CV32

The number of bombers appearing is not purely random or subject to the whims of the computer. Their chance of appearing in predetermined numbers were well defined and input by the scenario author. Nothing contradictory in there at all.

Neither do I, mavfin, and I think it would be helpful if folks made the effort to take a solid second look rather than proceeding blindly on false assumptions. Looking and "seeing" with your own two eyes is undoubtedly preferable to having me preach it from across the Ether.

We've told you how to get "confirmation", by using the "show all" keystroke. The question now is whether you will actually do it to satisfy yourself, or keep posting about assumptions. Doesn't that seem like a rational, sensible course of action? Just go have a look see.

MiGs that are a part of their base formation patrols will launch at game start and proceed to their designated patrol zones. The scenario does not start with them already there. I've said it before and I guess I have to say it again. Use the 'show all' keystroke and watch them take off at game start yourself.

From RIA Novosti [excerpt] In other news, the Mistral deal with France appears to be stalled or at least, floundering.

Au contraire, IMHO. If the sim could be broken down into a cold mathematical calculations, without any variability for chance or varying circumstances, with an automatic result, it might be a heckuva lot less enjoyable. Instead, the fact that databases may differ in the values they use, that sensors do not always reliably detect contacts at a given range, that weapons don't always hit, that weather and visibility may influence an engagement, etc, all play critical roles in making this sim what it is. The results of any given engagement are often reliably predictable, but they are rarely guaranteed. And I'm happy for it.

Don't forget that "point defence" can include the Geckos as well as guns and jammers/decoys.

Ctrl Alt S will reveal all units in the scenario, your side and theirs. If you're not seeing that, let us know what version of the GE you're using, battleset and scenario, etc.

Thanks, mavfin. Lots of good stuff in there.

Dale, other than the DLF-3/SLQ-49/Replica system you mentioned, I am not aware of any other 'floating' RF decoys in service that might be dropped by a helo.

How about the game's namesake, for example? I think I've said this before, but most anti-ship missile types are of the active radar homing variety, and any of these would make for useful tools in the BOL mode. I can think of more useful things to do with our limited coding/beta testing time. You know (or should know) where the beta forum - where wish list items should go - is located. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

Heh, you'll have to forgive me if I think your recollection of the actual distances and times to intercept is probably as "corroded" as your algebra skills. Sooner rather than later, please. It might save both of us quite a bit of time. Yeah, without useful specifics, I'm afraid I won't be venturing too far into investigating this.

The animations only show "almost hits". (This is starting to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine).

Were your missiles launched against specific targets or were they BOL?

Considering the MiG cruise speed is roughly twice that of the Hawkeye, I am not surprised at all. You could, of course, just turn on the "show all" feature at game start to watch them take off. As for the Russkie bombers and missiles, which USNI scenario was it? (Noting that Russkie missiles do not tend to be either slow or short ranged).

Can't concur with not offering the BOL option for these reasons (at least): 1. It is easy enough to simply remember that radar guided is best for BOL. 2. I don't want to be denied something that is possible, even if it may not be ideal. It may be all I have. 3. The ARMs, for example, should be very useful in the BOL mode, and maybe we can crack that little issue down the road with beta work. It wouldn't make sense for us to remove the option in the interim. 4. There are weapons/tools that are useful in BOL mode, even though their accuracy might suck. For example, decoys. And I am not interested in 'spoon feeding' the player with info about weapon capability and such. Maybe someday we can have that information displayed as with platforms, but that would be a wish list item. Right now the Staff Assistant is annoying enough. I don't need him telling me what to use where.

From Aviation Week CV32: Unfortunate, because it indirectly puts greater pressure on the already strained F-22 and F-35 [excerpt]

I meant to comment on this earlier. The USNI scenarios are challenging, I'd agree, but "insanely hard" or impossible to the point that anyone should refuse to play them? Nah, can't agree with that. I would be interested in hearing about others' experience with them. Are you getting your butt handed to you regularly in USNI?

See my post #16 in this thread SLAM is an EO guided weapon. Chances of success with a BOL hit are slim.

Having missions already underway and in the air is not currently possible, but it is on several folks' wish lists and may someday see some beta attention.

And, likewise, not having any proof of it, I am resistant to the notion that it happens anywhere else.

Maybe you should get in the habit of saying that's what happens on your machine, then? Oh, one other F-16 version that might be superior to Rafale in defeating attacks, the Block 60.

I would not subscribe to this advice. Here's why: 1. The weapons and sensor performance values in the older battlesets (e.g. GIUK) are suspect, and cannot be relied upon in other, newer battlesets or custom battlesets. For example, SA-N-4 Gecko range is signficantly further in the GIUK battleset than elsewhere and skews the results accordingly. 2. You can shoot Sea Skua at 8 nm from some angles (or at least, from the rear). See the screenshots in the other thread that show this. There appears to be a rounding error in the GE that causes the weapon prompt dialog to appear at 7 nm rather than 8 nm in most other cases. 3. You cannot rely on the Gecko weapons arc being just to the front and sides. Missiles such as Gecko may also perform point defence, and can knock down or deflect Sea Skuas there just as guns and countermeasures can. Likewise, point defence systems may have all arcs in play.

He ain't kidding. Sonar checks every 5 minutes. Kinda throws the statistics outta whack, huh? Moral of this story: Torpedoes are really mean.

I was amused at the fact that TonyE (quite rightly) keeps telling people to use the logging tools available to them to clarify and hopefully explain the "anomalies" they think they are seeing, but nobody seems to want to take that good advice. (It sucks to have to explain humour. )