EW neglection -> unfair advantage? (F-14/F-18/F-16)

It's been a while since the Tomcat and the Hornet have been released and yet they are still missing the implementation of jamming effects, meaning they are immune to jamming for the time being. I think this is a pretty unfair and obiously unrealistic advantage compared to all the other fighters that suffer from being jammed. It is especially unfair in case of the Tomcat, because while still missing the effects of being jammed it already has its own jammer implemented and working, so it can jam other fighters while being immune to their jamming. It has been like this with the M2000C as well for a while after it got released, but IIRC it didn't took that long for jamming effects to be implemented.

I really hope we will get jamming effects for the Tomcat and the Hornet rather sooner than later to stop this exploit especially in MP.

It will also make the job for the RIO even more interesting in case of the Tomcat.

Edit: Applies to the newly F-16 too.

Agree.

I will quickly add that the jamming(ASPJ) functionality for the Hornet is not implemented.

The Hornet cannot jam other aircraft radar.

Agree.

I will quickly add that the jamming(ASPJ) functionality for the Hornet is not implemented.

The Hornet cannot jam other aircraft radar.

Yeah, that's why I meant it is especially unfair in case of the Tomcat, that can jam, but can not be jammed, unlike the Hornet which can neither jam nor be jammed.

I was under the impression that the 14's jammer didn't work

I was under the impression that the 14's jammer didn't work

I've never thoroughly tested it, but from what I have heard and what I see in the cockpit it seems to work. I get the XMIT indication when it is supposed to be jamming, but I have never tested it in another aircraft on the recieving end. :dunno:

Just want to add that the F-16C has the same unfair advantage in MP. Just like the F-14 and the F/A-18C it is immune to jamming which is pretty unfair (and unrealistic)...

Yes, that's not fair or realistic. And should be promptly remedied by the module developers.

It should be a basic requirement that they at least implement the effects of *being* jammed, even if they can't do anything else.

As you say, this is a massive exploit.

Just want to add that the F-16C has the same unfair advantage in MP. Just like the F-14 and the F/A-18C it is immune to jamming which is pretty unfair (and unrealistic)...

I agree, but I have to laugh, because there's not really much the F-16 can do really well right now. I think this is the one time where it's actually handy that the bird is so incomplete :-D

It's been a while since the Tomcat and the Hornet have been released and yet they are still missing the implementation of jamming effects, meaning they are immune to jamming for the time being. I think this is a pretty unfair and obiously unrealistic advantage compared to all the other fighters that suffer from being jammed. It is especially unfair in case of the Tomcat, because while still missing the effects of being jammed it already has its own jammer implemented and working, so it can jam other fighters while being immune to their jamming. It has been like this with the M2000C as well for a while after it got released, but IIRC it didn't took that long for jamming effects to be implemented.

 

I really hope we will get jamming effects for the Tomcat and the Hornet rather sooner than later to stop this exploit especially in MP. :(

It will also make the job for the RIO even more interesting in case of the Tomcat.

If you go by that then there should be some kind of signaling on the scoreboard who wrecked their plane while flying it. I'm talking about the Tomcats wrecking their flaps and whatnot and the Hornet guys just binding tape around their g limiter override.

Welcome to Airquake where consequences and state of airframe don't matter.

I would love it if Moose had something like that. Present you the bill of armaments spent after a sortie as well as tell those guys: "tell you what, that airframe is now unusable for your faction. You wrecked it."

All optional of course. But it's the mentality that matters here.

Multiplayer, Multiplayer...... . . . . .

The F/A-18C (and the F-16) is in EA. It was already stated by ED that jamming is part of the roadmap. Unless you can magically add the jamming capability - the development will continue per their published priorities. Although the lack of jamming it might give an unfair advantage im MP- nagging ED about something they've addressed many times before is "jamming" their work.

The F/A-18C (and the F-16) is in EA. It was already stated by ED that jamming is part of the roadmap. Unless you can magically add the jamming capability - the development will continue per their published priorities. Although the lack of jamming it might give an unfair advantage im MP- nagging ED about something they've addressed many times before is "jamming" their work.

Sorry, I didn't know it's against the rules to discuss their roadmap and priorities.

Sorry, I didn't know it's against the rules to discuss their roadmap and priorities.

It's not what I've said and it not my point...

Just saying that there already was a poll where they've asked our input as a community. We voted and they already published the results. Keep nagging about "let's change the priorities again" is "jamming" in my opinion.

It's not like its a bug. It's a feature requiring development. The issue was already addressed by them.

Yes, I kind of agree with nickos86 here. I will say more, i hope they delay the EW modelling on those planes until they can implement something a bit more sophisticated that what we have now in other planes, in which the jammer basically does not add anything in the A2A arena, it will just reduce engagement range againts SAMs.

I was under the impression that they were hiring sommeone for EW modelling. I hope that is still true.

It's not what I've said and it not my point...

Just saying that there already was a poll where they've asked our input as a community. We voted and they already published the results. Keep nagging about "let's change the priorities again" is "jamming" in my opinion.

It's not like its a bug. It's a feature requiring development. The issue was already addressed by them.

First of, I created this thread way before they made the poll and then it's not about a certain aircraft, but about the issue in general that neglecting jamming effects in development of any aircraft will create an unfair and unrealistic advantage for that aircraft.

You can of course disagree with me on the importance of the matter, but to me this issue means a lot.

Yes, I kind of agree with nickos86 here. I will say more, i hope they delay the EW modelling on those planes until they can implement something a bit more sophisticated that what we have now in other planes, in which the jammer basically does not add anything in the A2A arena, it will just reduce engagement range againts SAMs.

 

 

I was under the impression that they were hiring sommeone for EW modelling. I hope that is still true.

I hope youre right and they're indeed working on more sophisticated EW functions. They were indeed looking to hire someone with real world EW experience, which does sound promising :thumbup:

You're wrong though that the current EW simulation does nothing in the A2A arena. What it does exactly depends entirely on what effects are implemented in the recieving aircraft (which is what this thread is about) and in most aircraft that currently have jamming effects implemented (FC3, M2000, MiG-21) the jamming will not just deny you range, but it also makes it harder to get/keep a lock and it denies IFF. It also adds some other quirks like false targets for the M2000 and locked range gate for the MiG-21.

As a virtual Tomcat RIO I would love to be able to adjust filters in order to work through jamming strobes.

I didnot know they simulated that in the m2000C and mig21, but i like how it sounds. I would love to have that in other aircrafts as well.

Meh, implementing jamming for these aircraft means they have to spent resources on adapting it to the new radar technologies (compared to FC), which will later be scraped for the new thing (eventually).

Don't think it is that much of an advantage at all.... most servers are full with full fidelity modules anyway.

I see your point, but I think that it is not big enough of a deal

Hacking the code and fooling the IC is the real EW... just kidding:D