Radar missiles

Just ranting here. The more I think about it, the more it seems that the current radar+clutter system seems to be wrong to me. A couple of things to consider:

- the whole "beaming from above vs. beaming from below" thing is starting to make less sense. Currently, you cannot beam anything targetting you from below - if you release a lot of chaff, then you should be able to because to a doppler missile, there is little difference between ground clutter and chaff clutter. Chaff has a huge RCS, portions of the chaff cloud can have varying doppler frequencies just like the ground has varying doppler frequencies, etc. The fact that you can lose a missile by beaming it from below but have to actually spoof it with chaff when above it in LOMAC seems to be wrong; doppler missiles like AMRAAM/R-77 filter clutter from chaff and from the ground in the same way, so it should be treated the same way.

- The complete inability of any radar missile in the game to attack a look-down, beaming target. The question is, "just because we can't prove something exists, does that mean it's not there?" Consider that the "dive & beam" maneuver was "discovered" in the late 1970s during AIM-ACEVAL, an exercise that breeded virtually every modern fighter tactic that we know of today. Furthermore, the AIM-120 was a *direct* product of the experiences gained from that very same exercise - even if it doesn't completely defeat every evasive missile maneuver, it should at least be able to deal with all of them.

It's like making a driving sim where the cars are stuck in the first gear because the designers "don't know" how the car engine switches gear. All radar missiles are basically stuck in their first gear because that's how porked they are.

I mean, come on, the AIM-120 is known as the "Fetch'em Fido" for a reason. And it's not like there are absolutely no guidance algorithms that can be programmed into a radar missile to deal with such targets anyway.

- Overall, I think the BVR radar missile modelling in Jane's F/A-18 and even Falcon 4.0 is a lot better than Lock On's. We *know* it's standard doctrine for pilots to avoid the No-Escape zones for enemy AAMs - no sane pilot will willingly enter the enemy's NEZ because they are "confident" that they can evade enemy radar missiles with chaff/dive/beam. Contrast this to Lock On - NEZ's overlap all the time, with little fear of being shot down.

And if someone's going to bring up the argument that the Pk of AMRAAMs in combat as being only about 60%, I'll counter that all the misses were fired when the targets were well outside of it's NEZ. Three AMRAAMs were fired long-range at supersonic, fleeing Iraqi MiG-25s in Operation Desert Fox, and two more were fired by a USAF F-15C from 30 miles at a Serbian MiG-29 - that's all 5 misses right there. Two more AMRAAMs were wasted when an F-15C and an F-16CJ double targetted their MiGs in Allied Force. That's 7 AMRAAMs in total that didn't find their mark, accounting for all the "misses" in the AMRAAM's record (10 for 17). Taking away the two MiGs that were double targetted, guess how many AMRAAMs it took to kill each of the other 8 targets? Anyone know what SSK stands for? ;)

The other popular counter-argument is that we get a lot more practice dodging missiles in Lock On than RL pilots. Simple counter-point: if real pilots are conditioned to avoid the enemy's NEZ, than Lock On should do the same to condition Lock On pilots to execute realistic tactics.

Keep in mind I'm talking about ALL doppler radar missiles - the R-77, the R-27 series, R-33, the AIM-7, AIM-54 and the AIM-120. I'm just using AMRAAM examples because it's the most publically glorified one.

Some fighters swich off doppler and go simple continuous wave when looking up to avoid loosing lock with beaming such as you described.

LOMAC doesnt model missile targeting too realisticaly however lets not forget that the real missile may not even see the target in such downwards looking beaming target either. Its has a much smaller antenna than the fighters. Thing is, it should know the targets last position and speed and make a prediction, much like the barrel roll filter. Then it also must predict where the target would be visible again after the beam.

Good logic should put the nose aiming at the point where the target should be by the time it can reaquire. And we're talking about few seconds here. For the missile the target is probably blinking on an off in that beam. Each contact adding for a more precise estimate of the targets speed and position untill the reaquitition is stable again. We have no such thing in LOMAC. Thus both simulated and real missiles may break lock but the real missile is smarter and meets the target again as for LOMAC's missile will go just straight ahead.

Falcon 4 (dunno about F/a-18 ) missile implementation is severely overmodeled as oposed to LOMAC. Max AMRAAM range is nearly the NEZ. Usualy who fires the AMRAAM first gets the kill. No escape zone for the real deal should be arround 8-10 miles. In falcon 4 is just under the 25 miles required for a shot, maybe 20 whole miles. Its realy hard to even turn full 180 at 20 miles and outrun it. Its juts insane.

The biggest issue here is missile drag and resistence to chaff, but not too much. It is obvious to me that the AMRAAM shouldnt miss head on 5 miles like it does, but by no means should be a death ray at 20. It is possible to give a good fix for this without being too picky about the weapon sensor modeling untill we get the whole enchilada in a future SIM.

Not to sound argumentive cause I agree there seems to be some issues with all the missiles. But, bro it's a computer game. Sure we like to think of LockOn as a an alter ego life man, it's my favorite game I love it. But, I just don't know if it's possible to get the level of reality some of us are looking for in a $30 game. I mean how exactly is ED modeling the radar and missiles and tracking logic I really don't know. It's not like they can call up hughes or vympel and ask for the missile or radar software so they can simulate it. Even if they did get some really good information - simulating it accurately in a computer program is completely another issue all in itself. Obviously there are also issues with gameplay balance and other things too. I'm not disagreeing with the issues you brought up, it's just that sometimes I think our expectations are not realistic. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to believe that when I turn the radar on my plane and there is an enemy target somewhere out there that that each pulse of the radar is being computated and responds exact to real life. I'd love to know when I fire a missile that physics are being calculated on each and every fin and all the surfaces of the missile as it's guided to the target. I'd wish a lot of stuff. But reality is were not going to get it in a $30 game. Sure maybe the radar missiles could be a bit more accurate and that's all you really are trying to say. I'm just saying it's a game, there has to be balance. I don't know if the game would be fun to play if it was lock up - insta kill. I don't think it's possible to guesstimate any of the missiles\radars performance based simply on outcomes of past engagements because their hasn't been enough of them between the aircraft in the game. I don't think it's possible to model everything 100% accurately without the exact software code of how these things work and their not going to get that info anytime soon. Even if they did have all the information on how the missiles\radars work, I still think it would be impossible for them to model it all to a totally realistic level and sell it for $30.00 a copy. I mean, even with all the information - simulating it accurately in a computer physics model is not easy and I don't even know if it's possible on current hardware. So my point after my long rant is, it's a $30 game and there has to be compromises somewhere in the missile coding\radar logic both from a financial aspect and also from a hardware aspect. Hey, I know your only saying u wish the radar missiles would be a bit more accurate. But I'm just saying I don't think we really know if they are or not, and I don't think it's possible to model it either. I'm not going against you D-Sycte, I'm on your side - agree with what you say 99% - I just don't know if it's possible to get everything we want or to know for sure how everything is going to respond in the game as compared to real life. I don't even think ED knows, I don't even think the manufacturers of the missiles and radar systems could accurately simulate everything in a pure scientific physics computer model. cheers man - I hear you and agree with u 99%. good posts guys-

Not to sound argumentive cause I agree there seems to be some issues with all the missiles.

Yes, big issues.

But, I just don't know if it's possible to get the level of reality some of us are looking for in a $30 game.

What's wrong with trying to get close?

I mean how exactly is ED modeling the radar and missiles and tracking logic I really don't know.

But there are those of us who do and want to see it get better.

It's not like they can call up hughes or vympel and ask for the missile or radar software so they can simulate it. Even if they did get some really good information - simulating it accurately in a computer program is completely another issue all in itself.

So we got our hands on this 'Missile Simulation Handbook for the Military' which seems to be good enough for the military in certain cases ...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to believe that when I turn the radar on my plane and there is an enemy target somewhere out there that that each pulse of the radar is being computated and responds exact to real life. I'd love to know when I fire a missile that physics are being calculated on each and every fin and all the surfaces of the missile as it's guided to the target.

Hmm, sounds supiciously like WAFM ... ;)

I'd wish a lot of stuff. But reality is were not going to get it in a $30 game.

So are we betting $30? ;)

Sure maybe the radar missiles could be a bit more accurate and that's all you really are trying to say.

No, he's really trying to say 'I wish missiles reacted to their invoronment more realistically'.

I'm just saying it's a game, there has to be balance. I don't know if the game would be fun to play if it was lock up - insta kill.

That will never be the case, but aircraft will have their definite sets of advantages and disadvantages, from airframe to weapons systems. use'em wrong and you get splashed. That's all.

I don't think it's possible to guesstimate any of the missiles\radars performance based simply on outcomes of past engagements because their hasn't been enough of them between the aircraft in the game.

Yes it is. That's why 'guestimate'. Various sims get things right, and other wrong. Some better so than others. So far neither LOMAC, JF18, or Falcon have gotten missiles quite right in any respect. Today, we have more information than was available to devs at that time.

I don't think it's possible to model everything 100% accurately without the exact software code of how these things work and their not going to get that info anytime soon. Even if they did have all the information on how the missiles\radars work, I still think it would be impossible for them to model it all to a totally realistic level and sell it for $30.00 a copy.

It isn't the price I'd worry about, I'd worry about the cray you'd need to buy to run it on - I mean, if we're going to start talking airflow calculations, radar raytracing etc ;)

I mean, even with all the information - simulating it accurately in a computer physics model is not easy and I don't even know if it's possible on current hardware.

I don't think this is quite right. Depends on what you're trying to simulate ... LOMAC does not require airflow simulation because it isn't trying to simulate aerodynamic properties of a certain surface to that depth - the 'general behavior of the aircraft' is desired instead, and this can be done fairly well.

So my point after my long rant is, it's a $30 game and there has to be compromises somewhere in the missile coding\radar logic both from a financial aspect and also from a hardware aspect.

yes there has to be, and it isn't your idea of 'leave it alone' which seems to be what you are implying here - not a slam, just how your post comes across. There's zero reason to accept that things won't change from what they are now, especially when the algorithmic changes required are conceptually simple.

Hey, I know your only saying u wish the radar missiles would be a bit more accurate. But I'm just saying I don't think we really know if they are or not, and I don't think it's possible to model it either.

Yes we do, and yes it is possible. We have plenty of historical evidence, research material, and so on and so forth to help make things moreaccurate.

I'm not going against you D-Sycte, I'm on your side - agree with what you say 99% - I just don't know if it's possible to get everything we want or to know for sure how everything is going to respond in the game as compared to real life.

Yes, it is possible - we're aware of a lot of issues concerning all sorts of aspects of missiles, and if you're on his side, you're being pretty discouraging, sorry :)

I don't even think ED knows, I don't even think the manufacturers of the missiles and radar systems could accurately simulate everything in a pure scientific physics computer model. cheers man - I hear you and agree with u 99%. good posts guys-

ED knows, and the manufacturers know - if they can't simulate them, then how do you think they come up with the DLZs, loft firing solutions, and so on and so forth?

There is -much- that can be improved, and in some cases it will take a lot work (most cases actually) but that work is already 'on the list' to be done.

We don't have to and we should not accept 'sim lite' solutions, nor does ED seem to want this sort of thing: They're aiming for as much accuracy as they can get.

In black shark you'll find that air to air gunnery for example, is different now ...

Indeed in the game AIM-120 ( I dont have much experience with other missiles) has problems with dealing low flying and beaming targets, but it is nothing strange that the small on board radar doesnt do well, since quite often in the game the powerful APG-63 cant see targets like that.

IMHO the low performance of missiles in the game is actually because of 3 things- very small NEZs, powerful countermeasures and very good virtual pilots. The first two of them can be changed, but there is nothing u can do about the last one. In all the online games that I've played, there allways are players who can do amazing things after a lot of practice. Some virtual pilots will always find unrealistic ways to defeat missiles no matter how they are modelled.

Actually, there are other issues also - seeker problems, maneuver problems, etc etc, as far as missiles are concerned ... similarely the apg63 isn't modelled up to what it should be - the real thing can and will see a MiG-29 80nm out, /look down/ when using the right mode (Velocity Search specifically, IIRC - or perhaps a submode thereof). Such things just aren't modelled in LO yet.

Thanks for answering GG.

Not to sound argumentive cause I agree there seems to be some issues with all the missiles. But, bro it's a computer game. Sure we like to think of LockOn as a an alter ego life man, it's my favorite game I love it. But, I just don't know if it's possible to get the level of reality some of us are looking for in a $30 game. I mean how exactly is ED modeling the radar and missiles and tracking logic I really don't know. It's not like they can call up hughes or vympel and ask for the missile or radar software so they can simulate it. Even if they did get some really good information - simulating it accurately in a computer program is completely another issue all in itself. Obviously there are also issues with gameplay balance and other things too. I'm not disagreeing with the issues you brought up, it's just that sometimes I think our expectations are not realistic. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to believe that when I turn the radar on my plane and there is an enemy target somewhere out there that that each pulse of the radar is being computated and responds exact to real life. I'd love to know when I fire a missile that physics are being calculated on each and every fin and all the surfaces of the missile as it's guided to the target. I'd wish a lot of stuff. But reality is were not going to get it in a $30 game. Sure maybe the radar missiles could be a bit more accurate and that's all you really are trying to say. I'm just saying it's a game, there has to be balance. I don't know if the game would be fun to play if it was lock up - insta kill. I don't think it's possible to guesstimate any of the missiles\radars performance based simply on outcomes of past engagements because their hasn't been enough of them between the aircraft in the game. I don't think it's possible to model everything 100% accurately without the exact software code of how these things work and their not going to get that info anytime soon. Even if they did have all the information on how the missiles\radars work, I still think it would be impossible for them to model it all to a totally realistic level and sell it for $30.00 a copy. I mean, even with all the information - simulating it accurately in a computer physics model is not easy and I don't even know if it's possible on current hardware. So my point after my long rant is, it's a $30 game and there has to be compromises somewhere in the missile coding\radar logic both from a financial aspect and also from a hardware aspect. Hey, I know your only saying u wish the radar missiles would be a bit more accurate. But I'm just saying I don't think we really know if they are or not, and I don't think it's possible to model it either. I'm not going against you D-Sycte, I'm on your side - agree with what you say 99% - I just don't know if it's possible to get everything we want or to know for sure how everything is going to respond in the game as compared to real life. I don't even think ED knows, I don't even think the manufacturers of the missiles and radar systems could accurately simulate everything in a pure scientific physics computer model. cheers man - I hear you and agree with u 99%. good posts guys-

No problem with your post. And for the record, I'm not asking for "total" realism - yes, the point of a sim is just for fun, but the BVR missile modelling in LOMAC has reached the point where the proper implementation of even remotely realistic tactics is impossible.

For example, the standard tactic of getting higher and faster to give your BVR missiles the extra energy/Pk is useless in Lock On. The fact that any target at a lower altitude than you are can beam your missile 100% effectively renders this very realistic tactic completely useless - in fact, being higher than your target will probably get *you* killed since any return radar shot cannot be beamed (which is also false - if you release chaff, you should have a chance to beam anything).

Indeed in the game AIM-120 ( I dont have much experience with other missiles) has problems with dealing low flying and beaming targets, but it is nothing strange that the small on board radar doesnt do well, since quite often in the game the powerful APG-63 cant see targets like that.

The radars are designed for different purposes - such comparisons between the -63 and the AMRAAM seeker can only get you so far. And besides, both of them are badly simulated in Lock On, but the AIM-120 is easier to fix.

The question isn't whether the AMRAAM's seeker "can do well," it's a question of whether the AMRAAM's seeker "is good enough for the missile to accomplish its mission." And in LOMAC, it *isn't* good enough, contrary to *everything* that we know.

IMHO the low performance of missiles in the game is actually because of 3 things- very small NEZs, powerful countermeasures and very good virtual pilots. The first two of them can be changed, but there is nothing u can do about the last one. In all the online games that I've played, there allways are players who can do amazi

 

ng things after a lot of practice. Some virtual pilots will always find unrealistic ways to defeat missiles no matter how they are modelled.

There is basically no NEZ in LOMAC - the NEZ is defined as the envelope where the target cannot kinematically defeat an incoming missile, but in LOMAC NEZs are useless because people could care less about out-running a missile. Just pop a couple chaff and you're safe.

The whole point is that IRL, pilots are conditioned to STAY THE HELL OUT OF the enemy's NEZ, but in LOMAC, there is *none* of that thinking going on. So this one little issue is affecting realism in terms of missile performance and player tactics.

Yes, big issues.

agreed

What's wrong with trying to get close?

Nothing is wrong with trying to get close or doing things that would make people use realistic tactics.

But there are those of us who do and want to see it get better.

I support any effort to make the game better.

So we got our hands on this 'Missile Simulation Handbook for the Military' which seems to be good enough for the military in certain cases ...

That's great news. :) I am sure that will be a great help to ED.

Hmm, sounds supiciously like WAFM ... ;)

sorry GG don't know what u mean by this. is it "something" advanced flight model.

So are we betting $30? ;)

Well I don't have the exact figure but I'm sure the USAF F-15 simulator cost in the millions if not tens of millions. That's only one plane.

No, he's really trying to say 'I wish missiles reacted to their invoronment more realistically'.

So do I. But honestly, theres a lot to consider radar, seeker, physics - I don't know if it can be done accurately in a $30 game thats all I am saying.

Yes it is. That's why 'guestimate'. Various sims get things right, and other wrong. Some better so than others. So far neither LOMAC, JF18, or Falcon have gotten missiles quite right in any respect. Today, we have more information than was available to devs at that time.

But you don't have all the information you'll never have all the information as long as these planes\radars\missiles are still in front line service.

yes there has to be, and it isn't your idea of 'leave it alone' which seems to be what you are implying here - not a slam, just how your post comes across. There's zero reason to accept that things won't change from what they are now, especially when the algorithmic changes required are conceptually simple.

No GG, your taking me the wrong way. I don't think things should stay the way they are. I just think our expectations are not always realistic. This isn't some nerf F-15C or nerf AIM-120 reply or anything like that in disguise.

For the record I fly only the Mig-29 and the Flankers A2A only because the F-15 and AMRAMM are so nerfed up it makes me sick and I won't touch the F-15 until its fixed. I get killed more times by friendly F-15s then enemy, it's bad they need to do something about the F-15.

Yes we do, and yes it is possible. We have plenty of historical evidence, research material, and so on and so forth to help make things moreaccurate.

To make the guesstimations more accurate? I'm not slamming ED, cause it's the best simulation out there IMHO. But I can see it now - BLACK SHARK Lock ON MODERN AIR COMBAT GUESSTIMATER (SIMULATOR) - just being funny guys - don't take me literally.

Yes, it is possible - we're aware of a lot of issues concerning all sorts of aspects of missiles, and if you're on his side, you're being pretty discouraging, sorry :)

I think your being too optimistic so there. No I am on his side. I am on anybody's side that can make the game better. It's just that hypothetically speaking if ED makes some change in the missile behaivor then there will be somebody else from the other camp saying that they should be able to break missile lock by beaming 90 and getting under the missile and saying that it's unrealistic and so forth and so forth.

the manufacturers know - if they can't simulate them, then how do you think they come up with the DLZs, loft firing solutions, and so on and so forth?

And they simulate them on a Core2 Duo and have a software development team with a budget the same as ED? oh and you can buy the software at walmart and find your own how to do book on the internet. oh and you can get your own copy of the program from raytheon for only $30.00 - I'm not trying to be a $ick GG, just can you at least see my point of view too? just a little bit? :D

There is -much- that can be improved, and in some cases it will take a lot work (most cases actually) but that work is already 'on the list' to be done.

That's great news. :)

We don't have to and we should not accept 'sim lite' solutions, nor does ED seem to want this sort of thing: They're aiming for as much accuracy as they can get.

I own the lite sims too and do not enjoy them as much as LockON.

Hey great debate GG, your an asset to the community. Hats off to you-your very knowledgable. cheers

firesoldier845

Well firesoldier, don't let me bring /you/ down :D

It's just that your post came across as 'don't expect much for $30' and well, that's just not true, there's plenty done, that's all :)

It won't be $30 though, as I doubt everything can be done in BS ...

Ah, to answer your question: WAFM=Weapons Advanced Flight Model.

Also, yes, actually, they could simulate missile shots for the NEZ on a Core Duo ... they previously did so on 500mhz machines, though if they wanted their answers 'now' they need a little beowulf cluster :D I think it took 2-5 days on the 500mhz pentium for some calculations ... i honestly don't know if those were used proper though.

Also keep one thing in mind: This is probably a project which cost a million dollars or more (unless I'm grossly overestimating)a nd you're getting a piece of it at $30 - and I'm talking about BS alone ($30 is a guess, don't anybody go quoting me that you know the price of BS now).

And consider that ED is doing the A-10C sim for the Air National guard! :D

Thanks for answering GG.

 

No problem with your post. And for the record, I'm not asking for "total" realism - yes, the point of a sim is just for fun, but the BVR missile modelling in LOMAC has reached the point where the proper implementation of even remotely realistic tactics is impossible.

I snipped the end of your reply to save space. But hey man your preaching to the choir. Sure their problems with the BVR missile modelling, agreed. Just remember though hypothetically speaking when and if you are able to lock up that mig from 80km out look down and fire your "find em FIDO" AIM-120C and he can't break lock and goes down in flames he's going to be here in the forums too calling B.S on that. He's gonna want to know why and how this is possible cause he has a copy of the "Russian Official Missile Evasion Tactical Handbook" and I'm not poking fun - cause man all I do is fly the russian birds. I'm just saying this is what constantly goes on back and forth here on the forums. Heck, I don't mean to make it sound like the whole red vs blue nonsense I'm just using it as an example. I mean it what it boils down to is there is only so much they gonna be able to do with our weak computer processors as well as what they can do in their budget. GG is right there are guestimations I suppose, I mean we've already said that they can't simulate each radar pulse and the airflow over each fin of the missile or the exact radar traceray reflections and stuff like that. So all we are left with is guesstimations or probabilites with some physics too and people are going to argue all day over the guesstimations. Hey I want to apologize if I seem like I am trying to make you out to look bad or unintelligent or anything like that cause it's not me at all. Man I agree with you bro, the BVR is nerfed and we haven't even talked about ECM - LOL - I just think theirs always gonna be a grey area as far as missiles, radar, tracking logic and all that and it will never be accurate unless they simulate everything - and that's impossible to do given the reasons I listed in my 1st reply. cheers man - great chat. hope to see u in HL or something.

Well firesoldier, don't let me bring /you/ down :D

 

It's just that your post came across as 'don't expect much for $30' and well, that's just not true, there's plenty done, that's all :)

 

It won't be $30 though, as I doubt everything can be done in BS ...

 

Ah, to answer your question: WAFM=Weapons Advanced Flight Model.

 

Also, yes, actually, they could simulate missile shots for the NEZ on a Core Duo ... they previously did so on 500mhz machines, though if they wanted their answers 'now' they need a little beowulf cluster :D I think it took 2-5 days on the 500mhz pentium for some calculations ... i honestly don't know if those were used proper though.

 

 

Also keep one thing in mind: This is probably a project which cost a million dollars or more (unless I'm grossly overestimating)a nd you're getting a piece of it at $30 - and I'm talking about BS alone ($30 is a guess, don't anybody go quoting me that you know the price of BS now).

 

And consider that ED is doing the A-10C sim for the Air National guard! :D

GG, I'm not arguing or trying to rain on you guy's parade - I'm just trying to put the "simulated reality" into reality. That's all. No hard feelings guys. Hey maybe we can all meet up at Walmart and buy our copies of BlackShark when it comes out and I'll buy you and D-Scyte a cold beer on me! <-HEY MAN I'M TRYING TO BE FUNNY HERE AGAIN.

No seriously, both you guys mean well and so do I. I'll catch u all in HL one of these nights! or I'll see you in the next weeks "NERF AIM-120 thread" or next weeks latest " the SU-27 should have the R-77 thread". or maybe even an F-22 sucks thread, we haven't had one of those for a while here I don't think... :)

Great chat and check your six both of you. Its not enough that I have so many people firing AMRAAMS at me and I probably got 2 more people out to get me now in HL.

I'm off to HL tonite last post here so chat with you all tommorrow.

"just because we can't prove something exists, does that mean it's not there?"

Just when you thought you'd heard the last from Donald Rumsfeld..

-SK

F-22 sucks thread

As if the F-22 sucks... :music_whistling:

Seriosley though, as we can all plainley see, BS is going to be focused on Ground engagements, thats why we will get WAFM for vihr and not for AMRAAM.

The next ED product better thougth. :)

Just when you thought you'd heard the last from Donald Rumsfeld..

 

-SK

Haha, well it is a question that has been debated for centuries by athiests and religious scholars. And although the AMRAAM is in no way divine, it was born out of the very same exercise that fathered all modern missile evasion maneuvers.

Can't say Donald Rumsfeld has *quite* the same case there...

EDIT: Unless this study is actually full of BS, it's not like there is nothing a radar missile can do to "try" to track a target through a notch.

http://forum.lockon.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=8189&d=1161719834

Abstract: Referring to the application of missile-borne Pulsed Doppler radars...having a monopulse tracking processing is considered in scenarious with low altitude flying high-manoeuvering target. During target tracking the Seeker has to solve situations when clutter signals occupies the target frequency positions and tracking can be lost...The algorithm that will be presented shows how to...reduce clutter disturbing effects and to maintain stable target tracking.

Some fighters swich off doppler and go simple continuous wave when looking up to avoid loosing lock with beaming such as you described.

hmmm... don't think they do so. They just change some parameters of how they process doppler data (i.e, remove filtering of slow moving objects, the "notch"). Actually changing the form of output would change it's RMS big time and such variations are not so goody for the output stages :)

There is basically no NEZ in LOMAC - the NEZ is defined as the envelope where the target cannot kinematically defeat an incoming missile, but in LOMAC NEZs are useless because people could care less about out-running a missile. Just pop a couple chaff and you're safe.

 

The whole point is that IRL, pilots are conditioned to STAY THE HELL OUT OF the enemy's NEZ, but in LOMAC, there is *none* of that thinking going on. So this one little issue is affecting realism in terms of missile performance and player tactics.

"NEZs being useless" doesnt equal to there is no NEZ in the game, since the definition of NEZ has nothing to do with how people can stay alive in NEZ with the help of countermeasures. And I find it hard to agree with "just pop a couple chaff and you're safe", IMHO it is harder than that. Maybe u have some special skills can be shared?

About the whole point of staying the hell out of the enemy's NEZ, I dont know about other players, but I do try to keep some seperation between the threat and me. And from my online experience, very few targets get into the NEZ of my AIM-120, some of my enemy are dead before they get there, some of them turn and outrun my missiles after they fire theirs. The point is that online I havent seen many violation of the rule of staying out of NEZ, some players do not intend to break that rule, many players are dead before they can do it.

"NEZs being useless" doesnt equal to there is no NEZ in the game, since the definition of NEZ has nothing to do with how people can stay alive in NEZ with the help of countermeasures. And I find it hard to agree with "just pop a couple chaff and you're safe", IMHO it is harder than that. Maybe u have some special skills can be shared?

First of all, I said "basically" no NEZ - I guess I should've said there's no point to it. If you know what you're doing, there is no difference between evading a missile fired in its NEZ, and one fired outside of it. Second of all, yes, the point that "there is no NEZ" is also true in the respect that you *can* outmanouever air-to-air missiles fired in their NEZ, without using chaff, if you know what you're doing. For example, a simple beam + pull up manouevre is usually sufficient to defeat any radar missile without the use of chaff. And these manouevres work 100% of the time, whether the missile is fired within its NEZ or outside of it.

I may be oversimplifying things, but a good pilot in Lock On can literally swim through waves of radar AAMs without fear of being shot down.

For example, the standard tactic of getting higher and faster to give your BVR missiles the extra energy/Pk is useless in Lock On. The fact that any target at a lower altitude than you are can beam your missile 100% effectively renders this very realistic tactic completely useless - in fact, being higher than your target will probably get *you* killed since any return radar shot cannot be beamed (which is also false - if you release chaff, you should have a chance to beam anything).

Sorry totaly disagree with this. Its not useless it just that this kind of tactic has to be better managed than you think its worth. I havent gotten where I am if it wasnt the high flying tactics online. Eveybody who flies with me knows 80% of the times I get to fly high. No matter the terrain. Flying low and slow only gives you the illusion your safer. If you look carefully you will see that the vast majority of people who flies low and beams in the mountains has a nearly 1:1 kill ratio. There are others who also fly high, Im not the only one.

The tactic with LOMAC is not to get the kill at the first shot, because of what you said about the seekers perfomance VS the clutter. Here you must think of investiment. For each missile you shoot, either your target looses much of his countermeasures supply or puts himself further at defensive by turning away. If you have a good profile after radar functions such as tilt and azimuth, you will see that he will reapear on scope sooner or later, even if it takes to aproach down to 10 miles (swich to RWS for single click lock), more than half the times he will attempt to run once you lock him up with that altitude displacement. Often your higher energy enables you to catch up with him and get one up his tailpipe. Sometimes they keep notching not knowing you have him locked up on bore mode (or in the memory of the radar that reaquires him at the end of the notch) and send him a missile that wont give any warning because it practicaly made on top of him and out of the TEWS field of vision.

Other times he wont have any countermeasures left and all the notching he made only caused him to run out of space, for that to keep working on any further missiles.

hmmm... don't think they do so. They just change some parameters of how they process doppler data (i.e, remove filtering of slow moving objects, the "notch"). Actually changing the form of output would change it's RMS big time and such variations are not so goody for the output stages :)

You got a point there, but I read somewhere the F-15 could do it.

Sorry totaly disagree with this. Its not useless it just that this kind of tactic has to be better managed than you think its worth. I havent gotten where I am if it wasnt the high flying tactics online. Eveybody who flies with me knows 80% of the times I get to fly high. No matter the terrain. Flying low and slow only gives you the illusion your safer. If you look carefully you will see that the vast majority of people who flies low and beams in the mountains has a nearly 1:1 kill ratio. There are others who also fly high, Im not the only one.

Um, not quite. You do know that flying high doesn't really give you extra range right? A missile fired from 20K ft at a 30K ft target has the same approximately the same range as a missile fired from 30 K ft down at a target at 20K ft.

The tactic with LOMAC is not to get the kill at the first shot, because of what you said about the seekers perfomance VS the clutter. Here you must think of investiment. For each missile you shoot, either your target looses much of his countermeasures supply or puts himself further at defensive by turning away. If you have a good profile after radar functions such as tilt, you will see that he will reapear on scope sooner or later, even if it takes to aproach down to 10 miles (swich to RWS for single click lock), more than half the times he will attempt to run once you lock him up with that altitude displacement, often your higher energy enables you to catch up with him and get one up his tailpipe. Sometimes they keep nothing not knowing I have him locked up on bore mode (or in the memory of the radar that reaquires him at th end of the notch) and send him a missile that wont give any warning because it practicaly made on top of him.

Other times he wont have any countermeasures left and all the notching he made only caused him to run out of space, for that to keep working on any further missiles.

Yes, I'm well versed on the tactic of just shooting missiles at a target with the intention of putting him on the defensive - I do it all the time, even when I'm in my missile's NEZ.

Um, not quite. You do know that flying high doesn't really give you extra range right? A missile fired from 20K ft at a 30K ft target has the same approximately the same range as a missile fired from 30 K ft down at a target at 20K ft.

hmmm hmmm :unsure: but then neither one is flying low. I understand what your saying, that altitude advantage is ofset by either gravity or denser air in LOMAC but mind me Im talking about big altitude displacements (that you said gave you no advantage). Like being at 25000 feet and the target is down the weeds. If the bandit is flying high you just gotta fly higher for that to keep working. If hes at 20K just get to 40K. I do this regularly. Of course before doing it I make sure theres no one else arround flying low. If theres no big altitude displacement then what you said about low altitude beaming no longer applies anyway and your first point becomes moot. Then you have to resort to other tactics.

Well, my opinion is better to stay fast and low(er) than your target. Past experience has taught me that you're actually more vulnerable at higher altitudes, since there is no range advantage (yes, any return shot from a target at 20K ft is just as kinematically capable as your shot from 40K, or for that matter 500 ft vs. 15K), it's harder to manouever up there (while missiles manouevers just as well at any altitude) plus the whole no beaming from above thing.

The major factor in Lock On's current missile FM is the target's altitude, not yours. Of course, there's still nothing stopping you from shooting missiles at max range to put your target defensive, and you can maybe squeeze an extra mile or two out of your missiles from staying high - but contrast that to reality where flying high and supersonic gives your missiles 50% more kinetic energy in the end-game on a lower altitude target.

Thus, we have a single inaccuracy affecting both missile performance and player tactics. That bugs me.

Thus, we have a single inaccuracy affecting both missile performance and player tactics. That bugs me.

It annoys the hell out of me too. But another reason for that is because they are using the EOS/R-27ET combo wich is too good and contributes for that behaviour as well.

...

The major factor in Lock On's current missile FM is the target's altitude, not yours. ...

Hi D-Scythe, :)

Sorry to interrupt you but I have a (quick) question connected to this remark : could you confirm that the ranges provided in the russian HUD for a missile shot, are only based on the altitude of the shooter ie, that the real altitude of the target is not used and always considered to be the same than the altitude of the shooter ? :)

Thanks for your answer and sorry for the interruption.

Ciao :)

HubMan.

PS : We ran a couple of tests (different altitudes for the shooter/target within a fixed distance) a while ago with another member of the french C6 forum and reached this conclusion...

PPS : It definitly looks like a direct implementation of the thumb rule : "2 times the missile range for 20 000ft of altitude" :)

I havent gotten where I am quote]

 

 

LOL ! I'm sorry, can't resist ... umm where exactly are you? Did I miss something?

Sorry totaly disagree with this. Its not useless it just that this kind of tactic has to be better managed than you think its worth

I tend to play at 40k' and in the 15 trying to hold a lock until you are 16miles away in TWS is now very tricky - and then try and hold it until weapon goes active is neigh on impossible ... since 1.2 I've played little on-line, its just a exercise in frustration! And if you record the tracks, you see missings going stupid all the time ... yours included Pilotasso! You have to use STT mode which warns the target ... bang goes one of the 15s few benefits!

Plus no real benefit from being up there in terms of range ... its supposed to be an A2A Sim ... and missiles kinematics are totally unrealistic!

Plus the whole super-27ET thing ... this game really needs WAFM - BIG disappointment when theat was dropped from 1.2!