Chaff and R27(E)R

[Ironhand]

i could do it, but the tester in this thread seems convinced there is nothing wrong. even if i were to gather a ton of data that says a few clicks of countermeasure release effectively disables every SARH missile in the game outside WVR, what response would i get?

 

probably none. seems like wasted effort. ED probably knows that the ER is useless. i mean, how could you not? try firing it at someone like twice and you'll realize the same.

 

russian BVR has been hopeless for a very long time. if they wanted to fix it they already would have, probably.

You can do what I've started to do. Gather test info. What I'm beginning to see is that, leaving chaff out of the equation completely, the -ERs behave well regardless of range, aspect, and clutter. As soon as chaff is introduced into the equation, the -ERs capabilities go to hell.

 

But, to be meaningful, any test has to control for as many variables as possible. For me that means using the AI in single player. Even then, you are limited to one missile per test run at X range at X aspect at X (set whatever other variables here). And you usually have to construct the mission so that you can launch as soon as possible after mission start. The problem with starting the scenario and launching missile after missile in the same run is that the target's speed, altitude relative to you, aspect, range, etc. change throughout.

 

Once I'm finished without chaff, I'll introduce limited chaff into the same missions and test again. Depending on the results, I'll add more chaff, if necessary. I would suggest that you do the same. There are things that I've had a hand in changing over the years. The trick is always to speak softly and carry a big data stick.

[blkspade]

I dont think that happens in DCS. From what ive seen its merely a mathematical calculation with the number of chaff within FOV at any given time along with other factors rather than a simulation of radar/missile CCM processing.

 

 

 

Lol. Maybe if we only played 80's with no 120s and only crappy chafftastic 27R and Aim7s then perhaps. But otherwise? Just no. As a dedicated Flanker driver ill take the radar missiles improvement any day. The reason we're now so dependant on IR missiles and getting in peoples faces (the merge before any gets the wrong idea;)) is because the (E)R is so terrible. In my opinion if your 1v1 with someone and you get splashed with an E(T) then you've done something wrong whether youre flying an eagle or a flanker

 

On some level this seems apparent with US weapons modelling. Even if this isn't what is literally happening in between, the end result would be ultimately the same. That post was mostly to illustrate the disconnect with the idea that the lock isn't being lost/degraded when it indeed is or would be.

[*Rage*]

Well thats where we end up I guess right? I mean if you think there is glaring performance issues with how it works in game, gather your data and I will point Chizh at it as long as its done in a proper manner. GG knowns a lot, he has a lot of contacts, and in my case I would defer to someone like him just because he is more versed in these subjects, that doesnt mean he has final say on everything for ED, so dont be afraid to submit data if you feel there is an issue.

 

The issue with these threads is they become very messy, so many opinions, little data to examine. Its hard to get mad at the devs, many who don't speak English as their first language, if they ignore, or dont understand what is being stated as a problem in these threads.

 

I did that already. Collected the data and made a submitted a bug report like you asked after the last mamoth thread:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=155529

 

No response from ED or the testers or the mods. Not even an acknowledgement. And then after a few days its merged with some other mostly irrelevant threads and renamed from a bug report to another Air-to-air missile discussion. I ask why and again No response from ED or the testers or the mods. Not even an acknowledgement.

 

Can you tell me why? Why no response? Why was it merged? Why I or someone else should do it all again?

[GGTharos]

Because we have no final say on anything. A lot has been said behind closed doors, and there's really nothing to tell you

 

Despite the disrespect your tag has shown me, I'm still your best friend when it comes to (anyone's) missiles, whether you believe/like it or not.

[NineLine]

What GG said, we cant always discuss fixes in public, sometimes its up to the devs, and because of that, and the time it takes to look into issues and figure out what is going on there could be a delay in hearing things, sometimes you wont hear anything and it will just change.

[*Rage*]

What GG said, we cant always discuss fixes in public, sometimes its up to the devs, and because of that, and the time it takes to look into issues and figure out what is going on there could be a delay in hearing things, sometimes you wont hear anything and it will just change.

 

Ok. Thats understandable. But you can see my frustration when I do what you ask me to do and then its ignored and effectively sidelined, and then you ask me (or someone else) to do it again?

[*Rage*]

You can do what I've started to do. Gather test info. What I'm beginning to see is that, leaving chaff out of the equation completely, the -ERs behave well regardless of range, aspect, and clutter. As soon as chaff is introduced into the equation, the -ERs capabilities go to hell.

 

But, to be meaningful, any test has to control for as many variables as possible. For me that means using the AI in single player. Even then, you are limited to one missile per test run at X range at X aspect at X (set whatever other variables here). And you usually have to construct the mission so that you can launch as soon as possible after mission start. The problem with starting the scenario and launching missile after missile in the same run is that the target's speed, altitude relative to you, aspect, range, etc. change throughout.

 

Once I'm finished without chaff, I'll introduce limited chaff into the same missions and test again. Depending on the results, I'll add more chaff, if necessary. I would suggest that you do the same. There are things that I've had a hand in changing over the years. The trick is always to speak softly and carry a big data stick.

 

Good to have you onboard Ironhand! I remember watching your training videos many many years ago from Flanker 2.51

[NineLine]

Ok. Thats understandable. But you can see my frustration when I do what you ask me to do and then its ignored and effectively sidelined, and then you ask me (or someone else) to do it again?

 

Welcome to the world of testing, it can be frustrating, you dont always get the answer you want, you dont always get an answer. But you just have to be patient, and while you wait you can always add new tracks and data... its not what you want to hear I am sure, but its the way it is, especially on something that is so complex.

[GGTharos]

It isn't ignored. Stuff is working 'as intended' (not to be confused with 'this is how it would work in RL') in terms of the actual code that has been written.

 

That's all I'll say.

[*Rage*]

Because we have no final say on anything. A lot has been said behind closed doors, and there's really nothing to tell you

 

It isn't ignored. Stuff is working 'as intended' (not to be confused with 'this is how it would work in RL') in terms of the actual code that has been written.

 

That's all I'll say.

 

Edit: misread.

 

Welcome to the world of testing, it can be frustrating, you dont always get the answer you want, you dont always get an answer. But you just have to be patient, and while you wait you can always add new tracks and data... its not what you want to hear I am sure, but its the way it is, especially on something that is so complex.

 

Ok, I understand that too. In that case can we un-merge the bug report and people like me and others can deposit tests, tracks and tacviews there? I really think that would help focus the issue and leave the discussion and bickering out.

Edited January 4, 2016 by ///Rage

[NineLine]

 

Ok, I understand that too. In that case can we un-merge the bug report and people like me and other can deposit tests, tracks and tacviews there? I really think that would help focus the issue and leave the discussion and bickering out.

 

I dont know who merged it, it shouldnt have been merged really, so if you want to create a new one, copy your info and you can even list me in it that I suggested you should do this you can. I cant really un-merge it.

 

If you create a new one, attach your data, explain what you are seeing as a bug and we can try and keep it clean, you can even link that old one and ask people to use that for discussion.

[NineLine]

Despite the contradiction between those two your second response is an acknowledgement that at least theres a recognised issue. Thank you

 

ED knows missiles are a big part of the modern part of this sim, believe me, its an active topic internally and things are evolving, but like graphics engines, terrain, etc, all things that make the sim better take time... this isnt a FPS shooter ;)

[pr1malr8ge]

this isnt a FPS shooter ;)

 

 

Umm in all technicality it is.. You're in First person and you're shooting.

[NineLine]

Umm in all technicality it is.. You're in First person and you're shooting.

 

Well technically you are off topic, This is the topic - 'Chaff and R27(E)R' and you are off.

[Ragnarok]

ED knows missiles are a big part of the modern part of this sim, believe me, its an active topic internally and things are evolving, but like graphics engines, terrain, etc, all things that make the sim better take time... this isnt a FPS shooter ;)

 

your reply like "update to hopes"

[blkspade]

you don't need to maneuver for separation at all, unless a rolling and flaring is considered maneuvering now.

 

IR missiles are so stupidly evaded currently, and i highly doubt a real world tactic for evading IR missiles is to point your nose toward it, roll and pop flares.

 

And inside 8nm the aim-120 will hit your plane 100% unless you turn away from it or you are really slow and notch it, at which point you'll still die because he'll be on top of you, while all the eagle needs to do to evade an et is again idle, roll, flare, he doesn't need to turn away from his target at all (that goes for any plane fighting IR missiles).

 

Well your engines are hotter than your fuselage, so they'd be harder to see head on than any other aspect. Most RL info on missile evasion also says to break into the missile. I fly against eagles just as often as i do anything else, 120 evades inside 5nm are a thing. The eagle joust between 2 good pilots becomes fight for who can recommit the fastest, in the most advantageous position and reacquire first. Ragnarok in his flanker is easier to kill with an Aim-7 than a 120 at any range (well maybe 3nm is too close for him), and he rarely actually goes defensive against them.

[GGTharos]

Most RL info on missile evasion is talking about SA-2's in vietnam.

 

All non-classified information points to putting the modern missile on the beam. As far back as Korea, unclassified studies suggest that a missile launched within proper parameters should be impossible to evade using maneuver alone.

[Cik]

older LRMs can be defeated with breaks, but MRMs especially aren't vulnerable to it (which was the whole point, anyway)

 

modern MRMs can pull double+ the Gs you can, because they don't have to worry about liquefying the skeleton of a pilot, and they are lighter, going faster.

 

IMO a break should only work at a very specific range band against heavier missiles (aim-120, ER) and that's at the border of those missiles' minimum range. anything else and you should rely on beam and run.

 

IR may be different, i'd guess because the whole point is to leave a cloud of flares and then separate, but beam would probably still be pretty effective.

[GGTharos]

There's no range band except 'when the missile is slow' that you can generate a 'break turn' of some form that would allow you kinematic escape.

 

If the missile has a certain amount of speed, kinematic evasion is flat out impossible, and that dates back to the AA-2.

[pr1malr8ge]

There's no range band except 'when the missile is slow' that you can generate a 'break turn' of some form that would allow you kinematic escape.

 

If the missile has a certain amount of speed, kinematic evasion is flat out impossible, and that dates back to the AA-2.

 

Not "exactly" true. How ever because of Proximity triggers you may have kinematicly evaded the missile from a DIRECT hit it will still not keep you out of fragmentation range.

 

BTW the Sr71 fleet kinimaticly evaded all several thousands of missiles that were fired at it.

[GGTharos]

Yes exactly true. I never mentioned direct hits. All missile evasion is described in terms of adequate miss distance, not direct hits.

 

As for the SR71, it is a very poor example of the situation that has been described. It's the equivalent of saying that if you turn around before rtr, the missile won't reach you.

[*Rage*]

Well your engines are hotter than your fuselage, so they'd be harder to see head on than any other aspect. Most RL info on missile evasion also says to break into the missile. I fly against eagles just as often as i do anything else, 120 evades inside 5nm are a thing. The eagle joust between 2 good pilots becomes fight for who can recommit the fastest, in the most advantageous position and reacquire first. Ragnarok in his flanker is easier to kill with an Aim-7 than a 120 at any range (well maybe 3nm is too close for him), and he rarely actually goes defensive against them.

 

Aim120 singularity.....

[*Rage*]

I dont know who merged it, it shouldnt have been merged really, so if you want to create a new one, copy your info and you can even list me in it that I suggested you should do this you can. I cant really un-merge it.

 

If you create a new one, attach your data, explain what you are seeing as a bug and we can try and keep it clean, you can even link that old one and ask people to use that for discussion.

 

Thanks Sith. Ill get on it tonight or tomorrow. I would be grateful if you could from time to time take a look at it and remove any OT posts/bickering etc. Ill be intending to update it as further patches are released and tests are redone.

[NeilWillis]

It's kinetically, not Kinematically - that's energy as opposed to Hollywood!

[Croaker47]

Most RL info on missile evasion is talking about SA-2's in vietnam.

 

All non-classified information points to putting the modern missile on the beam. As far back as Korea, unclassified studies suggest that a missile launched within proper parameters should be impossible to evade using maneuver alone.

 

Missile Defense (Presuming that's a good source) suggests a 3/9 with timed jinks (To use up its energy and induce oscillations if I recall) with a last-second orthogonal break into the missile as a last ditch. It was suggested because the standard break didn't work against the Fox-3, is this correct?

 

Radar missile defense relies far more on maneuver than chaff, I know that much. With a missile launched within proper parameters (Presuming nothing wrong with it) it would have to be defeated at the cost of giving up all initiative, though I'm skeptical of Korean-era documents on missile performance, given Vietnam (But only skeptical, given today's systems and combat records).

 

Against a Fox-1 at short range (The current topic from what I can gather), notching to try to break lock, and then a break turn are the options that come to mind for me.

 

I wish that there was some sort of DCS Top Gun or something that people hosted so I can sound like an idiot making guesses like these less often, heh.