Jump to content

ECM Blinking  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. ECM Blinking

    • Yes
      18
    • Never
      33
    • Depends On The Server Rules
      8


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why can't the HOJ missiles re-acquire the blinking jammers?

 

I am not sure why. But during some BVR engagements that I have had against people using the ECM Blink I was unable to get a lock to fire a missile in the first place. Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of the game will explain.

Only the spirit of attack born in a brave heart will bring success to

any BVR or Dogfight no matter how highly developed the fighter may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but no but yeah but :)

 

it shouldn't work - the searching radar would be getting plenty of good returns from you while your turning the thing on and off!! Might as well leave it off. It would probably look like a nice big strobe on the display pointing to the track saying shoot me!

 

 

Yup.

 

It's the same advantage or disadvantage for everybody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ECM is supposed to make BVR harder. The mechanism via which this is accomplished is not necessarily important.

 

Is ECM blinking a problem?

Yes.

Why?

It has some unrealistic (to some degree) effects on radar and missiles.

 

Is it an exploit?

 

No.

 

Why?

 

Because if it is, the so is maddogging ARHs at 20nm. That its a function of the seeker is irrelevant. It's a function of ECM to break your lock. It does so, don't it?

[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 post
Share on other sites
ECM is supposed to make BVR harder. The mechanism via which this is accomplished is not necessarily important.

 

Is ECM blinking a problem?

Yes.

Why?

It has some unrealistic (to some degree) effects on radar and missiles.

 

Is it an exploit?

 

No.

 

Why?

 

Because if it is, the so is maddogging ARHs at 20nm. That its a function of the seeker is irrelevant. It's a function of ECM to break your lock. It does so, don't it?

 

True - but you need to consider ECCM (or lack thereof). The purpose of ECCM is to make BVR easier in a jamming environment. You can use it to counter ECM blinking, get a range approximation, etc. It *exists* IRL, and of all the aircraft in LOMAC, it should be the most powerful in the F-15C (by far).

 

However, it's NOT modelled in LOMAC. This makes the F-15C the *most* vulnerable of all aircraft, in BVR no less - a domain which it should dominate the baseline Su-27 and the MiG-29S.

 

Realistic? I think not. The "realism" ball can be blasted back and forth here - the unfair usage of ECM IS unfair and MORE unrealistic because LOMAC already doesn't take an entire dimension of ECCM into account. By employing jamming in a way to completely destroy the APG-63's ability to even lock on a target is a WAY bigger issue in realism than maddogging at 20 nm (which technically IS possible).

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

it shouldn't work - the searching radar would be getting plenty of good returns from you while your turning the thing on and off!!

 

It depends..

If you are within the burn-through range of the opponents AI radar, he will get returns from your craft regardless of your ECM on or off. In this case, lock should not be broken by ECM alone. Consequently, a missile fired at you would not attack in HOJ mode, because there still is a good lock by the aircraft's radar.

 

If fired (Fox 3) outside the burn-through range (in HOJ), and ECM then is switched off an on repeatedly, there will be a good chance that the R77/AIM120 will loose track of you before the missile is close enough (below 6 km of distance) to lock on you with its own tiny radar.

 

From what I've seen, burn-through is around 25 km, that is hot aspect

kind regards,

Raven....

[sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If fired (Fox 3) outside the burn-through range (in HOJ), and ECM then is switched off an on repeatedly, there will be a good chance that the R77/AIM120 will loose track of you before the missile is close enough (below 6 km of distance) to lock on you with its own tiny radar.

 

From what I've seen, burn-through is around 25 km, that is hot aspect

 

I'll assume you're talking about LOMAC and not real life.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll assume you're talking about LOMAC and not real life.

 

Affirm. Strictly LOMAC (FC)

 

About the 6 km minimum distance for the AIM120 before going active, I don't know the RL data. Same for burn-through range which seems fixed at 25 km and does not take into account RCS, jammer power, radar sensitivity, aspect etc...

kind regards,

Raven....

[sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to say if the noise jammer is off as much as it is on, then if you hook the tgt in STT or a narrow tws scan you should be getting plenty of good returns from it when the jammer is off for the radar to track it, with position ambiguity granted, but it shouldn't be enough to block you firing with a pretty good PK.

 

 

It depends..

If you are within the burn-through range of the opponents AI radar, he will get returns from your craft regardless of your ECM on or off. In this case, lock should not be broken by ECM alone. Consequently, a missile fired at you would not attack in HOJ mode, because there still is a good lock by the aircraft's radar.

 

If fired (Fox 3) outside the burn-through range (in HOJ), and ECM then is switched off an on repeatedly, there will be a good chance that the R77/AIM120 will loose track of you before the missile is close enough (below 6 km of distance) to lock on you with its own tiny radar.

 

From what I've seen, burn-through is around 25 km, that is hot aspect

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers. In other words it is a form of cheating."

 

So the question then, is did the developers intend for this to be used this way? If not, its an exploit by definition and a form of cheating.

 

Also;

 

"Types of exploits

  • Duping
  • AFK gaming and use of bots
  • Hacking
  • Use of "known bugs", such as "farming" an overactive MOB spawn.
  • Use of "cheat" sites that disseminate exploits and other "advantageous strategies."
  • Speed Hacking/Teleporting/subterrain travel - Since character position in World of Warcraft is determined by the client side, it is possible for players to send out artificial positional data and be instantly transported to any part of the world (even underground) or used to speed up traveling speed by altering positional deltas.
  • Unintended effects of the programming. As an example: an NPC pays the players to collect rare plants from a distant forest. However, the same plants can be purchased for less at a nearby market. The player who discovers this can earn lots of money with little effort. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest IguanaKing
And using a macro that cycles it on and off so fast it doesnt even show the strobe on the radar?

 

Im sorry, but it is not a tactic that can be used IRL.

 

It is an exploit, and everyone know that. Like I said in the 504, you might as well defend LOPE.

 

So, what is your definition of realistic then? That's an odd comparison to LOPE, when the stock loadout for the A-10 in LOMAC allows you to carry an unrealistic number of AGM-65s, and on stations that aren't even capable of communicating with the missile. It doesn't even come close to matching the real world, but since it wasn't LOPEd, its OK? I am well aware that it can be used for evil, but it also has good uses.

 

I'm also curious as to the exact timing of on/off cycles of the ECM that would constitute using an exploit. Does anybody who has such a problem with it have an arbitrary number of seconds they'd like to name? The reason I ask is that I will often just give a short ECM burst to break a lock, along with notching, chaff, flares, and anything else to keep from being eaten. Is that cheating? Am I supposed to leave the ECM on the whole time to make it easier for you to find me again, once I have managed to break the lock? Maybe I should fly in a straight line and not pop any chaff or flares either. :music_whistling:

Link to post
Share on other sites
True - but you need to consider ECCM (or lack thereof). The purpose of ECCM is to make BVR easier in a jamming environment. You can use it to counter ECM blinking, get a range approximation, etc. It *exists* IRL, and of all the aircraft in LOMAC, it should be the most powerful in the F-15C (by far).

 

However, it's NOT modelled in LOMAC. This makes the F-15C the *most* vulnerable of all aircraft, in BVR no less - a domain which it should dominate the baseline Su-27 and the MiG-29S.

 

Yes, it is modeled in LOMAC, and that ECCM compromize is the burn through range. Is it modeled well? No :)

 

Realistic? I think not. The "realism" ball can be blasted back and forth here - the unfair usage of ECM IS unfair

 

Look up the definition of 'fair'. I think you'll find all's fair when both parties can use the same thing.

 

and MORE unrealistic because LOMAC already doesn't take an entire dimension of ECCM into account. By employing jamming in a way to completely destroy the APG-63's ability to even lock on a target is a WAY bigger issue in realism than maddogging at 20 nm (which technically IS possible).

 

 

I think you need to back off and consider what you just said. You can burn through jamming and use your missiles in LO.

In reality, maddogged missiles are unlikely to hit anything at 20nm, possible or not aside.

 

And by the way, how do you KNOW that it isn't possible to do this with real ECM? What's your source?

 

Right now this ECM blinking thingamajiggy has the exact effect on everyone's radar. You need range? Narrow the azimuth down.

 

Until ED fixes the issue it will be something you'll have to deal with. You can use it too SO DO SO. He won't let you BVR him? Don't let him either! Use the time to gain position for a closer fight!

[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 post
Share on other sites

Therefore the following are cheating:

 

1. Loading a single sorbitsya pod instead of pairs

2. Head-on barrel rolling of missiles

3. Head-on chaffing of missiles up to 2 and 10 o'clock

4. Mad dogging of heaters

5. Chaffing Patriots, S300, SM-2, a bunch of other missiles

6. Launching radar missiles with EOS guidance.

 

Just to mention a few things.

 

"In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers. In other words it is a form of cheating."

 

So the question then, is did the developers intend for this to be used this way? If not, its an exploit by definition and a form of cheating.

 

Also;

 

"Types of exploits

  • Duping
  • AFK gaming and use of bots
  • Hacking
  • Use of "known bugs", such as "farming" an overactive MOB spawn.
  • Use of "cheat" sites that disseminate exploits and other "advantageous strategies."
  • Speed Hacking/Teleporting/subterrain travel - Since character position in World of Warcraft is determined by the client side, it is possible for players to send out artificial positional data and be instantly transported to any part of the world (even underground) or used to speed up traveling speed by altering positional deltas.
  • Unintended effects of the programming. As an example: an NPC pays the players to collect rare plants from a distant forest. However, the same plants can be purchased for less at a nearby market. The player who discovers this can earn lots of money with little effort. "

[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 post
Share on other sites

Yes it should be. That IS the jammer's job! Decreasing your Pk!

 

Should it make the shot impossible altogether? Heck, I have no idea - more than likely not. So, that will be looked into.

 

I was trying to say if the noise jammer is off as much as it is on, then if you hook the tgt in STT or a narrow tws scan you should be getting plenty of good returns from it when the jammer is off for the radar to track it, with position ambiguity granted, but it shouldn't be enough to block you firing with a pretty good PK.

[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 post
Share on other sites

And how are most of those exploits, they are all intended by the DEVs, key point there.

 

This reminds me of Al Gore talking of global warming.

 

Doesnt matter to me, like I said I wont have to deal with it, as I wont be in the server. I will fly A2G and if not that I have F4AF, BF2142, NWN2, GRAW. Lots of games, so this one can collect dust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the devs didn't intent any of these. SOme are simply limitations of the game engine that can be exploited.

 

The head-on chaffing was a mistake brought on by good intentions.

Mad-Dogging of heaters is unrealistic and is to be fixed - thus unintended by the devs.

There's no such thing as EOS guidance for Radar missiles.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

So by YOUR definition, doing all of those is cheating.

[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 post
Share on other sites

You can vanish off an F-15's radar if you cycles it every 2-4 sec (about the time it takes to rescan your position). It won't work if the F-15 pilot doesn't cooperate ... meaning ... if he stops trying to lock you up, and narrows the azimuth, he can track you until you come within burn-through range and then lock you up proper.

 

So, what is your definition of realistic then? That's an odd comparison to LOPE, when the stock loadout for the A-10 in LOMAC allows you to carry an unrealistic number of AGM-65s, and on stations that aren't even capable of communicating with the missile. It doesn't even come close to matching the real world, but since it wasn't LOPEd, its OK? I am well aware that it can be used for evil, but it also has good uses.

 

I'm also curious as to the exact timing of on/off cycles of the ECM that would constitute using an exploit. Does anybody who has such a problem with it have an arbitrary number of seconds they'd like to name? The reason I ask is that I will often just give a short ECM burst to break a lock, along with notching, chaff, flares, and anything else to keep from being eaten. Is that cheating? Am I supposed to leave the ECM on the whole time to make it easier for you to find me again, once I have managed to break the lock? Maybe I should fly in a straight line and not pop any chaff or flares either. :music_whistling:

[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 post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is modeled in LOMAC, and that ECCM compromize is the burn through range. Is it modeled well? No :)

 

So is having the APG-63 unable to lock up a blinking ECM target WITHIN 10 nm part of this compromise? 10 nm is WITHIN burn-through, btw.

 

Just wondering, since I really don't see any compromise here. Compromise requires give and take - all I see is the F-15 giving. And giving....and giving.

 

I think you need to back off and consider what you just said. You can burn through jamming and use your missiles in LO.

 

Apparently, not with ECM blinking. Prophet stated REPEATEDLY that he can't even lock up a target with radar boresight.

 

In reality, maddogged missiles are unlikely to hit anything at 20nm, possible or not aside.

 

In perfect conditions, why not? At high altitudes, where jets generating contrails can be seen from ranges greater than 10 nm, I'd try to mad dog my AMRAAM.

 

And by the way, how do you KNOW that it isn't possible to do this with real ECM? What's your source?

 

I never said it wasn't possible - merely that there are ways to counter this. Where's *your* source concerning whether the APG-63 is vulnerable to ECM blinking?

 

Right now this ECM blinking thingamajiggy has the exact effect on everyone's radar.

 

Apparently not. And even if it did, it's unrealistic. The F-15 is a BVR fighter first and foremost. Why should it be forced to WVR? Just because LOMAC said so?

 

Until ED fixes the issue it will be something you'll have to deal with. You can use it too SO DO SO. He won't let you BVR him? Don't let him either! Use the time to gain position for a closer fight!

 

Again, the best, most REALISTIC way to fight in the F-15 is to AVOID a closer fight.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
So is having the APG-63 unable to lock up a blinking ECM target WITHIN 10 nm part of this compromise? 10 nm is WITHIN burn-through, btw.

 

Just wondering, since I really don't see any compromise here. Compromise requires give and take - all I see is the F-15 giving. And giving....and giving.

 

 

 

Apparently, not with ECM blinking. Prophet stated REPEATEDLY that he can't even lock up a target with radar boresight.

 

While I'm sure that this bug had been squashed ... there is a possibility that it somehow slipped through; the jammer might be decreasing the boresight range (it will do it for any auto-mode for any aircraft) to about a bit over half (about 6nm). I will check this out, and if it isn't the case, I'll see how blinking does against it - but if that bug IS there, then it is completely unrelated to blinking. Maybe you'd like everyone to turn their jammers off when inside 10nm now? :D

 

 

In perfect conditions, why not? At high altitudes, where jets generating contrails can be seen from ranges greater than 10 nm, I'd try to mad dog my AMRAAM.

 

How do you get more perfect conditions than a radar-directed launch?

 

 

I never said it wasn't possible - merely that there are ways to counter this. Where's *your* source concerning whether the APG-63 is vulnerable to ECM blinking?

 

Basic jammer design? :) Flankly I don't even care. It has nothing to do with all this whining. And if you don't like it, why aren't you doing something about it? I did - and I don't mean just the post in the beta forums.

 

Apparently not. And even if it did, it's unrealistic. The F-15 is a BVR fighter first and foremost. Why should it be forced to WVR? Just because LOMAC said so?

 

Again, the best, most REALISTIC way to fight in the F-15 is to AVOID a closer fight.

 

 

Yes, and the most REALISTIC way to fight a flanker or mig is to push shorter range. Why, that's straight from the lips of VVS pilots. So ... whose stuff is better?

[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 post
Share on other sites
Because it has already been proven that even RADAR DIRECTED long-range launch with AMRAAM without datalink (effectively a Maddog) won't hit squat in real life! It is a DOGFIGHTING FEATURE!

It's a MY RADAR BROKE BUT I CAN SEE THE SOB RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME feature.

 

So is this to be fixed in BS?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that everyone can do it doesnt change the fact that its a glitch/cheat/exploit XD

 

Its all about if it was supposed to be doable or not. Maddoging missiles was SUPPOSED to be doable. Pressing ECM toggle 2 million times in 1 minutes wasnt taken into consideration as the developers probably never thought some nerds would find out that pressing it like a retard would fack up the other planes radar.

 

Now about real life....this is a game...a very realystic game yes for sure...but still a game. Maybe in real life ecm isnt the same thing as in lock on maybe it is, i dont know im not an f-15 pilot and so ive never been jammed by an su-27 either. Dont compare it to real life else ill ask you kindly to put the hammer in your hotas with 250 button configurations and your macros.

 

Exploits are a common thing in every game, mostly online games as ppls e-penises grow if they can kill without being killed. There will always be a moron doing some sort of cheat or exploit for personnal benefit degrading the quality and realism of the game.

 

Find a squadron based on realism, as these squadrons will not use any exploits or cheats to increases theyr e-privateparts but rather try and simulate a real flight with rules and protocol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started this thread I wasn't quite expecting the level of feeling some of the replies have shown. I have read nearly every reply. But please let us not get personal. I want to know how you feel on the subject. Those who agree and those who don't. Do not use this as a way to vent your frustrations against an individual or a squad.

Only the spirit of attack born in a brave heart will bring success to

any BVR or Dogfight no matter how highly developed the fighter may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...