Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[centermass]

ECM should have no affect on radar after it has burned through.

 

ECM is to deny a lock not to brake a lock once acquired unless at longer ranges, but usually chaff, altitude, and aspect changes are required.

 

Missile defense is with aspect and energy. NOTHING else should defeat a missile fired well within DLZ 1.

________

ps3 jailbreak

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Frostie]

You said it firing a ET without lock is unrealistic, but 99% of people do this exact thing. The ET's are the deadliest missile in the game, hope BS fixes that, I know it's been said before.

99% ? I don't know where you got your figures from but the reason I see it as the most lethal missile is through its surprise element , if I lock a player with ER he'll chaff and jam his way to defeat it , if I can get within ET rtr range then there is a far greater chance of him going down without him even being warned , the only time I'd even think of trying an ET OR is if the other guy was spamming his AMRAAM's and running.:D

[3Sqn_Sven]

I'd like for us to expand upon what Goya brought up with regard to 1.02 amraam vs 1.12 amraam. I too remember the 1.02 days where the 120 was MUCH deadlier. Often in the 169th server, noobish guys would fly the F15 and guys with more experience would jump in the Flankers and Fulcrums. We're talking back in 2004 here, I distinctly remember that if Red Air outnumbered Blue air 3-2 then it was close to an even match, the F-15's radar didn't suffer the TWS issue of not maintaining eleveation on the primary target, and the 120 was pretty good - F-15's were certainly the tits in BVR. Aim120 in 1.02 certainly wasn't like the real deal, but it's just been castrated in Flamming Cliffs!

 

Personally I'd like the missile equation returned to the 1.02 days...it wasn't perfectly realistic but it was certainly more real than the 10% PK amraam we're seeing even in the Red Flags.

 

D-Sythe and GG, I'm not a missile expert nor an expert on the game coding/what was changed but you guys seem to know what you're talking about. What do you guys make of what was changed in the 1.02-FC upgrade, and how did the missiles back then compare with what we've got now and with RL? What do you guys think ED could do to fix this, and how much work would be required?

 

If we could come up with an in-community solution that we all backed then perhaps it could gain some momentum in the future... It's a bug bear for all of us.

[GGTharos]

ECM should have no affect on radar after it has burned through.

 

ECM is to deny a lock not to brake a lock once acquired unless at longer ranges, but usually chaff, altitude, and aspect changes are required.

 

Missile defense is with aspect and energy. NOTHING else should defeat a missile fired well within DLZ 1.

 

I'm afraid that this is incorrect. There's no such thing as 'burn through' against real ECM - no, let me rephrase that. You could burn-through /certain kinds/ of ECM techniques, but not all of them. They can actually be effective to within a few hundred feet from the aircraft... in other words, if you're sitting 1500' behind the guy to gun him, it might still mess with your gunsight!

 

ECM can deny a lock, break it, or deceive the tracking radar or missile radar as to your actual whereabouts. It might also not work well, and make you a juicier target instead.

[GGTharos]

I'd like for us to expand upon what Goya brought up with regard to 1.02 amraam vs 1.12 amraam. I too remember the 1.02 days where the 120 was MUCH deadlier. Often in the 169th server, noobish guys would fly the F15 and guys with more experience would jump in the Flankers and Fulcrums. We're talking back in 2004 here, I distinctly remember that if Red Air outnumbered Blue air 3-2 then it was close to an even match, the F-15's radar didn't suffer the TWS issue of not maintaining eleveation on the primary target, and the 120 was pretty good - F-15's were certainly the tits in BVR. Aim120 in 1.02 certainly wasn't like the real deal, but it's just been castrated in Flamming Cliffs!

 

Not just the 120, but I think the 120 users might 'feel the most pain' because everyone else has some form 'backup' ... like the ET.

 

Personally I'd like the missile equation returned to the 1.02 days...it wasn't perfectly realistic but it was certainly more real than the 10% PK amraam we're seeing even in the Red Flags.

 

I think we could do a little better than that ... but I'll explain further down.

 

D-Sythe and GG, I'm not a missile expert

 

You should be, more so than I! ;)

 

nor an expert on the game coding/what was changed but you guys seem to know what you're talking about. What do you guys make of what was changed in the 1.02-FC upgrade, and how did the missiles back then compare with what we've got now and with RL? What do you guys think ED could do to fix this, and how much work would be required?

 

Firstly, solutions - as simple as possible, because ED hasn't got much time to spend on this - have been laid out already, a /long/ time ago. This thread is merely a rehash.

 

The missiles 'back then' fared better because various things did not or did work ... for example, SARH did not see chaff! At all! If you knew what you were doing, you'd fire an ER or 7 at your target, hold the lock and DIVE HARD so they couldn't notch you. Most people had /no/ idea how to evade that or why it was happening when shot within parameters.

 

The scan zone of ARH missiles, on the other hand, seemed to be a constant, instantaneously scanned 180 deg hemisphere in front of the missile.

 

AMRAAMs had longer legs back then too, which helped a /lot/ ... and look-down did not affect things as much as it does now.

 

But, we wanted to see missiles behaving a little more realistically - reacting to chaff at the correct aspect, and a statistical difference in 'missile generations' in terms of reaction to CMs etc.

 

So, with good intentions in mind, the seekers were reprogrammed to have a different % change of biting on chaff, along with taking RCS and aspect into consideration, but ... it backfired, quite literally - in some aspects, biting on chaff should be nil, but it wasn't. Combined with the look-down causing more issues, it now became possible to dodge radar guided missiles without maneuvering at all.

In addition to this, the 120 suffered a cut to its top speed, which significantly decreased its useful range.

In general - it was good intentions that didn't work out. There is a desire on ED's part to get this fixed, but wether it happens is dependant on resourcing, as far as I can tell - the missile code is complex enough and they have to be rather careful with it, lest a 'quick fix' turns into something worse still.

 

 

 

If we could come up with an in-community solution that we all backed then perhaps it could gain some momentum in the future... It's a bug bear for all of us.

 

 

The solutions have already been proposed, and are on the list. Some of the proposals are as follows:

 

 

1. Eliminate sensitivity to chaff for radar missiles on anything but close to beam aspect ... meaning say, putting the missile at 2 o'clock would have some small probability of spoofing the missile with chaff, and this probability increases as you rotate it to your 3 o'clock.

 

2. Rework missile kinematics to help make them deadlier as they should be. Currently a number of missiles - especially on the US side - are significantly short-legged.

 

3. Fix up the ECM ... right now the ECM is easily abused. Control of ECM basically needs to be taken away from the player - your only choice ought to be 'System on' or 'System off' and it decides when and how to jam all on its own, with it having basically an effect that is not known to the ECM user ... rather the guy targetting you would be the only one who could tell if the ECM is working on him (in other words...dynamic ECM behavior)

 

4. Heat seekers need to lose their 'launch without seeker lock' ability, /bad/.

 

There's probably more, but that's all that comes to mind right now - these are the simplest things that can be done, IMHO, without going into things like new seeker code, more advanced search capabilities for ARH (which doesn't mean BETTER, just more complex and realistic), missile datalinks and intertial guidance etc.

[S77th-GOYA]

1. Eliminate sensitivity to chaff for radar missiles on anything but close to beam aspect

 

Not anything. Chaff will break a lock now if it is released between the radar and the target. And that should stay.

[D-Scythe]

Really.

 

Do you think every missile that doesn't hit is because of chaff? And remember some missiles DO hit even in the area of chaff.

 

Sorry, but I think you missed my point - I'm saying that the ways you can defeat missiles WITHOUT chaff will work just as well at 50% slider as it would in 100% (like barrel rolling, or pulling up). So, every missile that misses not because of chaff, will miss regardless of missile slider setting.

 

Hence my point that there really isn't a difference between missiles at 50% and 100%, with the exception of chaff rejection.

 

I beg to differ. As we saw earlier in the thread, changing chaff resistance is an easy thing, but ED don't feel like it's worth going through the effort of fixing SF for that "hotfix/patch"

 

Um, how does that prove that "new" code wasn't implemented in LOFC and that the extra chaff sensitivity can be undone? I'm sorry, but I don't get your post.

 

ER wont be spoofed with a single chaff cartrige. Sudden aspect change will, wich is realistic.

 

Wait....as long as the sudden change in aspect doesn't result in the target beaming the missile, how would it help in defeating the missile's seeker?

 

ECM should have no affect on radar after it has burned through.

 

ECM is to deny a lock not to brake a lock once acquired unless at longer ranges, but usually chaff, altitude, and aspect changes are required.

 

Missile defense is with aspect and energy. NOTHING else should defeat a missile fired well within DLZ 1.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. In fact, all self-protection jammers (like the sets in the F-15 and MiG-29) are designed to protect the aircraft (hence the name) by any means possible - including denying lock or outright breaking it.

 

Personally I'd like the missile equation returned to the 1.02 days...it wasn't perfectly realistic but it was certainly more real than the 10% PK amraam we're seeing even in the Red Flags.

 

So...would people rather have things returned to the way things are in V1.02, or radically changed as has been proposed (basically, so that it's EXTREMELY difficult to defeat radar missiles except by notching/putting chaff between you and missile)?

 

D-Sythe and GG, I'm not a missile expert nor an expert on the game coding/what was changed but you guys seem to know what you're talking about. What do you guys make of what was changed in the 1.02-FC upgrade, and how did the missiles back then compare with what we've got now and with RL? What do you guys think ED could do to fix this, and how much work would be required?

 

I honestly don't know. I wasn't in the beta testing team back then, so I'm as oblivious as you guys are.

[GGTharos]

That would require a very rare and probably unlikely alignment; I'm not against it because it is real ... but I see it as being an exception that could be left out -if- it makes things easier on ED; I've been led to believe that it is a rare condition RL.

 

Not anything. Chaff will break a lock now if it is released between the radar and the target. And that should stay.

[GGTharos]

Sorry, but I think you missed my point - I'm saying that the ways you can defeat missiles WITHOUT chaff will work just as well at 50% slider as it would in 100% (like barrel rolling, or pulling up). So, every missile that misses not because of chaff, will miss regardless of missile slider setting

 

But here's the rub - aside from these little details, firing in parameters would make it very hard to evade those missiles. It worked this way previously.

One /big/ problem with missile Pk is actually in part, with players. Yep! Players! Even if we fix up the chaff, and so on, people will STILL fire outside the NEZ, turn around, and run. Firing outside the NEZ makes kinematic defeat of the missile easy - I think we can agree on that. Unfortunately, the big deal right /now/ is that you can spoof missiles without trouble at /all/ /inside/ the NEZ, in ways that should make your survival rather unlikely.

 

 

Wait....as long as the sudden change in aspect doesn't result in the target beaming the missile, how would it help in defeating the missile's seeker?

 

Because an aspect change can cause a very dramatic chance in RCS - on the order of several decibels ... enough to screw around with gains and other fun stuff in the receiver.

 

So...would people rather have things returned to the way things are in V1.02, or radically changed as has been proposed (basically, so that it's EXTREMELY difficult to defeat radar missiles except by notching/putting chaff between you and missile)?

 

Missiles need to be brought to a point where they have to be respected. It's okay if you can dodge a missile inside the NEZ, IF that dodge puts you at such a horribly defensive posture that you are basically screwed ... THAT is what really need to happen. Right now, missiles don't really send people defensive - not like that, because people /know/ that hey, barrel roll, or pop some chaff, and you can still keep your nose pointed in the target's general direction and not worry about it.

You should be punished for doing such a thing ... via missile in the face.

[D-Scythe]

But here's the rub - aside from these little details, firing in parameters would make it very hard to evade those missiles. It worked this way previously.

One /big/ problem with missile Pk is actually in part, with players. Yep! Players! Even if we fix up the chaff, and so on, people will STILL fire outside the NEZ, turn around, and run. Firing outside the NEZ makes kinematic defeat of the missile easy - I think we can agree on that. Unfortunately, the big deal right /now/ is that you can spoof missiles without trouble at /all/ /inside/ the NEZ, in ways that should make your survival rather unlikely.

 

Yes, ideally, people should start respecting each other's NEZs.

 

Because an aspect change can cause a very dramatic chance in RCS - on the order of several decibels ... enough to screw around with gains and other fun stuff in the receiver.

 

Yes, through scintillation and stuff. But missiles have to deal with that anyway - even the slightest aspect change can cause exponential increases in RCS. But RCS has nothing to do with doppler, which is what missiles track - so I don't think sudden aspect changes should have a significant effect on the performance of the missile.

 

If that were true, then releasing chaff should be effective from any aspect - since chaff also increases RCS, but does not affect doppler.

[S77th-GOYA]

Sorry, but I think you missed my point - I'm saying that the ways you can defeat missiles WITHOUT chaff will work just as well at 50% slider as it would in 100% (like barrel rolling, or pulling up). So, every missile that misses not because of chaff, will miss regardless of missile slider setting.

 

I got your point. But you assume that everyone is using all the exploits that can be used. They are not. The reality of HL is that a 100% slider setting will make more people get shot down than a 50% setting. Missiles will be more effective.

[GGTharos]

Yes, through scintillation and stuff. But missiles have to deal with that anyway - even the slightest aspect change can cause exponential increases in RCS. But RCS has nothing to do with doppler, which is what missiles track - so I don't think sudden aspect changes should have a significant effect on the performance of the missile.

 

I think you're misunderstanding here. Missiles track the RCS, the doppler being a characteristic thereof. If your RCS become so small as to drop below the SNR threshold all the sudden, or so larget that is overwhelms the seeker, doppler won't help you because you'll lose that signal.

Remember, a missile in HoJ may well and happily discard any and all doppler information, which may be getting falsified by the jammer.

 

If that were true, then releasing chaff should be effective from any aspect - since chaff also increases RCS, but does not affect doppler.

 

Incorrect. Chaff RCS is big, but not as big as when released on the beam at specific intervals so as to cause the RCS to blend with the previous bundle, and the aircraft's own RCS. That could cause the centroid to 'walk off' the aircraft, thus causing a miss - the missile doesn't really need to lock onto the chaff itself per se. Chaff slows down rapidly, so after a couple seconds it's not very useful in the 'pretend it's me' role, but that doesn't matter as much.

 

Now, combine a sudden decrease in fuselage RCS and simultaneous release of chaff, though, and see what happens ... a smart missile might not eat it ... it might decide the deceleration is too much, and start looking again ... but the 'screw up missile via aspect change' is -very- real. It might not happen the way I'm thinking it could, and I wasn't told -how- it works, just that there's a certain aspect you definitely want to use if you can when fighting a missile - but none of these things necessarily work on their own. They work best when combined in some manner.

[RvEYoda]

Starforce has nothing to do with fixing elements of Lock On.

 

All good things come to those who wait.

 

Ok now we got Ice vs GG again. Gotta say I LOVE this:

I say people die while we wait. Good things may come to those who wait but BETTER THINGS happen to those who do something about it! Let's fix it now.

 

The numbers can be changed easily, but there might be issues with the application of starforce, necessitating re-release of various DLLs and who knows what else, potentially bloating the release.

 

YES YES YES: War has begun again :pilotfly:

 

Following is not a comment on the last quote above:

We should not need to wait 2 yrs for something that is fixeable in a few minutes. (concerning chaff sens)

Lockon would get such a large audience of things like these were handled quickly. Most of my friends I have tried bringing into lomac have simply quit because they are old school competitive gamers that don't fear the learning curve, but the number of exploits and inconsistencies here are simply too many. It would be in ED's on profit to handle it better than this. We could have a huge competitive modern air combat for MP, but instead we're sitting here with 50-100 ppl on HL and hearing "it will be fixed to a degree in the next expansion". Are we listening to ourselves? "It will be fixed to a degree in the next expansion"?! Hell0hOO?. Damn I get so frustrated. I dont care if I make a fool of myself as long as the issue is brought up.

Making the chaff sens better depending on aspect is also EASY since it is already dependant, only an issue of changing the amplitude.

[GGTharos]

How do you know it takes two minutes? In theory 'all you have to change is some numbers' or 'some equation' but there's probably more to it than that, just to get the older release (As opposed to the betas) working and compiling correctly again, etc.

[RvEYoda]

How do you know it takes two minutes? In theory 'all you have to change is some numbers' or 'some equation' but there's probably more to it than that, just to get the older release (As opposed to the betas) working and compiling correctly again, etc.

 

You do not need to recompile the entire lomac to make a change like this. If it were that bad, the coding would be stupid indeed.

 

Somwhere out there in the code should be some class(es) defining the chars of the amraam seeker/other seekers.

 

Obviously they should posses a ready-to-compile version of the game-code currently used in HL (1.12a), as well as the one that is being tested for BS. If they still do not understand (which is impossible because they could not make such a gameplay wise beautiful game otherwise) just copy the first one and modify it, and then do whatever you like in BS. it's not really a big deal and I'm 99% certain it will not take more than 5 minutes to fix the chaff sens.

[nscode]

That is not how things work in real life ;)

[GGTharos]

^^^^

Much better than my explanation :)

[D-Scythe]

I got your point. But you assume that everyone is using all the exploits that can be used. They are not. The reality of HL is that a 100% slider setting will make more people get shot down than a 50% setting. Missiles will be more effective.

 

No, I agree and you're (obviously) right. I was just addressing the question brought up earlier where someone asked if adjusting the missile slider would help fix things - I say no, because the fundamental problems are still there.

 

I think you're misunderstanding here. Missiles track the RCS, the doppler being a characteristic thereof. If your RCS become so small as to drop below the SNR threshold all the sudden, or so larget that is overwhelms the seeker, doppler won't help you because you'll lose that signal.

 

How does a sudden change in aspect cut RCS so much that the target drops below the SNR threshold? Radar scintillation can exponentially increase the target's RCS, but I'm not sure I've heard of any phenomenon that would exponentially decrease RCS.

 

And how does an RCS signature become so large that it overwhelms a seeker? In a look-down situation, the RCS of the ground is basically infinite - but that doesn't overwhelm the seeker. I mean, short of sitting in an F-22 and concentrating your AESA power into a fine beam directed at the missile to fry it, I don't see how a missile can be "overwhelmed" by a target's RCS.

 

Remember, a missile in HoJ may well and happily discard any and all doppler information, which may be getting falsified by the jammer.

 

So? A missile in HOJ is not tracking RCS either. AFAIK, it's either doppler, or HOJ. The only RCS requirement AFAIK is that the target is large enough to be detected and tracked by doppler.

 

Incorrect. Chaff RCS is big, but not as big as when released on the beam at specific intervals so as to cause the RCS to blend with the previous bundle, and the aircraft's own RCS.

 

Wait wait wait....Chaff released on the beam would have the least chance of "blending" or overlapping with the previous discharge. Chaff released head-on or tail-on would have the greatest chance of mixing in with previously released decoys to confuse the missile.

 

Therefore, if anything, the noise chaff introduces to the missile's seeker would be greatest from tail on/head on, NOT from the beam.

 

 

That could cause the centroid to 'walk off' the aircraft, thus causing a miss - the missile doesn't really need to lock onto the chaff itself per se. Chaff slows down rapidly, so after a couple seconds it's not very useful in the 'pretend it's me' role, but that doesn't matter as much.

 

Actually, it's safe to assume chaff slows down to zero airspeed immediately after release, due to the fact that the stuff is essentially mass-less. Which can lead (theoretically) lead to the capability of rejecting chaff decoys (at close range) on the basis that it's impossible for the target to generate so big an LOS change.

 

Now, combine a sudden decrease in fuselage RCS and simultaneous release of chaff, though, and see what happens ...

 

RCS would definitely not decrease when the target is beaming. Not only is your profile much bigger from the side than in front (think about how much smaller a MiG-21 would be from the front), but also you're exposing those nice, flat, vertical stabilizers, weapon pylons, flat surfaces of your fuselage, etc. to the radar source (the missile).

 

Which leads me back to my belief (and yes, I'm aware that it's just a belief) that it's impossible to significantly reduce your RCS with a simple aspect change to an "artificial" level like you can increase it. What is normally a 5 m^2 target may have its RCS increased to 500 m^2, but it'll never have it decreased to 0.05 m^2 with a mere aspect change.

[RvEYoda]

Why not?

Economics?

Buerocracy? (spelling please =)

copyright rules?

 

Because it CERTAINLY cannot have anything to do with the code itself in this case. I'm thus trying to push all other points I find.

 

Ask programmers/software engineers. I bet if you explain this problem to them the answer will be close to unanimous.........(I certainly have got that answer)

 

And don't come with stuff "Little boy, you don't know what you're saying. Wait until you grow up and see how it all is." It feels really bad for the person receiving it and most often is just an easy way out when you have run out of arguments.

 

Trying to push for improvements in lomac forum.....:

- Hey why don't we do this?

ED: .........(blank)

ED supporters: - lol , who do you think we are?

 

I think team ED(incl testers) needs to visit fighterops forums.

[GGTharos]

I work with several software engineers and programmers. In a very real world software development environment handling multiple critical applications. And I call your BS.

 

Why not?

Economics?

Buerocracy? (spelling please =)

copyright rules?

 

Because it CERTAINLY cannot have anything to do with the code itself in this case. I'm thus trying to push all other points I find.

 

Ask programmers/software engineers. I bet if you explain this problem to them the answer will be close to unanimous.........(I certainly have got that answer)

 

And don't come with stuff "Little boy, you don't know what you're saying. Wait until you grow up and see how it all is." It feels really bad for the person receiving it and most often is just an easy way out when you have run out of arguments.

 

Trying to push for improvements in lomac forum.....:

- Hey why don't we do this?

ED: .........(blank)

ED supporters: - lol , who do you think we are?

 

I think team ED(incl testers) needs to visit fighterops forums.

[RvEYoda]

I work with several software engineers and programmers. In a very real world software development environment handling multiple critical applications. And I call your BS.

 

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The problem is so concrete I could bite it off a sandwich! (lol this sounds like crap =)

 

It is listening to the community. Listening to the customers. Trying to do something while it still holds value.

Here we are trying to change a few numbers in code that (unless teh devs are completely out of luck and put some stupid dependancies to chaff resistance from other stuff. Hey why dont we put f-15 length as a function of amraam chaff resistance?) will improve our game. Effort: Minimal. Reward : good.

 

BS is moving from the issue and talking about other stuff. Trying to defend the ones who(which I at least truly believe) are making a HUGE mistake. This is not about defending ED. This is about improving the game!

 

I hopped off this forum for about a week and a half to get a break from this attitude. Now I am back to try again, but the resistance has gotten thicker. Perhaps the first decision was better. I don't wish to leave lockon though because it is a beautiful game (and im not talking graphics here), but sadly also with people that can't look past their own egos when it comes to making improvements. To them it's just unwarranted criticism that must be put down.

[nscode]

No, it very much has to do with code itself. Changing a peace of code is 10% of making a program change. Re-testing the whole app to see what that change does to it as a whole is the hard (and most time consuming) part.

 

An amraam that crashes not only your opponents aircraft, but your game too would be a bit too much of a fix ;)

[nscode]

How does a sudden change in aspect cut RCS so much that the target drops below the SNR threshold? Radar scintillation can exponentially increase the target's RCS, but I'm not sure I've heard of any phenomenon that would exponentially decrease RCS.

decrease signal (RCS) + increase noise (chaff) :)

[nscode]

No... but I plan on building one when I have some time :D

[RvEYoda]

None of you guys know how they really work and the parameters. Have any of you ever fired a missile or work for a company that builds them? We can just hope that the missiles come close to the real thing, but we'll never know.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. If we'd work like this we might as well throw golf balls at each other instead because we cannot know how anything works so we cannot simulate it.....wait a minute.....simulate.

 

Should we not try our best to push something better out of the game?

We're not talking about making the game 100% realistic. Some of us though.....(tbh the group does not seem that big anymore) wishes to improve things faster than things are going! Taking it step by step is fine by anyone, but right now nothing has been released in a very long time. Perhaps this is like arguing to the wrong crowd, like asking ID software to make their rockets blow up entire rooms instead of body parts.