Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[TAW_Blaze]

If you're lower you have less problems with ground clutter and you have more room between detection and having people in your blindspot. Detecting people inside 10 miles can be life saving (while not reliable, I agree on that, but it saved me a lot), and if you're cruising that high inside 10 you won't see that low. Being high will let you see into the valleys more but I don't think it's that much better.

 

You argument hinges entirely on this lopsided and fantastical idea that once you reach X skill level for the low bandit that everything else just goes out the window.

 

No. You can prevent him getting in your blindspot by having a good flight plan and using a number of other tools.

 

The reason I was so adamant earlier about being able to find people is because you are implying repeatedly, that no matter what I do, they will be able to magically hid from me. It doesn't work this way. Just because he goes into the notch and wants to hid there doesn't mean there aren't things I cant do to pick him right back up. In fact, I find this to be very easy to do.

 

The point is that you can't do anything to pick up people in the notch if you don't even know they exist. Why is it that for you a notch can only exist inside detection range and even then only when you already saw him before the notch?

 

BTW, one question. I think your tactics have merit but Im wondering how you deal with bandits that see you flying high and fast and use their EOS (or turn off their radar once they get a general fix on your position) to get on your six to unleash their heat seekers. Will they be unable to climb that high and fast?

 

Don't let them get there. If you make a clever flight plan you can avoid most of the people getting behind you. Teamwork will help you to split up the scan pattern and pick up everything far more reliably. If they got into your blindspot and are looking at you the only thing that will save you is teamwork and luck.

[falcon_120]

All tactics are exactly that, tactics. And they relies upon the guy executing them, how good is he and his wingman(in case there is). Having said that, I'd rather be the guy going high and fast that the one going low hoping that his notching is enough to go unnoticed.

Going high on the offensive gives you more options or a wider view of what's going on.

 

There is a reason why air superiority fighters go high, and the ones that are not so capable choose to be low. Even though the ones going low are perfectly capable of winning the fight.

[Exorcet]

There is a reason why air superiority fighters go high, and the ones that are not so capable choose to be low. Even though the ones going low are perfectly capable of winning the fight.

Those reasons why may not be shared between real and virtual aircraft though. I too prefer to fly high. I can't go on a server without someone on my team warning me that I'm contrailing, but I find those altitudes to be the best for the F-15.

 

I don't typically fly above 40,000 feet though. Missiles don't seem to gain as much advantage from altitude as they should when being fired at someone below. You also become really easy to spot, though I know some people don't bother to look above 25000 ft. On the other hand, missiles looking up at you have a lot less drag to deal with and if you want any decent speed/maneuverability, your IR signature will suffer. Besides sneak attacks, I've seen high fliers taken out by really long range TWS shots, sometimes because they don't think anyone is looking.

[TAW_Blaze]

I hate low flying too. :)

[USARStarkey]

Like I said, I'm done arguing about this. We can just agree to disagree.

[falcon_120]

Arguing tactics is fun, but I agree you both had come to a draw :) .

[verana_ss]

I still don't understand why people try to talk about missile with its KD ratio when the number seems to be heavily affected by target's action.

 

Meanwhile, I support the opinion that AIM-120 performance itself is way undermodeled (WIP) not because "I think so" but the various comments made by the people who works closely to the A/A military operation.(IIRC, SFAL)

[will-]

whats does K/D in game have anything to do w/ how the missile reacts in game. Pretty obvious reason clearly why.

 

To edit a weapons characteristics in game to balance anything is false. Pretty obvious reason why anyone would want this in a Simulation.

 

Can anyone give clear suggestions on how to improve this? When will we have access to the upgraded weapon systems on the fast movers? I get it, we are receiving some nice flight models. Next will be... (I'll wait for the developers to explain their actions instead of debating K/D).

 

So does ED have a chart of the development phase? maybe a full build cycle plans? Should we be giving more feedback?

 

AFIAK the only Modeled weapons are the ones ED have stated.

[USARStarkey]

The aim 9x is technically in the game just as a thought. I have modified my game to allow me to use it along time ago. I don't use it online. You cant use the helmet mounted sight obvisouly, but the thing is alot more agile than the 9m, but not nearly as good as it should be.

[TAW_Blaze]

We're supposed to get AIM-9X for the F-15C by this year officially. If it happens in time or not, well, hard to tell.

 

As above said, no JHMCS until advanced systems modeling. Still, if it'll be as capable as it should, it'll be a blast. Currently the AIM-9M is useless in a rather large % of it's launch parameters.

[Crescendo]

If we assume for the sake of argument that the AIM-120s kinematics are worse than they should be, what happens when they're corrected? A player's K/D ratio may go up for a time because their opponents aren't used to the increased missile performance, but it will drop back again when the opponents adapt to the change.

 

For example, say that the average Minimum Abort Range for an in-parameters AIM-120 shot is currently ~10 NM or less due to poor kinematics. If the kinematics are improved, the new in-parameters MAR may become ~15 NM (or whatever). Therefore, for the first few weeks this difference of 5 NM will catch some people out, but they will quickly realise their mistake and act accordingly.

 

When this adaption occurs the missiles will be just as "useless" as before. The only difference will be that the average range of a typical BVR engagement will increase, and that there will be less chance of escape if you get caught with your pants down.

 

This is what gets me about this entire missile performance argument. Yeah sure, maybe the missiles suck, but guess what? Everyone is using the same missiles (relatively speaking) so the fight is fair(ish) and the average engagement ranges are well known by all parties. There are no 'secrets' in this game - anyone can test anything they like. Then, when the missiles get better, your enemy has access to them too, you'll kill or die just as much as you did before, and everyone will learn the new average engagement ranges.

 

I honestly think that some people imagine that when missiles are improved, somehow they alone will be the only ones who realise it or have access to the new weapons, and subsequently they'll 'magically' start to get more kills. Funny how the human brain works.

[Oberst Zeisig]

If we assume for the sake of argument that the AIM-120s kinematics are worse than they should be, what happens when they're corrected? A player's K/D ratio may go up for a time because their opponents aren't used to the increased missile performance, but it will drop back again when the opponents adapt to the change.

 

For example, say that the average Minimum Abort Range for an in-parameters AIM-120 shot is currently ~10 NM or less due to poor kinematics. If the kinematics are improved, the new in-parameters MAR may become ~15 NM (or whatever). Therefore, for the first few weeks this difference of 5 NM will catch some people out, but they will quickly realise their mistake and act accordingly.

 

When this adaption occurs the missiles will be just as "useless" as before. The only difference will be that the average range of a typical BVR engagement will increase, and that there will be less chance of escape if you get caught with your pants down.

 

This is what gets me about this entire missile performance argument. Yeah sure, maybe the missiles suck, but guess what? Everyone is using the same missiles (relatively speaking) so the fight is fair(ish) and the average engagement ranges are well known by all parties. There are no 'secrets' in this game - anyone can test anything they like. Then, when the missiles get better, your enemy has access to them too, you'll kill or die just as much as you did before, and everyone will learn the new average engagement ranges.

 

I honestly think that some people imagine that when missiles are improved, somehow they alone will be the only ones who realise it or have access to the new weapons, and subsequently they'll 'magically' start to get more kills. Funny how the human brain works.

 

No, this is a SIM and it's all about realism and especially having realistic defenisve behaviour. This in mind and the fact the F-15 probably suffers most of the issue it just means that the Eagle then can control a 5nm larger airstrip for strikers to get involved. And that's the only thing it's ment to do and not to splash around.

But of course I don't know what singular people think about this.

[simis]

LOL, this was rather entertaining...

[TAW_Blaze]

If we assume for the sake of argument that the AIM-120s kinematics are worse than they should be, what happens when they're corrected? A player's K/D ratio may go up for a time because their opponents aren't used to the increased missile performance, but it will drop back again when the opponents adapt to the change.

 

For example, say that the average Minimum Abort Range for an in-parameters AIM-120 shot is currently ~10 NM or less due to poor kinematics. If the kinematics are improved, the new in-parameters MAR may become ~15 NM (or whatever). Therefore, for the first few weeks this difference of 5 NM will catch some people out, but they will quickly realise their mistake and act accordingly.

 

When this adaption occurs the missiles will be just as "useless" as before. The only difference will be that the average range of a typical BVR engagement will increase, and that there will be less chance of escape if you get caught with your pants down.

 

This is what gets me about this entire missile performance argument. Yeah sure, maybe the missiles suck, but guess what? Everyone is using the same missiles (relatively speaking) so the fight is fair(ish) and the average engagement ranges are well known by all parties. There are no 'secrets' in this game - anyone can test anything they like. Then, when the missiles get better, your enemy has access to them too, you'll kill or die just as much as you did before, and everyone will learn the new average engagement ranges.

 

I honestly think that some people imagine that when missiles are improved, somehow they alone will be the only ones who realise it or have access to the new weapons, and subsequently they'll 'magically' start to get more kills. Funny how the human brain works.

 

It's not just kinematic problems. When you're missing straight flying targets that literally don't do anything inside NEZ you have a real problem. There's another set of retarded behaviours with loft aswell.

[GGTharos]

Correct, balance is not the goal. As far as 'balance' goes, there's a nod to that by letting you carry R-77 on MiG-29C.

[blkspade]

We're supposed to get AIM-9X for the F-15C by this year officially. If it happens in time or not, well, hard to tell.

 

As above said, no JHMCS until advanced systems modeling. Still, if it'll be as capable as it should, it'll be a blast. Currently the AIM-9M is useless in a rather large % of it's launch parameters.

 

I actually find the AIM-9M to be quite useful. Given the state of the 120 usually bringing me closer to a bandit than I'd like to be, I've come to rely on the 9M a lot. Its been highly successful for me except against the flying tank MiG29 that always requires 2 hits to kill. The MiG seems to be able to plow through head-on shots against most missiles, still taking damage, but being largely unaffected. An Aim-9 hit probably feels like slight turbulence.

[TAW_Blaze]

I actually find the AIM-9M to be quite useful. Given the state of the 120 usually bringing me closer to a bandit than I'd like to be, I've come to rely on the 9M a lot. Its been highly successful for me except against the flying tank MiG29 that always requires 2 hits to kill. The MiG seems to be able to plow through head-on shots against most missiles, still taking damage, but being largely unaffected. An Aim-9 hit probably feels like slight turbulence.

 

They're OK, but the thing is, in a lot of cases where you have LA they'll easily miss. The X will be lethal in a much bigger % of it's envelope.

[blkspade]

They're OK' date=' but the thing is, in a lot of cases where you have LA they'll easily miss. The X will be lethal in a much bigger % of it's envelope.[/quote']

 

I've learned not to rely on LA solely for determining what would be a good shot. I've gained a sense of the 9M's turning limit, so if one angle looks like a bad shot I'll just re-position. Its greatest benefit is having a really brief window of visibility, and basically invisible head on outside of 3nm.

[*Rage*]

If we assume for the sake of argument that the AIM-120s kinematics are worse than they should be, what happens when they're corrected? A player's K/D ratio may go up for a time because their opponents aren't used to the increased missile performance, but it will drop back again when the opponents adapt to the change.

 

For example, say that the average Minimum Abort Range for an in-parameters AIM-120 shot is currently ~10 NM or less due to poor kinematics. If the kinematics are improved, the new in-parameters MAR may become ~15 NM (or whatever). Therefore, for the first few weeks this difference of 5 NM will catch some people out, but they will quickly realise their mistake and act accordingly.

 

When this adaption occurs the missiles will be just as "useless" as before. The only difference will be that the average range of a typical BVR engagement will increase, and that there will be less chance of escape if you get caught with your pants down.

 

This is what gets me about this entire missile performance argument. Yeah sure, maybe the missiles suck, but guess what? Everyone is using the same missiles (relatively speaking) so the fight is fair(ish) and the average engagement ranges are well known by all parties. There are no 'secrets' in this game - anyone can test anything they like. Then, when the missiles get better, your enemy has access to them too, you'll kill or die just as much as you did before, and everyone will learn the new average engagement ranges.

 

I honestly think that some people imagine that when missiles are improved, somehow they alone will be the only ones who realise it or have access to the new weapons, and subsequently they'll 'magically' start to get more kills. Funny how the human brain works.

 

To a large extent I agree with you. As a general rule things are relative. If you suck/pwn now then it is likely that unless your flying and fighting ability changes intrinsically you will still relatively suck/pwn later when all the missiles are improved. Saying that we should strive to more realistic missile behaviour

 

It's not just kinematic problems. When you're missing straight flying targets that literally don't do anything inside NEZ you have a real problem. There's another set of retarded behaviours with loft aswell.

 

That applies to all missiles. If I still got upset every time I saw an ER/ET do something stupid at <NEZ ranges i'd have been be a frothy apopleptic mess long ago:smilewink:

[TAW_Blaze]

To a large extent I agree with you. As a general rule things are relative. If you suck/pwn now then it is likely that unless your flying and fighting ability changes intrinsically you will still relatively suck/pwn later when all the missiles are improved. Saying that we should strive to more realistic missile behaviour

 

That applies to all missiles. If I still got upset every time I saw an ER/ET do something stupid at <NEZ ranges i'd have been be a frothy apopleptic mess long ago:smilewink:

 

Never seen an ER try to loft up then bull back bleeding all of it's speed though, slammers like to do that. :D

[MVSokie]

so what is the real issue with aim-120s right now? i myself play a mission setup with 4 IL-76 in spread formation constant speed and alt, I go up with 8 120s. i can hit most of them every time but its only light damage and they fly away unless i gun them down.

[IASGATG]

MVS=okie=, in a nutshell:

 

Specifically:

Cd curve is wrong

Cl curve is wrong

Motor Spec is wrong

 

Generally:

Guidance

ECCM

[MVSokie]

so is that why i cannot down 4 easy targets with 8 missles?

[IASGATG]

.... No. Because your words are vague and meaningless.

[karambiatos]

Never seen an ER try to loft up then bull back bleeding all of it's speed though' date=' slammers like to do that. :D[/quote']

The ER forgets that the target exists to begin with.