Sheriff

Campaigns or missions? For anti-shipping missions, I save the mission then edit the resulting mission file replacing the enemy unit with a more formidable ship type. For example some of the versions may spawn a couple of ocean liners as targets. I save the mission, then edit mission data by changing "GroundObjectType" from ocean liner to Kashin DDG. Just makes sure the ship type you enter is in your Ground Objects folder and consistent with time frame. For campaigns I suspect you could change naval unit types shown in the campaign data file.

I agree with comments above regarding sim vs real world accuracy but ,as with in-game aircraft performance, they seem to be about right in comparison to contemporary in-game systems. They are designed to be VERY effective . When all aspect missiles were evaluated in ACEVAL/AIMVAL the findings drove the AIM-120 program to develop a launch and leave longer range missile. However, they still have their limitations. Firing at targets with high angle off and close in results in some missiles not being able to "square the corner" and they miss. And they are vulnerable to counter measures. It would be interesting to see if effectiveness of AIM 9s, Archers, Pythons , Aphids improves decoy response in later models . I think I'll look a data inis to see how the :CounterCountermeasure= and NoiseRejection= entries compare between various models . My main complaint is AI launches CM as soon as I fire IRM as Snailman says above. Even when firing from low 6 o'clock with no other bandits around. In 4th & 5th gen fighters an array detecting missile launches is possible but on Mig21 and 23 (?) I don't think so.

Lately when I'm involved in 2 v many / 2 v lots more engagements, I'll fire a Sparrow down range without a lock-on to stay offensive, break up bandits, get them to react. Does the system know I'm taking an out of parameters shot and disregard? it appears that it's acting more human. Or have I just been lucky?

Thanks for your comments. I guess I'll have to test a few more of those no lock shots to see how long luck holds. I especially like going with dirt simple F-5s against F-14s. Lots' of slick moves ( lots of decoys helps)required to even get a shot off.

While they can be merged as stated you may want to keep installs for distinct time periods. That way you avoid having anachronistic opponents spawn in quick missions. For example ,despite operational usage dates ,you may see Mig-17s spawn in a WW2 scenario.

What is the time frame? If too far in future we'd be looking at totally non-vocal comms. Fast but not very dramatic.

Question-If you follow instructions as shown below ,specifically "Move the contents of the \To_Mod_Folder directory from all eight unzipped packages to your Mod Folder (created in Step 1 above). (Note: do not simply drag and drop the folder named "To_Mod_Folder" or you will end up with a non-working install.)" You'll see folders identified as Part 1.Part 2 etc" in the Mods Folder. Did you mean to say" Open PartX folder in zip application window then extract those subfolders to the Mods Folder? Thanks,

We recently produced this new You Tube series. "Bogies and Bandits" on the Northrop Grumman Channel. It talks about AIMVAL/ACEVAL, ROE, Link 16 and new systems that have developed over the years. There are 4 parts. F-14 features in parts 1-3. F-35 Info in part 4. Check them out. Part 1 [/url]Part 2 [/url]Part 3 [/url]Part 4 [/url]

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

The earlier versions are not as reliable. Some wander off. Some run fine and don't fuse correctly. Review weps data files for the AIM-9s. Note the "lock-On chance", " countercountermeasure",and "accuracy" ratings. Remember there is some randomness factored into all this. My experience with the AIM-9L and later versions is it's a death ray unless the target pumps out a bunch of flares, regardless of taget aspect. If I see flares are ruining my shot I fire two 'winders about 3 second apart.