Targt rich environment

[ShrikeHawk 384]

I'm amazed at this mission. We must have been jumped by 16 Mig-17s. I shot a bunch down and there were still three left when I had to bug out. No ammo left. Sheesh!

 

[JediMaster 451]

You fired 4 9Gs and got 4 kills? I don't usually get that kind of success rate with 9Gs, and certainly not against 17s.

[+Stary 2,427]

must be the new 100% kill ratio TK introduced I have now somewhere around 50-75% in July patch, mostly flying Tomcat with Sparrows

[Slartibartfast 153]

I am sticking to my April patch then... as I want to work for my kills...

[+Stary 2,427]

to be fair all my flying now is in Jonathan's "extra-suprises movie-based" campaign so take this into account, but still... have yet to see OPFOR make it to the heaters range

[+Brain32 265]

You guys are jumping the gun faster than UN council on an Arab dictator...

 

I'm on July patch and even my 9x/IRIS-T/Python5 etc don't have 100% even if I fire them within the parameters, silly angles and ridiculous out of parameter shots have 100% - of FAIL rate...

 

Against flare equipped aircrafts even perfect dead 6 shots with advance IR missiles are fingers crossed for a hit...

[Sheriff 88]

Could you not edit accuracy setting of missile in Weapons data file ,or does patch override that?

[+Stary 2,427]

ini files can allways be tweked (until it's locked...)

[+streakeagle 871]

Even before the patch, AIM-9Gs were always very good.

The main difference between AIM-9G/H Sidewinders and AIM-9Ls is the all-aspect capability, otherwise performance is very similar.

If fired within parameters (even against MiG-17s), I expect at least 50%, typically 75%, and possibly 100% success with AIM-9G/H.

Even AIM-9Ds are not that bad, just slide the % down by 25: 25%/50%/75%, just a tad less maneuverble.

Its the AIM-9B/E/J series that was much more challenging.

The patch doesn't appear to effect the maneuverability or seeker tracking, just the reliability and/or lethality.

So getting a hit with an AIM-9B against a MiG-17 is just as hard as it ever was, but if you do hit, you will probably get a kill.

 

So the patch doesn't greatly improve the low end missiles since they have many other limitations besides reliability and lethality, but it makes missiles that were already decent into near 100% PK wonder weapons... but again only if fired within seeker and maneuverability limitations.

 

So, in a 1972 era Vietnam dogfight such as May 10,1972 with 4xAIM-7E2 and 4xAIM-9G/Hs, I expect to get about 7+/-1 kills.

When in reality, you were lucky if you got one and in the rare case of Duke, three kills in a single sortie.

Of course, not even accounting for the changes from the patch, it was already normal for me to get 2-4 kills in the same situation and 7-8 was possible with patience and luck.

Unlike reality, the AI sooner or later gives you the shot opportunity that was very rare in reality.

Unlike reality, I can run my fuel pretty low waiting for that opportunity without any real worries.

 

Weapon ini changes aside, multiplayer with 1:1 scale maps would create an environment with the potential to get much more realistic results.

A MiG-17 pilot aware of a gunless F-4 attacking it can always deny a missile shot.

An F-4 aware of a MiG-17 pilot attacking it can always deny a gun shot.

So if both are aware of each other, who is going to make a mistake or be forced to turn and run due to fuel?

 

The lack of multiplayer means the AI needs to be very complicated to produce realistic behavior that will produce historical results.

The AI has come a long way, but it still isn't even close to being capable of replicating the behavior of a true ace.

But the nice part about AI is that you can scale it up or down to suit your preferences.

 

When you play online, mismatches between skill levels on both sides may be realistic, but not very entertaining for the aces or the cannon fodder.

The solution is co-op play until enough of the lesser pilots catch up to the veterans.

Even then, you may have one pilot so skilled/talented that the only way to balance the fight is to have everyone else on one team to fight against him.

 

Back to the original topic: having every missile I fire hit and kill the target is not very challenging or fun.

If the changes that result in that are hard coded and not made optional, then I have no use for such a game.

[+streakeagle 871]

Just ran the stock Operation Bolo mission and would have hit 4/4 with AIM-7E if a MiG-21 had not broke line of sight by ducking behind Thud Ridge.

It feels like I am firing AIM-9Ms at non-maneuvering targets: lock, shoot, kill with no effort.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

You fired 4 9Gs and got 4 kills? I don't usually get that kind of success rate with 9Gs, and certainly not against 17s.

 

I thought I would get 75%. One shot went wildly off course. The sky was so full of Migs the seeker locked onto a different Mig!

 

I'm running on the May patch, so I don't know the advantages/disadvantages of it compared to others. But I'm really picky about firing parameters with the AIM-9. With every kill, the Mig was in a shallow turn (NOT pulling hard) and at low E so a violent maneuver wasn't likely. Usually, I was between 1.0 and 0.7 range. Shorter than that, I often get a miss, longer than that and the Mig has enough time to react, and it's a miss. I don't ALWAYS get 100%, but I do pretty well. Even with AIM-9D, I'm managing 50% pretty often.

[+SkateZilla 49]

you live your life between your legs Mav.

[+streakeagle 871]

If you follow the < 2 nm and low g target rule (preferably firing from slightly below the target at altitudes > 2-3,000 feet, you can get a pretty good ratio even with the AIM-9B (though you need to add one more rule to help the seeker: target in afterburner).

The only time I couldn't get good performance out of missiles no matter what I did was the original release of WoI, where the MiGs instantly put their beam to doppler radars and easily broke lockons. The MiGs also stayed fairly low to the ground making both AIM-9 and AIM-7 shots difficult. This gave me results comparable to reality and in the case of F-15s with doppler radars, even worse than reality with almost 0% AIM-7 hits. Of course, TK quickly made a patch that made the AI far less likely to succeed in breaking lock and the F-15 returned to being a sniper with AIM-7s. I really enjoyed that original WoI release: the most challenging version TK ever published. If you count unreleased beta versions, I believe the title of most challenging goes to First Eagles. The Spad was somewhat unstable in pitch and would depart wildly if you didn't use a precise light touch. But the public release made the Spad more like its historical reputation: a fast stable gun platform.

[+Brain32 265]

I'm running on the May patch,

 

 

That was priceless

 

Guys don't you think we jumped on TK a bit too hard? You know my stance and all but let's be a bit realistic here...

 

****

 

@ShrikeHawk good call I also try to keep my winders within textbook parameters but sometimes I just fire them out carelessly just to get the opportunity to use the gun

[ShrikeHawk 384]

 

That was priceless

 

Guys don't you think we jumped on TK a bit too hard? You know my stance and all but let's be a bit realistic here...

 

****

 

@ShrikeHawk good call I also try to keep my winders within textbook parameters but sometimes I just fire them out carelessly just to get the opportunity to use the gun

 

I use the gun a lot because, I just like using the gun a lot. I like rolling in from high above in the F-8 and streaking in at high speed. Not good params for a missile shot, but fun as hell for a gun kill.

 

Okay, and sorry about being dense, but what's funny about the May patch? I haven't been around a lot so I'm not up on current events.

[+Julhelm 266]

If you follow the < 2 nm and low g target rule (preferably firing from slightly below the target at altitudes > 2-3,000 feet, you can get a pretty good ratio even with the AIM-9B (though you need to add one more rule to help the seeker: target in afterburner).

The only time I couldn't get good performance out of missiles no matter what I did was the original release of WoI, where the MiGs instantly put their beam to doppler radars and easily broke lockons. The MiGs also stayed fairly low to the ground making both AIM-9 and AIM-7 shots difficult. This gave me results comparable to reality and in the case of F-15s with doppler radars, even worse than reality with almost 0% AIM-7 hits. Of course, TK quickly made a patch that made the AI far less likely to succeed in breaking lock and the F-15 returned to being a sniper with AIM-7s. I really enjoyed that original WoI release: the most challenging version TK ever published. If you count unreleased beta versions, I believe the title of most challenging goes to First Eagles. The Spad was somewhat unstable in pitch and would depart wildly if you didn't use a precise light touch. But the public release made the Spad more like its historical reputation: a fast stable gun platform.

I always used to get 75% duds firing AIM-7's. That is, missile fails to guide and explodes after 5 seconds.

[+Brain32 265]

Okay, and sorry about being dense, but what's funny about the May patch? I haven't been around a lot so I'm not up on current events.

 

It's funny because guys jumped the gun and thought your 100% with aim-9G was due to a change in July patch that started a huge round of b1tchin' threads all over the place...

[ShrikeHawk 384]

I always used to get 75% duds firing AIM-7's. That is, missile fails to guide and explodes after 5 seconds.

 

Really? For me the AIM-7s were damn near a guaranteed kill (with earlier SF2 installs). I recently installed everything with May2012 installers and only now I'm seeing AIM-7s that go ballistic or self-detonate. More realistic in my view.

[+streakeagle 871]

AIM-7 performance versus firing parameters varies widely among models and patch levels in SFP1/SF2.

Typically the AIM-7E works very well at long ranges, especially against head-on non-maneuvering targets, but can handle beam shots to some extent.

The AIM-7E2 is not so good at long ranges, but is a great dogfight missile able to handle maneuvering targets, but it doesn't handle beam shots well at all.

I don't have nearly as much time firing AIM-7Fs and AIM-7Ms, as I usually fly before they existed.

But I have some F-15 time and usually get 50-75% reliability out of them if they don't get chaffed.

The effectiveness of decoys has been a problem over the years.

Some patch revisions, missiles missed every time chaff was released.

Other patch revisions, chaff is ignored completely.

If you are having trouble with AIM-7s, you are probably flying in later years against opponents with chaff and jammers.

In the Vietnam era, I do much better with the AIM-7 than the AIM-9 unless the AIM-9G/H is available.

In which case I save the AIM-7s for long range or head-on shots and the AIM-9s for close in.

[Romflyer 25]

 

 

So, in a 1972 era Vietnam dogfight such as May 10,1972 with 4xAIM-7E2 and 4xAIM-9G/Hs, I expect to get about 7+/-1 kills.

When in reality, you were lucky if you got one and in the rare case of Duke, three kills in a single sortie.

Of course, not even accounting for the changes from the patch, it was already normal for me to get 2-4 kills in the same situation and 7-8 was possible with patience and luck.

Unlike reality, the AI sooner or later gives you the shot opportunity that was very rare in reality.

Unlike reality, I can run my fuel pretty low waiting for that opportunity without any real worries.

 

 

Hey streak

I'm not sure exactly how you have your game setup but I think a lot of people lose site of the fact that this game( and most others) offer up a host of visual clues (like red target boxes) which give us as players a distinct advantage that really makes it unfair to compare mission results with real life Historical statistics...... As I said earlier I am not familiar with your setup and how you have your visual "cheats" displayed, but judging by the results you are refering to I can only assume you have these visual aids enabled.........now if you tell me that you are getting these results without any visual aids enabled then I am seriously impressed.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Been flying without visual cues for years - with a TiR an hi res monitor its fine.

[Romflyer 25]

Been flying without visual cues for years - with a TiR an hi res monitor its fine.

 

I've tried but I just cant be .......as effective without the a little help. I have everything turned off but a small red dot to paint my current target.

 

Anyways, with all the visual cues and cheats turned off you are probably getting results closer to real life historical stats ???........which was my point.