Pilotasso Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 there will be more than 1 country with the Ka-50? because that could kill the popularity of the oposing side online. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 P.S. Lo and behold! An F15C, in Janes IAF http://www.flightsim.com/review/iaf/f15c130.jpg Now, who said that it hadn't been modelled in the last ten years? Ah, D-Scythe!: "Name one flight sim in the past decade that has featured either the A-10 or the F-15C. Oh yeah, that's right - none." I claim a very small victory :) But yeah, it's never been done in high-fidelity, and it's current iteration in LOMAC leaves something to be desired, I know. I am with you on this one, really. I just understand ED's priorities, and the limitations they face. I'm sorry, but I hardly consider Jane's IAF (or Jane's USAF) as a simulation. The A-10 has a freakin radar, for god's sakes. Chalk up the victory if you want, but IMO, it's all mine ;) And yes, I also understand ED's priorities - I probably am more intimate with them than you are. All I'm saying is that the people wanting updates to the F-15C and A-10 in LOMAC actually do have some truths to their position. They haven't really benefitted at all since V1.02 - the Su/MiGs got the updated radar and avionics, the Su-25 has got AFM, the Su-25T has got ALL the bells and whistles, and now so will the Ka-50. Meanwhile, the two western jets have...the AIM-120C, which is simply a broken missile made to be less broken rather than a completely new missile with WAFM/WASM. And you really don't think the full-spec F-15/AIM-120 would chew the MiG-29A/S and Su-27S to pieces (mainly BVR)? Better radar, better active BVRAAM, multi-targetting TWS and equal if not better kinematic evasion? Lots of things going for the Eagle here. Meanwhile, the Flanker/MiG-29A would be a piece of meat cause it's limited to SARH missiles, and the MiG-29S has a much weaker radar plus no multi-target engagement ability. If you want an equal to the full spec, F-15C MSIP II w/ AIM-120C, go for the newer MiG-29M/SMT and Su-27SM aircraft. Both the 27K and 29A/S are much, much older and nobody should expect it to hold its own against a fighter with much newer (and better) avionics and missiles. Anyway you look at it, the F-15C would tear the Su-27S and MIG-29A/S a new one, just like a Su-27SM would beat the tar out of the F-15A. Want to keep things even? Don't model AMRAAM or MSIP for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cali Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Like I said before the US/NATO has NO multirole fighter and how many does the Russians have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth_HR Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Like I said before the US/NATO has NO multirole fighter and how many does the Russians have? Say WHAT? Then what the heck are the F-16, F-18 and F-35? :shocking: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Real men fly ground attack :pilotfly: where EVERYTHING wants a piece of you :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cali Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Say WHAT? Then what the heck are the F-16, F-18 and F-35? :shocking: Like Rugg said I'm talking about Lock On not real life. I do work on f-16's ya know, I see them everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhen Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 All I'm saying is that the people wanting updates to the F-15C and A-10 in LOMAC actually do have some truths to their position.... And you really don't think the full-spec F-15/AIM-120 would chew the MiG-29A/S and Su-27S to pieces (mainly BVR)? Better radar, better active BVRAAM, multi-targetting TWS and equal if not better kinematic evasion? Lots of things going for the Eagle here. Meanwhile, the Flanker/MiG-29A would be a piece of meat cause it's limited to SARH missiles, and the MiG-29S has a much weaker radar plus no multi-target engagement ability. So what if it would. In any NATO/Warsaw Pact engagement - the arguable time frame for LOMAC conflict, NATO would rely on superior technology to take out the superior numbers on the Warsaw Pact side. While the argument can be made that we need to remove the historic strengths of the Eagle in a "hypothetical" engagement with a Fulcrum or Flanker, to do so for the sake of balanced game play makes this a simulation of nothing approximating "Modern Air Combat." I would rather see exactly what you propose, the MSIP2 Eagle against a more modern adversary. Regardless, the reasons to hobble the Eagle for the sake of gameplay makes it impossible to employ the Eagle the way it was meant to be employed. It consequently makes it impossible to employ the Flanker or Fulcrum the way IT was meant to be employed either. Perhaps if the radar, weapons, RWS, and ECM were modeled appropriately, you'd start to see the development of "real world" tactics on the servers. But for now, you'll see the kind of lone-wolf, air quake, tactics where a single Flanker or Fulcrum can be a match for a multi-ship Eagle flight because of the limitations of one for the sake of balanced game play. Give all the aircraft their due. Improve the radar, RWS, IFF, data link and ECM capability of all aircraft (and actually give them to aircraft that would have them IRL). Make the RVV-AE more lethal and appropriately model the Slammer. Give both sides a HMTS, and THEN let slip the dogs of war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 So what if it would. In any NATO/Warsaw Pact engagement - the arguable time frame for LOMAC conflict, NATO would rely on superior technology to take out the superior numbers on the Warsaw Pact side. While the argument can be made that we need to remove the historic strengths of the Eagle in a "hypothetical" engagement with a Fulcrum or Flanker, to do so for the sake of balanced game play makes this a simulation of nothing approximating "Modern Air Combat." I would rather see exactly what you propose, the MSIP2 Eagle against a more modern adversary. Regardless, the reasons to hobble the Eagle for the sake of gameplay makes it impossible to employ the Eagle the way it was meant to be employed. It consequently makes it impossible to employ the Flanker or Fulcrum the way IT was meant to be employed either. Perhaps if the radar, weapons, RWS, and ECM were modeled appropriately, you'd start to see the development of "real world" tactics on the servers. But for now, you'll see the kind of lone-wolf, air quake, tactics where a single Flanker or Fulcrum can be a match for a multi-ship Eagle flight because of the limitations of one for the sake of balanced game play. Give all the aircraft their due. Improve the radar, RWS, IFF, data link and ECM capability of all aircraft (and actually give them to aircraft that would have them IRL). Make the RVV-AE more lethal and appropriately model the Slammer. Give both sides a HMTS, and THEN let slip the dogs of war! Hey, I'm with ya buddy. I'm all for a full-spec F-15C MSIP II in Lock On. Unfortunately, it's probably never going to happen. IRL, an F-15C MSIP II equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAMs (roughly late 1990s tech) would cut swathes into enemy MiG-29S/Su-27S formations. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the equal to the MiG-29S/Su-27S is the F-15A or a pre-MSIP F-15C with AIM-7F/Ms, not the F-15C MSIP II. The F-15C/AIM-120C combination is one of the best (if not *the* best) air superiority combination until the Su-30MKI/K, Eurofighter and F-22 reach full operational capability. It's late 1990s tech, versus the early/mid 80s tech in the MiG-29S/27S. It's not even in the same league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Ok GGT ... show me where it says the F-15 is going to get fixed - where is the post? GGTharos, we are still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth_HR Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 He was talking in the context of LOMAC. Oh. Whoops. :huh: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Real men fly ground attack :pilotfly: where EVERYTHING wants a piece of you :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhen Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 IRL, an F-15C MSIP II equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAMs (roughly late 1990s tech) would cut swathes into enemy MiG-29S/Su-27S formations. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the equal to the MiG-29S/Su-27S is the F-15A or a pre-MSIP F-15C with AIM-7F/Ms, not the F-15C MSIP II. Yes, but that's besides the point. If you want to approximate real-world tactics, you put aircraft with their real-world capability in the sim. The tactics will then, naturally develop into something cogent which also approximates real-world (with exceptions regarding charging into a dangerous situation because it's a sim rather than real-life). Right now, LOMAC approximates nothing of the sort - on the servers. When you attempt to play to the strengths of any of the aircraft, you just can't make real-world tactics work very well. I know I won't see a full-up Eagle against a full-up Flanker ever on LOMAC regardless of iteration. However, it's nice to dream. :smilewink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 you dont need a high fidelity modeling to have real world tactics to some extent, you just need not have too many things broken at the same time. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Yes, but that's besides the point. If you want to approximate real-world tactics, you put aircraft with their real-world capability in the sim. The tactics will then, naturally develop into something cogent which also approximates real-world (with exceptions regarding charging into a dangerous situation because it's a sim rather than real-life). Right now, LOMAC approximates nothing of the sort - on the servers. When you attempt to play to the strengths of any of the aircraft, you just can't make real-world tactics work very well. I know I won't see a full-up Eagle against a full-up Flanker ever on LOMAC regardless of iteration. However, it's nice to dream. :smilewink: Hopefully you might ... at least, as real as can be gotten ... I'm trying to work up a missile simulation so that I can implment missile logic which can then be ported to LOMAC. Similarely, radar system logic in particular where jammers are involved, as well as jammer logic ... of course I don't know if I can even get it half-right :) Note: I'm talking scientific simulation here. Systems, graphs and numbers. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duxa Posted July 29, 2006 Author Share Posted July 29, 2006 wow all I can say is that when I made this post I didnt expect it to get so huge.. lol its an interesting read nonetheless.. =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Hopefully you might ... at least, as real as can be gotten ... I'm trying to work up a missile simulation so that I can implment missile logic which can then be ported to LOMAC. Similarely, radar system logic in particular where jammers are involved, as well as jammer logic ... of course I don't know if I can even get it half-right :) Note: I'm talking scientific simulation here. Systems, graphs and numbers. Im doing the same with suspension mechanism. I have made a makeshift timer in excell for animated graphs. I have forces values in 1000 elemental time intervals wich then the timers sweeps to present real time dynamic coordinates on 2D graphs. if you wish to expand your project (if you made that in excell, as I suspect you do from your comments) I can give ya some ideas. The visualisation of the phenomena in real time realy helps to debug your system of equations or to make adjustements. I do not know if your work will get the atrtention for ever be ported to LOMAC or some of its successors but one can always dream. :) [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Scilab, Pilotasso :) I'm trying to use a block simulation model, like Simulink :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cali Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 wow all I can say is that when I made this post I didnt expect it to get so huge.. lol its an interesting read nonetheless.. =D You knew what you were doing :tomato: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Hopefully you might ... at least, as real as can be gotten ... I'm trying to work up a missile simulation so that I can implment missile logic which can then be ported to LOMAC. Similarely, radar system logic in particular where jammers are involved, as well as jammer logic ... of course I don't know if I can even get it half-right :) Note: I'm talking scientific simulation here. Systems, graphs and numbers. Well, good luck to you GGT ... LO sure needs it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 That's one thing that really surprises me - are that many people afraid of being shot down by a Kub or Shilka? I love flying the A-10 - it can turn like a turney thing and the GAU-8 is just great sport. Its just on-line its seems (and this is probably me) that you spend ages flying to the target area, ages searching for targets and suddenly boom!! An SA-13 up the chuff! In RL they use FAC, fast FACs, binos and all that is missing. Also, if you load too much into a scenario it grinds to a halt with all the smoke and fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Binos are not missing ... you can edit the zoom capability right in ... While in SP a FAC is not provided, the 44th has often flown with at least an AFAC A10 (or even a 15) and sometimes (when possible) coordinating through someone sitting in front of a LOTATC console and marking target positions. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts