Default774

This is due to the target jamming. I've replicated your shots the best I can from two short videos. Cant replicate the mach3 miss, might be due to the target stopping jamming but its impossible to know from your clips. 120hj1.acmi 120hj2.acmi 120hj3.acmi 120hj1.trk 120hj2.trk 120hj3.trk

Doesnt seem like it. Replaying tracks, the performance is just as poor as before.

Track here. https://streamable.com/dkqxo2 16_tmsdown.trk

The post details how it compares to other aircraft. In short, the pylons on the JF17 cause virtually no drag, and pylons on the 16/18 cause a lot of drag. All tests carried out in identical circumstances.

The pylons on the JF-17 appear to be causing very little if not zero drag in some cases. Testing the top speed of the Jf-17 at 30000ft with a clean configuration resulted in a top speed of Mach 1.61 581kts indicated. Testing the top speed with single SD-10 pylons and fuel tank pylons resulted in an identical top speed of Mach 1.61 581kts indicated. As a reference, I have compared this to the F-16 with a similar set up. Completely clean the F-16 has a top speed of Mach 1.93 765kts indicated. With wing pylons, this becomes Mach 1.83 726kts indicated. Now I am aware this these are obviously different aircraft and different pylons, but what it looks like to me is that the pylons induce zero drag on the aircraft. Another point I'd like to bring up is the SD-10 Dual pylon. Dual racks are notoriously draggy, yet, on the JF-17 they seem to be producing little to no drag at all. Two SD-10 dual racks on the JF-17 cost you about 0.02 Mach and 5kts indicated of top speed, bringing your top speed down to Mach 1.59 and 576kts indicated. Comparing this to the LAU-115+LAU-127(amraam dual rack) on the hornet, the difference is clear. Two amraam dual racks cost you 0.12Mach and 44kts indicated of top speed. Furthermore, comparing to the BRU-57(JDAM dual rack) on the F-16, there is a clear difference again. Two jdam dual racks cost you .21Mach and 78kts indicated of top speed. Now I'm no aerodynamicist, but this looks to me like the dual racks produce almost zero drag. Tracks are in tracks.zip. Enjoy the high quality summary image! jf_drag.zip

The issue seems to be HOJ terminal guidance. Test setup: sea level head on, AI set to NEZ launch range. Amraams fired in NEZ can be defeated by a high G cold turn as long as the target is jamming while manoeuvring. Compare this to the guidance on a non jamming target and the missile hits every time. 120_hoj_hg_2.acmi 120_hoj_hg_1.acmi 120_hoj_NOJAMMING.acmi 120_hoj_hg_1.trk 120_hoj_hg_2.trk 120_hoj_NOJAMMING.trk

The AIM-120 has an issue where if launching on a group of targets the missile will consistently acquire the wrong target when activating its seeker. When the missile goes pit bull, the missile will consistently acquire the trailing aircraft in a formation instead of the intended target. The two targets can have almost 1nm of separation between them, and the missile will always go for the trailing target on seeker activation. 120_group_leading shows this quite clearly. The missile is fired at the LEFT/Leading target in the formation, and acquires the trailing aircraft instead. Note that the missile displays unusual guidance, most probably due to receiving (in this case) incorrect datalink data for the wrong aircraft. When the situation is reversed and the trailing aircraft in formation is targeted, the missile has no problems discerning the two targets even with a much smaller separation between the two. 120_group_trailing shows this with a separation of ~500ft between the two aircraft, yet the missile acquires the intended target in this case. 120_group_1&2 show a DTT launch on both aircraft in a formation from a left offset angle. Despite both missiles being targeted at separate aircraft, both missiles go for a single target; the trailing aircraft in formation. Something important to note is that this only occurs when a formation of targets is attacked from a certain direction. 120_group_3&4 show that if the same formation as in 120_group_1&2 is attacked from head-on or a right offset, the issue does not occur and the missiles acquire the correct targets. 120_group_1.acmi 120_group_2.acmi 120_group_3.acmi 120_group_4.acmi 120_group_leading.acmi 120_group_trailing.acmi 120_group_1.trk 120_group_2.trk 120_group_3.trk 120_group_4.trk 120_group_leading.trk 120_group_trailing.trk

I'm pretty convinced this is more of an AI issue than an AIM-120 issue. The current BVR AI is superhumanly able and completely incompetent at the same time. it will gladly snap into the notch perfectly, and then refuse to defend an incoming missile until it comes within 8nm of them. I've done some testing of player vs AI, and employing 120s in anything but slow max range launches results in a near 100% Pk on AI, mostly because the AI is incompetent(ai_player.zip). Miss in 1202.trk is due to my STT lock coasting and providing false datalink updates to the missile, taking control of the track and demoting to SAM track makes the missile hit. ag1-3.trk(ai.zip) show a basic test setup. MiG-29A(2-4-0) vs F/A-18C(0-2-6) @ 35K M1.0, Ace skill level, Random launch range, 50nm separation. Most if not all F18 deaths can be blamed on the AI being completely incompetent at BVR and either not firing a missile or not defending. All in all the result is mostly the same in all runs. The F-18 usually wins unless the AI decides to sleep at the wheel and fly into the enemy missile. Most of the misses in your tacviews seem to be caused by: The AI losing track before the missile acquires the target The AI having a superhuman notching ability The AIs sixth sense of the incoming missile's energy state and defending just barely enough to make the missile miss by a couple hundred feet ai.zip ai_player.zip

Would you mind sharing tracks/tacviews from your testing sessions?

Remade trees track. Apache got a FM update which means the heli crashes into trees at the start of the track. ai_trees2.trk

When i read your post no mention of lock and missile, regardless, i see what you mean now after testing more. No lock indications or missile launch warning in mp

EDIT: disregard Seems to work for me on hoggit training mission null

No performance changes for me. 5800x3d, rtx 2080, 32gb ram, rift s

After reviewing, bad luck indeed. Only did two test runs both of which yielded the same result, after retesting, direct hits do one shot the humvees, but even missing by 10cm means this is no longer the case. Both of my earlier runs (one of which was used for the image) landed in the ~10cm gap between the vehicles. https://streamable.com/879rnn jsw_luamod.trk

The max range of TGP point tracks is determined by ownship altitude https://forum.dcs.world/topic/310715-tgp-a-a-mode-point-track-range-based-on-altitude-not-contrastvisibilityresolution/#comment-5069517

Here's some tests on the effectiveness of the BLU-97/B bomblets that are dispensed by the AGM154A. The 154A dispenses a total 145 bomblets, 28 of which are visible. I have modified the LUA of the JSOW to only dispense one bomblet. A large contributing factor to the poor performance of the JSOW-A is that the bomblets that it dispenses are complete rubbish, requiring multiple direct hits to basically anything that's not infantry to kill it.

More on the pattern that the bomblets get dispensed in. The pattern has a very odd (random) shape which gives a relatively high chance that even if you aim your JSOW perfectly on target, no bomblets will hit and you will still be out of luck. Targets are humvees aligned door-to-door bumper-to-bumper jsowdamage_pattern_1.trk jsowdamage_pattern_2.trk jsowdamage_pattern_3.trk jsowdamage_pattern_4.trk

Nato SAMs here for completeness jsowdamage_natosams_rev2.trk

CBU-105s work fine in VIS mode for me. I've done some testing with the AGM-154A on groups of targets, results here. All in all its not very effective at all, even when used on light skinned vehicles. When used for its intended purpose, destroying SAM sites, it doesn't get much better. Included templates for the SAM sites were used. (Track and image aren't perfectly synced, image was made using another attempt and I'm not remaking the whole image!) jsowdamage_rev2.trk jsowdamage_sams_rev2.trk

Attached track shows a single zu-23 set to minimum skill killing a passing F-16 going at mach 1.26 in its first burst. Even when set to minimum skill, the AI is still absurdly good at shooting flying targets. https://streamable.com/psxiqd Another issue is that the AI pretty much instantly finds targets as soon as they pop up behind obstacles. Attached is a track where a zu23 (minimum skill) instantly finds an apache from 2 kilometers away as soon as it unmasks itself behind obstacles and trees. Keep in mind the PoV in the video in super zoomed in, without zoom and the naked eye there is pretty much zero chance you would ever spot that helicopter visually. https://streamable.com/0sdokc ai_trees.trk zu23_firstburst.trk

I know this. Looking at the relative angle is a quick and dirty way to see if I was roughly in the right direction with my manoeuvre. Just taking the TAS of both the missile and target isn't entirely correct either, but it's whatever. How closely you get to zero relative radial velocity doesn't really seem to matter here either way as far as I have seen. The chaff behaviour in these tracks is exceedingly rare, I'm talking countless amounts of test runs for these three tracks. It seems to me you just have to be roughly in the notch and have to get very lucky with the chaff rng. In the end, I don't have any subject matter expertise or design documents, so I can't really say for certain how the missile is and isn't supposed to work, or exactly how the 120 works for that matter. The conclusion I drew about this matter could be completely wrong for all I know. All I can go off is a surface level knowledge of radars and the hundreds of test runs I must have done for the 120 by this point. I will probably end up making a tacview add-on to show relative radial velocity properly eventually.

In game perspectives of all tracks NEZ https://streamable.com/yf3mrd Half range https://streamable.com/7rwaw3 BVR https://streamable.com/tg5awm

The AIM-120 is still very vulnerable to barrel roll manoeuvres at higher altitudes. A well timed barrel roll defeats the missile every single time. 120_barrelroll_BVR.trk 120_barrelroll_HALFRANGE.trk 120_barrelroll_NEZ.trk 120_barrelroll_BVR.acmi 120_barrelroll_HALFRANGE.acmi 120_barrelroll_NEZ.acmi

The AIM-120 sometimes fails to acquire targets that are in a constant speed/altitude turn. In both of the test runs, I am performing a mach 1.07 430kts CAS and mach 1.03 410kts CAS constant turns at 30000ft of altitude. The AI is set to launch at Half NEZ-Max range, however, this shouldn't matter here, as the missile has plenty of energy to reach the target still. This issue seems to be related to the missile going active when the target is going roughly cold. 120_circle1.acmi 120_circle1.trk 120_circle2.acmi 120_circle2.trk

The closest distance tacview indicates is 46ft(take with a grain of salt, tacview polling rate is slow). Whether this is distance to the center of the plane, the pilots head, whatever, it seems too far for the missile to proximity fuse here. I don't see the issue here