R-27ER Experiment & Findings

[red_coreSix]

I think a lot of the guidance logic is in the encrypted part of the code.

[OnlyforDCS]

Does anyone have a link to an official ED forum post regarding this issue? It seems the most common answer on missile guidance is "WIP". But I've never seen anyone with an "ed team" tag post on this issue.

 

What Im trying to say is that ED must be aware of it, but for unknown reasons they seem to be happy with the missiles as they are. I know that the Raero performance of missiles has been discussed to death, and that ED have commented on it, and that part of the discussion is closed, at least as far as they are concerned.

[IASGATG]

The guidance is buried in the core code. Moreover it's so hard to get around that even third parties have to come up with convoluted ways to make their weapons guide how they want them to.

 

 

As for an official response from ED. There was a Wags video pre-Nevada that said "Yeah the missiles aren't great, we're working on it."

[Schmidtfire]

Some russian players discussed this thread at the russian forums. Chizh (dev) wrote back early on that it is probably "just another temper tantrum" or something along those lines...

Unless ED is unhappy with the missile behaviour, I don't think that it will be changed any time soon. The current state sort of makes it possible for anyone to reach the merge and eastern philisophy has always been that bvr missiles will fail and result in close-in dogfights. So from that perspective they are right.

[DarkFire]

Some russian players discussed this thread at the russian forums. Chizh (dev) wrote back early on that it is probably "just another temper tantrum" or something along those lines...

Unless ED is unhappy with the missile behaviour, I don't think that it will be changed any time soon. The current state sort of makes it possible for anyone to reach the merge and eastern philisophy has always been that bvr missiles will fail and result in close-in dogfights. So from that perspective they are right.

 

That would be unhelpfully dismissive if that is what the response was. Claiming that BVR never works is just as foolish as claiming it always works and that WVR is totally obsolete. Neither view is supported by reported reality. Actual official reports from Gulf War 1 and operations around the former Yugoslavia support the notion that SARH missile effectiveness, when launches occur within acceptable parameters, is somewhere in the region of 5 x better than currently modelled in DCS.

[IASGATG]

It might be easier to alter the ranges but without the guidance fix it'll make BVR combat even more unrealistic than it is now. I see the ECCM and guidance as the core issue and I dont think it's that difficult to alter the values to make the SARH missiles less miserably predictable.

 

It might make combat more unrealistic, maybe? But it will make the game more realistic. As for adjusting the values, it is. Feel free to look yourselves, the missiles_prb_coeff.lua is the variables that govern all the missiles, and then each missile has it's own modifier in the missiles_data.lua. Increase or decrease the modifier and it changes the % chance.

 

What you're asking for requires actual engine recoding. I don't want to speculate how much work this is as I'm not a coder.

 

I did a little bit more testing too comparing the vanilla missile to what I generated.

 

I used the ED sacred DLZ chart for the R-27ER. Please bare in mind the missile has a 60s battery timer.

 

At 5km alt, 900kph head to head, the missile is meant to have an Rmax of 38km.

Vanilla: Hits target at 43s, Mach 0.8, has been subsonic for 7s prior to impact.

Mod: Hits target at 35s, Mach 1.25

 

At 10km alt, 900kph head to head, the missile is meant to have an Rmax of 60km.

Vanilla: Missies the target by almost 2km, hitting the 60s battery timer, Mach 1.08. The launch and target were actually 885kph so this may have caused the missile, but it shows how small of a knife edge it is tuned to.

Mod: Hits at 53s, Mach 1.6.

 

I don't feel like this make the missile some all killer super weapon, it just makes it more reasonable and makes the DLZ chart make sense.

[JunMcKill]

The chart have the altitude and the speed of the launching aircraft? The problem to model any missile is that we have online the max speed that the ER can reach that is 4.5 mach and a N distance, but you dont find the parameters of speed and altitude of the test!

[*Rage*]

I used the ED sacred DLZ chart for the R-27ER. Please bare in mind the missile has a 60s battery timer.

 

At 5km alt, 900kph head to head, the missile is meant to have an Rmax of 38km.

Vanilla: Hits target at 43s, Mach 0.8, has been subsonic for 7s prior to impact.

Mod: Hits target at 35s, Mach 1.25

 

At 10km alt, 900kph head to head, the missile is meant to have an Rmax of 60km.

Vanilla: Missies the target by almost 2km, hitting the 60s battery timer, Mach 1.08. The launch and target were actually 885kph so this may have caused the missile, but it shows how small of a knife edge it is tuned to.

Mod: Hits at 53s, Mach 1.6.

 

I don't feel like this make the missile some all killer super weapon, it just makes it more reasonable and makes the DLZ chart make sense.

 

Can you give us similar test results for a 120C?

[IASGATG]

Can you give us similar test results for a 120C?

 

I don't have a real aim-120c5 DLZ chart.

 

I can do it for the aim-7 if you like?

[*Rage*]

So how do the above figures compare to your missile mod? Interested in Aim7 and 530d too...

[captain_dalan]

I don't have a real aim-120c5 DLZ chart.

 

I can do it for the aim-7 if you like?

 

Please do. I would also like to see more realistic BVR engagement ranges, for all (including SARH) missiles. It would make the real life tactics used during their employment more applicable in game (IMO).

[IASGATG]

So how do the above figures compare to your missile mod? Interested in Aim7 and 530d too...

 

The numbers above differ from my missile mod because i didn't put much work into the 27ER. I made it fly similar to the aim-7. This was sloppy but it fit the dlz chart okay.

 

The new numbers are better because the missile flies faster and holds the higher speed better but at low speexs suffers mire. It fits the data better.

 

I'll do the aim-7 soon.

[*Rage*]

The point is its all well and good in the charts but when you translate it in game with current ECCM what you get is a very fast but useless missile. The corollary is that the 120C then becomes a 30km death ray (or whatever its new expanded range is) and that further distorts the modelling we have now. I just cant get excited about it without fixing the chaff issue first.

[OnlyforDCS]

"just another temper tantrum"

 

That is a very discouraging quote, if true. While some in this thread have resorted to hyperbole, for the most part it has been a very mature discussion. No one is asking for miracles, but there must be a way to increase the CM resistance of SARH missiles to at least a somewhat realistic level without recoding the entire game. I think a simple "buff" (god I hate that word) to the dice roll chance in the CM rejection algorithm, would help ease some of the issues and would make the BVR combat more entertaining, less predictable, and less prone to "gaming".

[*Rage*]

There is a mod which was made by a fellow "temper tantrumer":) It was fairly simple and as you say and made the SARH missiles a little less stupid. We havent tried to push it because I would rather it came from ED.

 

I prefer a standardised platform for all (even if its flawed) rather than each group splintering off and doing their own thing with incompatible mods. I see it further dividing the community. 99% of my DCS enjoyment is online flying Redflag/Blueflag/SATAC etc and I am against anything that fragments our community. This is part of my issue with SGATs missile mod as well but thats for another thread.

Edited March 16, 2017 by ///Rage

[OnlyforDCS]

There is a mod which was made by a fellow "temper tantrumer":) It was fairly simple and as you say and made the SARH missiles a little less stupid. We havent tried to push it because I would rather it came from ED.

 

I prefer a standardised platform for all (even if its flawed) rather than each group splintering off and doing their own thing with incompatible mods. I see it further dividing the community. 99% of my DCS enjoyment is online flying Redflag/Blueflag/SATAC etc and I am against anything that fragments our community. This is part of my issue with SGATs missile mod as well but thats for another thread.

 

I agree completely. Especially after ED's conclusive answer that the range of the current missiles is pretty much "set in stone". Guidance and CM rejection issues persist however, and nothing conclusive has been said other than Wagg's admission that "it's not that great" so I do have some hope ED will eventually take a loot at these remaining issues.

[Schmidtfire]

If the biggest servers like 104th Phoenix and Blueflag came together on this, the missile mod would reach the majority of players online. This is our chance to actually do something about these flaws, instead of complaining with new threads here every month... how many years have we had this discussion now? =)

 

I understand the risk of further fracturing the community, but I think it will be worth it.

Having an open technical discussion about this mod will be a luxury and I think that over time it develops, could be a total gamechanger if the community decides to make it an "official" addon for MP. Fragmentation will continue with AI assets, multiple maps, DLC carriers etc. Another mod or two on the largest servers online won't do much difference in my opinion.

[*Rage*]

If the biggest servers like 104th Phoenix and Blueflag came together on this, the missile mod would reach the majority of players online.

 

I would stop flying on them if they implemented that and it wasn't an ED update. Also see below as to why I think in the current guidance iteration the missile mod is detrimental, in my opinion.

 

Here's my problem though. I dont mean it in a flippant way but I just dont see the point. Without correcting for the guidance why all the effort to increase the range? You could give the ER twice the speed and range it has now and it still would be no different than an S8 rocket. Alternately do the same for an 120B/C and it becomes twice as effective because its the only missile in DCS with guidance worth a damn. Youre effectively widening the discrepancy in missile modelling. And its already bad enough.

 

Once the guidance is fixed ill be far far more interested in what youre suggesting. Till then...:shrug:

 

The point is its all well and good in the charts but when you translate it in game with current ECCM what you get is a very fast but useless missile. The corollary is that the 120C then becomes a 30km death ray (or whatever its new expanded range is) and that further distorts the modelling we have now. I just cant get excited about it without fixing the chaff issue first.

 

I would support the mod in becoming official if the guidance is sorted. Till then I just dont see the point. Very fast missiles that go nowhere...and?

Edited March 16, 2017 by ///Rage

[Schmidtfire]

Well... you have to start somewhere. Speed and range is one part, ECM and chaff resistance another. Greater speed will produce a higher pk. A close 27ER shot might have so much energy

that you don't even have the time to avoid it at all. Let's say you are out of chaff, there is a huge difference between avoiding a missile hanging "loose" at sub sonic speeds vs. Mach 1.6+.

Edit: If chaff/ECM is the biggest issue. It should be possible to remove chaff/ecm entirely from the server-side.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Schmidtfire

[Ironhand]

Some russian players discussed this thread at the russian forums. Chizh (dev) wrote back early on that it is probably "just another temper tantrum" or something along those lines...

I find such a quote from Chizh surprising. Do you by any chance have a link to the thread you can share?

[IASGATG]

This is where we disagree Rage. You're making the statement that you want the game to be less realistic to make it more fair for some pilots. As certain levels of realism the balance swings back and forth. But ultimately if you have a step towards realism you have to take it and let the metagame sort itself out.

[Schmidtfire]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=97313&page=747

 

Here is the russian discussions. However, I could not find the temper tantrum comment, so It might be in another thread or edited. Edit: Don't take to much away from it. This comment Im sure was made in the spur of the moment as this discussion ain't anything new... Chizh is very cunning and passionate about DCS and flight in general. And an avid poster on the russian forums, I wish he would have time post more in our section :(

Edited March 16, 2017 by Schmidtfire

[Ironhand]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=97313&page=747

 

Here is the russian discussions. However, I could not find the temper tantrum comment, so It might be in another thread or edited. Edit: Don't take to much away from it. This comment Im sure was made in the spur of the moment as this discussion ain't anything new... Chizh is very cunning and passionate about DCS and flight in general. And an avid poster on the russian forums, I wish he would have time post more in our section :(

His point in that section seems to be that the R-27ER isn't necessarily badly broken. His notes that online experiences and examples will lead to false conclusions because "the missile trajectory depends on the network". So there are too many variables to be able to know what's going on. (This last sentence is my own interpretation of his words.) Chizh again: You need single player tracks demonstrating the issue in order for a problem to be demonstrated (isolated).

 

I know that in SP I don't find the R-27 series particularly problematic. So there's something of a Catch 22 going on.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ironhand

[*Rage*]

The videos I posted on which Chizh is commenting are all single player not MP. The tracks play the same every time. I'm not sure he realises that.

[JunMcKill]

Well... you have to start somewhere. Speed and range is one part, ECM and chaff resistance another. Greater speed will produce a higher pk. A close 27ER shot might have so much energy

that you don't even have the time to avoid it at all. Let's say you are out of chaff, there is a huge difference between avoiding a missile hanging "loose" at sub sonic speeds vs. Mach 1.6+.

Edit: If chaff/ECM is the biggest issue. It should be possible to remove chaff/ecm entirely from the server-side.

 

Agree!, I changed the IASGATG mod to make the ER reach mach 4.5 when launched above 10k meters altitude and 900kph, and the Pk was much higher than the one originaly modded, the same for the R-77 (in this case mach 4.0 only, in fact it reach 3.99).

Edited March 16, 2017 by JunMcKill