[REPORTED] Amraam range wrong indication?

[raelias]

So the test is as follows:

 

 

Hornet behind a group of 4 IL76 flying straight and level at angels 20 M75, spaced 15nm apart

 

 

 

First I do some radar lock and AACQ tests, as I understand AACQ should lock the closest target but sometimes it locks the one ate 15nm, sometimes the one at 30, I do understand however that this feature is in EA not working properly

 

 

locking the closest Il76, the plane tells me I have an rmax at those parameters of 15nm, so I start shooting getting closer and closer

 

 

The target never manouvers, and yet only when I get within 10nm i finally get a hit (just barely)

 

 

Am I misunderstanding the concept? The way I see it the missile should be able to get to the target at rMax as long as it doesn't manouver at all (as the test is setup) which should be 15nm, but in reality It can only reach it at 10nm

 

 

Sorry if I'm wrong about the concept, but there you go track attached

Amraam test.trk

Edited November 25, 2019 by raelias

[raelias]

Same happens on the Sparrow, shows rmax of 11.8nm but I could only get a hit on a 6nm shot

Sparrow test.trk

[raelias]

Can someone please acknowledge this?

[Harker]

First of all, AACQ is WIP and there's also a bug where your radar might not respect the TDC range position and lock something else in the same azimuth. It's been reported.

 

Secondly, the Rne (no escape zone) logic in the Hornet is definitely incorrect. It's mentioned in several threads. In this one, I did some tests between the F-15C (correct logic) and the F-18C, (incorrect logic): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250074

 

 

There's also this reported thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=253488&highlight=Rne

 

 

Rne should be the range that the target cannot kinematically escape the missile no matter what. It doesn't mean that the missile will hit, but it does mean that purely kinematic evasion (such as dragging the missile or pulling G's at the last second etc) is not possible. That is definitely not true with the Rne displayed in the Hornet. Hopefully, with the upcoming radar changes, they can adjust this. The Rne calculation in the F-16C is better, so I'm hopeful.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Harker

[BIGNEWY]

Hi

 

Rmax is for a non manoeuvring target, your targets are moving away from you.

 

you should be using Rne for a kill

 

hope that helps

[Harker]

Hi

 

Rmax is for a non manoeuvring target, your targets are moving away from you.

 

you should be using Rne for a kill

 

hope that helps

Hey BN, what about the Rne logic though? Is it going to be addressed in an upcoming patch? Because you can get Rne cue from 28NM away now and that is not threatening even in the slightest to an enemy fighter. You can defeat an AIM-120C launched from 28NM away by just maneuvering a little.

[will-]

Tws which ironically autocorrects to yes. Interesting the hornet is 28nm. The viper is 24nm head on.

[Fri13]

Hi

 

Rmax is for a non manoeuvring target, your targets are moving away from you.

 

Flying away is not maneuvering.

 

RMax should be usable regardless the target attitude, only requirements are that it maintains its vector and its velocity.

 

That should be dynamically calculated that as long the target doesn't change vector nor change speed to worse (at least accelerate when flying away, or decelerate when flying toward) the missile will reach it based all the information of wind, height etc there is at the current launching platform (and expecting to have same at the target location).

 

As all different factors change the Rmax value, it only requires that target doesn't maneuver at all after the moment the calculation for Rmax is done.

[raelias]

Hi

 

Rmax is for a non manoeuvring target, your targets are moving away from you.

 

you should be using Rne for a kill

 

hope that helps

 

 

That's incorrect, non manouvering means it's keeping is current speed/altitude/heading, it should calculate Rmax based on those conditions, as such in this case it shows an rmax of 15nm, if the targets were head on it would be sometimes over 30nm depending on the altitude and speed

 

 

Fact of the matter is that the Rmax and Rne are incorrect and must be addressed

[NineLine]

Hey guys, looking into it now, does seem to be something off, thanks.

[raelias]

Hey guys, looking into it now, does seem to be something off, thanks.

 

 

What do you mean? You can clearly see the missile falling WAY short on a non-manouvering target on both the AMRAAM and Sparrow, the calculation is clearly off by a lot

[NineLine]

What do you mean? You can clearly see the missile falling WAY short on a non-manouvering target on both the AMRAAM and Sparrow, the calculation is clearly off by a lot

 

I mean... looking into it now, does seem to be something off, thanks.

[raelias]

I mean... looking into it now, does seem to be something off, thanks.

 

 

Oh i misread, thanks!

[NineLine]

Reported, thanks!!