AIM-120 and R-27 homing

[TAW_Blaze]

Surely it matters whether you're showing a massive tailpipe with direct view into the engines or another surface with the fraction of the temperature. We're not talking about missiles with with imaging IR heads, but rather some 20+ year old trash cans considered "modern".

[red_coreSix]

Surely it matters whether you're showing a massive tailpipe with direct view into the engines or another surface with the fraction of the temperature. We're not talking about missiles with with imaging IR heads' date=' but rather some 20+ year old trash cans considered "modern".[/quote']

 

It matters if you believe in the myth that IR missiles always track the hottest thing they see, which was true 50 years ago..

[TAW_Blaze]

It matters if you believe in the myth that IR missiles always track the hottest thing they see, which was true 50 years ago..

 

That doesn't mean anything, you could easily have preemptive flares and the seeker would go for them. Non imaging versions won't be able to tell the difference if this is a plane they're stuck at or a flare.

[red_coreSix]

That doesn't mean anything' date=' you could easily have preemptive flares and the seeker would go for them. Non imaging versions won't be able to tell the difference if this is a plane they're stuck at or a flare.[/quote']

 

You're underestimating the complexity of non-imaging IR missiles. Some of them have pretty advanced IRCCM, it's almost impossible to predict whether or not a missile would bite on flares or not.

 

There have been tests IRL where they worked flawlessly even when the flaring aircraft was in full burner flying pretty much straight.

 

Does this automatically mean all missiles react to all flares in the same manner? No, those were most likely spectrally adapted flares, matched to the launched missiles seeker. It doesn't prove anything, really.

[The Black Swan]

even if the odds of survival go down to say 80% in that example, thats IMO a much better representation of reality.

 

"IMO"?

It depends on the missiles but what matters is if it matches reality and what I have heard over and over on these forums is that older IR missiles IRL can be evaded with enough flares. Even in burner.

According to GGtharos, this we know this from real life examples. Examples are the only thing that matter when it comes to representing reality.

Now if we were talking about a 9x that would be a different story.

 

Plus I'm not even sure if you can be 100% on evading an IR missile in DCS.

Many times I've been shot at, pulled back to idle and pumped out a ton of flares while turning toward the missile and it did absolutely nothing.

Edited June 15, 2017 by The Black Swan

[TAW_Blaze]

You're underestimating the complexity of non-imaging IR missiles. Some of them have pretty advanced IRCCM, it's almost impossible to predict whether or not a missile would bite on flares or not.

 

There have been tests IRL where they worked flawlessly even when the flaring aircraft was in full burner flying pretty much straight.

 

Does this automatically mean all missiles react to all flares in the same manner? No, those were most likely spectrally adapted flares, matched to the launched missiles seeker. It doesn't prove anything, really.

 

So having no proof would invalidate one theory but validate another?

 

It could just as easily be that idle and preemptive flaring aircraft would be immune to IR as long as it keeps flying against non imaging IR. Especially true if the opponent is trained to NOT fire in these conditions :megalol:

[red_coreSix]

So having no proof would invalidate one theory but validate another?

 

It could just as easily be that idle and preemptive flaring aircraft would be immune to IR as long as it keeps flying against non imaging IR. Especially true if the opponent is trained to NOT fire in these conditions :megalol:

 

Where did I say that? People see these videos and conclude "IR missiles must be super vulnerable to flares" and jump to conclusions. It's not as simple as that.

 

Just forget the idle thing. If anything, flying in burner (at close range) makes you look more like a flare.

[Breakshot]

"IMO"?

 

Of course! We are all doing guesswork at the end of the day, based on limited available data (more often non-existent).

 

According to GGthanos,

 

Oh boy... after being on these boards since just about the beginning of ED, you realise there are people that bring genuine sources of information (with actual backup of hard data), and then there is.... no offense intended, but just look in this thread above on the question of R-27 proximity fuses.... I need not say much.

 

I guess you just learn to take everything with a pinch of salt...

 

Anyway, this thread is getting derailed from SARH discussion to a IR discussion. :helpsmilie:

[Kapsu]

Plus I'm not even sure if you can be 100% on evading an IR missile in DCS.

Many times I've been shot at, pulled back to idle and pumped out a ton of flares while turning toward the missile and it did absolutely nothing.

Very rarely, maybe 1 out of 500 times, nothing works and it just keeps tracking no matter what.

[Sweep]

Is it really?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3168876&postcount=97

 

Or maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror

 

Seriously...

 

When SARH missiles eat chaff head on, and on demand? And heaters eat flares under most circumstances 100% of the time?

 

Here's the issue with SARH, we don't have an EW model. So missiles shouldn't be as effected by chaff, sure, but realistically I'm defeating your radar track with jamming/chaff too. What we have right now, by design or not by design, roughly approximates the effects of realistic CM employment. Stuff like head-on engagement gets a little screwy, but if I just broke your radar lock IRL, your missile goes stupid anyway...

 

You can cry about expendable CM interactions with missile seekers all day, but you've lost the big picture - We don't have the modeling depth, right now, to get a fix for all of this. And if/when we do, your situation gets worse, not better. Edit: a 10% solution isn't a solution, either, FYI...You know why.

 

As for heaters, do you have anything other than unsourced opinions?

 

Surely you would have seen that TACVIEW video... and if you see nothing wrong there that doesn't need fixing, then certainly your bias is indeed (in your own words) about maintaining the current "balance" or complete lack of between ARH and SARH missiles in general

 

The Tacviews are horrible examples. 1v4? Really? Why? So you can have 30 ERs in the air from bad parameters and complain later? Okaaaaay then.:megalol:

 

Calling the scenario out for it is in those Tacviews isn't about bias. I want to see my radar go ape-excrement when you light a jammer while I'm trying to go STT. I'd love it. But I don't want to see only half of the problem fixed...Fixing it the way you guys keep recommending only serves your balance narrative and hurts the credibility of the sim. DCS isn't an airquake-exclusive simulator, there are many many people who use it for other things. Many of them are SP only, some (like myself) do realistic things in multiplayer. Every single one of these threads involves an airquake scenario and MP balance concerns. The threads that didn't start that way were dragged into the firey hell of balance whiners.

 

Cmon guys, a little common sense, why such a resistance to obvious flaw that needs to be addressed. Lets fix the problem! Wouldn't it make flying F15 more rewarding when you have to actually defend against a threat of launch?

 

The people pushing the "muh SARH = broken" narrative are doing it so their missiles become more effective...So *they* have more "enjoyment" of their DCS: Call of Duty scenarios. You know what would make flying an F-15 more rewarding? Give it a scenario that isn't about pumping KDR. And maybe, just maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, don't try to "balance" the "simulator" around an entirely unrealistic scenario.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Sweep
why not?

[Breakshot]

Stuff like head-on engagement gets a little screwy

 

Nice counterargument! check... Will note to fight F15 "side-on" from here on...

 

So missiles shouldn't be as effected by chaff, sure, but realistically I'm defeating your radar track with jamming/chaff too

 

Thank you, once again you are in agreement, even if its against your will. Good luck with dropping that lock from under 10km in a lookup situation. Thats what we are talking here end of the day. Lets work with what we have MODELLED in the sim, not hypothetical ECM modelling, bla bla.

 

The Tacviews are horrible examples. 1v4? Really? Why? So you can have 30 ERs in the air from bad parameters

 

Are you serious? I think I need not reply here, when one has no counterargument.... are 30 ERs missing under optimal headon condition NOT enough to make a point? Not to mention in 3rd ACMI vid YOU yourself is testing it with the SAME conclusions, every first shot misses... How did that happen? :P

 

Anyway, why are we even having this argument.

 

Simple question: Is there a problem with SARH modelling of missile tracking? A: Yes

 

Q: Can we fix or at least amend the problem to the best of our ability within current modelling in DCS? A: Yes

 

Is it too much to ask for it to be looked at, at least until we can get a more advanced model developed by ED?

 

 

DCS isn't an airquake-exclusive simulator, there are many many people who use it for other things. Many of them are SP only, some (like myself) do realistic things in multiplayer. Every single one of these threads involves an airquake scenario and MP balance concerns. The threads that didn't start that way were dragged into the firey hell of balance whiners.

 

What are you implying? Im assuming you are a pretty new guy, so unfortunately you might not have had the chance to be part of some of the most realistic and immersive scenarios that have been flown over the years in DCS (and by no small part organized by 51st/104th or me personally, take CI or GI as a prime example), but okay no matter, I dont punch below the belt... you are pretty new.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Breakshot

[*Rage*]

Ragnarok made a pretty good mod by tweaking the values.

 

Of course as always happens the F15 pilots (the usual suspects) are foaming at the mouth trying to prevent any meaningful improvement in the abysmal SARH tracking.

 

Edit: Ragnarok mod here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2553838&postcount=7

Edited June 15, 2017 by ///Rage

[Drona]

Comrade Breakshot, IMO, its too much to ask ED to at least tweak it. They have much better things to do ;)

[The Black Swan]

Well Breakshot I agree that until ED can get a more detailed model for radar missiles it would be nice to look at amending it as much as possible with the current code.

 

But I'd still like to see some sources that would support your idea that IR missiles are way too easy to spoof with flares.

[Breakshot]

Well Breakshot I agree that until ED can get a more detailed model for radar missiles it would be nice to look at amending it as much as possible with the current code.

 

But I'd still like to see some sources that would support your idea that IR missiles are way too easy to spoof with flares.

 

Easy isn't the question, but when you are dealing with a probability of near 100% as confirmed by many pilots who know their stuff... you see what I mean?

 

Easily should be say 80%... hell I'll take that! As Redcore said above, we can only deal with roll of dice values... Lets at least make them reasonable... for now.

[The Black Swan]

Ragnarok made a pretty good mod by tweaking the values.

 

Of course as always happens the F15 pilots (the usual suspects) are foaming at the mouth trying to prevent any meaningful improvement in the abysmal SARH tracking.

 

This kind of talk doesn't help. The only concerns againsts making SARH better that I've seen have been related to whether or not it is realistic, or if we can prove it's realistic or not.

 

Don't assume you know people's motivations, I don't fly the 27 or 33 only the eagle and I would be 100% good with change that is REALISTIC, and I'm convinced that making SARH more deadly would be realistic. (Actually making all radar missiles more deadly)

[The Black Swan]

Easy isn't the question, but when you are dealing with a probability of near 100% as confirmed by many pilots who know their stuff... you see what I mean?

 

Easily should be say 80%... hell I'll take that! As Redcore said above, we can only deal with roll of dice values... Lets at least make them reasonable... for now.

 

I know but you need to prove that is reasonable. That is what I'm asking.

[Teknetinium]

When we have F-14 flying more people will use SARH missiles and the outcry will not only be done by so called Su-27 fanboys.

[*Rage*]

Sorry Swan, that might have been a little harsh from me but we've had these discussions before and there are a cohort of posters who will deliberately try and derail the thread into farce with memes, trolling etc.

 

We've waited years for the dedicated server code, the great merge, all sorts of other things promised by ED. Its only another 30 years or so before I retire (and really get time to DCS) and im sceptical the entire missile recoding will be done by then:)

 

A interim fix will go a long way to sorting the issue.

[JunMcKill]

Ragnarok made a pretty good mod by tweaking the values.

 

Of course as always happens the F15 pilots (the usual suspects) are foaming at the mouth trying to prevent any meaningful improvement in the abysmal SARH tracking.

 

Edit: Ragnarok mod here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2553838&postcount=7

 

The mod is from 2015, is still ok with the new DCS versions?

[*Rage*]

To be honest im not sure since I haven't tried it in a while. Try and see...Perhaps Ragnarok will drop by and update it.

[The Black Swan]

Sorry Swan, that might have been a little harsh from me but we've had these discussions before and there are a cohort of posters who will deliberately try and derail the thread into farce with memes, trolling etc.

 

We've waited years for the dedicated server code, the great merge, all sorts of other things promised by ED. Its only another 30 years or so before I retire (and really get time to DCS) and im sceptical the entire missile recoding will be done by then:)

 

A interim fix will go a long way to sorting the issue.

 

Well Wags said that the engineer would start improving the A-A systems after he finished reworking/making A-G guidance. So maybe after the hornet, since it is introducing a lot of A-G weapons. Or maybe if Heatblurs AIM-54 modeling is done well enough ED might let them help with other missiles.

[otto]

I don't know whether to swing to one side or the other.

 

I play very very little now but:

- The Russian R27er missiles are decent now in killing an ai plane .In dcs 1.2.4 i couldn't hit an ai plane head on from 3 shots , twice in a row.

 

-If Cm are so effective than in a head on, if the f15 drops cm at a certain interval and has enough of them it's theoretically impossible to get killed and that might be a way to defeat the game and theoretically be invulnerable in a head on no matter what.But i really don't know .I don't have the playtime to say for sure.

[Sweep]

Rage, if Ragnarok's missile CM thing works, why not test it on a server?

[IASGATG]

All his mod does is change one probability variable for countermeasures on the 3/9 line.

 

 

At current, countermeasures are more effective on the 3/9 line and less effective fore/aft.

 

His mod keeps the probability for the fore/aft the same, but makes the 3/9 line significantly less likely than a fore/aft shot.

 

Basically it makes chaffing on the notch close to pointless.