Wingman won't engage

[+Gunrunner 313]

Ok, so I'll be nice and help Basher11 to get a bloody clue.

 

The BVR "issues" in the SF series stems from 3 major sources, design decision, historical accuracy and tactical reasons.

 

1) Design decisions

a) The SF series aims at simulating air planes from the late 60's to the early 80's, an age where missiles were unreliable, it never was meant for modern BVR engagement with AMRAAMs.

b) The SF series aims to be fun, rather than a button-pushing or study sim, thus the emphasis on close combat.

c) The SF series never aimed to reproduce any kind of strategic warfare, leaving aside interception of strategic bombers, nuclear bombers etc... and this case is the very one for which the concept of BVR was conceived on the time lapse we're concerned.

 

2) Historical accuracy

a) In WoV, you have to remember that the RoE called for a visual identification of the target, thus negating most chances of BVR engagements and making the attitude of your wingmen logical, you tell them to attack a target, first they close in for visual identification.

b) In WoE, you have to remember you are in a very heated conflict with a LOT of planes supposed to be in the air, in a day and age where IFF are either not there or not completely trusted, thus you can be sure that the RoE would have been fairly restrictive toward BVR too, except for strategic interception, which is outside the scope of the series, as seen earlier.

c) In WoI, you have to remember that most kills were obtained with IR guided missiles or guns, and very few with Sparrows, even then, most Sparrow uses where WVR, for reasons we will see later.

 

3) Tactical considerations

Leaving AMRAAMs out as they are out of the scope of what the engine is supposed to use, you have to condider what your BVR weapon is.

The AIM-7 is a passive missile, relying on the illumination by the launching plane to reach its target, it's been known to be rather unmaneuverable for the first versions (it was designed to engage slow bombers, not fighters), then very unreliable and finally "the best we have, until we get a real missile or you are in the Navy (and even there...)".

What that means is, the farther you launch your AIM-7, the higher the chances are that the target will have time to get out of its range, that it will break your radar lock (thus getting the missile out of his back), that it will outmaneuver the missile when it finally closes in, that you will get shot down thus losing your lock or that it will get time to properly jam or deceive it.

So, most AIM-7 you will launch at extreme range or even BVR will be lost.

The best way to ensure a kill is to be WVR and thus reduce the flight time of the missile, leaving as little time as possible to the target to break the lock, maneuver or jam/deceive it.

 

Now, does the AI engage ?

Oh yes, it does.

 

Does the AI engage at extreme or maximum range ?

Very rarely, if ever.

 

Does the AI engage at ranges ensuring the highest PK for the weapons systems it's supposed to use ?

Seems to me like it does.

 

Is there is problem with BVR in the SF series ?

Nope, there's a problem simulating something it never was designed for.

 

So, you want a lot of missiles flying at once, kills at very long range and AMRAAMs, go buy LOMAC.

You want to simulate air combat in the late 60's to early 80's, SF is where it's at.

Just don't come whining that something is broken when it obviously is not and the only real problem is that you have no clue on what the game is supposed to do and why it does so.

[Stick 773]

Simple enough most of the time people fly with their radar turned off.

So the chances of their(including AI) knowing something is out there are slim.

Likewise getting shot at by an Adder or some other long range missile depend on whether they've actually detected you.

[Stick 773]

Or else you light em up and cry havoc....

[+malibu43 142]

Ok, so I'll be nice and help Basher11 to get a bloody clue.

 

The BVR "issues" in the SF series stems from 3 major sources, design decision, historical accuracy and tactical reasons.

 

...

 

Just don't come whining that something is broken when it obviously is not and the only real problem is that you have no clue on what the game is supposed to do and why it does so.

 

I tried to post say the same thing on the first page of this thread, but obviously it went un-noticed or wasn't clear enough. Cheers to for spelling it out like this.

 

Another way to look at it - If you want a Porsche, don't buy a Hummer and try to tweak it to perform like a Porsche. Just buy a freakin' Porsche!

Edited May 4, 2008 by malibu43

[Murphy'S 15]

if every body wants a little more bvr, just double (or triple) the maxview distance parameter

 

it help the thing a bit and that's enough to get a bit more busy, until some major event happen in the source code.

[+Dave 2,318]

That sums up the sim nicely Gunrunner. Basher you seem to be trying to get the sim to do things that it can't do or was not designed to do. Then you come here saying its broken. You need to really read what Gunrunner said and what the others have showed you before making bogus statements as you have. Its pissing people off.