POLL: BRING BACK SFM MISSILES UNTIL AFM GETS APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE

[ArkRoyal]

Much as been said about the missiles, but with DCS 2.0 out I just cant handle their horribleness anymore. Ever since the AFM came out, the missiles have been awful. Its been 3 years since then and no fix what-so-ever. The SFM missiles had their issues, but they made fore a overall more realistic experience. Tired of seeing missiles miss even at 6-8nm.

 

Here is main my main point: As it is known, the current missiles use PN guidance exclusively. Exclusive PN guidance has not been considered effective since the 50's and 60's. It only worked when the missile had a huge KE advantage. The AFM, which has been demonstrated to have double the drag it is supposed to, also makes the current guidance obsolete. When we had the SFM, you could afford less efficient guidance since the missiles had less physics to deal with. Now we have missiles with better phyics (if incorrect drag) and the PN guidance they use is completely inadequate.

 

So Id like to see how many of you wouldnt mind having the SFM back on the missiles until the AFM has appropriate guidance.

[Exorcet]

The AFM model is vastly superior in my opinion, going back would be a huge mistake. It's the missile parameters that are an issue, not the flight model. There is nothing stopping AFM's from being overdeadly guaranteed kill weapons.

[ArkRoyal]

The AFM model is vastly superior in my opinion, going back would be a huge mistake. It's the missile parameters that are an issue, not the flight model. There is nothing stopping AFM's from being overdeadly guaranteed kill weapons.

 

You have missed my point.

 

 

The AFM---in terms of phyics----seems fine. The missile parameters, as you said are one of the factors making them bad. The OTHER factor (and I am not the only person to have said this) is the PN only guidance.

 

Even if you get the DCS missiles mod the missiles are still very very ineffective. This is because they have very out-moded guidance for the targets they are trying to hit.

 

So in summary once again: AFM missiles need AFM guidance. Doing one without the other is, as this game should be making clear to everyone who has played online or otherwise, a very bad idea.

[Sweep]

I think ED wants/wanted to get the FMs right-ish first then move on the guidance, no?

 

Anyway, I'm fine with Arcade Slammers for now. One can always improve, but improvement takes time...I think they'll get the missiles 'there' eventually.

 

They're just not making the drastic changes we (apparently) want yet.

 

In the meantime, try messing around with the missile lua, its fun to try and overcome drag with MOAR THRUST! :joystick:

I understand that won't fix your guidance issues though :(

[Exorcet]

You have missed my point.

 

 

The AFM---in terms of phyics----seems fine.

Then why step backwards? You can adjust the AFM to give you a wide range of missile behavior and emulate SFM without giving up the benefits of AFM (ie no on rails missiles that don't care how high/fast they go at launch).

 

I don't remember which updates they were, but there was one with a very low drag AIM-7 and one with a very agile AIM-120. These missiles didn't have any kind of issue with tracking, PN or not.

 

The missile parameters, as you said are one of the factors making them bad. The OTHER factor (and I am not the only person to have said this) is the PN only guidance.

You can include guidance in those parameters. I know you're not the only one to point to guidance as a problem because I've said the same thing. I still think the gains in realism from AFM are hard to ignore though. SFM is just inaccurate, so it doesn't strike me as a particularly good option.

 

Even if you get the DCS missiles mod the missiles are still very very ineffective. This is because they have very out-moded guidance for the targets they are trying to hit.

I've not tried the mod, but I have used every iteration of AFM missiles. The missile model certainly has a large effect on ability to kill.

 

So in summary once again: AFM missiles need AFM guidance. Doing one without the other is, as this game should be making clear to everyone who has played online or otherwise, a very bad idea.

It is not ideal, but it is workable. I understand your point, but I guess it basically comes down to me not think AFM is as bad as you do and not thinking SFM is as good.

[Gladman]

Take a look at this link:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131806

 

You can't find the mod there anymore but do a search. Our group found it the other day and it is very representative of past sims such as Falcon 4.0 which given the research noted in the thread is very representative of the real thing. I don't know if it'll work in 2.0 but it does in 1.5. If you PM me with some way to send it to you I will.

[ArkRoyal]

Then why step backwards? You can adjust the AFM to give you a wide range of missile behavior and emulate SFM without giving up the benefits of AFM (ie no on rails missiles that don't care how high/fast they go at launch).

 

I don't remember which updates they were, but there was one with a very low drag AIM-7 and one with a very agile AIM-120. These missiles didn't have any kind of issue with tracking, PN or not.

 

 

You can include guidance in those parameters. I know you're not the only one to point to guidance as a problem because I've said the same thing. I still think the gains in realism from AFM are hard to ignore though. SFM is just inaccurate, so it doesn't strike me as a particularly good option.

 

 

I've not tried the mod, but I have used every iteration of AFM missiles. The missile model certainly has a large effect on ability to kill.

 

 

It is not ideal, but it is workable. I understand your point, but I guess it basically comes down to me not think AFM is as bad as you do and not thinking SFM is as good.

 

 

 

I do not see it as a step backwards. The the method of the SFM missiles was wrong, but their general capability was more realistic, if not exactly realistic. Sometimes you get a better end result by cheating. The AFM missiles are completely----in terms of their combat abilities----rubbish as they are currently.

 

With your point on updates---ok sure, like I said in improved AFM system is ideal. I agree with you. Question is, if ED could do that.....where has that been in the last 3 years? Also if I understand your point here, you seem to be implying cheating withing the AFM. Making a missile even more agile to compensate for bad guidance or aerodynamics does not seem very different to me than just doing the SFM. But I digress, this is just a difference in suggested method to get the same results. To me using the SFM would be faster.

 

I dont see any-----effective-----gains in realism. Keep in mind that I'm thinking of realisim in terms of missile effectiveness for given parameters and ranges etc. Sure, they are more sophisticated that the SFM, but that doesnt make for more "realism" in a battlefield sense. Its not unlike a post GGTharos made recently concerning the way chaff is modeled. You could attempt to make it more sophisticated, but much like the missile AFM, your end result may not actually be more realistic.

 

To your last point: I dont know how effective you think the AFM is right now, but a good pilot can dodge the current missiles from nearly any aspect or range. Even at the typical kill range of 6-8nm. When people shoot at me I defeat nearly all missiles, the only ones I get hit by ususally are ones I didn't see coming, or I got overwhelmed from several sides.

[JNelson]

Tired of seeing missiles miss even at 6-8nm..

On what evidence do you have that this is incorrect, replacing the SFM's which are inferior modeled compared to AFM which are supported by copious quantities of evidence is just ludicrous.

 

God Damm CITATION NEEDED.

[Exorcet]

I do not see it as a step backwards. The the method of the SFM missiles was wrong, but their general capability was more realistic, if not exactly realistic. Sometimes you get a better end result by cheating. The AFM missiles are completely----in terms of their combat abilities----rubbish as they are currently.

 

You can't get exact realism without modeling all the fine details. "How much" of the physics is captures doesn't directly correlate to realistic behavior I agree. The AFM captures specific important things though.

 

Launch platform parameters nearly do not matter in SFM. This was its biggest problem. One of the reasons why fighters are all about flying higher and faster is because doing that makes the missiles perform better. With SFM and the missile speed cap, at a certain point going faster began to make opposing missiles reach you faster than yours would reach them.

 

Another factor is high AoA performance. Missile drag barely depended on AoA, allowing for things such as BVR missiles doing 90 degree turns like WVR missiles. They could do this from launch or at a distance. Kills from this behavior should plainly not have been possible.

 

 

Making a missile even more agile to compensate for bad guidance or aerodynamics does not seem very different to me than just doing the SFM. But I digress, this is just a difference in suggested method to get the same results. To me using the SFM would be faster.

I think you will lose the things I mentioned above. Also given how quickly missiles changed after AFM, changing the parameters probably wouldn't take long either.

 

You could attempt to make it more sophisticated, but much like the missile AFM, your end result may not actually be more realistic.

Right, but I think the things added by AFM are more than just fluff.

 

To your last point: I dont know how effective you think the AFM is right now, but a good pilot can dodge the current missiles from nearly any aspect or range.

As far as I know, this was always the case. Many complaints during SFM times. The main difference was, it was not about missile energy.

 

[GGTharos]

The only real problem the AFM has right now in terms of things we cannot change is loss of speed in turns. Some of us suspect that it is quite excessive, based on certain literature.

 

Going back to SFM isn't going to really make things better. There are a lot of moving parts that have to be worked on for that to happen.

[DarkFire]

In terms of the pure missile flight model, it appears that the AFM is superior to the old SFM. What probably does need looking at again is the missile seeker head performance, particularly with respect to SARH missiles.

[ShadowFrost]

Much as been said about the missiles, but with DCS 2.0 out I just cant handle their horribleness anymore. Ever since the AFM came out, the missiles have been awful. Its been 3 years since then and no fix what-so-ever. The SFM missiles had their issues, but they made fore a overall more realistic experience. Tired of seeing missiles miss even at 6-8nm.

 

Here is main my main point: As it is known, the current missiles use PN guidance exclusively. Exclusive PN guidance has not been considered effective since the 50's and 60's. It only worked when the missile had a huge KE advantage. The AFM, which has been demonstrated to have double the drag it is supposed to, also makes the current guidance obsolete. When we had the SFM, you could afford less efficient guidance since the missiles had less physics to deal with. Now we have missiles with better phyics (if incorrect drag) and the PN guidance they use is completely inadequate.

 

So Id like to see how many of you wouldnt mind having the SFM back on the missiles until the AFM has appropriate guidance.

 

Ark, could you please explain where you got your performance data for these missiles (or more likely didn't). I would like to know how you can say that the missiles (and not to name one or any in particular) have double the drag of what they do in real life. I must assume you are not an engineer that has worked on these weapons nor have you fired them in RL. When you say they miss at 8-6nm I would assume they may be running at high speeds or using terrain to their advantage. You must clarify or show how they are missing at 6-8nm because there are effect tactics to dodge missiles. When posting about how something is wrong with DCS (and I understand there are many faults) please provide data to make a claim with or I will continue to assume you are "thinking/guessing" instead of utilizing information from real life facts and data.

[GGTharos]

There's an entire paper written on this subject on this very forum.

 

While he might not have the data himself, the paper was written by those who do.

[vicx]

Edge cases always need optimisation AKA dirty hacks that make it work.

[OnlyforDCS]

Gotta say, it's been a while since Ive flown the F15, but went back in the pit in 2.0 and well, very surprised how little legs the AMRAAM has now. The few fights Ive tried (single player) all started with an engagement within 10-13 miles. Like I said its been a while since Ive flown the F15 but I don't remember the slammers having such short legs.

[ShadowFrost]

There's an entire paper written on this subject on this very forum.

 

While he might not have the data himself, the paper was written by those who do.

 

Yes, I've seen several and I also understand they do need work. I would like before he (or anyone) posts about how or why ED should change performance data to provide more critical information instead of "my missiles miss at 6-8nm". ED has mentioned that they are working on it and these things will take time. Also as i mentioned earlier there are ways to dodge missiles at 6-8nm.

 

Track files and etc. Reasons as to why they shouldn't be doing what they are doing etc.

[ArkRoyal]

Yes, I've seen several and I also understand they do need work. I would like before he (or anyone) posts about how or why ED should change performance data to provide more critical information instead of "my missiles miss at 6-8nm". ED has mentioned that they are working on it and these things will take time. Also as i mentioned earlier there are ways to dodge missiles at 6-8nm.

 

Track files and etc. Reasons as to why they shouldn't be doing what they are doing etc.

 

GGTharos basically said what I would have said regarding my data and where it comes from.

 

 

 

However Ill add a few things.

 

 

There is tons of data on the internet, and other places, on how these missiles should perform. I quite frankly do not have time to look it up for you right now, as this would be pages and pages of stuff. This subject has been talked to death on here, and the consensus BY FAR is that the missiles are majorly wrong in terms of their performance. I dont have time to dredge up dozens of threads for you. Look it up yourself.

 

Im not here to convince you really. This thread was for people who already understand the nature of this issue and already know the data.

[OnlyforDCS]

Tried the instant F15C intercept mission for Nevada a couple of times last night. In all cases neither the AI's 27ERs nor my flight's AMRAAMs hit anything at all despite more than 8-10 launches at about 10-15nm range. I tried holding off firing or ordering my flight to engage until the last seconds of BVR. In both cases we ended up in the merge in a huge WVR furball. I don't know maybe that's realistic?

[*Rage*]

There's an entire paper written on this subject on this very forum.

 

While he might not have the data himself, the paper was written by those who do.

 

GGTharos basically said what I would have said regarding my data and where it comes from.

 

 

This subject has been talked to death on here, and the consensus BY FAR is that the missiles are majorly wrong in terms of their performance. I dont have time to dredge up dozens of threads for you. Look it up yourself.

 

If you guys mean the IASGAT/GGTharos missile mod you should also reference ED's response to it. If i remember correctly it was dismissed by ED on this forum as unrealistic. I'm in no way disparaging the work put into the mod, which is very impressive, just that ED (Chizh) posted in that mod thread saying it was unrealistic. Happy to be corrected if im wrong.

 

I actually think going back to SFM makes no sense at all. Just sort out the guidance.

Edited December 4, 2015 by ///Rage

[zaelu]

Maybe we need a solution for testing rigorously the missiles. Because all this testing by human in god knows what conditions against god knows what targets that god knows what were they doing if they had do anything is looking just like whining. And the "counterstrikeish" solutions of "old times were better" is just not helping.

 

 

We need to be able to set a mission like a sandbox for missile testing.

 

A launching platform like an AI plane (a simple box or dot) that can be set by a flight plan that can be controlled in speed, altitude, aspect from target, AoA, Gs pulled etc. And a target that flies the same a simple controllable type of flight plan with strict maneuvers (no fancy complicated maneuvers that make the model be unreliable for statistics) left/right turn or dive/climb within x Gs etc. Use of counter measures the same under strict control.

 

The atmospheric conditions should be controlled and taken into account like in ME. Also Altitude of engagement envelope with corespondent pressures. All decisions should be made by human... no AI let to do the launch or maneuvers.

 

Also we need indicators about targets Radar Cross Section variation, Radar Lock status etc.

 

Basically all the launch parameters should be strictly controlled like in real testing where you see a stupid drone being blown to bits nothing more.

 

If the mission could be played/paused and re-winded would be a plus... like in Tacview.

 

 

This "personal stories" based statistics should stop. I never see tacview files here to back some claims. Only opinions about how the Missile Slander Z should have kill 3 targets from x miles no matter what. Also the fact that one can ask for such certitudes about such classified devices in such "human infected" conditions is (for me) ridiculous.

Edited December 4, 2015 by zaelu

[OnlyforDCS]

Zaelu there is a glaring logical fallacy in your argument. You are recommending testing, but what do we have as a baseline to compare results against? If the baseline is unknown or undetermined then testing in perfect conditions is about as useful as anecdotal evidence.

[zaelu]

There is no fallacy in what I say.

 

First we don't need a base line. We create one by multiple rigorous testing. Then one can claim if something is wrong or not. When you can repeat in controlled environment a behavior of a missile then one could say to ED... "Look: CIA says this SlanderZ missile kills 3 Migs in a row from 17.3 miles then comes back home for dinner. In DCS we could hit sometimes one Mig but he still goes back for his dinner. What is your opinion on our testing and our claim of PK etc?"

 

 

The rest... is just whining and force mods/appeals to "old times".

 

By the test bed I proposed you can eliminate from the beginning things that are not apparent from within game. Like RCS variation, Missile Lock loss, energy of the missile, Gs, etc etc. And one could see how his beloved missile had to do some stunt to reach target proximity and thus maybe he cold eliminate the claim that that missile should have been able to dogfight the target plane.

Edited December 4, 2015 by zaelu

[OnlyforDCS]

There is no fallacy in what I say.

 

First we don't need a base line.

 

Yes there is, and yes we do. If we don't know the real world performance of missiles, and I'm not talking about subjective things like pk, but facts such as motor burn time, thurst, drag/lift ratios, etc. then there is no way to compare the performance of the in-game missiles against them no matter how many precise tests you do.

 

In any case it has already been mentioned in this thread and others that IAGTSG and others have done significant testing, and comparisons going so far as to actually do costly CFDs on their models, to get some kind of baseline that we are talking about here, and still their results were dismissed by Eagle Dynamics.

 

All our arguing is academic at this point, and threads like these are pointless. Ive accepted that missiles is a topic that is not up for debate in the eyes of the developers, and after that I'm more happy in flying within these limitations.

Edited December 4, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[GGTharos]

I'm in no way disparaging the work put into the mod, which is very impressive, just that ED (Chizh) posted in that mod thread saying it was unrealistic. Happy to be corrected if im wrong.

 

Yes, you are, and you're doing it from a position of complete ignorance, too. Happy to be corrected? Read the paper.

[Drona]

What paper? Care to give a link to that?

 

Is this the "thread" or "paper" you're talking about?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131806&highlight=Missiles+MOd

Edited December 4, 2015 by Kunz
Adding a link