AIM-120 and R-27 homing

[Vatikus]

GGTharos, fuze setting is from manual.. it says, if target is using chaff, set it to medium to avoid triggering off the chaff cloud. It's not something I made up.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Vatikus

[TAW_Blaze]

Until a more in depth solution is available a band-aid could be made by adding another multiplier on top of the flat value that depends on relative aspect. That way you could still implement a scenario where near the notch chaff is more effective and tune this table to whatever you want to achieve.

 

The issue I see to implement this is that it would have to be redesigned to be a real time calculation (since instead of a fixed value now you have to use a table based on angles too, although getting the data itself is pretty easy from aspect and target heading).

 

@GG: has there been any attempt to do something like this? In my opinion this would provide significant benefit to missile modeling at the expense of minimal effort. If not, could you please somehow forward this idea to Chizh?

[GGTharos]

Set it to medium as opposed to what? Small? Large? What is the 'normal' setting?

 

GGTharos, fuze setting is from manual.. it says, if target is using chaff, set it to medium to avoid triggering off the chaff cloud. It's not something I made up.

[GGTharos]

It already takes aspect into account.

 

Until a more in depth solution is available a band-aid could be made by adding another multiplier on top of the flat value that depends on relative aspect. That way you could still implement a scenario where near the notch chaff is more effective and tune this table to whatever you want to achieve.

 

The issue I see to implement this is that it would have to be redesigned to be a real time calculation (since instead of a fixed value now you have to use a table based on angles too, although getting the data itself is pretty easy from aspect and target heading).

 

@GG: has there been any attempt to do something like this? In my opinion this would provide significant benefit to missile modeling at the expense of minimal effort. If not, could you please somehow forward this idea to Chizh?

[TAW_Blaze]

It already takes aspect into account.

 

What? Okay, it totally seemed like from this thread that it doesn't. Is it not possible to tweak the behaviour based on aspect?

[GGTharos]

IMHO, the only worthwhile way to achieve this is a new interaction model :D

 

There are other ways, I just personally don't consider them a good use of time.

 

Wags announced changes to missiles at some point. Relax, deal with how they work now as you always have and stick around - things will get better.

[TAW_Blaze]

I get that and I'd say I made peace with how things are a long time ago, I'm merely curious whether something can be done to alter how chaff affects the guidance based on aspect.

 

Is there a way alter the aspect based diceroll mechanism without borking the general rng? If you could put a high multiplier on high aspect then you could reduce the amount of head on bs chaff dodged while still keeping it effective around the beam.

 

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, where does the chaff related value in the lua file come in? Is this the end result, or some part, what exactly? Are there other stuff that can be tweaked, or this is the only one?

[red_coreSix]

IIRC the chaff values and all that stuff is encrypted.

[GGTharos]

They're not, IIRC, but the algorithm that handles them is not available for change.

[DragonFlySlayer]

Interesting.. I created this mission or situation in DCS world 2 being two F16 C's with Random skill level. The F16's take off and then I take off in my SU-33. Right when I get up off the runway my sensors will start singing! What I did was set up my HOTAS so once I activate my radar by pushing my keyboard, I then have all the other AA modes via HOTAS. Chaft/flares...etc.. After getting hit a few times I then set up my HOTAS right... And I was able to maneuver and dump flares and then switching to CAC in a second I then locked up one F16 and presto, he was done. The second F16 sounded my alarm but I again evaded and it became quiet. Funny thing was, after I attempted to lock him up, I noticed he diverted to that small civilian strip east of Vegas! I programmed 4 way points for all of us and he was supposed to land at Nellis. My idea was to have the last man standing or flying, land back at Nellis. My missile 1st attempt hit that F16 no problem. But I have much to learn though.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DragonFlySlayer
spelling typo

[Vatikus]

Set it to medium as opposed to what? Small? Large? What is the 'normal' setting?

The rotary switch has multiple actions. It also controls the Dmax launch zone, ie. besides the fuze setting on R27.

Regarding the settings... small is for drones and missiles, medium is for fighter size f15/16, large is for bomber size b1/f111/b52

 

However to expand the topic regarding chaff... I find it quite interesting that mig29A did not use chaff catriges at all. The manual speaks only about flares.

This explains also why Serbian pilots only used (if they knew they had missile incoming) maneuvering for defeating aim120 and aim7.

 

Using doppler radar pretty much lowers usage of chaff.

[Cmptohocah]

However to expand the topic regarding chaff... I find it quite interesting that mig29A did not use chaff catriges at all. The manual speaks only about flares.

This explains also why Serbian pilots only used (if they knew they had missile incoming) maneuvering for defeating aim120 and aim7.

...

 

Not to stray too much from the topic, but half of the MiGs that took off in 99' didn't have operational RWRs.

[Vatikus]

I know Cmptohocah, as I said "if they knew they had missile incoming"... There were pilots who did evasion maneuvers and evaded 120 and 7. There was zero use of chaff as 29A does not have it.

 

p.s. Since you are from Serbia, you can read yourself L-18 manuals. Well worth it. Cheers from Slovenia :)

Edited June 15, 2017 by Vatikus

[Breakshot]

Guys, please, it is easily possible to fix the SARH tracking at non notch gate aspects even now.

 

Please look at this thread that demonstrates the problem in full clarity and also a solution posted by RAGNAROK - a simple .lua tweak that makes SARH missiles not so CM prone at correct aspect/angles.

 

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

 

Until proper full fidelity missile tracking is designed this could be a simple patch that ED should take up! I just don't get it how it has not been incorporated since that discussion a while ago... Problem on these boards (English ones) is that all beta testers seem to be F15 fanboys, who have not much care/clue on how broken some things in the Flanker have been for years! Fixing them would benefit all of the DCS MP community.

 

PS: for those who keep claiming there is no problem, just watch the top video TACVIEW and please tell it again otherwise...

Edited June 15, 2017 by Breakshot

[Cmptohocah]

...

PS: for those who keep claiming there is no problem, just watch the top video TACVIEW and please tell it again otherwise...

 

I am sure that people that think this never shot an R-27 in their life - well, pretty sure :D

[Teknetinium]

That modern IR missiles missed or had malfunction is not a justification for pilots in DCS not have to go idle as in previous versions. It ads to dynamic that if you want to have a 100% chance to survive against a modern IR missiles you need to be idle to cool down the heatblure. Removing that dynamic from the most modern IR missiles is a little bit over the top, we are not talking R-60s on Mig-21.

 

I would assume Su-27 NIIP N001 radar output, processing power and rejection of countermeasures from 8-5km is better then AIM-120B and C combined.

 

The main issue for SARH missiles is that they miss from head on situations or when there is no chaff in their scanning path. This leads to that MP players don't respect a SARH or a IR lunch. That is not realistic if we want to simulate RL.

 

We need to take in to account how MP pilots will react to a missile after 3 years of evading them. If missiles don't pose a threat MP community starts to exploit that and tactics get less important then payload.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Teknetinium

[red_coreSix]

That modern IR missiles missed or had malfunction is not a justification for pilots in DCS not have to go idle as in previous versions. It ads to dynamic that if you want to have a 100% chance to survive against a modern IR missiles you need to be idle to cool down the heatblure. Removing that dynamic from the most modern IR missiles is a little bit over the top, we are not talking R-60s on Mig-21.

 

The whole "going idle" thing won't make a difference against all-aspect missiles. As long as the reduced IR signature doesn't cause a break-lock, which it shouldn't at close range, it won't affect the missiles ability to track you. In fact, against certain IRCCM techniques employed by these missiles it may actually increase your probability of getting hit while flaring.

Point is, flares should work whether you go idle/cut burner or not. Now, how well they should work is a big subject that I'd rather not get into.

 

I would assume Su-27 NIIP N001 radar output, processing power and rejection of countermeasures from 8-5km is better then AIM-120B and C combined.

 

I doubt that, at least for the 120C, not because there's anything particularly great about it, but just because microprocessors improved drastically between 1991 (N001) and early 2000s (120C).

[Cmptohocah]

...

I doubt that, at least for the 120C, not because there's anything particularly great about it, but just because microprocessors improved drastically between 1991 (N001) and early 2000s (120C).

 

So how about F-117A (nighthawk) getting shot down by Neva SAM produced in 1961? We all know that F-117 was a stealth bomber. Was the processing power at play there too or....?

[Sweep]

Funny how this is still all about MP airquake balance.

[wilky510]

So how about F-117A (nighthawk) getting shot down by Neva SAM produced in 1961? We all know that F-117 was a stealth bomber. Was the processing power at play there too or....?

This has to do with exactly whats in this thread how...?
Edited June 15, 2017 by wilky510

[Kapsu]

SARH or a IR lunch

Missiles for lunch, yummy. :D (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

In my experience IR missiles don't go to flares very easily if using afterburner, sometimes yes but you can't count on it. If you wan't to be 100% that it will miss you have to go at least to mil power and drop some flares. This is for head-on shot, against tail shots there isn't absolutely sure method to defeat it unless it can be defeated kinematically.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Kapsu

[Breakshot]

Funny how this is still all about MP airquake balance.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

Edited June 15, 2017 by Breakshot

[TAW_Blaze]

Missiles for lunch, yummy. :D (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

In my experience IR missiles don't go to flares very easily if using afterburner, sometimes yes but you can't count on it. If you wan't to be 100% that it will miss you have to go at least to mil power and drop some flares. This is for head-on shot, againts tail shots there isn't absolutely sure method to defeat it unless it can be defeated kinematically.

 

Pretty much spot on.

 

The whole "going idle" thing won't make a difference against all-aspect missiles. As long as the reduced IR signature doesn't cause a break-lock, which it shouldn't at close range, it won't affect the missiles ability to track you. In fact, against certain IRCCM techniques employed by these missiles it may actually increase your probability of getting hit while flaring.

Point is, flares should work whether you go idle/cut burner or not. Now, how well they should work is a big subject that I'd rather not get into.

 

Blocking your exhaust by flying at the missile makes or breaks your survival against IR. Anything near beam aspect or past is certain death unless you're already idle and flaring at the point of launch. Sometimes even then it's rolling a dice..

 

Whether this behaviour is realistic or not is a different debate. But masking your exhaust surely matters a ton even in real life.

[Breakshot]

If you wan't to be 100% that it will miss you have to go at least to mil power and drop some flares.

 

See, this is the precisely the problem, as the saying goes 'straight from the horse's mouth', thank you! You can be 100% sure that ^^ happens every time with those two easy steps. Are modern IR all aspect missiles that bad? I think not, they should be at least a little bit more resilient to CM, as they always used to be before ED chose to break them in recent years.... even if the odds of survival go down to say 80% in that example, thats IMO a much better representation of reality.

 

Anyway the IR stuff is somewhat debatable... lets stick to the bigger issue of broken SARH, cause they need a serious makeover.

 

I have a simple question: Do any beta testers on these boards actually test this stuff? If so, they must have been well aware of the completely broken tracking model for years... why has nobody ever put that simple .lua fix on the table?

Edited June 15, 2017 by Breakshot

[red_coreSix]

Blocking your exhaust by flying at the missile makes or breaks your survival against IR. Anything near beam aspect or past is certain death unless you're already idle and flaring at the point of launch. Sometimes even then it's rolling a dice..

 

In-game it's always rolling a dice ;)

 

Whether this behaviour is realistic or not is a different debate. But masking your exhaust surely matters a ton even in real life.

 

What I'm saying is, yes it does matter IRL as reducing your throttle will decrease your overall signature and therefore the range at which you'll get picked up by the missile initially. But when you get to closer ranges, where some missiles will actually pick up heat from skin friction too, it doesn't make a difference anymore.