Breakshot
-
Posts
731 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Breakshot
-
-
Yes, I am well aware of the new vs old api. I guess what I was trying to say is I'm so used to ERs missing badly in so many stupid and easy conditions that if I made a bug report everytime that happens (especially if I would get subsequently splashed as a resultThat not quite correct; only the AIM-120, AIM-7, and SD-10 have a built in aiming error. The old API missiles do not have any built in error, any aiming errors are desync/inability of missile to manuever
) I'd be flooding the forum by now!
And yes I get splashed plenty, its part of the MP experience. Let's face it, DCS MP will never be perfect. Learn, adapt and move on.
Its just cringy to see bug reports like this when all it really was is a case of salt more than anything.
As to PVNK, he's a new cadet in 51st and is still just undergoing his formation training. Yet people are spewing dirt on him because he upset someone in a fight?? Not cool. Some respect would be nice. Play hard but fair guys.
My 2c
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
4
-
-
Thanks for setting this thread straight!Hi,
The issue that was fixed was target aircraft rolling on the longitude axis (aileron rolls) defeating missile to easily, I tested the fix myself.
What you see in the tacview here is correct as is, the target aircraft performs an evasive roll with a dive and releases counter measures.
I dont think this is a bug sorry.
----------------
Guys leave the MP bravado out of the bug reports please.
thanks
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
2 hours ago, Zergburger said:
thanks for the op-ed.... but this is a bug report.
Where is the bug? that the 120 has an error probability of missing? Also would it not be a good idea to post a specific track and acmi in testing to demonstrate this so called bug? Not a huge acmi file from a crowded server? also posting a track from a loaded MP server is always gonna be prone to errors as tracks are notoriously unreliable.
Take a flanker/mirage or whatever and do some barrel rolls vs 120 and see your results? then perhaps post tracks? Try with all missiles and see whether its missile specific or its an MP code specific. etc etc.
I am sure I dont have to tell you this but ED isnt gonna chew through that as a valid bug report are they.
-
44 minutes ago, Naquaii said:
This. Basically, afaik, the datalink is only good enough for giving the missile a general idea of where to go, so it guides the missile until it finds the target with its own seeker looking for the AWG-9 returns.
I'm not the right guy to ask for ETA on stuff.
But we are currently working on moving the AIM-54 to the new missile modelling system, it is taking some time getting it right though.
ECM affecting loft on the AIM-54 is completely related to the anti-jamming functionality for the AWG-9 and that's a tough nut to crack as we'll have to simulate some analog functions of the AWG-9 and how they show up on the displays. Best I can give you there is that it's something that we regard as needed to be able to launch out of early access.
Great I hope you get around making those changes soon. Thanks for the clear answers. Looking forward
-
2 hours ago, Naquaii said:
You can't directly compare those, our AIM-54 is still using the old missile implementation, the AIM-7 is on the new one.
The AIM-54A looks for the SARH reflection and also get missile datalink commands via the AWG-9. You are assuming things wrongly, how would it otherwise get the active transfer command to go active? And again, can't compare old versus new missile implementation like that, you're assuming things again.
How do you know no range information is available? How do you know the AWG-9 and AIM-54 is notched?
When will the new API be implemented for the 54?
When will ECM affect the ranging data on 54 like it does with all other BVR missiles? Ie. no loft vs ECM
When will ECM affect the F14 radar? Like how it affects other aircraft
Those are IMHO the 3 main fundamental questions that affect 54s performance. Thanks!
-
2
-
-
Aim-54ET.
Works as intended.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk-
2
-
-
New API? What are you on about?
This is a joke of a statement if you have ever used the 54 yourself or done firing tests. The 54A and C are pretty much the easiest missiles to chaff out in DCS and this has been the case since the release of the Tomcat. Those ccm values in the .lua don't seem to have much of an impact on the new API by the looks of it. Let alone how the chaff mechanics in DCS work - it's basically a diceroll evry time you pop a chaff bundle with a certain probability coefficient. And how do you know what the CCM values need to be? Especially the 54C should simply ignore most chaff - it's more than twice as big in diameter than the AIM7 or AMRAAM with a ton more room for electronics and a much larger seeker dish. You have no idea what you are talking about here.
The pheonix does snakes every 2 seconds in and out of track loss through the notch. The Phoenix lofts vs ECM like nothing is happening (even though no range data is available). The pheonix desyncs and flies through terrain in MP. The list goes on and on.
It is by far the buggiest missile of the lot. And been like this for the longest time.
Then there is this: https://forums.eagle.ru/index.php?/topic/273219-AIM-54/Tomcat-bans-and-prohibitions-in-competitive-play-due-to-easily-reproducible-missile-desync#entry4734068
I think maybe you should do the testing!
Or is everything a okay by your standards? Lol
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
3
-
-
@ironmikeWhen will the Tomcat (the platform that has the best ECM for defense in DCS) be itself affected by ECM from other aircraft? When will Aim-54s be brought to standards in regards to HOJ shots like other missiles? When will the tomcat radar be affected by ECM just like the other jets?
These are all questions fundamental to the BVR combat in MP.
About time these things are looked at.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
Neither of those points have anything to do with countermeasures rejection!
Nope the 54 is being talked to directly by the AWG-9. The Sparrow only works off reflection. For most of its flight, the 54 has the AIM-9 as its sensor.
We are talking DCS parameters, not RL. The way the game dynamics operate is a dice roll.
So with that in mind, the 54 has way too good odds of not rejecting chaff and clutter rn. As good as 120C almost.
I call bullshit.
Ccm values need to be on par if not worse than Aim7 / 120B.
Its tweaked to overperform greatly right now
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
3
-
-
When will the Tomcat (the platform that has the best ECM for defense in DCS) be itself affected by ECM from other aircraft? When will Aim-54s be brought to standards in regards to HOJ shots like other missiles? When will the tomcat radar be affected by ECM just like the other jets?
These are all questions fundamental to the BVR combat in MP.
About time these things are looked at.
-
4
-
-
The SD10 is still by far the best performing missile in DCS. With the current patch ECM has now reduced the lofting effect of 120 (rightfully so), which makes the gap to 120C even bigger as the SD10 still can be manually lofted with it using variable PN logic.
Jeff vs Viper = dead Viper by quite the margin assuming launch conditions are the same. Throw in the fact that viper doesnt have ECM.... the performance gap is quite huge.
Not sure whether that is legit, but the Chinese must have made an uber missile in one try
-
1
-
-
The infamous roll miss in DCS MP can be attributed to the desync warp that happens when an aircraft exceeds a certain roll rate for a sustained amount of time. This is likely the cause of missiles missing due to "roll".
To be honest, in the Flankers it is hardly possible to reach that roll rate, hence doing rolls against missiles is a fruitless affair 99% of the time and would result in certain death. It is however sometimes possible to defeat a close range shot that way due to aiming error inherent for every missile. 120 suffers the LEAST of the missiles in this respect. Try that against say an ER or others and they would miss more often.
Instead of tweaking the 120 to be a death-ray in all scenarios, rather ED should look into netcode and desync improvements, IMHO.
-
4
-
-
18 hours ago, uboats said:
further checked, for jamming target, sd10 is in HOJ mode. if launched with a pitch up angle, although sd10 will fly up to higher altitude, it will be finally guided to the elev where the strongest signal is from (so it will look like a 'loft'). this is not a problem
PN is a static param and once in game, it cannot be changed. also there's no api to change PN
Perhaps it is a good idea to clarify with ED on what PN params they are using for the 120 HOJ to bring the SD10 to the same standards of modelling.
-
Its in the new patch from Wednesday. But patchlog only mentions removal of loft dynamic. But PN was also set correctly
-
16 hours ago, Harker said:
For what it's worth, I'm just going to say that spoke to a IRL pilot and I inquired about the ability to see A2A missiles (your own or not) on your radar and I was told that it's technically possible, but highly unlikely and not really a thing. Mainly because the reflected signal is too weak to rise above the noise or the return is filtered out due to the missile being too fast.
Exactly. Detection might be possible yet very difficult, even in perfect conditions. But interception with 100% accuracy from any range/angle is just downright ridiculous!
RN just do 2 ship of hornets, 10 amraams each, one guy shooter, the other guy.... Anti-missile defense. GG WP
-
10 hours ago, uboats said:
trk, i just tried, no loft
No you are not understanding. The missile, due to adaptive PN can be lofted manually by a high pitch up angle.
Remove variable PN for guiding on ECM target as no range info is available. It should just be fixed PN like the 120.
-
99% of DCS pilots take mk60 due to its much bigger kinematic potential.
I don't know where you get the idea that the AIM-54C is "Pretty bad" vs chaff and ground clutter, but I'd be curious to know the source you have... Keep in mind, it's an all digital missile and the latest version of it, the AIM-54C+(U) was IOC in 1993. I'd be SHOCKED if it didn't undergo numerous guidance and chaff tweaks over its remaining 11 years of life. As HB has routinely stated, there is no evidence to suggest the AIM-54C didn't receive similar guidance, chaff resistance, and clutter rejection mechanics to the AIM-120 variants over its life time.
We also don't know which variant of the 54C we have in game. Is it the standard 54C? Is it the 54C ECCM/Sealed or the 54C+ or the 54C+(U)? I'm guessing it's the bog standard 54C (IOC in 1985). Without knowing the specific variant, it's pretty hard to say for sure it is or isn't "pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter"... but to say that without any real evidence to support it is disingenuous at best.
So I think that's the main point of conversation.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
3
-
-
Negative. Shots are like 70km away. Manual pitch up. Missile 'lofts' because its using Variable PN.check if burnt through, if yes, radar can have dist info, then sd10 can loft.
How is this possible without range data?
@Deka please have a look at the standard set by 120C from ED with regards to ECM, lofting and PN.
Missile should have simple PN on a jamming target.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
+1 on adjustable mirrors!
Given that ED cockpit head positions are completely incorrect with a neck about 2m long. The mirrors are totally angled off.
There should be a way to at least tweak them in some file or something
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk -
That is true. However good luck on getting ED to do that.Probably its also monopulse as well the issue here is more with ED than HB. Chaff overall needs to be rebuilt but that's on ED's end ton HB's.
In the meantime, a missile that is probably pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter is performing at the same level as a modern day 120C.
Until ED gets a complete remodeling of missile radar dynamics and chaff all we have is those dice roll coefficients...
So why are they so skewed?
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
4
-
-
Once again we are looking at effectiveness modelled in DCS, not speculation. Just hard numbers 3.0 vs 0.3 is a factor of x10. Vs MH its like 40% better.
Not too shabby for a 70s missile to have better chaff and ground clutter rejection 10x better vs a same era and 40% vs a newer 80s missile.
Currently in DCS Aim54 is almost on par with AIM 120C when it comes to its tracking effectiveness.
What gives? Surely if it was that great it would have never been phased out. Yet all pilot accounts state otherwise...
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
I think the topic at hand is terminal guidance and CM rejection. So we need not talk about datalink or midcourse.
It really does have a datalink, but the way the system functions is quite a bit different from the 120 for example - while we don't know enough about the why, we can speculate a bit. The 54A will fly with its seeker on from launch, the datalink steers the seeker towards the target, and the missile uses that plus any reflections form the target to form its mid-course guidance.
The 120 will do this purely on position updates, while the 54A looks and samples until it's told to go active.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
2
-
-
R27 has pure pursuit vs ECM which renders it basically useless. And defies all logic.
Just like the R-27
It needs a normal pn vs ECM. But yes thanks for bringing it up!
@chizh
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
5
-
-
Yes exactly. So really what is clear is that HOJ guidance is way too good in DCS. So is the radar interaction vs ECM.Well the fact that a specific ECM technique, cross eye jamming, had to be developed (mid 2000's?) to counter active monopulse seekers like the 120 (at least that's my understanding of it) I think speaks a lot about its ability to counter older jamming techniques. Nor are we sure about the exact effectiveness of this technique either.
We all understand the limitations of DCS ECM mechanics, so lets get all missiles to act to the best possible manner within those constraints.
SD10 should not have variable PN vs ECM. Phoenix should probably be just dead weight vs ECM but OK, at least it should also not loft and use variable PN either if 120 doesn't.
My argument is very simple and prudent. Less speculation, more consistency.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
Exceptions don't make for good arguments.
No, what I mean is that except for this, you don't need to support the missile in terminal. Certain people want to make it seem like the missile is not worth much without the DL when terminal, which is not correct.
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
-
1
-
Are we expecting some flight model change in the next open beta update?
in DCS: F-16C Viper
Posted · Edited by Breakshot
Indeed something wonky is going on the F16 and pylon drag is at neg value... Might explain why its such a rocket ship
This issue also affects the FM of some other aircraft like the Flanker for example with bomb racks reducing drag. Should be something for ED to look at for all AC. Correct modelling of ordinance drag.