Vertical scan in a Mig29

[169th_Cobra]

i think u misunderstood me.

 

i wasn't "pushing" ED for a response. i was merely saying that it is their response that would clear this topic up ... till then it is just going to waffle along with "i think this and you think that" and go nowhere.

 

just my 2c with gst added of course.

[GGTharos]

I think SwingKid or Alfa may also have access to those documents ... either of you guys reading this thread? ;)

[KAN]

I'm kind of dissapointed that a beta tester prefers things being "fair" rather than most realistic. If you DO NOT KNOW whether the "other aircraft" has the ability to counter problems or not then it will not be simulated. Simple... Well IMO it is a better option THAN to "unrealistically tweak" things to make it "fair". If you are interested in a realistic sim of course and not an arcade game... :icon_roll I personally like to fly all the a/c in the game and I only want "realism" not fairness... I prefer to use for example a Mig 29S which is realistic with its problems vs an F15 and THINK for ways of countering problems rather than having an unrealisticly modelled Mig29 to make the game "balanced".

 

Oh and you can be sure that the "gamers" who are kind of experienced will find various ways of countering things anyway. ;)

[ThirdELTPoznan]

I'm kind of dissapointed that a beta tester prefers things being "fair" rather than most realistic. If you DO NOT KNOW whether the "other aircraft" has the ability to counter problems or not then it will not be simulated. Simple... Well IMO it is a better option THAN to "unrealistically tweak" things to make it "fair". If you are interested in a realistic sim of course and not an arcade game... :icon_roll I personally like to fly all the a/c in the game and I only want "realism" not fairness... I prefer to use for example a Mig 29S which is realistic with its problems vs an F15 and THINK for ways of countering problems rather than having an unrealisticly modelled Mig29 to make the game "balanced".

 

Oh and you can be sure that the "gamers" who are kind of experienced will find various ways of countering things anyway. ;)

I agree! Even if I would be shot down all the time by F-15 I want it fully simulated. This would give me chance to improve tactics and so on. Fighting with better opponent will surely improve your skills!

[Kusch]

I agree! Even if I would be shot down all the time by F-15 I want it fully simulated. This would give me chance to improve tactics and so on. Fighting with better opponent will surely improve your skills!

 

Holy words!!!

[GGTharos]

It has nothing to do with preference and everything to do with what is correct.

If you simulate one system realistically but not the opposing one, then you're not really simulating anything at all.

 

And I'll guaranteee you that a lot of MiG and Sue pilots will complain about being shafted, while complaining that the F-15's specs are being taken from advertising material, and if what you suggest was done, they'd be right, too.

 

Of course, if you'd LIKE to fly a MiG-29 that can barely pick up an F-15 through the clutter of ECM at 10-15nm, while having a near-infallible missiles coming at it from TWICE that distance with no warning until the last ten to seven seconds ... ;)

 

And, my, 'the gamers will find a way'? Still talking about a simulation? A simulation shouldn't allow you to 'game the game'.

 

Get it straight peeps, the right thing is being done, wether you like it or not. Logically ED is doing the right thing - there is a playability issue at hand and where information is not available, playability takes precedence over simulation. This should be NEITHER strange, NOR new, NOR incomprhensible.

 

You may disagree, but this is the best way to work it out. If you really want a challenge, fly the 29 (not S) and use only CAC modes ... and don't forget to arm up with some R-60's ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

Get it straight, GG. Your opinion about omitting knowns for playability's sake doesn't hold water. ED would have the ability to tweak the unknowns for better balance.

If a plane is overmatched IRL, it should be represented that way in LOMAC.

 

What's the real world kill ratio of MiG-29s against western aircraft?

[GGTharos]

But you don't know if its overmatched. Period. The kill ratio also doesn't tell the whole story - this has been reepated ad-infinitum. An aircraft has to reflect a country's CONOPS. In particular, the red birds get the short end of the stick in that respect - and they got the short end when they faced eagles in real life, too. Try comparing apples to apples next time.

[S77th-GOYA]

I didn't say any specific plane was overmatched. If there is real life data to assert one plane's superiority over another, it should be reflected in the sim.

 

The question of the MiG was a separate point, and of course the pilot is an integral part of the equation. What is the ratio? Which country's pilot was in the pit in each engagement? I'm looking for information, not a fight. Specifically, I'm looking for an engagement between an F-something from a less than top notch air force against a MiG-29. Of course, knowing which model of aircraft was involved and other important variables would be imperative to any conclusions.

 

I've seen one source quote the ratio of 0:10 for the MiG, but I don't know if that's true and I don't know any mitigating circumstances.

[GGTharos]

Okay, well, I'll take a step back.

 

 

Here's some info that -I- know:

 

29's radar has been cited (by Russian sources!) to have an underpowered processor. This allied specifically to the SNP mode AFAIK. In addition there are trade-offs in using various modes vs. false positves, range, etc. I don't think the latter is easy to simulate (i have ideas on how /I/ would do it, but it may not be cpu-efficient at all) ...

 

What we dont' know is what the 15's false-positive rate is, but we never heard anything about its processor being underpowered (but then we never heard wether the complaint was just not publicized). This is a problem because all we can really be sure of in this caseis that the F-15's radar is longer-ranged than the 29's, and we can -reasonably- assume that it has better performance in clutter in some cases (ie. the specific operations it was optimized for, meaning it may not work so well at low altitudes in favor of working well at high altitudes - that is, I refer to ownship altitude not target altitude) But again, we don't know)

 

On the other hand, we also don't have ground-controllers for MiGs who could compensate for the radar issues. This is actually pretty huge factor, right here!

 

So, if you really want to simulate the -fight- you need to cut out some reality to compensate for the reality which you cannot simulate. This is what we call approximating - and the goal is to deliver the overall feel rather than that of one specific system vs. another. That's what my opinion is based in.

 

 

Also, we know that flankers whooped 29's in the E-E conflict ... but again, Flankers have more range at their disposal in terms of radar, and ehre we're facing the SAME system against the same system. (Mind you, there are reasons to think that it wasn't a clean whooping in terms of planevplane)

 

Anyway, my 2c ...

[S77th-GOYA]

This looks like good info, but it leaves a lot unsaid.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/tables/AirWarIraq.htm

 

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/tables/AirWarCoalition.htm

[GGTharos]

But a lot of what is unsaid we pretty much know:

 

Pilot quality and morale was outclassed

GCI was pretty much non-existant

 

So we really can't judge the hardware very well here. The only incident where i know of flankers v migs without GCI (AFAIK without GCI - either they both had it or both didn't have it) is the E-E conflict and perhaps the best relative comparison (but even then, a lot of the MiGs were flown by n00bs, while the flankers were flown by experienced Russian pilots). There the MiGs got spanked. But again, you have the pilot thing ... (interestingly this conflict seemed to imply that the R-27 is pretty useless -but- OTOH we don't know if those were poorly maintained R-27's or export versions or both)

 

My beef with these situations is that the discrepancy in pilot and information capability makes the relative comparison of the systems (and hardware) somewhat unreliable. The 15 should own the MiG BVR - I don't think anyone would question that. It's essentially like an F-16 v F-15 but with worse radar, and the F-16 guys HATE taking on 15's BVR. I think this should be an indication of what you'd expect. But this is a 'radar power' issue, so again we don't really get comparative radar system performance in terms of false-positives etc etc ... so, the MiG's shorter ranged radar is already simulated in LOMAC, but its problem with inadequate processing power is not - which is not completely wrong IMHO, given the lack of info on similar performance stats for the 15's radar.

 

Keep in mind though that some of this stuff will probably not be simulated until the next product - whereyou might be able for example to make a 'common' radar model which allows you to give the radars parameters for clutter rejection, false positives, and gain reduction algos, which would also -properly- simulate ground clutter (ie. loads of stuff on the ground, with 'radar' textures on the ground as well as the ones that you can see - that texture could be invisibel to you - the radar one - but it contains values that the radar can 'see' with its beam as it sweeps over them and do some adjustments as approrpiate)

 

Anyway, I'm digressing with the latter but I'm trying to make a point: We lack a lot of stuff to make radar sim really realistic.

[S77th-GOYA]

I would never try to us those stats to prove anything about the platform. The US or Israelis against the Iraqis or Syrians is simply not an even playing field. The throttle-stick-interconnect is the biggest difference. ;)

 

It's just some interesting info. Notice how the AMRAAM didn't get a kill until very late? Also the number of sidewinder kills.

[firesoldier845]

If ED had all the knowledge to make every single aspect of modern aerial combat like real life they would not be selling games but designing military simulations for the govt. Please let reality set in peeps, this is not a real military simulator, it was sold as a game in EB Games and Gamestop and now it is being sold online as a game.

 

Yes there is a certain amount of simulated realism that we would all like to have but your never going to make everyone happy. No matter what they do it will never be realistic enough for some people. If ED figured out how to simulate everything perfectly 100% like real life they wouldn't be designing games.

 

99% of us wouldn't even know how to put a flight suit and helmet on correctly and you people talk like your experts on how the radar and missiles should work because you read a few articles on the internet or better yet you have a friend who has a friend who flew an F-15 or Mig and told you this is how it works.

 

Realism is subjective - and this is a game. GG hit the nail on the head, he's right - we will always lack the information to make radar sim truely realistic 100%. People probably write doctoreal thesis and spend entire lives trying to code software for military simulators and then not get it all right and some of you peeps expect that same level of accuracy in game you buy in Walmart? 'come on

 

Oh and before anyone here thinks I'm flaming them, I'm not - we all want the same thing and that is a realistic a sim as we can get for our $35.00 - I am as guilty as everyone else of wanting more realism in our beloved flight sim hobby, but the only thing that needs to get "realistic" is our expectations.

 

cheers to all

 

p.s. this is still the best damn flight sim community period no matter how we all act sometimes - myself included

[RvETito]

If ED had all the knowledge to make every single aspect of modern aerial combat like real life they would not be selling games but designing military simulations for the govt. Please let reality set in peeps, this is not a real military simulator, it was sold as a game in EB Games and Gamestop and now it is being sold online as a game.

 

Yes there is a certain amount of simulated realism that we would all like to have but your never going to make everyone happy. No matter what they do it will never be realistic enough for some people. If ED figured out how to simulate everything perfectly 100% like real life they wouldn't be designing games.

 

99% of us wouldn't even know how to put a flight suit and helmet on correctly and you people talk like your experts on how the radar and missiles should work because you read a few articles on the internet or better yet you have a friend who has a friend who flew an F-15 or Mig and told you this is how it works.

 

Realism is subjective - and this is a game. GG hit the nail on the head, he's right - we will always lack the information to make radar sim truely realistic 100%. People probably write doctoreal thesis and spend entire lives trying to code software for military simulators and then not get it all right and some of you peeps expect that same level of accuracy in game you buy in Walmart? 'come on

 

Oh and before anyone here thinks I'm flaming them, I'm not - we all want the same thing and that is a realistic a sim as we can get for our $35.00 - I am as guilty as everyone else of wanting more realism in our beloved flight sim hobby, but the only thing that needs to get "realistic" is our expectations.

 

cheers to all

 

p.s. this is still the best damn flight sim community period no matter how we all act sometimes - myself included

 

This post is certainly the best(or at least it goes to my TOP 3) I've ever read in a flight sim forum. Naming the things with their real names, that's what I want to see. It just couldn't be said righter. Congrats for your words sir :)

[GGTharos]

I would never try to us those stats to prove anything about the platform. The US or Israelis against the Iraqis or Syrians is simply not an even playing field. The throttle-stick-interconnect is the biggest difference. ;)

 

It's just some interesting info. Notice how the AMRAAM didn't get a kill until very late? Also the number of sidewinder kills.

 

 

Hehe, yeah ... the 120's were in fact NOT used in the thick of the war (Carried, not fired) ... I also heard about a lot of AIM-7's missing (no surprise, the pk is supposed to sit at around .35) so the 15's had to close in and by then they were using 9's. Also not the couple of GROUND kills ;) ...

[Kula66]

What we dont' know is what the 15's false-positive rate is, but we never heard anything about its processor being underpowered (but then we never heard wether the complaint was just not publicized).

But GGT, we don't KNOW it isn't a fantastic radar that greatly exceeded expectations! We just don't know ... BUT we DO know that the 29s radar has problems (from what YOU said) ... therefore this should be modelled. The model should include EVERY scrap of info ... whether we like it or not. The rest has to be physics, guess work or a common implementation .. a la the 77/120 implementation.

[GGTharos]

But GGT, we don't KNOW it isn't a fantastic radar that greatly exceeded expectations! We just don't know ... BUT we DO know that the 29s radar has problems (from what YOU said) ... therefore this should be modelled. The model should include EVERY scrap of info ... whether we like it or not. The rest has to be physics, guess work or a common implementation .. a la the 77/120 implementation.

 

 

Nope. I'm sorry, but this sim is simulating more than just a bunch of flyeables as if they were the only flyable in the game. As I mentioned before, the sim must first of all simulate the overall feel, and the specific nuances of each system second. The MiG's radar is fine as it is since it has no GCI or AWACS to go on (I don't know about other servers, but I yank AWACS and GCI off the 44th's server missions since it's too crappy for one side and too good for the other) so it needs the ability to search for its own targets reliably.

[Kula66]

So in the realism v gameplay question you go gameplay ... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[GGTharos]

No, I'm telling you that either way you lose realism in some manner. When this is true, then turning for gameplay is prefferable.