Avimimus Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 You shouldn't need to use so many flares that they're drained on the first shot, but you also shouldn't have the 'luxury' of conservation. Generally speaking each fighter equipped with CMs has an adequate 'threat defeat' program that the pilot will use. He won't be sitting there counting the number of flares - he just pushes a button and that should cause a track defeat. While that's a little simplified, it's the gist. My real question: Does the AI know how to use an optimal pattern/amount? If it doesn't then the gameplay isn't really different from Jane's Fighters Anthology from the 1990s where the AI didn't employ countermeasures properly and thus could be easily defeated (even with realism mods).
Avimimus Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 They aren't. They may have been a magic filter against old types of flares, but even then it's not so certain, because all such seekers can be quickly saturated. Their rudimentary positional/temporary filtering capability is inferior compared to the processing enabled by an FPA seeker. Even dual detector ones. Flares aren't standing still in development. There's no con/spin/rosette-scan seeker that modern flares cannot defeat, period. For those of us flying a Mig-21 over a service life of >35 years it seems a good feature would be to pick the 'generation' of flare being used then... as DCS gets more eras it makes sense that everything isn't modelled as statically existing in 1998 (or some other arbitrary date).
GGTharos Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 You bring up good points. We can 'teach' the AI to use flares better :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Stuge Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 The saturation point makes sense :) How can a seeker distinguish a target if a significant area around the target is saturated? http://www.104thphoenix.com
Stuge Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 You bring up good points. We can 'teach' the AI to use flares better :) First the AI should be taught not to cheat with the launch detection part :D http://www.104thphoenix.com
SDsc0rch Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 --nevermind-- i think i misinterpreted what you were saying, stuge i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Chrinik Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 Regarding "flare resistant Aim-9". http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t-know-what-90-percent-switches-did The last paragraph details the problems with "testing" flare resistant heat seekers. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage" Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?" GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..." Striker: "Oh...." Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs." -Red-Lyfe Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:
Avimimus Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 You bring up good points. We can 'teach' the AI to use flares better :) That would be great :D
Avimimus Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 Kind of half off-topic - but does anyone know if ED is considering doing a more complex visual seeker model? This could also allow things like contrast impacting Maverick or Shkval tracking (not to mention ship launched flares, attacking ground targets with IR AAMs as has been done periodically, and improved atmospheric and counter-measures effects on AAMs).
blkspade Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I don't know what issue people are having. I can still evade any IR missile I see coming in 1.5, as long as I have flares and energy to maneuver. The catch though I noticed is that there is point where you see the missile isn't guiding to you, but if its still in front of and you throttle back up it will turn back in to you. I have at least seen this with the R-60. http://104thphoenix.com/
blkspade Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 First the AI should be taught not to cheat with the launch detection part :D The AI cheats a lot less than it used to. They really don't seem to detect a launch that either doesn't trigger a sensor or isn't in view of the canopy (6 o'clock low). You can still nail the AI with a head-on R-Max AIM-9 because its practically invisible. These changes were made some time in 1.2, and seem to remain in 1.5. http://104thphoenix.com/
=4c=Nikola Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I don't know what issue people are having. I can still evade any IR missile I see coming in 1.5, as long as I have flares and energy to maneuver. The catch though I noticed is that there is point where you see the missile isn't guiding to you, but if its still in front of and you throttle back up it will turn back in to you. I have at least seen this with the R-60. We feel seeker area is too big. I saw missiles turning ~180 degrees and reacquiring. Do not expect fairness. The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.
Teknetinium Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) SDsc0rch I dont see you adding anything then assumptions that shows clearly a direction of the argument. This information is hard to get by, so being so sure about how many flares should be enough to spoof 4th gen heater and at the same time talk about 4th gen missiles like it was IGLAS or GAR-8 dose not prove your point, not to me at least. thx for a good read Chrinik. "We had 210 maintainers," Manclark recalled. "They were dedicated, just unbelievable, tech sergeants and master sergeants. The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21." That proved to be a very important test. "In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'. "Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same. "I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about." Edited October 5, 2015 by Teknetinium 51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
sobek Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) how can you build an image out of 1 pixel? I'm gonna go with scanning really fast. You know, like a CRT builds an image out of one pixel. Edited October 5, 2015 by sobek Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
ED Team Groove Posted October 5, 2015 ED Team Posted October 5, 2015 Either you guys stay OT and stop the personal BS or the BANRAAMS will fly very soon. Thanks Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
blkspade Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 SDsc0rch I dont see you adding anything then assumptions that shows clearly a direction of the argument. This information is hard to get by, so being so sure about how many flares should be enough to spoof 4th gen heater and at the same time talk about 4th gen missiles like it was IGLAS or GAR-8 dose not prove your point, not to me at least. thx for a good read Chrinik. "We had 210 maintainers," Manclark recalled. "They were dedicated, just unbelievable, tech sergeants and master sergeants. The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21." That proved to be a very important test. "In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'. "Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same. "I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about." Now that is an interesting excerpt, as it could illustrate the likelihood that the Russian side had the exact same problem designing their own flare rejection. In sim it seems there is only on flare, so its either gonna work, or not. I'm guessing the devs lean toward flares serving an actual purpose besides pretty screenshots. http://104thphoenix.com/
Teknetinium Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Now that is an interesting excerpt, as it could illustrate the likelihood that the Russian side had the exact same problem designing their own flare rejection. In sim it seems there is only on flare, so its either gonna work, or not. I'm guessing the devs lean toward flares serving an actual purpose besides pretty screenshots. Yes I hope ED lean on something that dose not work every time you pop a flare. "We had designed it to reject American flares" Im sure developers of AIM-9P looked in to that problem. Edited October 5, 2015 by Teknetinium 51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
pr1malr8ge Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Yes I hope ED lean on something that dose not work every time you pop a flare. "We had designed it to reject American flares" Im sure developers of AIM-9P looked in to that problem. Awesome read Teknetinium.. There is a video on the web floating around about an f15 pilot saying he watched an aim9 ignore a full ABing mig29 to eat a flare if I recall correctly. Would have been DS1 For the WIN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
SDsc0rch Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Awesome read Teknetinium.. There is a video on the web floating around about an f15 pilot saying he watched an aim9 ignore a full ABing mig29 to eat a flare if I recall correctly. Would have been DS1 *cough* seems like i *cough* saw something *cough* in this very thread *cough* ;) i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
pr1malr8ge Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 *cough* seems like i *cough* saw something *cough* in this very thread *cough* ;) you need a cough drop m8? LOL:pilotfly: For the WIN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Recommended Posts