Scoring System

[D-Scythe]

I didn't mistakenly quote you. To remind you, here's what you wrote a page back:

 

In 1991 Iraq war, the oposition was usualy downed , when using an AMRAAM, very close like 10 miles. Often Iraqui fighters were so overwelmed with multiple US spikes, they didnt quite figure out the best way to turn tail and run.

[GGTharos]

1) Early AMRAAM missiles were pre-production examples and the planes were simply adapted for them. I believe I have read somwhere that back then, a lock on was acompained by a 7 blip sound. Full scale production and integration was only reached after the war.

 

Actual itnegration (of the technology) was done by the second test.

 

Integration with large number of AIRCRAFT was software for the most part, and not very painful at all, at least for the 15.

[Pilotasso]

I didn't mistakenly quote you. To remind you, here's what you wrote a page back:

 

I was generalizing, it was only later that I tried to show some kind of evidence Migs were being engaged with slamers up close, so that no missile would fail to guide, unlike longer range shots usualy have a much lower PK, such as the case I presented about the dutch F-16's.

Never argued any dates on a particular mig-25 engagement in Iraq. The site seems to be acurate. Im bad with dates, and never memorized any particular engagement date, but according to what you said, I found no wrong date, or we just missunderstood.

 

The point is, ingame we rarely fire at that close, its no unusual either IRL and ingame for the slamers to miss on shots over 20 miles. Ripling missiles is a legit tactic. Specialy when your facing and locking more than 1 bandit at once. For your convenience, at the most, only 1 should be left for a close knife fight.

Theres no way your getting 1 kill for each missile, youll need to refire at the targets, carefully timing the shots as the mandits move on the radar screen.

 

There are people with different definitions of missile spamming:

 

1)1.02 spaming for me was when a downed plane gave a spasm of death by firing all his missiles with his plane crippled when by that time he shouldnt be even alive.I HATED it.

It was not realistic, and only possible by the games code.

 

2) there are those who consider spamming is firing all missiles at the same time. For me its just naiveness, if he hits well then patience, but often it gets him killed too, because hes a noob, so why complian?

 

3)There are those who consider spamming is any form of shooting more than 1 missile at at taget, even if its timed. To me its just strategy, never complained when got shot down like this and never will.

 

So what option of the above do you consider missile spam?

 

On another note, when I fly bombing missions I know Im going to try fly through CAPS, if I get shot down I usualy get frustrated only by the lack of escort, wich no one is willing to do because they wanna go out doing their own thing. It bothers me more the lack of overall interest of strategy rather than being killed by 2 or 3 missiles from a fighter I had no escape from anyway.

 

You can try load bombs on fast movers. Thats what I have been doing lately. Gets you a bit of both worlds when escorts are not avaiable :)

[GGTharos]

I think the range the slammers were fired at had more to do with projected threat capability and the launch altitude than with anything else ... a lot of these shots occured under 25k, and the higher shots were starting at about 16nm or so, and going down.

 

The 8nm launches may well be made simply because a MiG-29 isn't expected to be successful at intercepting a modern fighter attacking it with 120's, and thus they close to the NEZ when launching.

 

This is a distinct possibility ;)

[D-Scythe]

I think the range the slammers were fired at had more to do with projected threat capability and the launch altitude than with anything else ... a lot of these shots occured under 25k, and the higher shots were starting at about 16nm or so, and going down.

 

The 8nm launches may well be made simply because a MiG-29 isn't expected to be successful at intercepting a modern fighter attacking it with 120's, and thus they close to the NEZ when launching. This is a distinct possibility ;)

 

Another reason is simply trying to positively ID the target. In both Desert Storm and Allied Force, the U.S. and its allies had a lot more jets in the air than their enemies, and all F-15 pilots would've rather been shot down themselves are risked being missiled from close range in order to ID their target (or wait for AWACs to do it) rather than shooting from a safer distance.

 

The longest ranged AIM-120 kills IIRC was 16 nm approximately, when a 493rd FS F-15C shot down two MiG-29s with an AIM-120 each in TWS mode (Allied Force). Interestingly, by the time the missiles impacted their targets, the Eagles were well within visual range (under 6 miles). Furthermore, the Dutch AIM-120 used to kill a MiG-29 on the first night of war took about 30 seconds to kill its target from 11 miles out, so I think that missile flight times should be a bit longer than they are currently in LOMAC, but this will probably be addressed with the weapon AFMs.

[Pilotasso]

Another reason is simply trying to positively ID the target. In both Desert Storm and Allied Force, the U.S. and its allies had a lot more jets in the air than their enemies, and all F-15 pilots would've rather been shot down themselves are risked being missiled from close range in order to ID their target (or wait for AWACs to do it) rather than shooting from a safer distance.

 

The longest ranged AIM-120 kills IIRC was 16 nm approximately, when a 493rd FS F-15C shot down two MiG-29s with an AIM-120 each in TWS mode (Allied Force). Interestingly, by the time the missiles impacted their targets, the Eagles were well within visual range (under 6 miles). Furthermore, the Dutch AIM-120 used to kill a MiG-29 on the first night of war took about 30 seconds to kill its target from 11 miles out, so I think that missile flight times should be a bit longer than they are currently in LOMAC, but this will probably be addressed with the weapon AFMs.

 

Taken you point and GG's as well. Granted that, it makes sense. Nevertheless independently of the cause of the close range...they were fired at those range. It was also true the the launching aircraft were aware and confident in having air superiority specialy when it is then who has the initiative of attack. Hence the PK was still higher independently of the reason why they chose to get closer. At those distances there is litle time or need even to shoot more than one as it closes rapidly at Rmin.

Taking in acount all recent years combat, missile technology doesnt yet posess the level of efecteviness we tend to get perception of. Hiting a plane from increases ranges, has exponentialy less chances of success. We tend to forget were talking about something like shooting a bulet with another bulet, and the slower and farther away, the worst aiming (guidance). Theres so much precision of the missiles radar sensor, it is very well known that for the missile a target is a disform blob, much less precise than IR targeting. It also has to react in incredibly short times for course correction, and prediction.

 

In reality there were very few long range AMRAAM shots. Most reports of those engagements are abreviated or totaly secret. Its curious to note that almost never they mentioned how many missiles were actualy fired, just that plane X shoot down plane y with "a" AMRAAM. An then who reads it thinks "a"= 1 only shot.

 

 

Speaking of missile AFM, GG, your a fluent guy at the beta testers. I would like to point out that even though LOMAC right now doest take in acount the missiles initial velocity (plane's) and own acceleration, it quikcly accelerates to maximum speed. Typicaly under 2 seconds.

 

Im teling you this for 3 reasons:

 

1) In Falcon AF some missiles are so slow you can almost reach the target at the same time as the missile does. Thats due to the initial acceleration.

 

2)Because people have the tendence of overcorrection.

 

3) The missiles may glide longer in a straight line than it is represented in the game, though drag in tight turns seems convincing, thus I would expect the longer missile travels to target you mentioned on your post are due to this reason, not to a sluggish initial acceleration.

 

 

IR missiles accelerate in a flash. Radar missiles wich are heavier, seem to be sluggish because they fall underneath the launcher aircraft initialy but they gain speed very fast indeed as they start lofting. There are some footage on the net showing shots like these. Form the pilots view the missile rises past his frontal line of vision in less than 3 seconds, going like a bat out from hell. :D

[Guest Cali]

I don't understand why people whine about spamming missile - it's their choice to do so. If you get killed by a spammer, it's your fault that it happened. And if he missed, you get you chance to get him. It's that simple.

 

Just don't whine around, you are only making fool out of yourself, 'cause you were killed by a noob. Be a man and soak it up!

 

It's not that simple, they spam their missiles then do a 180 in full burner and run home.

[Pilotasso]

yeah its a bugger, but then if he only does that, the guy in question must not have a very good kill score either. If the server is busy, ignore him, if not --chase him down like a rabid dog, if he tries to turn back into you again, hes most certainly dead.

 

Some times I just pretend to quit the chase and turn radar off... quite a few times they turn around to have a peek...and then BAAAAAAAAM!

[suntrace1]

On the other hand, there is nothing that prevents you from doing the same thing (180+AB).

 

They almost always fire all their AIM120 missiles and have to land and rearm. Follow them on EOS and get your silent kill with R-27ET.

 

Servers are not full of spammers as one might think, reading this topic. Many of you also forget how it was when you were noobs. They have to fly without labels, they see that people use Teamspeak and can cooperate where they are all alone, they still don't understand how avionics & missiles work, engagment tactics are totaly mistery, they get locked and no wonder they get freaked out, start spamming and just try to stay alive.

 

If they manage to get a kill, i bet they have a big smile on their faces, because more then less, they get killed by us before they reach their destination. Because of that kill, they'll fly more off-line, start to read and learn more about air-warfare and our community will grow. And we need fresh blood, we need to encourage them and not push they away, like we are an elite and they are shaimless basta*ds. I needed 2 years to comprehend what the he11 is going on. It's a hard game. That's why the sim community is so small, escpecially when it comes to jets.

 

LOMAC on-line is really scary game. I can't even imagine how did pilots of Yugoslavia feel when they took off. Or Iraqi pilots. Or any pilot for that matter.

[Pilotasso]

LOL nice one suntrace!

[GGTharos]

Pilotasso, not sure why ou brought up the missile AFM thing, but yeah, we're aware of the starting velocity ... obivously with an AFM this will be fixed :D

 

Also, about the range of the shots: This starting speed is also factor ...remember that the longer range shots are considered to be at mach 1+, head on, non maneuvering, 40k+ altitude. In that trajectory it is generally accepted that the 120 will have an rmax of some 40nm.

The MLU manual quotes it at 'about 30' ... which is obviously a little different that a bunch of unclassified figures we've seen.

[Pilotasso]

Certainly. My point was, If you play F4AF, then you know what NOT to do for more realistic missile behaviour. Man those sidewinders behaved like early 1950's models. I would shoot an AIM-9M and then..."where is it?!!" I would look around and see it under my plane sluguishly moving ahead not much in front of me. I could as well go guns instead. Another bad thing is that they seem to glide forever though.

[GGTharos]

It's ok if they glide, they probably should ;) Their lifting area isn't all that small, IIRC.

[plug pray]

180 + burn+ gain altitude.

[Cosmonaut]

Great post ..! In my experience with online play keeping things as simple as possible usually works best in promoting team play. For instance keep the missions simple, with one team attacking (vehicles , ships, buildings etc) with the other team defending.. Also the defending team can counter attack the Assaulting teams airfield .. this works great in Pacific Fighters merged. Oh and how about grid lines for the map?? That would make briefings much shorter, for example "Attack vehicles in Grid B9" .. or a player could ask for cover over a certain area.. say "need help in D10" etc..

 

 

*Plane losses from crashing would deduct from the coalition total .

 

This is awesome and works great in PFm .. you start out with approx 60 pilots and 60 planes if one side depletes either then they win.. absolutely immersive even for a jet head like me.

 

*Ordinance that is fired (or jettisoned) that doesn't hit any targets should take some points from that

 

player (this would help prevent spamming missiles). Different weapons could have different point costs

 

depending on the value of the weapon.

 

Also I'd like to see a missile count next to your name similar to how it's displayed in Raven Shield .. that way you can judge the accuracy of you and your team.

 

*Buildings!! Buildings that are assigned as mission targets in the editor should have a score. So if you

 

are tasked with attacking a bridge or one of the placeable ammo depots you will get points for it. Any

 

buildings that ARE NOT assigned as targets should be considered civilian and given a penalty if

 

destroyed.

Perfect!

 

 

As for spamming well I guess its always gonna be the same.. those that want to promote a more realistic simming experience will always be called whiners by those that just want to play every game the same .. whether it be Counter Strike, Quake or Lockon.

[Pilotasso]

You should clarify what is your definition of spam. I highly reccomend to read one of my earlier posts, describing wich option for you is spamming.

 

Edit: Allow me.

 

 

There are people with different definitions of missile spamming:

 

1)1.02 spaming for me was when a downed plane gave a spasm of death by firing all his missiles with his plane crippled when by that time he shouldnt be even alive.I HATED it.

It was not realistic, and only possible by the games code.

 

2) there are those who consider spamming is firing all missiles at the same time. For me its just naiveness, if he hits well then patience, but often it gets him killed too, because hes a noob, so why complian?

 

3)There are those who consider spamming is any form of shooting more than 1 missile at at taget, even if its timed. To me its just strategy, never complained when got shot down like this and never will.

 

So what option of the above do you consider missile spam?

 

On another note, when I fly bombing missions I know Im going to try fly through CAPS, if I get shot down I usualy get frustrated only by the lack of escort, wich no one is willing to do because they wanna go out doing their own thing. It bothers me more the lack of overall interest of strategy rather than being killed by 2 or 3 missiles from a fighter I had no escape from anyway.

 

 

If you choose option number 3) then you might as well go back to training weels :p

[Hitman IF]

Pilotasso, I disagree with your option one. If he's still not destroyed enough to stop him shooting then shooting seems like a good idea. I think that's what good damage modelling is for. I agree with you though that 1.02's damage model seemed a little lenient. I suppose this brings us back to your option 3 - use more missiles and make sure it's dead.

[Cosmonaut]

One and Two pretty much cover it for me ;) Its not the idea of "why complain" but what are we here to promote .. realism or arcade behavior. I mean its your game play it anyway you want but firing 4 missiles in one second just produces a pretty arcadish atmosphere IMO. Three is fine no problem with that what so ever.

[D-Scythe]

IMO, the best way to prevent spamming is to simply model the PK and the kinematics of the missiles in question better. As it is, chaff is way overmodelled. For example, if I'm in the AIM-120's no-escape zone, I'd expect a PK of about 85-95%. If I'm not in the AIM-120's no-escape zone, than I'd expect that if the target performs the proper maneuvers (like pumping 180 degrees away from the threat, or a supersonic dive to low level while beaming), the missile will be defeated almost every single time.

 

This effectively defeats the purpose of spamming. If you're not in the no-escape zone, and you spam, you basically wasted all your missiles. If you are in the no-escape zone, and you spam, you waste basically all of your missiles (because in most cases one or two will be enough to kill the target). Hopefully we might see something along these lines in V1.2 with missile AFM.

 

This is also more realistic IMO. I mean, new missiles like the AIM-120 and R-77 are smart - they should know the difference between target and chaff 99% of the time. The only reliable way to defeat them should be through energy depleting manuevers, not by trying to spoof them with chaff (although that should still work in some cases).