Default774

When changing a group of units from one coalition to another, all units in the group that are NOT already part of the category of the unit you selected get set to the category of the unit that you have selected. For example, if you put down an SA-10 site template, select the tracking radar (category air defense) and change the coalition of the unit to CJTF Blue(CJTF has all units available) all units in the SA-10 site group that are not already of category air defense then proceed to get converted to category air defense. it will then proceed to pick the first unit of type air defense, which is an 8.8cm flak gun. Similarly, if you change the coalition when a GAZ truck(category unarmed) is selected and switch the coalition to CJTF Blue all units which are not already in category unarmed proceed to get converted to buses, the first unit in the unarmed category. Video demonstrating the issue: https://streamable.com/d8drrj

The angle it lofts at depends on a few factors. Generally, the slower you are the higher it will loft, and the further away the higher it will loft. For example, a 30nm shot fired from mach 1 automatically lofts it self to 13deg, and a 30nm shot fired at mach 1.9 lofts itself to 7deg(120_loft_30nm_m1&m2.acmi). Its worth noting that despite the fact that the mach 1.9 shot has 0.9mach more energy available to it at launch, the missiles both hit the target with around the same speed; The mach 1 missile hitting the target at mach 1.71, and the mach 1.9 missile at mach 2.01. The difference in these two shots is in time on target with the mach 1 shot taking 55 seconds to hit, and the mach 1.9 shot hitting about 10 seconds earlier at 45s. It is reasonable to assume that as speeds get higher, the lofting algorithm reduces to angle added to attempt to reduce time on target, however, it does this very inefficiently. When comparing the manually lofted shot fired at mach 1 to the automatic shot, the manually lofted shot reaches the target 3 seconds faster while also being 0.30 mach faster at impact. With the mach 2 shot, the difference is even larger, with the missile also reaching the target 3 seconds earlier, but now also 0.7 mach faster. A manually lofted shot fired from mach 1 reaches the target with the same speed as a shot fired at mach 1.9 with auto loft, only being around 7 seconds slower! You can compare the lofting angles with eachother by reading out the pitch displayed in the tacview for each shot if you want to look into more examples, but in short, this difference in performance gets larger the further away the shot is and the faster the missile is fired. You can get the missile to loft to near to 30deg by flying comically slow and launching your missile out of range. For example, here is a track of me launching a 120 from mach 0.4 at 50nm. The missile in this case lofts itself to 26deg nose up. The missile is obviously fired out of range, so you end up with a wonky chart as the missile desperately attempts to make it to the target. It would actually hit the target if it had not run out of battery. 120_example_1.trk 120_loft_example_1.acmi In short, you can look at your DLZ. The closer to the NEZ, the less the missile will loft. The worse the shot is, the more the missile will loft. You could probably double, if not triple, the current added pitch by the auto loft in most cases and you would get drastically improved performance.

Please read my post. My point is that the current auto lofting algorithm is very inefficient in most circumstances and does not loft the missile as much as it should to maximise performance. I'm illustrating this point by showing what the the performance deficit is when compared to a more suitable lofting angle. In this case, I am achieving this differing loft angle by manually lofting the missile up to 30 degrees. I am proposing that the automatic lofting algorithm of the missile is adjusted so that this lost performance can be recovered. This is not a situations of trade offs where the automatic lofting algorithm is optimised for a different end result(Improved time on target, speed or range), the automatic lofting algorithm is straight up inferior to manually lofting the missile higher when at ranges beyond ~25nm. This is also not a minor performance deficit.

The current automatic lofting of the missile gets insanely inefficient at longer ranges and higher speeds. Im saying that there is a lot of performance on the table in terms of optimising the missile lofting algorithm. If there was a hypothetical issue with the proportional navigation causing the missile to lose ~1 mach of speed over the course of flight unnecessarily, I think you would agree with me that that is a problem. Why not approach the lofting behaviour with the same line of thinking?

Intro The lofting algorithm of the AIM-120(C, B not tested) is very inefficient. The auto-lofting consistently under lofts the missile at ranges further than ~20nm, and seems to get progressively worse as speed increases. This will be outlined in a series of tests comparing the automatic lofting with manually lofting the missile 30deg nose up. Lofting higher might result in better performance in some cases, but the AIM-120 pitches down to 30deg when it is manually lofted more. All tests are performed at 30,000ft with the target aircraft flying in a straight line at Mach 1.0. BLUE/RED - automatic lofting GREEN/PURPLE - manual 30deg loft Tests Ownship speed mach 1 20nm 30nm 40nm 50nm Summary The 20nm test is the only test where manually lofting the missile resulted in similar performance to the automatic lofting. The manually lofted missile has a higher speed on impact, but falls behind in time on target slightly. From 30nm onwards, the manually lofted begins decisively outperforming the auto lofted missile, achieving both better time on target and higher speed on impact. At 50nm the manually lofted missile has achieved almost 1 mach higher terminal speed, which results in a significant improvement in Pk, especially against players and defending targets. Ownship speed mach1.5 20nm 30nm 40nm 50nm Summary A similar situation compared to the mach 1 ownship shots exists where the 20nm shot gets outperformed in time to target when compared to auto loft. There is probably a happy middle ground to be found here somewhere in between the auto loft angle of ~7.5deg and the 30deg shot, but this is outside of my current testing scope. The difference in performance in shots 30nm and beyond becomes increasingly large when at higher speeds. In the 50nm shot, a difference of almost 1.5mach can be observed coupled with the time on target being almost 10 seconds faster. Ownship speed mach ~1.9 20nm 30nm 40nm 50nm Summary Once again very similar results when compared to the slower ownship shots. Beyond 20nm the missile has severely degraded performance from the inferior lofting profile. Ownship speed effect on auto lofting Summary Ownship speed has a very significant effect on the behaviour of the auto lofting when assuming a similar launch range. Launching at 40nm with ownship speeds of mach 0.75 and mach 1.9. When taking into account that there was a mach 1.2 difference of launch speeds between the two shots, the terminal speed of both shots is very similar, with the mach1.9 shot very inefficiently turning this extra energy into a reduced time on target. Observations The missile consistently does not loft high enough at ranges greater than ~20nm(30000ft, this will be different at differing altitudes), resulting in significantly degraded performance. The auto lofting profile has both inferior time on target, terminal speed and consequently range when compared to manually lofting the missile higher. This is not a minor performance decrease This problem gets progressively worse the higher your ownship speed, with the missile lofting less and lower. Notes Manually lofted shots are often shot either slower and/or lower than the auto lofted shot. Redoing these tests to do this more precisely would only result in the manually lofted shots being even better than they are now. The missile is limited to 30deg manual loft, a higher loft could result in even more improved performance in some shots. Please do point out any errors I made! 120_loft_auto.acmi 120_loft_auto.trk

STT does not affect this behaviour 120_group_stt.trk

For example. target @30000ft M1.0, the patriot will fire at ~42nm with the missile hitting the target at M0.81 patr_range_example.trk patr_range_example.acmi

The RWR voice warnings get spammed under certain circumstances. https://streamable.com/vx2poe f1ee_rwr.trk

The patriot's launch range at the moment seems grossly overexaggerated for the kinematics of the missile. The patriot will launch at targets from pretty much double the range that an S300 will engage the same target at, despite the S300 having a significant advantage in missile kinematics. patr_range_sa10.trk patr_range.trk This overexaggerated launch range results in the missile reaching the target at extremely slow speeds at terminal stage, often subsonic and only travelling a few hundred knots. This obviously heavily affects the Pk of the patriot system when firing at manoeuvring targets, as only a slight turn will make the incoming missile miss at longer ranges due to the lack of energy that the missile has when firing from maximum range. patr_maxrng.trk When comparing to other REDFOR SAM systems, this overestimated launch range becomes especially evident. patr_range_sa11.trkpatr_range_sa2.trk Reducing the patriots maximum engagement range to ~40-50% seems to yield better results in terms of having the missile have some reserve energy in the terminal stage. patr_40%range_sa2.trk

Issue still occurs in latest OB

You are aware that the F-16 already has the 9L right?

This is a minor issue, but the missile changing course upwards can possibly make maddog shots miss under some circumstances. Additional tracks in case needed. mdl2.trk mdl.trk

Missile seems to lose track as soon as the heli takes off. Test runs with the heli performing a rolling takeoff. As soon as the heli lifts off the ground the missile loses track. mv_takeofftrk_2.trk mv_takeofftrk.trk

The F86, F-5 and Mirage F1 all have the AIM-9B(GAR-8)

Mission is set in 1960, pre GPS, so there are no GPS satellites to track. Despite this, NAV ACCUR on the NAV page on the DED does not show NO TRK like it is supposed to. Page 179 of manual nav_gps_accur.trk

When setting the LE FLAPS switch to Lock on the FLT CONTROLS panel, the FLCS warning light is not illuminated. Page 62 of the manual le_flaps_flcs.trk

Here's some tracks for the infantry RPG accuracy and AK man accuracy. If you need any more or more specific scenarios let me know. infantry_akman_3.trk infantry_akman_2.trk infantry_akman_1.trk infantry_rpg_4.trk infantry_rpg_3.trk infantry_rpg_2.trk infantry_rpg_1.trk

30 degrees, which is all the missile will do. Any more and it will pitch down to 30 degrees immediately.

@NineLine is this still being looked at? Some additional tracks if the original assortment was insufficient. zu23_2.trk zu23_1.trk

I'm not sure the C7 would offer much tangible improvement over our current C5. As far as I know, the C7(and the C8/D?) has the same motor as the C5 so kinematic improvements would have to come from guidance improvements. One area where the AIM-120 is not performing optimally at the moment is the lofting logic. From what I'm experiencing the missile does not loft high enough basically always, resulting in lost performance if you don't manually loft the missile.

The AIM-120 HOJ issues have been split up in a number of threads, so I figured I'd compile the issues together in one thread. When the target is jamming, the AIM-120 is completely incapable of hitting manoeuvring targets. The missile can be defeated by a level 2G turn or a 2g climb. All of this ultimately culminates in that the AIM-120 has practically a 0% Pk against jamming targets. You might as well not bother firing an AIM-120 if the target is jamming and they're not flying perfectly straight. Description of tracks and what situation they depict: clht - Turn from beaming back into the target, missile misses 100% of the time manv - Generic manoeuvring, ranging from level 2-3g turns, 2g climbs, and random turns, missile misses 100% of the time. hot - High G climb slightly before the missile hits you, missile misses 100% of the time. beaming - slight vertical pull when beaming the missile, missile misses 100% of the time. ai_hoj&ai_nohoj - Ace AI vs AIM-120s, with the AI being allowed to jam and not allowed to jam respectively. Additionally, I would like to raise some questions about the implementation of HOJ in the AIM-120. As it currently stands, the implementation of HOJ on the 120 is perplexing at best. Does the missile not use datalink updates for determining range to target when the target is jamming? For example, even if the parent aircraft has burnt through the jammer and has resolved range, the missile still does not loft or carry out the midcourse phase normally. Additionally, can the missile not utilize datalink updates from the parent aircraft during terminal guidance for resolving the targets closure and range? Does the missile ever attempt to use its own radar against jamming targets? If yes, why does the missile not burn through the jammer at closer ranges? 120hoj.zip

Comparison between the AI being set to always jamming and not allowed to jam, 120s seem practically useless against jamming targets manoeuvring in a certain manner. ai_hoj1.acmi ai_nohoj1.acmi ai_hoj1.trk ai_nohoj1.trk

The same weird off the rail behaviour occurs with the 120hf1-3 tracks after taking another look. Missile fired with the ASC centred (plane doesn't adjust ASC/ASEC for jamming targets?) performs a weird manoeuvre off the rails. https://streamable.com/cmde4n

Slightly off topic, but related to my earlier comment on HOJ. Short track showing a BVR launch on a jamming target. I burn through the jammer at around ~28nm. The missile has valid ranging information, yet it doesn't loft. Does the 120 always fall back to HOJ guidance no matter if there is datalink updates with valid ranging? Also shows a 120 being lofted manually. The missile behaves very strangely off the rails, initially pitching down then back up to slightly less pitch than it was initially fired at. https://streamable.com/28vu7u Is it not reasonable to assume that the missile that the missile would guide normally in the midcourse stage until it goes active if the range of the target is known, then move to HOJ guidance as soon as the missile is supposed to go active, or is the 120 not supposed to behave this way? 120hb1.trk 120hb1.acmi

Currently the 120s always enter HOJ mode if the target is jamming regardless of if your ownship radar has burnt through the targets jammer (as far as I know). Currently it seems the 120 either doesn't try to use its own seeker on jamming targets or doesn't ever burn through. In effect this means that if you're engaging jamming targets your missiles are always hilariously crippled guidance wise. How intentional this behaviour is I don't really know. The HOJ logic itself seems very flawed but to what extent certain missed shots are correct you really don't know until maestro responds to your tracks .