Nothing important, but ACM is always 2v1. ACM contracts are briefed for 2vX situations, however a 2v2 scenario is always ACT (Air Combat Tactics). That’s all.
That’s right.
ACT being a repertoire of tactical intercepts for various bandit compositions and formations, that attempts to produce an ACM (2v1) situation.
It’s a good discussion. The footage is available, doctrine is available etc. Some back and forth is expected and open to debate.
As has been said, having knowledge of ACM is one thing, it’s much more difficult to put into practice which is clearly evident.
Regardless of various types of mutual support contracts that develop and are constantly modified as the element progresses in their training; leaving a bandit unmonitored despite of having spacial awareness (which only equates to time, the amount of time you have before the unmonitored bandit could pose a threat from a particular hemisphere, after he slung himself out of the fight temporarily) is a gamble.
If an element’s tactical choices agree to gambling on particular aspects of their contract, then that’s a risk they’re willing to take.
Whether this risk is refutable or not can be defined in discussion surely, but to implement that refutation in the 3D simulator is not such an easy task in many cases.
Yes, the AI callbacks are annoying. Should be a host/server controlled option.
He’s just talking about when a flight’s SA drops things “go to hell in a hand basket rather quickly”.
There’s a proper intercept for all different types of bandit compositions and formations.
The difficult part is having the knowledge, SA, and proficiency to execute the best way forward when hostilities begin.
Not easy at all, as we’ve been able to see from lots of ACM footage out there.
When combined situational awareness becomes faster, staying supersonic most of the time will no longer be required unless chasing down the target, or because the bandit’s are approaching supersonic.
Most of the time supersonic ACM engages occur is because the combined situational awareness of the element is too low, and builds too slowly. The answer is to stay as fast as possible to allow a slower SA building element to try and figure out how to isolate a bandit. When an element builds SA slowly, speed compensates for that. It buys safety and time while the element tries to create tactical solutions.
Speed is not only for life, but also a “cushion for sloppiness” -anonymous
Tactical intercepts of a multitude of bandit formations is quite difficult and obviously requires much practice and study, being one of the reasons I was never proficient with ACM.
It only appears to occur with the HMCS data, the HUD data feedback appears to have the modeled effects of ADS etc, but the HMCS data doesn’t appear to be integrated with the same system in the way it is modeled.
KV, it’s supposed to mimic the air data system. In older versions of F4, you saw every single digit as speed changed.
Oh ok, I thought something was wrong with my telemetry when viewing others footage. For the BMS Blk 52 videos I’ve seen that have indication readings showing single digit increment changes in airspeed even during rapid accel/decel events have a configuration option for that?
Hi all,
When viewing HUD telemetry such as airspeed, what is the proper data change rate? I’ve seen some people’s HUD feedback change by single digit increments quickly, and others change by skipping numbers to reflect the current airspeed value. This is noticed during both rapid acceleration and deceleration events.
What factors affect this behavior? How is it supposed to operate, or is this a hardware/CPU cycle factor?
Very nicely done. Excellent shooting, and good higher alt E management. Out shot, and hung a couple times on the bottom end of the E margin, being a bit too horny. Look forward to the next one.