Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
this kind of bias, in a simulation, is the end.
i got a video wheres my f16 block 40 from turkey dodge like 32 s400 missiles in a row, point blank, from multiple systems, and many more from the pantsir-s. point blank. 5-10 nm, alone, no jamming. recorded for me. what could we expect in large engagements? also, the scen dawn of don assumes all the rf pilots are dumb and all the nato pilots are vets, which doesnt make sense at all, because the average hours per country do not reflect the average hours in a given unit, and to fly a su-30sm is not for every pilot after all.
this DB stuff, when corrected, will bring me back, but im far from disapointed with the devs for this mishap, and from now on i will skip any game or dlc from this people. honestly, they couldnt care about myself, but doctoring numbers in a simulation without WARNING is far from fair with the players base. i would like to use proper DB to get things straight and, as you said, if it is not possible, im done.
thanks anyway
EF (I suppose is for eurofighter) is not 5.5 but 5 only
But I'm surprised indeed that SU-27 based latest planes (like Su-30, Su-35 etc...) don't have SM
The database entries are created using the best unclassified information available and certainly real world data is sensitive to the countries involved thus generally not known in detail.
However in many instances player micromanagement of specific conflicts, air-to-air and others, will introduce unrealistic performance that can interfere with the simulation’s AI capabilities.
I’m sorry if Command’s operation does not fit the the real world with 100% accuracy 100% of the time. It is however well recognized to be the most accurate simulation of its type by both commercial and professional users. The latter includes the United States DOD and other nation’s military organizations.
-Wayne Stiles
WarfareSims
at the end CMO is still a true wargame and the best in it's genre, 100% realistic or not
^This. The devs are also open to suggestions for improving the fidelity of the assets in the game. The problem is that there are tons of people like the OP that "think" some asset, like an aircraft, should be "better" but without any hard data to back it up, the devs are going to choose conservatively. This is done on NATO units as well, so it might not be the DB that has the bias.
So this is a question of, OP do you have actual data to present, or just YouTube videos and guesses and "common knowledge"?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436106&mpage=228&key=�
The more documentation you can provide will increase the likelihood of a change being made.
-Wayne Stiles
WarfareSims
I placed the flanker behind the thypoon 50 mn, closed in, and fired 6 R-77-1 RW-SD each 2 seconds ... all of them ... even aiming with Flir and switching sides when needed, the thypoon was able to see the flanker from its 6 oclock berfore the r77s turned on the onboard radars ... also, it was able to jam 4 of the R77s from BEHIND!!! on its six, using its radars that, ofc, is pointing forward or, at best, looking side way ... the jamming odds? 20-30% ... all jammed by luck, or lack of it thereof ... well, the last two missiles got better, actually wasnt jammed (here, sorry, but the game isnt allowing me to copy the entry, so i recorded in video the logs) ... the first of it got the follow log (im tiping, not pasting, ok?):
Weapon: AA-12 Adder B [R-77-1, RW-SD] #943 is attacking Thypoon FGR4 with a base PH of 90%. PH adjusted for distance 76%. Thypoon FGR4 has a nominal agility of 5, adjusted for altitude 4.8. Agility adjusted for profeciency (regular): 3.84. Aicraft has a weight fraction of 0.55 - agility adjusted to 2.57. High-deflection impact (no effect on agility). Final agility modifier: -26. Final PH: 50%. Result 77 - Miss.
The last of the six R77s, 5 seconds later, got the follow log:
Weapon: AA-12 Adder B [R-77-1, RW-SD] #944 is attacking Thypoon FGR4 with a base PH of 90%. PH adjusted for distance 76%. Thypoon FGR4 has a nominal agility of 5, adjusted for altitude 5. Agility adjusted for profeciency (regular): 4. Aicraft has a weight fraction of 0.55 - agility adjusted to 2.68. High-deflection impact (no effect on agility). Final agility modifier: -27. Final PH: 50%. Result 93 - Miss.
Well, then, AB to get more energy, flanker launched 2 R-73M in WWR mode, IR head, against the same Thypoon at the same level, 36k asl. The result:
Weapon: AA-11 Archer [R-73M] #945 is attacking Thypoon FGR4 with a base PH of 95%. PH adjusted for distance 45%. PH adjusted for actual speed (734 knots): 40%. Thypoon FGR4 has a nominal agility of 5, adjusted for altitude 4.2. Agility adjusted for profeciency (regular): 3.36. Aicraft has a weight fraction of 0.49 - agility adjusted to 2.37. High-deflection impact (no effect on agility). Final agility modifier: -24. Final PH: 16%. Result 16 - Miss.
And so on ...
Now the best part:
Thypooon shot back once, thro its tails,, 10 seconds later (20 till impact):
Weapon: Meteor #949 is attacking Su-35 Flanker E with a base PH of 95%. Su-35S Flanker E has a nominal agility of 4.9, adjusted for altitude> 2.5. Agility adjusted for profeciency (regular): 2. Aicraft has a weight fraction of 0.37 - agility adjusted to 1.55. Agility adjusted for tail on impact effect: 0.8. Final agility modifier: -8%. Final PH: 87%. Result 55 - Hit.
Hummm .... (next post following)
A SU-35 fired 8 missiles against a single EF GR4, the first 4 SAR was spoofed/jammed by the tail of the GR4 ... the last 2 got the follow chances: 50 and 50, but by luck no HIT, ok ... the last IR, tho, fired on the GR4 six o'clock, got 16% ... 16%? well, the dice ran 16, no hit ...
GR4 fire one single Meteor, again with ultra very high off boresting (180 degrees) and, 10 seconds later, got PH of 87% from the initial 95% ... im not a specialist, but a ramjet missile fired by an aircraft that was manouvering in defense, fired to the tail, descending, without a booster to acc it to hipersonic speed, couldnt have a chance to lock and track to easily, and 90 our of 100 odds to hit ... also, let me focus on the implementation:
Aside the initial state of the pair (SU-35 right behind the GR4) and the fact it keeps the same relative position all the time, the game didnt considered the Agility adjusted for tail impact buffer that the meteor got even being fired thro its tail. The diference: PH for the R77-1 ... 50. PH for R73M ... 16. PH for Meteor ... 89. And ------ adjusted agility (final)> SU-35, one shot, 8. For GR4, 26, 27, 24 ... for very diferent situations ... it could explain, by implementation erros, the diference between the outcome ...
NOW, TAKE THIS LITTLE FLUCTUATIONS AND PUT ALL ALONG THE SIMULATION: THE TOTAL DEVIATION NOT ONLY WILL BE HUGE, BUT, FOR ME, ANOYING, EVEN ON THE WINNER SIDE, BECAUSE I KNOW ITS NOT FAIR OR IN EQUILIBRIUM, WHAT ALLOWS A PAIR OF F16C BLOCK 40 TO KILL DOZENS OF FLANKERS INSIDE THE RANGE OF MANY IAD SYSTEMS, LIKE THE COMBO S400 AND PANTSIR-S, WITH SOME BUKS M3 ON THE MIDDLE (DAWN OF DON SCEN, FOR INSTANCE).
Anyone here can run the sims ... anyone here can duplicate it and run again ... just click edit a scen and test whatever you want and tab the results ... so, in regard of the claim thatr the devs are doing the best, i refuse it and im done with this kind of people that hides behind claims that militaries around the globe uses this sim and are happy ... ofc theyre happy, they will always win!!!!!! how to lose when youre invincible? Thats why i asked to know how to fix the DB myself, and the answer was more anoying than the problem: i cant. So, they wont and i cant. PH: 50. Adjusted PH: 0. Result. 0 - MISS.
Someone could ask the devs to ask a friend to ask a friend of a RL pilot and check if, after dodging a couple of missiles, any kind of aircfraft (on this planet) will lose alot of energy, relative speed, and then will have a bad bad bad time trying to dodge the next salvo. Its a no brain stuff, anyone knows that the energy management is the first goal of any pilot in combat situation. So, my video of my F16C dodging 32+ IADS (SAM and AAW) missiles in a row, in crimea on dawn of don, is pure gold. If its even possible to dodge 4, reds could left that area tomorow.
Pure gold.
Sierra Hotel.
o>
check the meteor hit log:
Weapon: Meteor #949 is attacking Su-35 Flanker E with a base PH of 95%. Su-35S Flanker E has a nominal agility of 4.9, adjusted for altitude> 2.5. Agility adjusted for profeciency (regular): 2. Aicraft has a weight fraction of 0.37 - agility adjusted to 1.55. Agility adjusted for tail on impact effect: 0.8. Final agility modifier: -8%. Final PH: 87%. Result 55 - Hit
Pick this:
Agility 4.9. cut imediatly by half at the exact same altitude of the GR4, agility 2.5. Ajusterd for prof, 2 .......... (Agility 2 is the same as a ww2 bomber, s siting duck, ok?) ... not enough? lets cut it more and more ... 1.55 is good? no? lets deal at 0.8, a fixed target, ok? sooo, 95% minus 8% is equal to 87% ... is that enough? yes, i supose, as the dice ran 55 (wasnt if the final PH was 50, like the thypoon on the same situation against 6 missiles.
period.
First, some general notes:
* The message log, apart from being displayed on the game, is also written to disk, on the folder \Logs. So you can copy messages of interest from there instead of manually writing them down.
* Read this: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf
* Then also read this: https://www.rusi.org/sites/default/files/russian_and_chinese_combat_air_trends_whr_final_web_version.pdf
All done? Let's now move on to your complaints.
The Typhoon FGR.4, even in its oldest operational version (Tranche 2 - 2008, #334 in the DB) has a capable 360-coverage missile-approach warning system (MAWS) as part of its overall DASS suite. No surprise that it detected the incoming missile early.
The DECM component of DASS also has 360-coverage. Who told you otherwise?
Notice how much the nominal Ph was reduced by the launch-to-impact distance, an indication that the shots were made at long-range (This is why it's important to configure the WRA launch-range settings for AAW shots. Edge-of-envelope shots against agile targets is "iffy at best" at frontal engagements and completely hopeless at astern).
Note that the nominal agility was only slightly affected by altitude; this indicates that although the Typhoon was at high altitude when the missiles were detected, by endgame time it had dived to lower altitude in order to improve its manouverability and reduce the missiles' energy (again, the benefits of early warning and good SA in general).
The Typhoon beamed the missiles and was relatively lightly loaded, so it was able to sharply reduce the overall Ph. Again no surprises here.
The bigger energy imparted by higher speed doesn't counterbalance the fact that, again, you made an edge-of-envelope shot (note how the actual Ph was reduced by more than half, just from the distance!). Also note that the Typhoon is slightly lighter now than before (weight fraction) and that improved its agility a bit.
Almost entirely out of energy, and against a beaming powerhouse - it's a wonder the missile had a better than 1 in 10 chance at all.
High off-boresight launch capability. Look it up. When your motor burns far longer than the typical AAM/SAM motors, you can afford the energy penalty.
...and this is where your outdated understanding of modern air combat really shows. While you (and I!) were aghast watching Pugachev, Kvochur and Frolov bend the laws of aerodynamics at airshows, MBDA's folks were busy putting together a missile so far more advanced than R-77/-1 (and early AIM-120 & MICA) that it's not even funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) . To quote Kurt Plummer: Better Bullets Win.
Couple of notes from the message:
* Note that the actual Ph did not suffer from distance; this is neither accidental nor a bug. Meteor, thanks to its ramjet motor, starts suffering Ph degradation only at beyond 75% of nominal range (compared to 50% for rocket-boosted missiles). At close- and medium-range, it's almost no-sport at all.
* The message indicates that the missile impacted the Su-35S at high altitude (note the agility dropoff) and tail-on. If the pilot had been left free to auto-evade, he would have dived to lower altitude (to maximize his agility) and also beamed. This leads me to suspect that you manually instructed him to run away at high altitude, hoping to outrun the Meteor. If true, this was a mistake for two reasons:
a) By staying high, you forfeited your supermanouverability advantage (TVC does help with pitch authority and turn rate, but can only go so far). Against a SAM at long range this _might_ work, depending on the guidance and trajectory profile. Against a lofting BVRAAM at short/medium range? It will silently thank you for your cooperation - just before slamming into you.
b) Running away might have worked against an edge-of-envelope shot. At shorter range, unless you're in an SR-71 or MiG-25/31 you're not going anywhere; you have to beam and take your chances.
In short, he had a weaponry advantage to begin with, and on top of that you made it too easy for him.
Basically a repetition of the above.
Kinematic _persistence_, combined with high-enough speed, is more effective than absolute high-Mach speed. It's why Meteor easily outranges e.g. the R-27 and R-40, without being faster.
A rocket-boosted missile, even a very fast one, towards the end of its trajectory is pretty much barely hanging on the air (lofted missiles being an exception, depending on the profile). A ramjet missile still has enough oomph to catch up with an agile target. This is part of why Kub/SA-6 (a ramjet SAM) wreaked havoc at the start of Yom Kippur.
Pro tip: Caps don't improve the logic of your argument.
The way I see it, you have two choices. You can educate yourself on the realities of modern air combat and cross-domain ops in general (the two docs I linked at the top are a fair starting point, and we also have a forum dedicated to tips & tactics: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1282), improve your tactical and operational skills, and start enjoying the game.
Or you can keep doing what you and your like-minded buddies are doing now.
Your call.
------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This is not to claim that the sim or the DB are flawless, or that there is nothing to fix or improve. Here is an example of constructive and useful criticism: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5017039 .
We have taken the suggestions under consideration, discussed both inside the team and with outside SMEs, and are making tweaks accordingly. This is what meaningful and helpful feedback looks like. Be like that guy!
Well, you're comparing what is basically the best AAM in the world with an updated missile using 1980s tech. The Meteor's NEZ is equivalent to the max practical range of the 77-1. You can't make a direct comparison between a late 2010s weapon using a variable thrust ramjet with a dual-pulse missile based on 40-ish years older technology and expect both of them to behave identically. The closest equivalent to the Meteor, the PL-15 (which still uses a conventional dual-pulse rocket engine) would yield much closer results.
Just for comparison's sake, here are a few numbers:
R-77-1
Max Op range: 110km
NEZ: 30km (assuming similar performance to the 120C, which is already a long shot)
AIM-120C-7
Max Op range: 120km
NEZ: 30km
PL-15:
Max Op range: >200km
NEZ: 50km-ish
Meteor:
Max Op range: >200km
NEZ: "2,5 to 3 time longer than comparable-class weapons", so say around 80/100km.