Cheating

But surely that just takes things too far.

 

It's something you could do in the real aircraft and war isn't supposed to be fair. If you want fairness go play Cricket, you cannot get fairer than that.

 

:)

IIRC no you can't.

I don't doubt its possible, its never been proven not to be, but apparently the actual chance of the ET finding and tracking an a/c is next to zero.

Does this make it wrong to do it, not really, its modeled in the game and no one complains so vehemently when the AMRAAM flys of the rails and behaves unrealistically.

If you get a tone in Fio mode you can launch an ET without override (this behaves similair to override ET) but who can say thats an unrealistic action from the pilot?

The only thing that seems to be unrealistic is the missile behaviour, and this is common right throughout Lockon, not just ET's.

The problem is everyone hates it because its the easiest unrealistic fault to highlight. But im in the opinion of you can't cry about this and carry on regardles with 77's and 120's, all a pilot has to do is lock, launch and runaway from 20km+ and their missile is already a maddog behaving unrealistically, aquiring and reaquiring at ridiculous angles, its a total contradiction.

I don't doubt its possible, its never been proven not to be, but apparently the actual chance of the ET finding and tracking an a/c is next to zero.

Does this make it wrong to do it, not really, its modeled in the game and no one complains so vehemently when the AMRAAM flys of the rails and behaves unrealistically.

Good point.

IMHO the problem of cheating in no way is related to the question to what extent the missiles and radar physical models are 'real', 'close to real' or 'arcade'.

In fact, all realistic or unrealistic physical models are the same for all players. And by that, it's a fair game.

Cheating is a totally different thing. By cheating, somebody tries to benefit from certain advantages that only he himself has access to (by using extra equipment or manipulated games files), and that is not a fair game anymore.

I don't doubt its possible, its never been proven not to be, but apparently the actual chance of the ET finding and tracking an a/c is next to zero.

Does this make it wrong to do it, not really, its modeled in the game and no one complains so vehemently when the AMRAAM flys of the rails and behaves unrealistically.

 

If you get a tone in Fio mode you can launch an ET without override (this behaves similair to override ET) but who can say thats an unrealistic action from the pilot?

 

The only thing that seems to be unrealistic is the missile behaviour, and this is common right throughout Lockon, not just ET's.

 

The problem is everyone hates it because its the easiest unrealistic fault to highlight. But im in the opinion of you can't cry about this and carry on regardles with 77's and 120's, all a pilot has to do is lock, launch and runaway from 20km+ and their missile is already a maddog behaving unrealistically, aquiring and reaquiring at ridiculous angles, its a total contradiction.

I would say there's potentially some misconceptions here, but just to be accurate for detail's sake:

It IS possible to override and launch the R-27ET without a seeker lock (in fact I believe you *might* be able to lauch it this way even if you have LA, but you willnaturally waste the missile).

Why is it possible to perform the launch this way?

The override switch is fitted there to enable you to launch the missile off the rail because there are no jettison pyrotechnics in those particular pylons - it is meant to be used in an emegency. Typically the seeker would not even be cooled in this situation (but it *might* be, if you had the missile properly selected in some sort of combat mode).

Note that maddogging is NOT like launching in FiO with tone. That tone is telling you that the missile seeker has locked onto a heat source!

So you launch the missile with say, a cooled seeker because you kinda sorta planned it this way (the scenario where the seeker is not cooled - pretty much forget about it. NA LO of course). THe missile comes off the rail, the seeker begins scanning, and ... locked onto the first reflection of sunlight (or someone's bbq) it finds in its view, and goes ... somewhere. That makes this mode of employmemnt useless - again, NA LO.

Now what about ARH in the game? ARH have an attrociously large scan pattern. It was done this way for a reason, but there are drawbacks (which we all know and love). It is not true however to say that a missile could not be 'launched and left' ... that is a VERY valid scenario which is N/A LOMAC due to lack of inertial navigation in LO missiles. The Pk is lower because an enemy fighter can leave the capture volume - in other words, Pk decreases as your support of the missile (to TTA) decreases, but the shot is never invalid.

Now, compare this method operation to what you're complaining about in LO? I agree, it isn't correct the way it's done.

I don't doubt its possible, its never been proven not to be, but apparently the actual chance of the ET finding and tracking an a/c is next to zero.

Does this make it wrong to do it, not really, its modeled in the game and no one complains so vehemently when the AMRAAM flys of the rails and behaves unrealistically.

 

Yes they do.

Also you forget even F-15 drivers fly against other F-15's the same way I hate to get killed by a heat seeker like that while flying the same russian aircraft. The difference is moot.

It makes no sense to criticize just the AMRAAM when all missile have the same seeker logic but the US missile fly much slower and shorter.

I want seekers rectified as much as you do, Im even whilling to accept to have Maddog for AMRAAM cut out if thats what it takes to fix the other missiles as well.

Time to leave this AMRAAM-is-ubber-but-mine-is-screwed myths, they are all broken in similar ways.

They didn't 'ruin' the AIM-120. That is a baseless accusation and huge assumption.

 

And no, they shouldn't have kept the EA, because the Russianb air force does not use it, and because it DOES NOT exist as an operational weapon ANYWHERE.

Well then I guess I was misinformed about the 120; I heard it was made much less effective after version 1.02 I think it was, presumably to balance multiplay. I don't really know, though, so I stand corrected, my bad. What I do know is that one of the F-15c training tracks isn't working properly after FC release because the AIM 120 miss it's target.

As for the EA, you make a valid point; it's a slippery slope indeed. But to me there is a big difference between taking something OUT of the game that was ready for production at the time it first came out, and adding planned weapon systems that is ready for production a decade later.. I kind of half-way agree with you though, it really is a slippery slope.

Can I have an F-22 then? ;)

 

What about AIM-9X with helmet sight on F-15? AIM-54C? (NASA is doing it, so obviously it can be done! :D ) ... how about ASAT?

Simple... why not?

... and I'm glad that ED doesn't think like this. ;) That's one nasty slippery slope - for those of you who want 'possibilities' there is HAWX ;)

These are not possibilies. Many of them have finished plans and they have been ready to production, but many things have stopped that, example Su-25TM which against you are ;]

Simple... why not?

Simple ... because not :D

These are not possibilies. Many of them have finished plans and they have been ready to production, but many things have stopped that, example Su-25TM which against you are ;]

Ready for production means nothing. IN production, and in service means something. Anything else = non-existance. ;)

Were lucky to get the R-77 on MIG-29S as it is.

Only 12 or so planes were ever configured to carry it in russia. No actual missiles have ever been seen mounted on them in RuAF but test or airshow dummies.

In stark contrast we never got AIM-120C7 ;) ;) ;) ;)

Simple ... because not :D

LOL

Ready for production means nothing. IN production, and in service means something. Anything else = non-existance. ;)

It means... plane has been ready to production and it would have been produced if there had been enough money :)

"would" is the domain of fiction. SIM's are the domain of simulating the real. :)

It means... plane has been ready to production and it would have been produced if there had been enough money :)

But it was not. :D

If aim -7 witch is guided al the way by F-15 can miss(Proven), then AIM-120c lunched from low altitude or face down look, dont get reflected by ground noise :) It sound like some think aim-120 radar is as good as F-15s pulse-doppler radar. All missiles in Lomac are on steroids or cheaters if u ask me. :)

If aim -7 witch is guided al the way by F-15 can miss(Proven), then AIM-120c lunched from low altitude or face down look, dont get reflected by ground noise :) It sound like some think aim-120 radar is as good as F-15s pulse-doppler radar. All missiles in Lomac are on steroids or cheaters if u ask me. :)

Fortunately no one is asking you :D

Missiles are far more effective than the current representation - for a BUNCH of reasons which are also not modeled.

.

Fortunately no one is asking you :D

 

Missiles are far more effective than the current representation - for a BUNCH of reasons which are also not modeled.

That if someone ask u. unfortunately I dont agree whit that lomac missiles are under modeled, Could be in many parameters. When it concerns ability to track I would assume Lomac missiles/Radars are way better then RL.

(Radar warnings/Missiles seeker cones/Radars) If all that was downgraded 1/3 I think we would have more realistic game.

Im not talking about ranges, It would be more realistic if radars lost track more then they do now, we lose track only in notch or in coled position that's not reality.

Lomacs Aim-120/R-77/ in active mode go only for chaff or maneuvers, diving 90 degrees on a bandit not getting effected by ground noise at all.

Fortunately no one is asking you :D

 

Missiles are far more effective than the current representation - for a BUNCH of reasons which are also not modeled.

No way, negative!

LOFC missiles are too sticky compared to same missiles IRL. By too sticky I mean they track too good and reacquire targets too fast. On the other hand, SPO and TEWS in LOFC are also too good, waaaay better than real things so practically we're sort of in between, perfect RWR compensates for perfect missiles hence the Missile Pk is sort of realistic in LOFC.

Real missiles are less affected by countermeasures IRL but their ability to track isn't that good as in LOFC. Great Pk is achieved mostly by aircraft and pilots having no idea of inbound missile 'cause of their RWRs are not as good as ones in LOFC!

No way, negative!

I'm sorry, qualify that, because what you wrote below qualifies nothing.

I will ask, however ...

LOFC missiles are too sticky compared to same missiles IRL. By too sticky I mean they track too good and reacquire targets too fast.

Not news, and not entirely true, either.

On the other hand, SPO and TEWS in LOFC are also too good, waaaay better than real things so practically we're sort of in between, perfect RWR compensates for perfect missiles hence the Missile Pk is sort of realistic in LOFC.

First off, show me error rates for RWRs.

Second, please compare LOFC missile pK to real pK. I know you won't, because you haven't actually done the numbers - if you had, you'd know that the pK represents vietnam era missiles, not LOMAC era missiles.

Real missiles are less affected by countermeasures IRL but their ability to track isn't that good as in LOFC. Great Pk is achieved mostly by aircraft and pilots having no idea of inbound missile 'cause of their RWRs are not as good as ones in LOFC!

Real missiles are well researched and great pK does not always rely on the other guy not seeing what hit him - while it is a big factor, dismissing the capability of a missile to hit a target that's attempting to evade it is silly - they are DESIGNED to deal with evading targets.

Note that I am not counting missiles that suffer hardware failures, which account for a very large proportion of low-pK missiles in RL; this is something that is not simulated in LO. In general, working missiles have been finding their targets - SSKs are becoming more and more common with AMRAAM.

Regardless, the current representation of missile capability of dealing with CMs is off - and anyway, what does this have to do with cheating?

Any new fighter will jamm the hell out of aim-120c/r-77 in active mode. U never thought about that GG?

Apparently those AIM-120 engineers didn't think about it either according to you ;)

Thread locked due to massive OT.

Any new fighter will jamm the hell out of aim-120c/r-77 in active mode. U never thought about that GG? Or are lomac missiles still pore modeled? :)