Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[*Rage*]

A joke:) this thread is intended only for R/ER guidance. You might have noticed however 159th Falcon posted something about ET vs ER kinetic range discrepancies in the bugs subforum.

Edited July 24, 2013 by ///Rage

[Raven68]

If you knew how big and complex this project is, and how difficult it is to test, your head would explode.

 

I really cant understand the lack of consideration & appreciation for the undertaking that goes into sifting through this enormously complex piece of software. I am actually amazed in the turnaround time in the list of items that have been and will be addressed already in the "quick patch" after the release of 1.2.5. Thank you very much ED staff for your efforts.

 

It's one thing to complain about things that are not resolved yet, but to complain about announcements that tell you that a bug has been found and is being fixed is utterly useless, frustrating, and frankly, rude.

 

Agreed!! We need to be more supportive and get behind these guys to keep them motivated so they can continue to deliver. This community has something really good going and frankly there is no other developer, that I am aware of, to match this level combat simulation.

[msalama]

...is somehow bias on the part of developers?

 

Why, because they suffer from their own personal biases and preconceptions of course ;) OK where's me coat, carry on...

[Mandrake5]

If I support my aim120 all the way to the target, does it have a higher PK?

Does anyone know the answer?

[ohmyflanker]

No, pepin, I wrote facts. It is obvious that you either did not read what I wrote, or you did not try to understand it.

 

 

 

Just in case you haven't figured it out yet:

 

AIM-120C > AIM-120B/R-77 > R-27/AIM-7.

 

It always has been this way, and it always will be.

 

This still has no effect on the bug that is plaguing all missiles.

 

I don't know the facts you said, but in wikipedia and the encyclopedia in the game, we can find R-27ER has a longer range than AIM-120C, which likes the performance of them in FC2. However, they have the same range in FC3(v1.2.5) as my tacview shows. Aren't they facts? Or shouldn't we consider them as facts?

Anyway, this is a game after all, and it is the BVR combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s that makes FC our favorite game. But now, with Su's and Mig's missiles porked, I'm afraid that few wanted to fly Su-27 and Mig-29S, and they wouldn't like this game anymore. So please make the combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s more balanced on the basic of simulation.

Tacview-20130725-152952.txt.rar

Edited July 25, 2013 by ohmyflanker

[Mandrake5]

I don't know the facts you said, but in wikipedia and the encyclopedia in the game, we can find R-27ER has a longer range than AIM-120C, which likes the performance of them in FC2. However, they have the same range in FC3(v1.2.5) as my tacview shows. Aren't they facts? Or we shouldn't consider them as facts?

Anyway, this is a game after all, and it is the BVR combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s that makes FC our favorite game. But now, with Su's and Mig's missiles porked, I'm afraid that few wanted to fly Su-27 and Mig-29S, and they wouldn't like this game anymore. So please make the combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s more balanced on the basic of simulation.

 

Please tattoo this somewhere on your person:

 

F-15+AIM120C wins 1:1 BVR versus Mig29S+R77 /SU27+R27ER every time (pilots being equal).

 

SU27+EOS+R27ET+R73+HMCS wins 1:1 WVR versus F15 every time.

 

It's so painfully simple and these circular arguments are getting so painfully tedious.

 

Can we keep this thread to sensible requests, such as broken EOS, draggy missiles, bugs, etc and ditch the infantile conspiracy theories, or don't some of you reds want this game to reflect reality at all?

[Oberst Zeisig]

Tanks alot for all the testers and developers for this whole LOT of work You get for a really cheap 40 bucks game! Just wanted to say this and really can't understand complaints facing a new update with many fixes!

Sure I'm upset some time too when it takes long for a (seemingly) simple bug to fix but readying all the messages and seeing the whole LOT of work and the results being produced I think some times it's worth waiting! (Regarding there ist no equivalent to this project anyway!

[volk]

Just in case you haven't figured it out yet:

 

AIM-120C > AIM-120B/R-77 > R-27/AIM-7.

 

It always has been this way, and it always will be.

AIM-120C > AIM-120B > AIM-7 = R-77 >> R-27 from my experience now.

We have identified an error introduced in March 2013 that increased chaff effectiveness by a factor of 10. This was corrected internally today and initial tests look promising. The chaff error affects all radar-guided missiles, but as GG mentioned above, the relative CM rejection capability will impact seeker pull-off.

After update it will be

AIM-120C > AIM-120B > AIM-7 = R-77 >> R-27 again in same proportion relation because it always will be?

May be it should be like this: AIM-120C > AIM-120B = R-77 > AIM-7 = R-27 at last?

[GGTharos]

I don't know the facts you said, but in wikipedia and the encyclopedia in the game, we can find R-27ER has a longer range than AIM-120C, which likes the performance of them in FC2. However, they have the same range in FC3(v1.2.5) as my tacview shows. Aren't they facts? Or shouldn't we consider them as facts?

 

Neither wikipedia nor the in-game encyclopedia give you realistic figures.

 

Anyway, this is a game after all, and it is the BVR combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s that makes FC our favorite game. But now, with Su's and Mig's missiles porked, I'm afraid that few wanted to fly Su-27 and Mig-29S, and they wouldn't like this game anymore. So please make the combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s more balanced on the basic of simulation.

 

All missiles are porked. Balance, however, isn't part of the deal.

[GGTharos]

Yes, this is the way it should have always been (barring bugs). AIM-120B and R-77 should have more or less equal CM rejection, and AIM-7 and R-27 should also have more or less equal CM rejection. Small differences are ok, and kinematic ability in this case is not part of the equation (but again, here AIM-120B and R-77 should be comparable here as well).

 

May be it should be like this: AIM-120C > AIM-120B = R-77 > AIM-7 = R-27 at last?

[TaliG]

It's one thing to complain about things that are not resolved yet, but to complain about announcements that tell you that a bug has been found and is being fixed is utterly useless, frustrating, and frankly, rude.

.

 

Please accept my apologies.

It was a rough day for me last day, for reasons that have nothing to do with the game or the forum, and I asked a wrong person to ''pay the bill''. Wrong move and I promise I ll try to squish that bug out of my ''beta'' brain..

I hope you all understand.

Apologies again..

[GGTharos]

We all have bad days :)

[Pilotasso]

Looking forward for the correction it has been a strange few days online after returning to SIM'ing. :)

[Kenan]

Rage, I just noticed your "Real men support their missiles" sginature...LOL, awesome! :D

 

Hear that Pilotasso? :D

[rassy7]

I am actually amazed in the turnaround time in the list of items that have been and will be addressed already in the "quick patch" after the release of 1.2.5. Thank you very much ED staff for your efforts.

 

Amen! Just saw the patch, and I, for one, appreciate the effort and thoroughly enjoy DCS as the greatest of all flight sims even with these minor issues which I'm sure will be worked out with time.

 

Patience, humility, appreciation, respect!

 

Keep on truckin'

[pepin1234]

Amen! Just saw the patch, and I, for one, appreciate the effort and thoroughly enjoy DCS as the greatest of all flight sims even with these minor issues which I'm sure will be worked out with time.

 

Patience, humility, appreciation, respect!

 

Keep on truckin'

 

I respect your religious praise and your admiration for the patch 1.2.5, but You have totally lost the north. The waypoint turned on in this thread, is the waypoint called "air-to-air Missiles"

 

go ahead here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=110336

[rassy7]

The missiles are what they are. Unless you are a dev, there is nothing you or any of us can do about it. We can play or we can not play. I choose to play.

[REPUBLICANO]

The missiles are what they are. Unless you are a dev, there is nothing you or any of us can do about it. We can play or we can not play. I choose to play.

 

You can play and accept this situation. Maybe you really dont care the main sence of this thread and what you try to do is detract from

[rassy7]

Fine fine, settle down. I'd like to see improvements like everyone else but 1.2.5 and a patch was JUST released. I don't think repeating the same issues to ED another 1,000 times for another 46 pages and that will fix it.

 

I just took a second to agree with somebody else, who bravely thought for a moment, that perhaps after more than 40 pages of what's wrong, we might take a second to consider what's goneright. That is all.

 

Now, back to why missiles are bad and everything sucks, I guess.

[msalama]

to ED another 1,000 times for another 46 pages and that will fix it.

 

+1^32

 

Just goes to show how short is the average attention span here - gamers disguising themselves as simmers maybe :D And never mind the common personal biases either...

 

PS. And if you take offence to the 1st opinion expressed, then at least consider the 2nd if you'd be so kind - because we all have ours, including yours truly ;)

[GGTharos]

... has anyone tried 1.2.5 update 1 yet?

[Pilotasso]

Supporting missiles was what made me a perfect target for your ET's :D

[GGTharos]

The real deal is that only fools support missiles if it will doom them.

There are plenty of RL tactics utilizing cheapshots.

 

Sounds to me like jealousy :D

 

Rage, I just noticed your "Real men support their missiles" sginature...LOL, awesome! :D

 

Hear that Pilotasso? :D

[Teknetinium]

... has anyone tried 1.2.5 update 1 yet?

 

Rage made a test on Er-27 Chaff resistance in 1.2.5 before the hotfix. As I understand ED will have another one in a week where missiles chaff resistance might be fixed.

 

Some testing will be done when next hotfix is out and posted in here. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=103377&page=10

[Pepec9124]

+1^32

 

 

Ain't this still 1 :music_whistling:

 

Anyway, it's ED. They are progressing in small steps.