Do I have this right:

We have pages and pages of discussion (Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again... & other related threads) where the Blue side says we have to get rid of a feature of the game because it doesn't exist in reality & we have to preserve the purity of the game's reality (a feature that Blue believe gives some advantage to Red - I've seen very little moaning about Red weapons getting shot down).

While here we have pages & pages of discussion where Blue says we shouldn't enable a feature in MP that does exist in reality (because it would give an advantage to Red)

So is it about reality, or is it about gameplay ballance of power?

[S77th-GOYA]

Do the Russian's who host MP put in AWAC / EWR ?

 

Also - Do I have this right:

We have pages and pages of discussion (Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again... & other related threads) where the Blue side says we have to get rid of a feature of the game because it doesn't exist in reality & we have to preserve the purity of the game's reality (a feature that Blue believe gives some advantage to Red - I've seen very little moaning about Red weapons getting shot down).

While here we have pages & pages of discussion where Blue says we shouldn't enable a feature in MP that does exist in reality (because it would give an advantage to Red)

So is it about reality, or is it about gameplay ballance of power?

 

Let me put it this way, if I was a Tfrog junkie and Tungs were shooting down my missiles, my argument would be the same regarding Tungs. Plus, as a 15 driver, I don't have a problem with GCI in server missions. I do have a problem with how AWACS is modeled for the US fighters, but I don't expect it to be fixed, so why debate it. Plus, there's not much to debate in regards to LOMAC's US AWACS modeling.

 

I have no idea what SwingKid flies. Ask him why he was adamant against Tungs shooting down Mavs.

[Weta43]

GG you say "So instead of trying to tell people what 'reality' is, why don't you go study it beforehand instead of only listening to the bits and pieces of 'reality' that are convenient to you?"

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but the whole game & is little bits of reflections of reality & guesses & compromises.

People do get very selective about which bits of "Reality" are important to the fidelity of the game, which is what my previous post was about.

It seems to me that the honest answer to why there's no EWR/AWACS provided for Red in MP is that the people who host believe the game should be configured to give the F15 an advantage they believe it held in real life. They want the power ballance to be how they believe it to be, and the whole question absolute fidelity of systems is a smoke screen.

I don't have a problem with that, I think that SAMs should be able to defend themselves even if it's not by the method they use in reality - the end effect is more like reality. The F15 probably did have an advantage & if the only way to ensure that is to disable a feature that existed in real life - so be it, but be upfront about it. We do it to give the F15 an advantage.

[wsoul2k]

GG just my 2 cents

 

The reality is that F-15C's had excellent AWACS support, which is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

You mean more options in radio comunication ?? or more info on the radio comunication feedback from the AWACS

 

The reality is also that a Su-27S cannot receive a datalink when it is out of LOS with a DL repeater. This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

OK the LOS thing should be fixed or implemented ( Future project )

 

I have posted some questions about data-link from one airgroup to other as described in the manual ( Read force_feedback post ) if this is a real capacity it should be implemented

 

The reality ALSO happens to be that teh Su-27S receives a 'tactical picture' dictated by GCI and NOT a 'god's eye view'. This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

OK should be removed the gods eye view

 

 

Additionally, reality happens to be that the F-15 has an extremely sophisticated and powerful radar set compared to the Su-27S. This is not modelled in LOMAC.

 

Can you be more especific ?? im really curious

 

Also, the AMRAAM is quite the 'killer missile' in reality, at least insofar as real launches go. This also happens not to be modelled in LOMAC.

 

Ok...but we dont have enougth data to compare...how many r-77 have been fired until today ??

 

I mean....maybe the R-77 is a killer also [:)]

 

Again..to many variables and to many classified data

 

about radar and missiles we will never get the REAL thing....we have to guess the best possible.......

 

fingers crossed to the patch about missiles behavior [:)]

 

cya

 

Sorry for the poor english

[GGTharos]

GG you say "So instead of trying to tell people what 'reality' is, why don't you go study it beforehand instead of only listening to the bits and pieces of 'reality' that are convenient to you?"

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but the whole game & is little bits of reflections of reality & guesses & compromises.

People do get very selective about which bits of "Reality" are important to the fidelity of the game, which is what my previous post was about.

It seems to me that the honest answer to why there's no EWR/AWACS provided for Red in MP is that the people who host believe the game should be configured to give the F15 an advantage they believe it held in real life. They want the power ballance to be how they believe it to be, and the whole question absolute fidelity of systems is a smoke screen.

I don't have a problem with that, I think that SAMs should be able to defend themselves even if it's not by the method they use in reality - the end effect is more like reality. The F15 probably did have an advantage & if the only way to ensure that is to disable a feature that existed in real life - so be it, but be upfront about it. We do it to give the F15 an advantage.

Weta, I really didn't want to say this. But I will:

People should not ask for server owners to enable extra features because it is inconvienent for them to fly without these features or because their skills are not well developed.

 

I don't go on Ice's server asking him to enable padlock, but I did participate is some fairly fast and furious padlock related #(*$fests.

 

This is NOT being requested because it's 'realistic'. It's being requested because someone can't cope without having it - that is my impression. This was NOT originally requested on the basis of reality - that was a straw that a certain someone grabbed onto later because he couldn't fly a Su-27 without ARH missiles.

 

 

Furthermore I think people dont' realize what an ENORMOUS difference there is in the quality of data provided by the dlink vs. what is provided verbally in this game. The difference is NIGHT AND DAY. It is NOT correct. DL is better, absolutely udoubtedly, but the quality of AWACS -without- the DL is SO poor in this game, it isn't even funny.

 

To rehash:

 

AWACS will only give you the closest target (You're all smart - you can tell me how this is exploitable)

AWACS will not 'remember' lost contacts for any amount of time ... easily exploitable also - although the ability to give a 'pop up' report somewhat mitigates this - on teh other hand you can't ask, 'Hey, that contact you just lost, where was he going and how far would I be from him now?'

 

By comparison:

 

With DL, you can fly below AWACS radar horizon, yet still receive datalink (you shouldn't) and sneak around effectively undetected. Easy to imagine, not the easiest thing to apply in practice sometimes, but it's a real issue.

Your radar doesn't jam itself when you fly under a certain altitude (it should)

 

Should I continue?

[GGTharos]

You mean more options in radio comunication ?? or more info on the radio comunication feedback from the AWACS

 

Both. Also correct communication of what already exists.

 

OK the LOS thing should be fixed or implemented ( Future project )

 

I have posted some questions about data-link from one airgroup to other as described in the manual ( Read force_feedback post ) if this is a real capacity it should be implemented

 

It isn't that simple, but I will tell you right now that ED -does- wish to simulate the flanker correctly! It is however difficult as I stated, so don't hold your breath!

 

OK should be removed the gods eye view

 

See above

 

Can you be more especific ?? im really curious

 

The F-15 is missing several radar modes, TWS as implemented right now is not very correct, ECCM capability is not really well implemented on any LOMAC jet. The differences between F-15, Su-27 and MiG-29 notch gates are non-existant as far as I can tell.

 

Ok...but we dont have enougth data to compare...how many r-77 have been fired until today ??

 

I mean....maybe the R-77 is a killer also [:)]

 

Again..to many variables and to many classified data

 

about radar and missiles we will never get the REAL thing....we have to guess the best possible.......

 

But you can compare to R-27's and AIM-7's, and a whole bunch of other things that HAVE been fired at real targets.

We can also find out many things about some radars, and deduce a lot of other things, given enough information.

Take the MiG manual and Su-27SK manual. HUGE amounts of info, sometimes VERY detailed info. There is some detailed F-15 info that is available from public sources too, but you have to look for it pretty hard.

 

fingers crossed to the patch about missiles behavior [:)]

 

cya

 

Sorry for the poor english

 

The addon (1.2) will definitely change how missiles work. Ranges may go up or down, I couldn't really guess.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Launch and run is what a 15 pilot has to do against a Su the vast majority of time.

You don't have to do it! However, that is an easy way to achive a victory.

 

We have to go inside your kill envelope to get to the threshold of our kill envelope, get our shot(s) off, and get away. That's the best way to survive multiple ER/ET shots. Su pilots don't like it. They're not supposed to.

It is not that I don't like it. It is fact that there is not much one can do against that tactic, other then changing the airplane that carries ARH missiles. BTW, you are way off the R-27ER killing envelope when launching your AIM-120. Not because of the R-27ER range but because of the fact that often multiple AIM-120's are launched that forces Su-27 to manuvre and loose a lock on you! So you are not risking much by getting close to me. However, even with the best of luck, your second missile most often gets me!

 

As far as AWACS, I think the way they are modeled is very much in the Russian planes' favor.

When I was pointing the fact the Su-27S did not have ARH missiles, I was told "deal with it".

 

Sure the 15 didn't have a datalink, but the information we get from AWACS is poor.

Well, F-15 pilots have to live with that fact and deal with it! Just like the Su-27 pilots without ARH missiles.

 

I think datalink would be a bit lopsided against the F-15 but I wouldn't avoid a server that had it. Extra challenge is good sometimes.

I've just tried a simple mission with GCI data-link and it looks like it would level the playing field between the F-15's and Su-27's.