[DCS BUG] AIM54 is PITBULL from the start at any range

[Falcon_S]

Example #1

Max range shot / F14 break lock and go cold / AIM54 is PITBULL (tracking, self-guiding) immediately

Target changing aspects / Missile tracking / No launch warning / Missiles tracking until speed 500kmh

 

Example #2

Max range shot / F14 braeak lock and go in SPECTATORS / AIM54 is PITBULL (tracking, self-guiding) immediately

Target changing aspects / Missile tracking because have better radar than SU-33 / No launch warning / Missiles tracking untlil death

 

Example #3

60km range shot / F14 braeak lock and go in SPECTATORS / AIM54 is PITBULL (tracking, self-guiding) immediately

Target changing aspects / Missile tracking / No launch warning / Missiles tracking untlil death / LA Warning for Flanker is just for cosmetics in about 10miles/km (whatever)

 

BONUS: Everyone can try this, Launch Phoeanix and hide in mountains (no need to keep lock...) and enjoy (wait for kill) because bandit can't hide.

 

:cry:

AIM54 Example 1.zip

EXAMPLE 2.zip

EXAMPLE 3.zip

Edited March 21, 2019 by IronMike

[Coxy_99]

Even changing host didnt change anything.

[TomCatMucDe]

I can confirm. I saw the same behavior. Maybe you should report this in the bug section.

[Drona]

Can concur, similar findings in testing as well. Found it strange that it guided from long range even though lock was lost.

[Rabbisaur]

I was planning to do some testing tonight on other things. Now I will definitely do additional test on this.

 

Experiment design: single target flying in zigzag. F14 launch AIM54a/c at 35nm, turn off radar immediately, ensure there's no other Aircraft in the map, esp. E3A/E2C/any carriers than might potentially use datalink to update target information. Look at missile behavior.

 

I will post the result later. If it can be confirmed, then we have more evidence this need to be fixed.

 

I won't let the F-14 go in spectator in case to rule out that might be a bug of going to spectator instead.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Rabbisaur

[Rabbisaur]

And I hope you know that you should fire AIM54 in TWS not STT. If in STT mode and you lost lock, the missile immediately goes to pitbull.

[Drona]

Yes, but even in STT and even if the missile goes active after STT lock drops, it shouldn't track an aircraft 60 km away, right? notching and hiding behind mountains?

[Falcon_S]

...

I won't let the F-14 go in spectator in case to rule out that might be a bug of going to spectator instead.

 

We go in spectators just to be sure that there is nothing that can guide missile. We do many tests before that (with no go in spectators) F14 cold, F14 low without radar painting target (no lock) ... that missile just tracking.

[FZG_Immel]

if that's the case, it needs to be corrected. now, I have seen R-27Rs keep tracking my F/A18 despite the launcher plane being shot down for at least 10sec...

 

will you complain about that as well ?

[Drona]

if that's the case, it needs to be corrected. now, I have seen R-27Rs keep tracking my F/A18 despite the launcher plane being shot down for at least 10sec...

 

will you complain about that as well ?

 

 

Yes, why not! Go ahead! Rs doesn't track even if lock is there ;)

[Rabbisaur]

if that's the case, it needs to be corrected. now, I have seen R-27Rs keep tracking my F/A18 despite the launcher plane being shot down for at least 10sec...

 

will you complain about that as well ?

 

Yes, I back you on this. I saw that as well many times. And I remember seeing this in a youtube video from Growling Sidewinder. He also pointed it out in his video. But he has so many videos I need to take time to find that specific one.

[Rabbisaur]

Yes, but even in STT and even if the missile goes active after STT lock drops, it shouldn't track an aircraft 60 km away, right? notching and hiding behind mountains?

 

That's for sure, it shouldn't track in that case. Let's do some more tests just to cross validate and the bug has been reported here. Just wait for it to be fixed once validated.

[Rabbisaur]

I also felt it was probably too good to be true, since it almost 5/6 hit rate in only PvP when fired in TWS mode at 25k~30k ft altitude 20-25NM away. The only target AIM54 has trouble hitting is the SU-27. All my misses are Su-27, even fired at 20NM away.

[Coxy_99]

if that's the case, it needs to be corrected. now, I have seen R-27Rs keep tracking my F/A18 despite the launcher plane being shot down for at least 10sec...

 

will you complain about that as well ?

 

It does actually same with ER to. Only for a few seconds tho. (Im joking)

Edited March 20, 2019 by Coxy_99

[FZG_Immel]

Yes, why not! Go ahead! Rs doesn't track even if lock is there ;)

 

wrong. I have tracks on buddy spike Caucasus where the R-27Rs keep tracking me long after I killed the shooter

[Drona]

wrong. I have tracks on buddy spike Caucasus where the R-27Rs keep tracking me long after I killed the shooter

 

As I said, go ahead, report it! If it helps making the simulation better, I'm all for it!

[borchi_2b]

if that's the case, it needs to be corrected. now, I have seen R-27Rs keep tracking my F/A18 despite the launcher plane being shot down for at least 10sec...

 

will you complain about that as well ?

 

First of all this is not about the R27ER, this is about some fictional behavior of the aim54a/c missiles. We have tested this in depth and have found this and some other bugs.

 

R27ER

yes some of the stuff seems to be magical, but in the end there are some bugs too. Opposing to what people believe, this missile, the r27er platform, is, in regards to one guy we have access to who was a su30 testpilot, well undermodelled and roughly hits the prottype specifics of 1980 time.

Specs about the real R27ER are as follows:

head on range on fast moving targets at an altitude of 30000ft+ is 125km+ when you go supersonic with speeds around 1.5m of the launching platform.

The 27ET has a range in the same specs of 115km roughly.

Both platforms are _INS guided like the aim54 platform and only use ion terminal flight thier seekers. Roughly 10sec before impact these missiles use thier seekers, which is controlled by the weapon avionics logic of the launching platform, which is controlled by datalink. I can not go to much into detail, but also the countermeasure resitance is very strong compared to what you see in DCS, which means, the 27Er is chaff resistant and also does the 27et has a seekerlogic that bans certain heat ranges of the flares of nato, cause they burn in a very specific heatrange.

The INS guidance of these missiles makes it possible for su27 and mig29 platfroms to shoot these missiles in TWS too. The max ammount of TWS targets differs and is dependand on the date of the radar build in the su27 family. So if we are speaking of tuning down the 27er and 27et, ok cool, but that is a different topic.

 

For me the topic of adding the 27er into the discussion about a aim54a/c bug, makes no sense at all. Lets focus on the bug. Thanks

Edited March 20, 2019 by borchi_2b

[Rabbisaur]

First of all this is not about the R27ER, this is about some fictional behavior of the aim54a/c missiles. We have tested this in depth and have found this and some other bugs.

 

R27ER

yes some of the stuff seems to be magical, but in the end there are some bugs too. Opposing to what people believe, this missile, the r27er platform, is, in regards to one guy we have access to who was a su30 testpilot, well undermodelled and roughly hits the prottype specifics of 1980 time.

Specs about the real R27ER are as follows:

head on range on fast moving targets at an altitude of 30000ft+ is 125km+ when you go supersonic with speeds around 1.5m of the launching platform.

The 27ET has a range in the same specs of 115km roughly.

Both platforms are _INS guided like the aim54 platform and only use ion terminal flight thier seekers. Roughly 10sec before impact these missiles use thier seekers, which is controlled by the weapon avionics logic of the launching platform, which is controlled by datalink. I can not go to much into detail, but also the countermeasure resitance is very strong compared to what you see in DCS, which means, the 27Er is chaff resistant and also does the 27et has a seekerlogic that bans certain heat ranges of the flares of nato, cause they burn in a very specific heatrange.

The INS guidance of these missiles makes it possible for su27 and mig29 platfroms to shoot these missiles in TWS too. The max ammount of TWS targets differs and is dependand on the date of the radar build in the su27 family. So if we are speaking of tuning down the 27er and 27et, ok cool, but that is a different topic.

 

For me the topic of adding the 27er into the discussion about a aim54a/c bug, makes no sense at all. Lets focus on the bug. Thanks

 

Good point. Let's restrict the discussion to AIM54a/c. But I have to say the points about range and INS that you listed here also have little to do with the '27ER keep tracking after launching platform has been destroyed issue'. Let's all focus on help Heatblur to fix potential bugs and make the F-14 even greater. And help stop banning AIM54 on popular online servers such as BuddySpikes as for now.

[FZG_Immel]

First of all this is not about the R27ER, this is about some fictional behavior of the aim54a/c missiles. We have tested this in depth and have found this and some other bugs.

 

R27ER

yes some of the stuff seems to be magical, but in the end there are some bugs too. Opposing to what people believe, this missile, the r27er platform, is, in regards to one guy we have access to who was a su30 testpilot, well undermodelled and roughly hits the prottype specifics of 1980 time.

Specs about the real R27ER are as follows:

head on range on fast moving targets at an altitude of 30000ft+ is 125km+ when you go supersonic with speeds around 1.5m of the launching platform.

The 27ET has a range in the same specs of 115km roughly.

Both platforms are _INS guided like the aim54 platform and only use ion terminal flight thier seekers. Roughly 10sec before impact these missiles use thier seekers, which is controlled by the weapon avionics logic of the launching platform, which is controlled by datalink. I can not go to much into detail, but also the countermeasure resitance is very strong compared to what you see in DCS, which means, the 27Er is chaff resistant and also does the 27et has a seekerlogic that bans certain heat ranges of the flares of nato, cause they burn in a very specific heatrange.

The INS guidance of these missiles makes it possible for su27 and mig29 platfroms to shoot these missiles in TWS too. The max ammount of TWS targets differs and is dependand on the date of the radar build in the su27 family. So if we are speaking of tuning down the 27er and 27et, ok cool, but that is a different topic.

 

For me the topic of adding the 27er into the discussion about a aim54a/c bug, makes no sense at all. Lets focus on the bug. Thanks

 

I was not talking about the ER.. I was talking about the R... and I was wondering why the Russian playing guys complaining about the AIM-54 exagerations, were never concerned about the R-27R exagerations (fox 1 being a fox 3..... talk about fictional...)

 

about your comments on the R-27ER being underrated in the game... LoL… well, have you seen SU-27s outrun AIm-120Cs when shot at 4nm ?

 

 

lets be serious here...

 

I am all for bugs being fixed.. yet Im just laughing my ass of when someone who uses to fly SU-27s talks about 'fictional' stuff...

 

edit: buddy spike banned the phoenix yet they are fine with the R-27s ? lol...

Edited March 20, 2019 by FZG_Immel

[Farlander]

will you complain about that as well ?

 

This is no place for whataboutism. Bugs should be reported, and they should not be considered as "attacks" on a developer..

[Falcon_S]

...I was wondering why the Russian playing guys complaining about the AIM-54 exagerations,...

 

Man, we flying Flankers, nightmare for western pilots - we just don't want to be target drones for boys like you. If you want to kill Flanker with that retired bird you have to invest a lot more effort than just have missile that will do that for you. :)

Edited March 20, 2019 by Falcon_S

[VampireNZ]

I assume this thread is just waiting to be moved to the Bugs section by a mod?

[Shively]

This is no place for whataboutism. Bugs should be reported, and they should not be considered as "attacks" on a developer..

 

Totally agree, but I think you are asking a bit much of this community of spoiled brats.

[Drona]

I was not talking about the ER.. I was talking about the R... and I was wondering why the Russian playing guys complaining about the AIM-54 exagerations, were never concerned about the R-27R exagerations (fox 1 being a fox 3..... talk about fictional...)

 

 

If you feel that there is a bug in the R-27R, please do post the bug in relevant bug section with relevant tracks. Its that simple. We are talking about AIM-54 here, not R-27R.

[Rabbisaur]

I came back with data.

 

Unfortunately none of my buddies are available for some testing tonight. So I have to do some crude testing with AI.

 

In the mission editor, I created a new mission using Caucusus map. With an player controlled Heatblur F-14B on grid CH88 at 25000ft traveling east Mach 1.4. And a AI su27 on grid DH87 at 10000ft in a wide zigzag pattern centered on west at Mach 0.5. The separation was around 53 NM. And a single AIM-54C was fired at 45NM to the target in TWS mode (Jester in the back seat). After launch I immediately asked Jester to go silent on radar. I went to the back seat and verified that the radar is in standby position. The contact icon on the TID also disappeared shortly after about 3 second delay.

 

The AIM54C immediately went from the initial LOFT trajectory into a straight line. Although the Su-27 was cranking to the north west and turned to cranking south west, the AIM54C did not track at all.

 

Only after the AIM54c reached within 7.3 NM, it suddenly begin to track, because the Su-27 is passing in front of it heading south west(to its right). (See the tacview screenshot in the attachment) Of course it lacks the required energy to hit the target.

 

In the zoomed out you can see there is a initial angle and all flying in INS and/or fox3 but no tracking until 7NM to the target and then lost track crashed into the ocean.

 

I guess this is concluded for AIM54C. No unrealistic tracking at all, and fox3 radar can only acquire Su-27 at less than 7NM.

 

More testing with AIM54As is coming.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Rabbisaur