![]() ![]() Please help me with this, please could someone give me a step by step walk through as if I'm an idiot child that can only use small words, preferably someone with the warthog running the default ED control scheme as I am, because frankly I feel like an idiot here. I can't find anything on getting a short range lock, and the missle swap button on my warthog hotas doesn't seem to do anything either. I'm so used to using boresight in the hornet, it's easy, but it feels like there is no such thing in the Viper or something. I'm carrying my second Aim-120 for nothing. Whether I'm in A/A, missile override, or dogfight mode pressing tms up doesn't lock anything.:joystick: the best I get is a gun lock when I get close. I can get a Aim-9 lock, but I want to use an aim-120. I can't lock him up without going heads down, but i need to maneuver and keep my eyes on him. I can lock a target at range, close and fire my first missile, get the kill if possible but I'm being slaughtered by the other guy. I know that with older Sparrow missiles, on the Phantom, you had to "center the dot before the shot" to have max Pk.Īnyway, I have the impression that in single player, when I shoot the ET with some "lead" so that in fact the bandit is flying into the FOV "basket", I have a higher Pk.:helpsmilie:I'm going mad, I can't lock a target that is directly in front of me so I can fire an aim-120. This brings us to the original question: is it important IRL to take into account the missile FOV (as cool_t calls it the gimball limit) BEFORE launch? On the loft thing: anyway, if I understand it right IRL a pilot does not have to aim to the skies to obtain a loft shot with an amraam: the missile logic will itself implement a loft routine given a parameter evaluation? Very true, if the missiles would have higher Pk my on-line life would be even shorter than it is now, so there are always two sides to the equation, and the game is very playable right now. :DĪs for tweaking the missiles? Some knowledgeable people have pointed out that the way to making BVR more realistic is to make the missiles more dangerous. I feel I have just jumped into a thread that will be. Those are expectations that aren't so "great."įeel free to chime in, I could be wrong. ![]() One thing though, I use all planes, and I would like to see what I am relatively certain of, be seen in the sim. In a secret world I would think it best to read between the aggregate lines of what knowledgeable people are telling you (and certain cyber space slip ups). The gear levers inability to be raised when there is weight on wheels can be overridden via the DOWN LOCK ORIDE button near the lever. 12.1 A/G STORES Format 12.2 A/G Ready Status 12.3 A/G Designation. Why cling to grand statements about accuracy when the fundamental core of missile X and missile Y has merely been tweaked from a baseline model? 11.2.4.3.1 AIM-120 CIA HUD Indications 11.2.4.3.2 AIM-120 CIA RDR ATTK Format 12 Air-to-Ground Weapons. It's not a surprise to have one tweakable model for each plane or missile, but it does detract from the general notion that a (any) sim maker can't change something because the data cant be certain. Given this context of Wetas, it again brings me to one thought. you know, the ones where someone asks one question and 30 pages later nothing is solved. I have generally trained myself to peruse but not obsess over the lines in the "mega" threads. if your actually right.my liking of lockon just depreciated alot :( It's not that the AMRAAM is So Much Worse, than other missiles, it's just that the people who use it have higher expectations of it & are more vocal & which is why we should encourage ED fix the easy stuff for LO/FC in a patch (if there can be such a thing in software development) to begin the next series (the Flanker/LO successor) that won't have these limitations, rather than hoping for the present series to 'morph' into something it can never be.ĭon't get me wrong - I love LO (ask my girlfriend :-), but there are limitations built into it that need a fresh start to overcome. Which is why asking for some fixes is impossible without a re-write of the code (of course some fixes don't require this, just a qualitatively smaller allocation of man-hours) Whatever systemic faults one has so do the others to some degree. In LO there is one infra-red seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile. In LO there is one active radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile. In LO there is one passive radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile. ![]() In LO there is one (Fighter borne) radar systems model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane. In LO there is one SFM flight model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane. As far as modelling active radar missiles goes the AMRAAM in LO is the same as the R-77, with a couple of figures adjusted.įrom reading these forums for a while it seems to me that (ignoring the AFM Su-25 & T): ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |