I can't bring myself to watch this

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

For the sake of my honest attempt at real debate... Let's take the 950 DB issue and apply it to modern day scenarios. The F-22 just made it's official debute (sp?). In game it's limited to 1000 kts (it's approx. supercruise speed). It was introduced in Syria... Now granted this plane is a 5th generation air to air fighter, but let's suppose it's in a situation where it is totally Winchester and knows it's meeting up with one of the most common 4th generation fighters in the world, a Mig-29, which might be equipped with the latest and greatest HMD and agile missile systems. Of course the F-22 is not going to get in that fight... It's fight or flight... Since it's completely Winchester, it's a Flight decision..., so it makes a break and begins it's "Flight", however the Mig-29 is capable of approx., 1294 kts, considerably more than the 950 kts limit in the DB. In CMANO, he probably will never get within weapon's parameters, but in RL it's quite possible this scenario could play out to a real intercept/merge, if the conditions are there.

Also, it's already been demonstrated that a capable 4th generation fighter such as the EuroFighter can actually beat an F-22 in a Furball, so a smart F-22 pilot is going to attempt Flight when Winchester and a capable 4th generation fighter is going to do all he can to effect a merge, afterburner max speed may indeed come into the equation.

see: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/f-22-germans/

Interesting read but most of this is speculations [:)] Detailed information would help tons. Are there any RL examples of such high-speed intercepts taking place?

Thank you!

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

There is a range issue though. The R-29-300 engine is credited with 12501kg static thrust at sea level and a SFC of 2.0. Adjusting for mach speed and altitude at 1350kt and 36000ft, the aircraft will burn ca 255kg of fuel per minute. With 3970kg internal fuel and 640kg external that's roughly 18 minutes of max afterburner which won't take you very far. As such the MiG-23 was not very well suited for the job of intercepting these bombers. In any case the B-58 Hustler left service in 1970 while production MiG-23s didn't enter service until 1973.

But all that is just theory. Do you have any sources that suggest the PVO trained to use Mach 2.35 intercept speeds? That's the data we're after.

Unfortunately NO, they may/may not train to use Mach 2.35, but in a Fight or Flight, or Must have Merge situation, do you really think they are going to hold back from their planes max speed capability? This is not about a dogfight at supersonic speeds, this is about attempted Merges, or Flight from the fight capabilities.

NO, it's just an excuse to justify a DB inaccuracy.

Okay, in that case could you please point to reliable sources?

Thanks [8D]

The web is full of sources, reliable or not is up for debate, BUT, as Herman pointed out in his rather disgruntled review, it is blatantly obvious that so many fighters CAPPED at the same max speed of 950 kts could not be based on reliable sources either.

edit> Here's a smiley to convey I'm not trying to be personal in any way, just trying to get you guys to see the irrationality of your 950 kt speed cap. [:)]

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Debate is fine but you're about one more personal attack from a ban.

Mike

My RL name is Mike, so I'm assuming this is directed towards me?...

I'm sorry? Explain to me where there might be a personal attack in my debate remarks above?

There was a final remark regarding the game design excuse to justify a DB inaccuracy. This is my own personal opinion about this design decision not directed at anyone in particular. The wording of emsoy's Falcon 4.0 argument is almost a direct quote from the Mega FAQ to which I'm responding.

Good name. Hi Mike!

From your post above

That is just plain lazy design.

NO, it's just an excuse to justify a DB inaccuracy.

So not only are we lazy but we make excuses about it.

For the sake of my honest attempt at real debate...

Let's take the 950 DB issue and apply it to modern day scenarios. The F-22 just made it's official debute (sp?). In game it's limited to 1000 kts (it's approx. supercruise speed). It was introduced in Syria... Now granted this plane is a 5th generation air to air fighter, but let's suppose it's in a situation where it is totally Winchester and knows it's meeting up with one of the most common 4th generation fighters in the world, a Mig-29, which might be equipped with the latest and greatest HMD and agile missile systems. Of course the F-22 is not going to get in that fight... It's fight or flight... Since it's completely Winchester, it's a Flight decision..., so it makes a break and begins it's "Flight", however the Mig-29 is capable of approx., 1294 kts, considerably more than the 950 kts limit in the DB. In CMANO, he probably will never get within weapon's parameters, but in RL it's quite possible this scenario could play out to a real intercept/merge, if the conditions are there.

Also, it's already been demonstrated that a capable 4th generation fighter such as the EuroFighter can actually beat an F-22 in a Furball, so a smart F-22 pilot is going to attempt Flight when Winchester and a capable 4th generation fighter is going to do all he can to effect a merge, afterburner max speed may indeed come into the equation.

see: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/f-22-germans/

Thanks I think we definitely appreciate your input on this.

We do have this game model in place for many good reasons and it is not inaccurate mostly because the goal isn't to match the high speed but to make the aircraft speed model work within the context of modern air operations. As Ragnar mention this often means finding the top of the curve and not the fringes or edge cases. I do think though its fair to say that we do look at different cases and do address them (Mig-25 etc).

So that being said post some info and we'll take a look.

Thanks!

Mike

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
<snip>

We do have this game model in place for many good reasons and it is not inaccurate mostly because the goal isn't to match the high speed but to make the aircraft speed model work within the context of modern air operations. As Ragnar mention this often means finding the top of the curve and not the fringes or edge cases. I do think though its fair to say that we do look at different cases and do address them (Mig-25 etc).

So that being said post some info and we'll take a look.

Thanks!

Mike

Sorry, With all due respect, supposedly your game is designed for users to put together "What if?" scenarios, using a DB that is suppose to reflect real world Platform/Sensors/Weapons capabilities. If the example I put forth above regarding F-22s and Mig-29s didn't convince you of the irrationality of the 950 kt limit for a "What if?" game of this sort, there is no info available that will change your opinion of this same design irrationality.

With that, we will just have to agree to disagree and let the rest of your user community decide whether the 950 kt limit is rational design and the design reasoning justified or not. [:)]

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
<snip>

We do have this game model in place for many good reasons and it is not inaccurate mostly because the goal isn't to match the high speed but to make the aircraft speed model work within the context of modern air operations. As Ragnar mention this often means finding the top of the curve and not the fringes or edge cases. I do think though its fair to say that we do look at different cases and do address them (Mig-25 etc).

So that being said post some info and we'll take a look.

Thanks!

Mike

Sorry, With all due respect, supposedly your game is designed for users to put together "What if?" scenarios, using a DB that is suppose to reflect real world Platform/Sensors/Weapons capabilities. If the example I put forth above regarding F-22s and Mig-29s didn't convince you of the irrationality of the 950 kt limit for a "What if?" game of this sort, there is no info available that will change your opinion of this same design irrationality.

With that, we will just have to agree to disagree and let the rest of your user community decide whether the 950 kt limit is rational design and the design reasoning justified or not. [:)]

Sure no problem.[:)] If it starts to be an issue we think more than a few care about we'll definitely look into it. As we mentioned if you can dig up some sources etc. we're more than happy to look into it.

Thanks!

Mike

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

The web is full of sources, reliable or not is up for debate, BUT, as Herman pointed out in his rather disgruntled review, it is blatantly obvious that so many fighters CAPPED at the same max speed of 950 kts could not be based on reliable sources either.

edit> Here's a smiley to convey I'm not trying to be personal in any way, just trying to get you guys to see the irrationality of your 950 kt speed cap. [:)]

Understood, but according to various sources out there, Mach 1.5 - 1.6 is the fastest a fighter jet will go in combat. Hence the cap. Short-range ground/deck-launched intercepts are typically flown at Mach 1.6, and fighters accelerate to around Mach 1.5 to fire medium/long-range AAMs. I have not been able to find any reliable information that F-15s or MiG-23s go much faster than this.

If you can link to sources that say Soviet fighters were training their crews to operate at higher speeds, or even carried out such high-speed intercepts in real life, that would be great!

Thank you [8D]

[jdkbph]

Ragnar,

I'm sure you're absolutely correct about normal operational use and parameters. We've had a similar discussion before with regard to the max range of the Iowa main guns... and I think the same argument applies here. The problem that I, and apparently others as well, have with this rationale is that it does create some uncomfortable and obviously artificial restrictions based on how you think these weapons systems should be used. This is a WHAT IF game, as the previous poster pointed out... I don't think we should just look at what is or what was (as far as we know... a lot of the stuff you're modeling is still classified) as the sole criteria for what could be because (fortunately) many of the systems you're modeling have not been used in (all) the ways they were designed to be used.

Would it not be better (and easier for you [:)]) to just plug in the specs as we understand or believe them to be (a different concept entirely... I'm right with you on the approach you're taking there) and introduce appropriate penalties for these types of things (eg, low chance to hit when firing at targets beyond operationally practical ranges, or possibly scoring modifiers applied against operational losses) in order to naturally dissuade a player or the AI from doing these things rather than manipulating the DB to flat out prevent it? That would allow for edge of the envelope type stuff when there is a compelling reason to do so, and remove the obviously artificial constraints are are, after all, based on nothing but an opinion... a projection really... of what might have been, or what might yet be.

.02

JD

[Jorgen_CAB]

These things are not as much classified as they are rare occasions I would say...

In real life there is more than the engine on a plane that limit its practical speed and I would probably say that a plane that is empty of all its ordnance could fly faster without fear of something happening.

In real life you don't follow a fighter that go on afterburners and run away, that is usually pointless no matter what your speed is... unless you are up against an ancient plane. It does not matter of one plane go at Mach 2 or 2.3.

The only planes that I see as a possibility to go faster in combat are planes with internal weapons, but then you must model this when they use external weapon load outs.

There is also the fact that someone running away is more likely able to press his aircraft and so can theoretically outrun anyone. In the game this is very well balanced with the fact that most planes are caped at one velocity, does not really matter what. You can't close from behind no matter what, it is realistic in practical terms.

Then, there also are many sources that show that 1.6 is sort of a standard, so why not use it. Perhaps just make new 5th generation slightly quicker.

[ComDev]

Thanks for your input JD [8D]

Opening up for max theoretical performance / speed envelopes will easily unbalance the sim and for instance it would be possible for MiG-23s at 1350kt to regularly outrun AIM-9s at 1450kt etc. This happened in the original Harpoon2/3 game and was one of the first things I changed when I started building a database and scenarios for it. Since the simple physics model allowed instant acceleration and instant turns, outrunning short-range missiles was easy. Although Command rectifies this I'm still skeptical about opening performance envelopes beyond what is deemed operationally feasible, as it will easily result in weird simulation outcomes.

As for the Iowa surface vs land range thingie, this is on my to-do list and will be addressed when Im back from the break. The fix will involve database schema changes so is a bit of work.

[warshipbuilder]

I think what we have here is a situation, where if creating a scenario prior to 2014 you pretty much have to be locked in to what is/was historically correct. BUT if you are doing a scenario based on weapons systems forecast to be in play in 2020, the gloves are off. You should be able to do what you want as we have no idea what the command doctrine of the future and/or equipment performance is going to be.

[Gandalf]

Here's a serious thought for consideration.

I know this may be a little complicated to implement and/or support but this could make a lot of users happy from both sides of the aisle.

1. Open the Database for user modification.
2. Allow for scenario (saves) that include the changed part of the DB or just include the entire modified DB within their Saved Scenario
3. Using file extensions you could have 2 different Scenario formats to distinquish whether the scenario is a (standard) scenario using the official DB (and would not contain DB info within it) or a non-standard scenario using a user modified DB contained within their Scenario design.
4. To prevent overwrite of the "official" DB have the user modified DB write to a different folder and their scenario uses it.

The above would allow scenario designers to "experiment" with their own tweaks without messing up the main "official" files.

[mikmykWS]

Maybe someday but not now.

Thanks

Mike