Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[Exorcet]

So now you need to get much closer to have a positive impact? It might resolve the need for splitting up air-to-air and air-to-ground in multiplayermaps like 104th runs. When the current settings do that then i'd call it a win/+.

Destroying accuracy for balance is not a win. If A-10's want to survive they need to avoid enemy fighters. That should be their only option. And don't worry I sometimes fly the A-10C on servers and I've been attacked by fighters from the other side while no one was covering me on my side. That's just how it is.

 

Balance through mission design only.

[Mandrake5]

In any case, missile flight dynamics are the main improvement for FC3.

 

Guidance will probably come some time later, not now.

 

In other words, you 'fixed' the missiles by first breaking them and then deliberately releasing them while still known to be broken?

 

So FC3 customers, who spent the last 2 months being promised a long list of AA missile improvements, are in fact having their product effectively deactivated until "probably" 1.2.4 (we hope)?

 

Words fail me. Beta or not, why is buying what should be the greatest flight sim product ever made actually just a prolonged exercise in helpless frustration? Do you guys have any empathy with what I'm communicating here?

Edited February 27, 2013 by Mandrake5

[71st_Mastiff]

In other words, you 'fixed' the missiles by first breaking them and then deliberately releasing them while still known to be broken?

 

So FC3 customers, who spent the last 2 months being promised a long list of AA missile improvements, are in fact having their product effectively deactivated until 1.2.4 (we hope)?

 

Words fail me. Why is buying what should be the greatest flight sim product ever made actually just a prolonged exercise in helpless frustration? Do you guys have any empathy with what I'm communicating here?

 

uh 4 months...not 2.

[Exorcet]

I understand that all missiles are WIP, but is it true that max speed is just 1800 now?

Why has that max speed been reduced so much?

This obviusly shorts every missile quite a lot.

 

There is no speed limit if that is what you're asking. I only got the AMRAAM to hit 1800 because I fired from 600 at 30000 feet. If I was doing 1200 at 50000 feet it probably would have broken 2250, but it's no where near where it was in 1.2.2 and that missile already seemed subpar.

 

I plan to do more testing, and not just on AMRAAM.

 

In other words, you 'fixed' the missiles by first breaking them and then deliberately releasing them while still known to be broken?

 

So FC3 customers, who spent the last 2 months being promised a long list of AA missile improvements, are in fact having their product effectively deactivated until "probably" 1.2.4 (we hope)?

 

Words fail me. Beta or not, why is buying what should be the greatest flight sim product ever made actually just a prolonged exercise in helpless frustration? Do you guys have any empathy with what I'm communicating here?

 

It was made clear that missile guidance would not be addressed, though the missiles' kinetic performance is very surprising.

[GGTharos]

I do A2A almost exclusively, and I deal with the missiles in beta testing all the time. I spend a whole lot of time doing whatever research I can on them, and so do the developers.

 

I can't blame people for not understanding how difficult it is to fit a missile to a particular profile.

 

The devs did what they thought was best this iteration. It turned out not to work well, and things will be changed.

 

As for this 'long list of promises' you mentioned, where is it? There are new missile flight models with FC3, nothing else. Nothing else was ever mentioned.

 

Guidance is for later.

 

Words fail me. Beta or not, why is buying what should be the greatest flight sim product ever made actually just a prolonged exercise in helpless frustration? Do you guys have any empathy with what I'm communicating here?

[159th_Falcon]

There are additional factors to take into account like gimbal limits for LOBL missiles etc. In any case, missile flight dynamics are the main improvement for FC3.

 

Guidance will probably come some time later, not now.

Pardon my stupidity, but what does LOBL mean?

Has it to do whit passive radar homing missiles like the R-27?

[Axion]

Lock On Before Launch?

[159th_Falcon]

Sounds very plausible.

[Kenan]

I also noticed in 1.2.3 AI's AIM120C is now very deadly even if fired at a retreating target. In previous version I could simply do a 180 and hit the burners, AI would hardly engage but now the chances of getting an Amraam up your tailpipe are much biger. :)

 

Anyone noticed this?

[Mandrake5]

.

 

As for this 'long list of promises' you mentioned, where is it? There are new missile flight models with FC3, nothing else. Nothing else was ever mentioned.

 

Guidance is for later.

 

The 1.2.3 changelog certainly didn't mention missile guidance being nerfed, did it?

 

Implied promises, then....(semantics).

[blkspade]

Perhaps someone at ED is secretly trying to get more WVR/BFM combat going. Doing things the way I usually do, my first MP 1.2.3 engagement ended in a stalemate. My 2nd resulted in an AIM-7 kill at 6-7nm. My AIM120's seemed pretty much useless up to this point. At the same time I was a bit intentionally reckless against R-77's, and they seem equally as useless. Granted I never had problems evading them in 1.2.2, but I at least had to put some effort into it. My 2nd human kill was with an AIM-120, but that was really a matter of good team work and perhaps an overly eager opponent.

[GGTharos]

Missile guidance wasn't nerfed.

 

The 1.2.3 changelog certainly didn't mention missile guidance being nerfed, did it?

 

Implied promises, then....(semantics).

[GGTharos]

It means lock on before launch.

 

Specifically I was thinking heaters, like sidewinders, R-73's, R-27T's etc.

 

I don't know much about passive radar homing missiles other than the VVS seems to have a fairly small arsenal of those. Those are probably best used against AWACS, SOJ's etc. I don't believe they would do terribly well against another fighter.

 

Pardon my stupidity, but what does LOBL mean?

Has it to do whit passive radar homing missiles like the R-27?

[karambiatos]

the R-27 is definitely better at least in the range department, the Aim120 seems to have been slowed down and its range decreased, also it seems that you can finally fool it with chaff (IDK if its realistic or not), but it is a bit too easy to dodge.

 

look at the track i attached (hopefully it doesnt glitch out) but i dodge the aim120 with the stupidest move, when i feel like i should have gotten hit.

Test.trk

Edited February 27, 2013 by karambiatos

[Kenan]

Also, is it normal for MiG29A to have a 18 miles launch authorization with R27R against a fighter-sized non-jamming target? I thought IRL 29A performed not so well in combination with R27R in terms of BVR launch capability?

[GGTharos]

The R-27 has an rmax of about 35km in a 0.9M co-altitude 10km altitude launch. Sounds about right to me.

 

Under some circumstances, it can engage further out.

[Mandrake5]

So could you clarify if the aim-120 übernerf was deliberate to appease the red whiners, or just a WIP glitch,i.e its BVR supremacy will be restored in a future update? Honesty would be appreciated so we know where we stand :)

[Loki_]

It would be best to model realism even if it results in one side being clearly superior. It is up to the mission builders to then balance red vs blue by giving other advantages to the inferior team. If ED is nerfing either side in the interest of "balance" well then we may as well all go play bf3 because this game would no longer retain the realism that sets it apart from every other pc game on the market.

[marcos]

I can't even get AI to kill AI with AMRAAMs now. They're more like sidewinders.

[Mandrake5]

I can't even get AI to kill AI with AMRAAMs now. They're more like sidewinders.

 

 

Indeed, I've eaten more dangerous chocolate puddings. R73 > Aim 120C :megalol:

 

(Just caught up with my own aim120B and blew myself up - just like you Skate, except I was horizontal!)

 

Seriously, no disrespect to the testers, but WTH?

Edited February 27, 2013 by Mandrake5

[Mandrake5]

It would be best to model realism even if it results in one side being clearly superior. It is up to the mission builders to then balance red vs blue by giving other advantages to the inferior team. If ED is nerfing either side in the interest of "balance" well then we may as well all go play bf3 because this game would no longer retain the realism that sets it apart from every other pc game on the market.

 

+1,000,000 squared

[GGTharos]

No, it wasn't done to 'appease the red whiners', and frankly if you don't understand how difficult it is to tune missiles properly, I'd thank you to can the attitude, yesterday.

 

Missiles were tuned based on available data which included some performance points but not other (also useful) performance points. Credible reference to such things was not found until rather close to release, so things have stayed as they are for 1.2.3.

 

These issues affect all missiles, not just the 120. In this iteration, the SRM's perform (or should perform) a lot better than previously - they were a big part of the learning curve.

 

So could you clarify if the aim-120 übernerf was deliberate to appease the red whiners, or just a WIP glitch,i.e its BVR supremacy will be restored in a future update? Honesty would be appreciated so we know where we stand :)

[danilop]

After a brief testing it seems that missiles (ARH especially) are finally behaving in accordance with laws of physics.

 

No one on this forum knows the exact parameters of R77 & AIM120c, especially in software and sensor department, so we can only judge the obvious - missile behavior within strict laws of physics / aerodynamics.

 

1.2.3 is definitive improvement in this regard. Also, AI is much more clever now in BVR and WVR missile engagement scenarios.

[Mandrake5]

After a brief testing it seems that missiles (ARH especially) are finally behaving in accordance with laws of physics.

 

No one on this forum knows the exact parameters of R77 & AIM120c, especially in software and sensor department, so we can only judge the obvious - missile behavior within strict laws of physics / aerodynamics.

 

1.2.3 is definitive improvement in this regard. Also, AI is much more clever now in BVR and WVR missile engagement scenarios.

 

 

How wrong is it possible to be in one post? :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

The missiles are underperfoming terribly in 1.2.3, and they will be corrected in 1.2.4.

 

And they'll still behave according to the laws of physics, insofar as such are programmed.

 

By the way, since you don't know the exact parameters of R-77 and AIM-120C, how can you judge them within strict laws of physics and aerodynamics?

 

What exactly is your basis? Because frankly, you've just missed the barn.

 

After a brief testing it seems that missiles (ARH especially) are finally behaving in accordance with laws of physics.

 

No one on this forum knows the exact parameters of R77 & AIM120c, especially in software and sensor department, so we can only judge the obvious - missile behavior within strict laws of physics / aerodynamics.

 

1.2.3 is definitive improvement in this regard. Also, AI is much more clever now in BVR and WVR missile engagement scenarios.

Edited February 27, 2013 by GGTharos