AIM120 v R77

Hi I'm new to these forums but it certainly looks like there is a pool of knowledge to tap into here :-)

Hopefully this is enough info to get this discussion rolling.

Finding acurate "true" information about these missiles can be difficult so any Real Life (RL) experience/data or input would be greatly appreciated.

I am a Beta Tester for Lock-On Flaming Cliffs by Eagle Dynamics. A high quality Combat Flight Simulator that some of you may be aware of.

There is continuous debate about how effective/realistic the BVR Weapons are in this sim.

Some say the AIM120 (Slammer) is not effective enough and too easy to avoid.

At the moment the AIM120 in Lock-On has about a 10-30% kill ratio at 15-20 miles and about a 50-70% kill Ratio on the No Escape Zone (NEZ) which is about 3 to 5 miles.

The Russian made R77 (AMRAAMSKI) has very similar characterisitcs to the AIM120 in Lock-On.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by 169th_Ice]

I wouldn't trust official figures from both sides. The Russians usually provide numbers that are overestimates and the US usually gives underestiments. The AIM-120 has actually been fired and has destroyed enemy aircraft while I believe the R77 has not.

I suppose flight modelling the missiles, generating a probability of kill off of warhead size, and taking a best guess at the possibility of distracting them with countermeasures is out of the question?

I don't have the information you require, but I am fairly certain that the p/k varies by aspect. Tail shots are the easiest, (if the missile's in range), while crossing shots are the hardest.

I believe that even in RL it would be too hard to pit these missiles up agaisnt each other. The Slammer and the Adder (amraamskii) are two different weapons systems that were designed for teh same purpose. A computer simulation is never going to accurately replicate these missiles' flights to a degree where judgements can be made about each AAM.

And what does Beta Tester actually do, by the way?

Originally posted by jetsetter
I wouldn't trust official figures from both sides. The Russians usually provide numbers that are overestimates and the US usually gives underestiments.

I have wondered about this. I speculate the typical and historical Russian inferiority complex, as well as losing the Cold War has put them, in their minds, at a disadvantage. Particularly in the arms market. The US on the other hand has no reason to brag about any of it's weapons capabilities, so it is foolish to do so, and in fact wise to understate capabilities. Proxy war results, as well as recent US military involvement against organized forces with Russian made arms have shown a rather lobsided situation in favor of the Western made products. The US does not need to advertise. The Russians do, plain and simple.

It's hard to get an honest comparison going, you usually end up in a nationalistic poo flinging contest. IE, Russian nationalist "Everything American sucks, the Adder r00lz!" vs American nationalist: "Everything Russian is junk, the AIM 120 p0wns yoo!"

Generally the people who really know aren't telling...

well you cant really say anything about either technology.

usally russian technology is fielded by incompetent arab fighters and american technology is usally backed by superiour backup technology like :

multiple f15/f16(latest version) + multiple awacs etc.... vs single mig29(old version)

this is why you cant compare american vs russian technology and fact is russia wouldnt be manufacturing this if it wasnt of any use becuase it would just be easier to steal the tech for the amraam120 and reverse engineer the whole thing if it was that good.

russian & american tech are basically equal america might be superiour in one field russia in another but by the end they both balance out over a range of weopons. russia just got a bad reputation for its stuff from the arabs becuase the arabs have poor millitry tactics they would have lost even if they had american weopons. people shouldnt assume just becuase it has a made in russia lable that it will be inferior or worser then american tech becuase just like they where able to put out the s-300 they will be able to put out other quality tech as well.

Exactly. Would have had trouble putting it better myself.

What i've heard was that the R-77 (A-12 Adder) has superior stats on it.

This is according to FAS.org and Globalsecurity.org

R-77

according to them it's equal in most respects.

AIM-120

The AIM-120 seems to be a bit lighter (launch weight).

There are many versions of each missile.

The AIM-120 has the D version in developement. While the R-77 also has many newer variants under developement including passive homing, AESA seeker and etc etc.

Thankyou all for participating in this discussion.

To answer an earlier question I and my virtual squadron are responsible for testing the multiplayer aspect of new patches / addons of Lockon Flaming Cliffs and the new Addon, to be released sometime this year (we hope) The Ka-50 "Black Shark" Russian made attack helicopter.

More information and screenshots here

The goal of this simulation is to as acurately as possible recreate in a multiplayer environment real flight/avionics physics, radar and Weapons. Online simmers are extremely fussy and there are endless debates as to what is "realistic" and what isnt. Any valuable information that can be obtained from these forums will be looked at with great interest with Eagle Dynamics developers.

Example Screenshots. Aint she Sexy?



[edit on 13-2-2006 by 169th_Ice]

It is hard to compare also when there are many standards to use in the comparason. For example, one missile's max speed might be the peek speed within the entire ballistic/motor burnout extreme, the other might be an overall average. One Max range might be at extreme ballistic reach of the missile itself, the other might be the extreme of just the "no escape" envelope, and every possible variation in between. Big difference.
Combat results, with the conditioner of the training effort on each side, seems to be the only true scale on which you can compare the quality of a weapon.

169th_Ice, this 'Black Shark' helicopter is a Kamov Ka-50. I always thought that the name for that was 'Hokum'? Obviously the LockOn team would have researched this extensively, but you never know . . .

169th_Ice,

>>
Hi I'm new to these forums but it certainly looks like there is a pool of knowledge to tap into here :-)
>>

Compared to what you get on your own forum? I doubt it.

>>
Finding acurate "true" information about these missiles can be difficult so any Real Life (RL) experience/data or input would be greatly appreciated.
>>

What's the period you are playing in? What's the theater size and the attempted game balance you are looking for? Technology vs. numbers? Hi-Lo mixed fighter force concepts? Standoff or WVR? IADS/S2A compromised? Airborne Vector?

Do you model TWS/TWS volume limits for 'class-4' (multi-on-multi) shots?

Do you model datalinks both between aircraft and as missile tethers?

>>
I am a Beta Tester for Lock-On Flaming Cliffs by Eagle Dynamics. A high quality Combat Flight Simulator that some of you may be aware of.
There is continuous debate about how effective/realistic the BVR Weapons are in this sim.
Some say the AIM120 (Slammer) is not effective enough and too easy to avoid.
>>

If you are putting a mid-90's F-15C pilot without AIM-9X up against an Su-27/30/33 type shooter with R-73, I would say that the Eagle had better leverage BVR pretty hard and have /incredible/ (detached support becomes bracket/heart attack) merge control AI.

If you are putting an F-15C with MIDS and APG-63(V2) 'post 2000' it seems you would also be looking at a later-than-5 AMRAAM.

>>
At the moment the AIM120 in Lock-On has about a 10-30% kill ratio at 15-20 miles and about a 50-70% kill Ratio on the No Escape Zone (NEZ) which is about 3 to 5 miles.
>>

Kinematically by altitude or by Seeker/MCG performance?

It seems to me I recall a Dutch or Danish F-16 getting a kill on a Serb Galeb burning skyholes from over 21nm in an LDSD situation 'as the bad guy came around the other side'. IMO, this could only happen if the bad guy _did not hear the TWS go 'sideband' with the M-tether as the round transited.

Maybe he was careless. Maybe he was put to sleep by a constant round about of "Him over there, me over here, when GCI says he goes to the tanker, that's when I run across..."

In any case, my original memories of the Su-27 game were of a tiny theater and very little campaign support to generate that sense of 'situational ethics'. Along with an absence of historical/sniff mode (LPI) effects on the RWR, it made for an awful lot of head to head fighting with anti-FPole tacturns and posthole/grinder bunts galore to compromise missile clocks without any overriding concern such as a strike package 15 minutes behind you and 8,000lbs of fuel remaining to complicate matters.

>>
The Russian made R77 (AMRAAMSKI) has very similar characterisitcs to the AIM120 in Lock-On.
>>

Was it Gunston or Spick who speculated that the Russians had introduced a new gel propellant that might give them another 15-20% of motor impusle?

Anyway, until you 'lock in' a period-ratio of missile seeker (shortcomings) and warhead (compensation) you cannot talk total flyout effects on X /fractional/ percentage motors.

Most especially with the boxkite taile controls doubling your surface drag.

My preference?

Give some serious thought to better strapdown/tether systems and radar discretionary mode variables so that a Russian threat should not always get 'good ESP' on his engagement condition. Model BVR detached support modes and 'Wall Of Eagles' shot overlaps so that the enemy must 'honor the turn signal' and then take another shot from the 4-6 each F-15 is carrying to essentially run them down.

At the same time, include some serious pole advantages in the bigger Russian weapons (R-27EM and AE) as well as R-31/37 if you have a 'few among many' Foxhound option. If you have an AIM-7MH (P) you might also consider a long-loft option for the Americans.

Make the missiles outmaneuverable in the endgame (even if it is NEZ 'unrealistic') but compromise this by including different lethality models. Big Russian missiles should include big warheads, period, dot.

U.S. AIM-120C6 or later should have 'directional' (entrained fragment showers) the burst AHEAD OF the missile flight path vector (something the SA-2 has been doing since 1966 or so). So that, beyond the LOMD factor there is an undoubtely /kewl!/ admission of the difference in technolgies.

I would also stockpile different models of missiles with the all the American gear quicker (lower base drag) but some having things like (C7/8) a digital strapdown facility and 'improved autopilot' to get more reliable and longer reaching at median Mach point shotclocks. While others were just more basic.

Russian missiles should be longer ranging but slower to reflect their higher surface count and base drag as well as more primitive avionics. And the overall 'modelled' (stocks of X type) difference should be biased towards who chooses numeric advantage and who chooses the technology leveraged one.

As a kewl-factor, you might consider a PS2 type 'unlock code' for Ks-172 AWACS killers (perhaps 5-10 per game) and AIM-120D (ERAAM with 11" motor extensions, 20-40 per game) so that the Russians can destroy the American option to come in with offboard quiet datalinked 'picture' of things. And the Americans can match or beat (handily) the resulting fighter:fighter poles on R-77 as they go to 'Yankee Search' brooming tactics.
Radars should also upgrade with scan lag and total volume coverage reflective of APG-63V1 vs. V2 and No-1001 (Cassegrain, STT) / Zhuk-27 (Planar, 2-4 target TWS) and No-11M BARS. While EW mods might include ALE-50/55 and BOL enhanced Chaff systems which could respectively give the F-16 a superior (say looser precision window on evasions) ability vs. conventional R-27 seekers and later R-77M variants respectively. While the F-15 could trade up to POET/Gen-X type active decoys in it's expendables buckets or more flares if it's a WVR or 'T-missile' threat.

Lastly, there should be some missions/scenarios where you don't get a lot of choices. Like the opening night of Desert Storm whereby Iraqi MiG-29's came down the wagon train of lolo'ing F-15Es which were _required_ to ID all shots. While the F-15C's above were either stood off by SAMs or forced to obey a 2,000ft floor rule.

For a similar scenario, the Russian aircraft could be without GCI (jammed or too low) and REQUIRED to down XX percentage of the Allied raid. While the American's started out with 'the enemy among us' but had the superior NVD and radar-NCTR to at least take passing shots. As they sorted them from a bunch of mixed-blip target constraints.

CONCLUSION:
The reality is two fold: Who are you selling the most of these 'simulators' to? If it's Russian or increasingly European, you had better stack the odds against the American tech. If it's largely an American audience, you had better /leverage/ that tech with _taught tactics_ that exploit the 'running herd' of massed Russians.

_A Good Game Designer_ is the person who realizes that, no matter how adamant a Side-X junky he is in public, 'in secret', player-X enjoys playing the flip side just as much. Not simply because one or the other is so obviously better. But because his /insight/ into how BOTH doctrinal paradigms work gives him a secret-thrill feeling of glee as he decides to 'turn their doctrine against them' with _his_ flying skills.

It is, effectively, the same mindset that the Dissimlar/Adversary Tactics brings to the mission of teaching others how to fight better by exposing their preconditional suppositions about how things 'really work'.


KPl.

I wouldn't worrey so much about trying to program tactics into the game. (other than what the AI should be doing) If they succeed in modelling the missiles effectively those tactics should follow from a player perspective. Most sim players I've met or exchanged messages with seem to know the tactical paradigms quite well. Of course, if the missiles get modeled incorrectly or poorly, the most effective tactics would change accordingly.

Travellar,

>>
I wouldn't worry so much about trying to program tactics into the game.
>>

I think it's just the opposite. Tactics are /everything/.

The individual mechanizations by which those tactics work need not be precisely replicated (orthagonal rolls in a 2D viewing envirnment?!?) but the point by which you /get there/ should be critical to whether you defeat one missile only to eat the second, third and fourth.

And that can only be 'explained' by presetting the conditional modifiers that start the engagement so that the "Yeah, yeah, I read FCT&M, I've seen all the diagrams..." individual player can understand the grouping dynamics and synergies which rule the tactical outcomes of combat.

Preferrably on a taught-then-fought basis of learning.

Where the mechanics of air combat fail or succeed is in the large scalar progressions which insert both direct and tangential friction into the maneuver battle as a whole.

Sure, you're plowing ahead through the enemy with more than enough Wall Of Eagle (6-8 planes = 48 AMRAAM). 'But then' from behind masking terrain or after the enemy whacks your ACP, a lateral entry by a bunch of MiG-23 or 25 fast movers blows away or at least formation-disrupts both your pole position (having to accelerate to speed out from under the stern conversion) and total loadout (now it's 24 missiles against a sraid of 40 aircraft, ensuring a WVR endgame) domination of the fight.

WHAT DO YOU DO?!? (Said in the best think-fast manner of 'Speed' Jack Traven)

I don't mind losing in a simulator. What I _hate_ doing is either winning or losing without any /learning/ modifier to change my perspective as to what works and what don't.

WHEN. Situational Ethic #1,147 comes into play.

Most 'games' don't have the balls to make this happen as it's all big-thumbitis once combat is closed and the sense of accomplishment is cheapened to the gasp for breath after the battle as much as the flow through it.

OTOH, most 'simulators' are so wrapped up in their flight model mechanics that they forget that, without a clear definition of what worked and what didn't (within the world-limits of virtual empirics) that they lose the sense of accomplishment as more than an (absurd) sense of 'realism' that their brains cannot wrap-around-the-math sufficiently quick to really judge either way.

>>
(other than what the AI should be doing)
>>

That's just the point, AI combat in most cases is dumbed down to the point of being moronic because if it were 'full tune' (WWII fighters section tactics of tap and bounce were /perfect/) the 'lonely player' would be _butchered_.

Thus it is necessary to entertain as much as educate by creating different scenarios that can be played out like TACTS video, less on a 'see where you screwed up?' basis than one of /strategic/ brilliance of 'see how I engineered the scenario to bring this about?' vector traces.

>>
If they succeed in modelling the missiles effectively those tactics should follow from a player perspective.
>>

IMO, until and unless they create an SA globe and pilot 3D scan dynamic (magnified threat image with AON aspect and range-rate vectors) it is nearly impossible to be sufifciently /aware/ of the fight in progress to do more than leverage the shots off the nose.

Such a system, if it were employed with an F-22/AAR-56 or F-35/AAS-37 system would employ MAWS and HMD displays. In a Teen era combat it has to be biased towards good Directive/Informative brevity speach (with real world effects on a synthesized 'minds eye theater'. Which is further amplified by hitting a scan key that auto-pops all targets in a global display around you.

Targets which then start to fade again as time passes (4-5 seconds between scans).

Even WITH this system, to adequately model some of the more complex aspect+CM+evasion terminal behaviors of S-300 and R-77 (or PAC-3/AMRAAM) will be pointless if you don't do _something_ to set up the engagement preconditions by which 'don't go there' means playing out Kobyashi Maru scenarios for raw performance vs. deceptive maneuver and mission-requisite 'on time, on station' presence that compromise the safety bubble of dominant performance and electronics engineering.

You _cannot_ 'trust' a player to set himself up to experience this 'the right way'. And if he doesn't get it, he will not play again.

>>
Most sim players I've met or exchanged messages with seem to know the tactical paradigms quite well. Of course, if the missiles get modeled incorrectly or poorly, the most effective tactics would change accordingly.
>>

Most experten play online. Where they are generating the very scenario matching tactics setups as I describe /by mutual understanding/.

You cannot expect this from the 70-80% of the players who _start_ a game, expecting to be able to learn in the privacy and insular protection from "Well, that was stupid!" environment of single player mode.

Only to get whacked in the teeth until the only lesson they learn is that they don't want to look like an idiot /again/.

And that is unfortunately what a lot of the Su-27 and LOMAC experience is about. Complicated controls, uncertain and deliberately vague engagement conditions in phone booth theaters. And an almost anal retentive attention to the graphics and flight modelling without what I would call really good /tactical/ indoctrination in 'what it's all about'.

Combat should be fun at the PC level. And the only way to make it that way is to immediately start an immersion process by which the mechanics are relatively fixed. But the way the mechanics interact -together- is not.

That is how you go from 1v.1 to 4v.4 and package tactics without leaving junior in the dust. Teach him to fight and win on a reliable model for who-is-better-where, individually.

Let flight handle most of it's own conditions (regardless of speed and altitude and weapons load, make aerodynamic envelope advantages fairly constant).

And then teach him /when and how/ he chooses to employ those fighting skills as part of a larger picture of the overall mission.

No larger picture? You either end up with a shooting gallery. Or a mechanical fight that is one on a chalkboard with formulas, not human understanding or sense of accomplishment.

'USAF' tried this and hosed it completely with their cockpit jumping schizoid sense of who-when. Along with utterly uninspiring weapon /effects/ and sense of dynamic motion that is combat at a relative pace both sides can understand.

LOMAC has the potential to do it better. But I doubt if they ever will, because they are stuck within the label 'sim' and they have dedicated so many system and programmer resources to the fulfillment of virtual authenticity for it's own sake that there is no tactics or strategic (linear, connective) _play_ value left.


KPl.

Flanker 2.0 is actually one of my favorite programs (haven't got LOMAC yet), because of the increadibly realistic flight enviornment. It's the ONLY flight sim I've ever played that made me feel I was truely in an airplane. (I'm told LOMAC fits very closely into the same model of realism) Both of these sims cater to the group that does not want a dumbed down version of thier software.

I jump in a Flanker, You jump in an Eagle, and we go head to head? Lots of fun! But if you can thrash me with near-equal performance in a close in dogfight, then proceed on mission because you didn't dump the extra twenty thousand pounds of external stores you were carrying, I'm going to be feeling shortchanged.

Such a system, if it were employed with an F-22/AAR-56 or F-35/AAS-37 system would employ MAWS and HMD displays. In a Teen era combat it has to be biased towards good Directive/Informative brevity speach (with real world effects on a synthesized 'minds eye theater'. Which is further amplified by hitting a scan key that auto-pops all targets in a global display around you.

Well, I was going to argue that tactics only work because they exploit real world advantages, but you've blown that argument out of the water pointing out the limitations of the sim itself. SA drops and sim pilots often don't know what's going on right outside thier cockpit, unless it's dead ahead.

Perhaps the best solution is to include training missions with a great deal of attention to detail when it comes to what tactics should be included. That way, beginer pilots can at least get introduced to NATO tactics or thier equivilent prior to going online to become a liability to blue forces. (which I think might be what you said)

Head trackers and multiple screens can help the S/A picture, but 95% of Sim pilots don't posses these devices.

Travellar,

>>
I jump in a Flanker, You jump in an Eagle, and we go head to head? Lots of fun!
>>

No. The pitch pointing freedom and raw power of the Flanker, coupled to the lack of effective IRCM (at least prior to ASTE kinematics and the Chemring 'cloud seeders' active plumes which I don't know too much about) means that the Su-27 is going to hook you and book you. Even in a lighweight Albino.

Maybe not /two/ of you. But 1v.1 you're gonna lose. Bad.

A Fulcrum is a fair fight and you can dance with hordes of 23's and 25's so long as you obey a few basic rules. 21s...ehhh. 'It Depends'.

>>
But if you can thrash me with near-equal performance in a close in dogfight, then proceed on mission because you didn't dump the extra twenty thousand pounds of external stores you were carrying, I'm going to be feeling shortchanged.
>>

Vs. a Strike Eagle, wellllll. Let's just say I didn't particularly like /that/ sim either.

>>
Well, I was going to argue that tactics only work because they exploit real world advantages, but you've blown that argument out of the water pointing out the limitations of the sim itself.
>>

See, for me, it's /all/ about the 'outside view'. I would prefer to have my head bobble around with not only the HUD and canopy bow in-view but the /HUD/ 'projected to infinity' over an abbreviated view of the nose.

IMO, this provides a much, much, MUCH more realistic presentation of the sensor volume (which the F-15C can project onto it's HUD btw.) under-cone and lets you drive the the waterline and vector of the visual fight more intuitively as a function of 'bob and sink' effects of the skidding inertias of turn rate for AOA.

ALL of which are critical for good EM work.

Even as they are also the basis behind which my 'SA Globe' ideal is mechanized through a simple button switch.


>>
SA drops and sim pilots often don't know what's going on right outside their cockpit, unless it's dead ahead.
>>

Exactly.

>>
Perhaps the best solution is to include training missions with a great deal of attention to detail when it comes to what tactics should be included.
>>

At which point, you are fighting BVR with Chainsaw and Grinder followed by RETREEAT! in which the player either does everything perfectly. Or dies wondering why.

And this is /further/ complicated (especially in Flanker) by the micro theater size vs. the kinds of SA-10 threats you could see.

Here too, the 'sim part' is invisible in the math. And the /fighting art/ is lost in the ability to control the intercept variables and setup (takes too long, requires a different mindset as to spacing and facing) the final conversion geometries.

If you create scenarios where the NATO player scores heavily in the premerge fight. And then the 'panic factor' helps him (and wingie) clean up, after, you can still make it pretty fun. But only if you preset the fight to conditions which 'disallow' the S2A effects (low altitude LOS?) while putting the player in a condition whereby his radar modes (LPI) or networked fighting options (IFDL) give him great positional dominance.

At which point you then have to turn right back around and create at least the /potential/ for the Russian Fed player to 'take it all away' with C4ISR or DEAD/EA platform kills.

Even taking into account the severe limits of the high Russian cockpit sill lines and their VTAS like 'diode' HMS latency and holdtimes, there is just too little the American can do to beat the aerodynamics of the Flanker especially without going to super-EXCM and/or (period inaccurated) HOBS capabilities of his own.

At least not without a major revisiting of the 2v.1 tactics school of 'you distract him and I'll smack him while he's not lookin'!'

>>
That way, beginer pilots can at least get introduced to NATO tactics or thier equivilent prior to going online to become a liability to blue forces. (which I think might be what you said)
>>

Yes! :-) Except once you rig it for training, there is _no reason_ not to bring it home for the CAMPAIGN. Sim Marketers have no idea how many 'just want to fly by myself' players /never make it/ to the MMO or even Duelist level online experience. Simply because they take one try. Are bored or made to feel stupid. And toss the lot, never to be looked at again.

GOOD training is training which builds tactical competencies from the very outset and forget the ultra accurate FMs.

>>
Head trackers and multiple screens can help the S/A picture, but 95% of Sim pilots don't posses these devices.
>>

But my SA globe doesn't need these either. It is, simply and solely, a flat disk defining the centerplane of a texture shaded sphere. In which targets move relative to you or to a mean (elbow) point of vertical and horizontal airspace 'fight for position'.

Which is /critical/ for helping to reinforce a developing spatial-memory desktop pilot trying to get a handle on where, doing what, how fast, relative to an padlock type airframe look angle which may not show adequate 'tails and wingtips' orientation to make a relative orientation and spacing guess for ONE opponent airframe.

And which may not be possible at all if you NEED the HUD to define things like nosepoint and airspeed relative to your own best turn performance.

Take the threat count up to 4 or more and you just end up dying from the outside/Hawk shooter so often that there is no seeming point /trying/ to beat the man in front of you.

BUT. While 'perfect' (hit key, viewpoint scans around, all targets recorded and numbered on the SA Globe for later 1-2-3-4 instant auto-slew back to target) it doesn't come /free/.

Because if the player doesn't obey that 5 second time rule as part of a developed 'not just eyes forward' scan discipline, the SA Globe fades.

And even if he /does/ have this system, if he doesn't have adequate tactical controls over his wingman positioning and fight-logic (including, potentially, the ability to switch cockpits to enact it). If in fact, he cannot do more than make simplistically-stupid 'left right up down' _BS_ commands to change the way the fight is played (it should be more akin to 'shorten/extend the range, ease or increase the angle off as a function of aspect and crossing rates over the elbow of the engaged/free/supporting turn status of Double Attack or Loose Deuce system).

He is going to lose to the guy who can slew his Archer 60` off boresight and pophim trying to get behind the 3-9 line to force the 1-2 circle fight.

This is ONE area where I think every modern fighter simulation completely fails the buying public for want of _hardware_ capability.

For most sound cards and port systems on modern machines will easily support a live mike of one kind or another (if only for the ever increasing popularity of the 'free longdistance' myth).

And so it should be that EVERY sim should have a headset mike and at least a basic set of 3-1 brevity speech vocabulary with _specific_ AI behavioral responses to 'make tactical learning sound as well as look kewl'.

I mean how many guys don't secretly love the idea of secret-language, so long as it comes out hip like 'skate!' instead of 'FPole this or that' geek-mechanical.

I told one of the F-15 pilots they were using to 'look at our expert!' promote LOMAC all of this. Along with ideas for a 'freeform piechart' (semi transparent envelope overlays) indication of fuze/aspect limitations on missile shots (how you REALLY portray missile model math, so the novice can _learn_ to make the maneuvering for shot optimization work).

And he just laughed it all off.

It's no wonder combat simuviation is undead. Populated by Microsoft shape editors and FM 'purists', they have traded all the visceral thrill of 'feeling' (visually) the earth move around you while your airframe dips and shudders under relative movement.

And replaced it with a painted-portals onto some achingly slow rate of progression world where 'it is forbidden' to even have the dynamic camera/airframe movements that suggest there is more to your existence than a dot on the horizon.

Imagine instead, moving at perhaps 2X time index to reinforce the sense of motion against a cloud backdrop (even if it meant 'stretching' the world map by an equal degree).

And having yet another 'not on a real HOTAS but wanted on my stick' control that allowed an ACM movie-director feature to enhance the cinematic feel of a kill through a subtle 'pull back' on the camera lens as you stroked the pickle and the saw YOUR body, head straining up against the G in front of the ACES II seat as you hovered, midchord, watching an AIM-9M streak forward from the shoulder rail on your F-15, only to connect or miss as enemy flares popped from a 'double image' of what-the-seeker-saw [more than a dot]. When the enemy flip-flopped his airframe to get out of the blast-cube defined by the warhead lethal radius.

THAT MOMENT _in realtime_ is what a combat simulator pilot /lives for/. And what makes learning (out of plane maneuver comes AFTER BVR reduction of the threat numbers to let the cleanup phase be 'fun') the tactics that go along with 'getting there' a worthwhile experience.

If only because it encourages you to drive to the point on the circle where 'play gaffed fish all you want, this one's going up your tailpipe Ivan!' Fox-2 comes with a so-satisfying fireball.

On your skill as much as tenacity.


KPl.

To Ch1466

Only one coffee so far. I think I will need the weekend to soak in all your amazing input. Keep it coming!

One thing that may interest you in the meantime is a statistics board for online competition. It can gave an insite of missile and aircraft effectiveness.

link here: www.syn-ack.com...

its very simple and newer versions will be out soon. Interestingly though, Mig29s and F15 have a very similar kill rate which makes for a balanced sim.

Originally posted by 169th_Ice
its very simple and newer versions will be out soon. Interestingly though, Mig29s and F15 have a very similar kill rate which makes for a balanced sim.

Seems fitting, both the F-15 and Mig-29 were designed as air supiriority fighters, and about the same time. So if one disregards all nationalistic fevor those aircraft should be about equal in capabilities.