Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

Tek, seriously - if all you have is to claim that there is "no proof" for X or Y, then that's really nothiing. You cannot turn personal ignorance into an argument for anything.

 

If you think something is wrong, show how it is wrong. Got a document that describes AIM-120 (which versions btw?) performance against low-flying targets? No? Then how can you say it's wrong?

 

ED doesn't change anything based on your personal incredulity. ED changes things based on available documentation.

You dont have prove for those facts mentioned above nithere!!!!

Its pointless to argue whit you, I don't mind all of us fly F-18, 51st will have even easier to kick butt then :)

In other words it tracks too well in the terminal phase? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

You alledge - YOU need to prove. Kindly do so or provide corroboration.

 

 

 

What are you trying to say? That the AIM-120 is immune to chaff?

 

 

 

I'll have a look.

 

 

 

What on earth has tactics/pilot skill have to do with missile dynamic? The missile has no idea of pincers/bandit in pincer. Keep this discussion related to missiles and their attendant faults - as I said, no word games. Keep it simple.

 

 

 

I'm sure you know that INS is already on the bug list - why mention it again when it has already been acknowledged?

 

 

 

Where's the fault/shortcoming of the missile in #6?

 

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that missiles should not be tweaked to accord with their RL specifications. No, they should rather be tweaked to afford all missiles with some type of sweetspot to ensure mutually satisfactory gameplay for both Blue and Red.

 

True?

 

You forget the gross shortcoming of this argument. What standard do you employ to find the 'sweetspot'? The entry-level noob or the 'Frostie/Pilotasso of the LockOn World?

 

Noob to Elite Virtual Pilot? On what do you measure the sweetspot? The very fact that one id forced to ask that question means that argument is doomed from the outset - forget about it and concentrate on the missiles. They are what is needed to be modelled correctly - sweetspots are irrelevant in War.

LOL, I give up you a making a idiot of me :) assuming that ED has all the data about aim-120 or ER. And Im sure if there would be a shortcuts whit aim-120 the world would know about it :)

Show me you data plz GG, Viper that ER/R-77 dose preform worse then aim-120 in tracking

Its like you dont want to see my point, Aim-120/R77 should have advantage over ER we all agree, the question is by how much? That could be tweaked whit out leaving RL data because there is some x factors involved.

I'm closely following the discussion and I do believe that weapon systems should be modeled as close to RL as possible.

Yes, AMRAAM is superior missile at the moment!

However ...

In RL (war), F-15 (or any other platform capable of firing AMRAAMs) would never get a chance to penetrate deep enough to fire at russian SU-27, or whatever - you have PVO (air defense) for taking care of that like S300/400 and such. We are looking at nuclear retaliation if F-15s manage to get through air defences (very unlikely).

Model that aspect of RL, and we have balanced simulation :)

So, reference to "game" has a point. ;)

It is a constant tweaking I would guise to find the right settings, before it was by having S-300 warhead on aim-120 to compensate the turn. Now something else could be done to find the right settings for known data of missiles. Im sure ED will try make missiles as good as possible since that work is needed for future DCS fighter and take in to account as many aspects they have time whit.

We are looking at nuclear retaliation if F-15s manage to get through air defences (very unlikely).

Only if said leaders are ready to turn what might be a localized conflict into a global nuclear exchange. For example, would they be prepared to sacrifice all major cities to the nuclear furnace just because they're miffed a SAM site was taken out?

"Game balancing" as such is not somthering I agree with. You don't fudge things on purpose in a simulator, you just don't. Whenever you are forced to make guesstimates, you make the best possible one, you don't take it as an excuse to go "wrong on purpose". If you genuinely have no way to make a guesstimate, you leave it out.

If weapon systems are not evenly matched there is a very good arena to solve this problem: mission design.

One thing I could imagine that would be useful would be if server hosts were able to control which aircraft were available at which times and depending on which factors. For example, you might make it so that if there are 4 active Su-27's, only two of the OPFOR F-15 slots are available. If there are 8 active Flankers, have 4 OPFOR F-15 slots available.

Now that is a feature I would agree with and that I think would be awesome to have, and it keeps "game balancing" where it belongs: in the mission designers hands, rather than being used as an excuse to fudge the simulation on purpose.

Saying there is no "proof" in either direction is no reason to change things.

Also I think by 'pincer' he actually means 'crank'.

...

 

If weapon systems are not evenly matched there is a very good arena to solve this problem: mission design.

 

One thing I could imagine that would be useful would be if server hosts were able to control which aircraft were available at which times and depending on which factors. For example, you might make it so that if there are 4 active Su-27's, only two of the OPFOR F-15 slots are available. If there are 8 active Flankers, have 4 OPFOR F-15 slots available.

 

Now that is a feature I would agree with and that I think would be awesome to have, and it keeps "game balancing" where it belongs: in the mission designers hands, rather than being used as an excuse to fudge the simulation on purpose.

:thumbup:

That would be perfect solution (and not too far from RL - Russians are historically known to fight major battles and win with overwhelming numbers and inferior technology)

Except in this case they have no overwhelming numbers. They're even or worse. It's true though that back in the 80's F-15 pilots with their 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinders routinely practiced point defense in 2v8's with the 8 having 4 fighters and 4 strikers, including Su-27's.

Except in this case they have no overwhelming numbers. They're even or worse.

Exactly the same situation preceding every major war fought against Russia, from Napoleon onward - Someone in the West jump on power trip and try to invade Russia - epilogue has been always the same

:)

Not only that, but as per Case's stats the ER was about as effective as a 120.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1441178&postcount=117

I would not say as effective, It takes twice the time for Su-27 pilot to achieve same ratio.

if you look there aim-7 is better then aim-120, I didn't see people use aim-7. Same gose for ET if Su-27 pilots would use only them there would be 0 kills :)

Oh, and btw, this thing about AIM-120 having "S-300 warheads" is just silly. Relevant entries:

warheads["SA5B55"] = simple_aa_warhead(133.0); -- SA-10 S-300PS
warheads["SA48H6E2"] = simple_aa_warhead(143.0); -- SA-N-10 S-300F

----

warheads["AIM_120"] = directional_a2a_warhead(11.0);
warheads["AIM_120C"] = directional_a2a_warhead(11.0);

The ones using directionals (AIM-120B, AIM-120C, R-77 and AIM-9X) get a multiplier, like so:

res.expl_mass = 3.5*power;;

Whereas the S-300, being a SAM, has the input power value directly.

Thus, comparing them, the S-300 gets 133-134, and the AIM-120's (and R-77) get 38,5.

R-27's have the input value 39, also no modifier.

All other values are the same. So, to sum it up:

AIM-120: 38,5

R-27 family: 39

S-300: 133-143

So as you could have checked for yourself, Tek, the AIM-120's do NOT have some sort of magically huge warhead (It's actually marginally weaker than the R-27!), and most certainly not close to the S-300.

Oh, and btw, this thing about AIM-120 having "S-300 warheads" is just silly. Relevant entries:

 

warheads["SA5B55"] = simple_aa_warhead(133.0); -- SA-10 S-300PS
warheads["SA48H6E2"] = simple_aa_warhead(143.0); -- SA-N-10 S-300F

----

warheads["AIM_120"] = directional_a2a_warhead(11.0);
warheads["AIM_120C"] = directional_a2a_warhead(11.0);

 

The ones using directionals (AIM-120B, AIM-120C, R-77 and AIM-9X) get a multiplier, like so:

 

res.expl_mass = 3.5*power;;

 

Whereas the S-300, being a SAM, has the input power value directly.

 

Thus, comparing them, the S-300 gets 133-134, and the AIM-120's (and R-77) get 38,5.

R-27's have the input value 39, also no modifier.

 

All other values are the same. So, to sum it up:

 

AIM-120: 38,5

R-27 family: 39

S-300: 133-143

 

So as you could have checked for yourself, Tek, the AIM-120's do NOT have some sort of magically huge warhead (It's actually marginally weaker than the R-27!), and most certainly not close to the S-300.

I have no problems whit how ED tweak to get the right performance. Dont take me wrong I support ED that's why I try to make my point. Overall Im very happy whit EDs work on missiles dynamics, I wanted them to miss more witch they do now, I feel just that aim-120 is slightly over modeled if that would be fixed multiplayer would feel more realistic because both sides would show respect for their opponent. Today F15 pilot is not afraid to get in close neither because aim-120 is more effective in close range then in BVR witch is strange to me when missile whit full burners turns that good. But if aim-120 would miss more at close range would force F-15 pilots to keep the distance o think twice to not fall in a merge, that would lead to better and more unpredicted outcome, aim-120/R77 should not be as predictive, they never lose lock while ER can by human mistake or notch.

Oh OK, how about we talk about Russia invading the US then, if we are making up silly scenarios :-)

Modern jet fighters are not so easy to spam produce ... Even the not so advanced ones. Pilot training takes years.

Exactly the same situation preceding every major war fought against Russia, from Napoleon onward - Someone in the West jump on power trip and try to invade Russia - epilogue has been always the same

 

:)

Tek,

IMO you're not doing it very well though. :P

But anyhow, what do you think about my proposed alternative? If what you want is game balancing online, how about the suggested measure towards giving mission designers additional tools towards controlling the amount of a given aircraft that are flyable?

Point being: instead of gameing the missiles to get your wished for game balance, control the mission more with additional capabilities that the mission designer currently does not have?

With the resource manager they can already control the number of available planes and weapons, IIRC.

With the resource manager they can already control the number of available planes and weapons, IIRC.

Yeah, what I'm looking for here though would be more dynamic: say you have the sides set up like this:

RED

8 Flanker slots

4 F-15 slots

BLUE

8 Flanker slots

4 F-15 slots

The F-15 slots get conditioned (by the mission designer) such that if there's 4 red flankers flying at that time, only two blue F-15s are available for selection. If two new players on red jump into Flankers, another blue F-15 becomes available. If two red flankers leave the game, one blue F-15 becomes unavailable for selection.

Resource manager does, right now (AFAIK) not give this capability - it allows you to control the total amount of aircraft available, but not dynamically based on active planes on the other side.

I'm sure someone can come up with an even better idea to offer more game balancing capabilities to the mission designers, this is just a back-of-the-envelope to see if I can point out to Tek that there are better ways to "balance" things.

Oh OK, how about we talk about Russia invading the US then, if we are making up silly scenarios :-)

 

....

Well, DCS is based on silly scenario as well then; how probable is NATO intervention in Georgia and region without major global consequences? Zero. :)

The other scenario (Russia invades USA) is even less likely - USA & Russia are countries impossible to invade - only way to defeat them is to tore them apart from inside. That's the reason why we have proxy conflicts and wars ...

:beer:

I don't understand what the argument is here....the sweetspot...is that code word for game balance? Lets not talk about the tons of actual known features missing on the F-15 since....forever....lets add things to a jet that has not been added in real life. It's been said many many times before, show proof to Ed and they'll see about adding it. Everytime one of these threads pop up, we hear the same stuff.....with no proof. yes, I like flyiing the F-15 as well as the 27, 29 and 33. If info is bright to light about these other aircraft, I'd be thrilled to have them upgraded in game. Even in servers that allowed R-77's on Su-27's I didn't use them, that was my choice. So, don't think I'm just a F-15 fan, I like flying all the aircraft. What I don't like is unrealistic things. If I wanted that I'd play Hawx or some other FPS flight sim game.

Both side US and Russian has scenarios for all sorts of things. That what those pilots train for, that's why there are things like Red Flag, Green Flag, Maple Flag, Cope Thunder <---back in the day and other various exercises. That's why we have intelligence agencies. Just cause the cold war ended that doesn't mean this things stopped.

So, don't think I'm just a F-15 fan, I like flying all the aircraft.

Didn't you hear, Cali? The only reason possible for not wanting what Tek wants is being an F-15 fanboy. :D

In fact, even Viper is now exposed as an F-15 fanboy since he wanted procedure to be followed with clear feature requests/bug reports having attendant information. Only F-15 fanboys do that, it's how we keep the reds down. :)

Well at least the 27 is getting a new pit, so that is something they can be happy about and the other fixes.

Didn't see you had added to your post until now:

I feel just that aim-120 is slightly over modeled if that would be fixed multiplayer would feel more realistic because both sides would show respect for their opponent.

What you "feel" about a weapon has nothing to do about the reality of it. Simple fact is that the AIM-120 in-game is a joke to the real pilots that have actually used the weapon in reality. (I have spoken to such pilots, both american and swedish. Obviously they can't give details, but when you get giggles and laughter back that's probably a sign. :P )

The bigger problem I feel is in your definition of "realism". You are trying to modify the simulation without documentation towards creating a certain behaviour in pilots. That is, quite simply, wrong. It's about the same as me suddenly deciding that Flanker and Mig pilots should understand that they don't have much to do in BVR against the Eagle and for this reason nerf the R-27's and R-77's to oblivion - because I feel it would feel more "realistic" if red pilots were hiding down low and using ambush tactics. That seem right to you? ;)

What you are trying to fix here is something that simply cannot be fixed - you are trying to "fix" Airquake pilots. Give up. It's never going to happen. Airquake is airquake. If you want to get rid of it, lock your server and play Squadron (and invites) exclusively. That's sadly the way it is.

Today F15 pilot is not afraid to get in close neither because aim-120 is more effective in close range then in BVR witch is strange to me when missile whit full burners turns that good. But if aim-120 would miss more at close range would force F-15 pilots to keep the distance o think twice to not fall in a merge, that would lead to better and more unpredicted outcome, aim-120/R77 should not be as predictive, they never lose lock while ER can by human mistake or notch.

They never lose lock?

I've notched 120's quite a bit. The only thing that's more difficult with that is the reduced response time if you didn't anticipate the TWS shot.

As for F-15 pilots not fearing to get close... You are once again expecting Airquakers to act rationally. STOP DOING THAT! Seriously. We're talking about the people that can be seen ejecting over enemy territory to get a new bird spawned rather than fly home.

Sane F-15 pilots worry plenty about close range, but if they have skill they also know how to use the strengths of their own plane - simply because they worry about it they will have practiced at working their advantages and the Flanker/MiGs weaknesses in WVR. Any sane combat training regime starts with BFM. But even then, a turn fight is simply not something any sane F-15 pilot wants. They can do it if it is required, but given the close-range weapons available to the reds (and we have no AIM-9X on the F-15's. :( ) it's something that is preferred to be handled in BVR if possible.

The Airquakers though? They'll always to weird stuff.

In fact, even Viper is now exposed as an F-15 fanboy since he wanted procedure to be followed with clear feature requests/bug reports having attendant information. Only F-15 fanboys do that, it's how we keep the reds down. :)

Jeez, there be a mutiny on our hands of god like proportions if this ever gets out.

Jeez, there be a mutiny on our hands of god like proportions if this ever gets out.

Don't worry, I can keep a secret. For a price... :music_whistling:

i like how tek is the only guy complaining, i mean the aim120 owns my ass most of the time, but attribute it to me being terrible at the game rather than it being the bolt of zeus apparently