Devs: Bug List Fix for V1.1?

[D-Scythe]

I've read somewhere that from V1.02 to V1.1, up to 400 bugs and issues have been fixed, which is twice as much as from V1.01 to V1.02. Since we got a bug list fix shortly before the release of V1.02, I was wondering if you guys could release the bug fix list for V1.1 as well.

 

Thanks.

[Dmut]

As far as I remeber, ED had negative experience after releasing history of 1.02 changes. Right before release, they had to remove some new features, which was declared in development histry, because they wasn't fixed on moment of 1.02 release.

While a most community appreciate that ED publish it's development history, some jerks abuse ED, after 1.02 release, with messages like "you has announced _that_ feature in your history - where is it???"

So at this time ED don't want to publish all fixes before release.

I'm not in ED staff, so it's only my guess, based on some posts from ED's.

[D-Scythe]

Fixed the aiming point of some AI ground units when firing at other ground units

Ground AI unit will account for its turrets rotation angle limits when will make decision to engage a hostile or not

Various issues with wrong aiming of ground units have been corrected

 

Does this mean that AI tanks can actually shoot at each other with some type of accuracy? Shepski posted this a month ago:

 

"Tanks aren't supper accurate... in a merging 5v5 T-80 vs M1A1, the T-80s won by one tank and missed on 21 rounds total."

 

So is it safe to say that changes have been implemented since then?

 

Missile combat:

__Just got a few issues that I have problems with, V1.02 that is:

 

i) Acceleration of missiles is not realistic. AAMs don't accelerate to their top speed in an instant and maintain it until the motor burns out - most don't have boost-sustain rockets. Currently, because of this, there is no point in entering a BVR fight supersonic, which is a real world tactic to give your missiles extra energy in the end game (you know, supercruise?). The acceleration algorithm should be more that the missile continues to accelerate until burn out.

 

ii) Proportional navigation is too agressive in V1.02 in BVR combat, and I think Matt said as much in some other forum. Currently, it is possible to outrun a missile while keeping the target within gimbal limits of the radar = you don't even need to beam.

 

iii) Some cosmetic changes that should take a few seconds: Max g for some missiles I think are incorrect:

______________a) R-73 and MICA missiles have TVC. Their g-limits should be around 40-50g. Currently the Archer is at 30 and the MICA at 18

______________b) R550, R-60, AIM-120 and AIM-9M g-limit is around 30, IIRC. Currently they are at 18 and 22 respectively. For comparison, the huge MIM-104 Patriot in Lock On has a 30 g limit, while these missiles designed to smack down agile fighters have only a fraction of the g.

 

For the most part, most contemporary AAMs (R-27R/R1/T/ER/ET, AIM-7M, AIM-120, MICA, R530 and most SRAAMs) are rated at 18-22 g, with only the R-77 and R-73 capable of achieving 30 g. This doesn't really make much sense; I was always under the impression that contemporary AAMs have a g-limit around 30, while TVC capable missiles like MICA, AIM-9X and R-73 should be around 40-60. To further add to this, I know that it is incorrect for a huge 40 ft missile like the MIM-104 to be able to pull more gs than an AMRAAM or AIM-9.

[Caretaker]

Tank aiming doesn't seem poor to me in 1.1, but they do miss some shots. From what I've been told there is also a factor of battlefield smoke involved, what isn't really modelled but would still reduce the aiming capabilities of tanks (does that make sense? ;)).

 

Improved missile physics should be a big part for the next development step, but unfortunately for 1.1 they remain pretty much unchanged in this area. Various parameters have been tweaked but I don't know the details here.

[olaleier]

Nice list here:

 

http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=9&lang=en&scr=list&page=4#362

[GGTharos]

Well, D-Scythe, you wouldn't really be correct. The Patriot missile has no reason to be more or less capable of pulling G's physics-wise, AFAIK.

 

The R-73 can have a higher G-limit but it's not necessary as it is supposedly a low-velocity missile compared to AMRAAM and R-77.

 

The R-77 has a high G-Limit to simulate that it's more maneuverable than the AMRAAM in the end-game. Doesn't really need it though.

 

Right now, all these 'G-limits' aren't really relevant because missile physics aren't entirely realistic anyway, so it's useless to say that they're wrong when the physics aren't modelled in any way that makes the forces acting on those missiles in a manner consistent with reality.

[yamangman]

I asked this question in the Russian section, and Chizh responded saying a change log will only be out upon release.

 

He did confirm that weapon reload using Alt-J has been fixed.

[D-Scythe]

Well, D-Scythe, you wouldn't really be correct. The Patriot missile has no reason to be more or less capable of pulling G's physics-wise, AFAIK.

 

The Patriot PAC 2, as modelled in LOMAC, is a huge missile, much like the S300. It's speed is at least Mach 4, maybe even Mach 5 at altitude, and it weighs thousands of pounds. Are you saying that it is so structurally different from the AIM-120 that it's airframe can withstand a uber-heavy missile turning at Mach 5 and 30 g? And that the AIM-120, that only weighs 345 lbs, and flies at a much lower speed, cannot?

 

The R-73 can have a higher G-limit but it's not necessary as it is supposedly a low-velocity missile compared to AMRAAM and R-77.

 

It has TVC, so it turns a lot sharper than both the AIM-120 and R-77. Thus, more g...Mica too.

 

The R-77 has a high G-Limit to simulate that it's more maneuverable than the AMRAAM in the end-game. Doesn't really need it though. [/qoute]

 

If they are trying to do that, do they have any data to support the fact that the R-77 can pull over 30% more g than the AIM-120,? Or was that just a guess? On the other hand, they also didn't model the greater drag that the grid fins on the R-77 generates...doesn't seem fair.

 

Right now, all these 'G-limits' aren't really relevant because missile physics aren't entirely realistic anyway, so it's useless to say that they're wrong when the physics aren't modelled in any way that makes the forces acting on those missiles in a manner consistent with reality.

 

I'm not asking for super-realistic, just an accurate representation. Not being able to give your missiles a little extra boost by flying higher and faster IMO is not a reasonable representation.

[GGTharos]

Like I said, in LOMAC the missile physics aren't getting nay better (from what I heard) but in the future they'll be modelled more realistically.

 

Yes, the R-77 IS more maneuverable because of the fins in the END GAME, but it's also more draggy.

 

The Patriot NEEDS higher G capability (in the game, probably not in RL because apaprently, in RL you get no lock/launch warnings from SA-12/Patriot) -precicely- because it travels at higher speed.

 

To put it another way: The R-73 doesn't need to do 30g maneuvering during the vectored thrust portion of its flight against a close-in target, specifically ebcause regardless of what you think you're seeing, in RL that would happen at fairly low speed (for the missile) ... so you pull fewer G's. The enormous G capability is required for high speeds maneuvering since it is that regime where it occurs.

 

The point: I agree with you that stuff isn't compeltely accurate, and it's currently being revised to -some- degree. As I understand it the R-77 pays for its maneuverability with greater susceptibility to chaff in the game, for example. But the representation which YOU are asking for (quite clearly I think) is something that isn't coming until the next project.

 

The next project aims to model missile physics more realistically, so you'll get the R-77's draggy fins, the Amraam's lower maneuverability at end-game by comparison, realistic missile acceleration times, more realistic fuzes, and so on.

[britgliderpilot]

It has TVC, so it turns a lot sharper than both the AIM-120 and R-77. Thus, more g...Mica too.

 

Not entirely true.

 

Acceleration (meaured in G-units if you like) is equal to velocity squared over turn radius.

 

Hence it's possible to make a very wide turn, and pull more G's than something doing a very narrow turn . . . . you just have to be going very, very fast.

 

 

Just keep that in mind here . . . . .

[D-Scythe]

GGTharos, before we get any further, lemme just make it known that I agree with you. The physics modelling simply isn't there for some of the fancy shmancy stuff. I'm just presenting reasons why I think it should be changed to a newer, more advanced one.

 

Yes, the R-77 IS more maneuverable because of the fins in the END GAME, but it's also more draggy.

 

I never said that it wasn't more maneuverable than the AIM-120. Its a fact that the R-77 is aerodynamically more advanced than the AIM-120. My point is that the R-77 in the game currently is getting the best of both worlds: More g than the AIM-120 but without the drag from the fins. Missile design is all about trade-off, and it doesn't seem fair nor accurate to have it this way IMO.

 

The Patriot NEEDS higher G capability (in the game, probably not in RL because apaprently, in RL you get no lock/launch warnings from SA-12/Patriot) -precicely- because it travels at higher speed.

 

The Patriot and S300 series SAMs don't trip (reliably) RWR because their phased array radars send out tiny, pencil beam emissions rather than flooding the whole airframe with radar waves. Thus, the chance of picking up the radar by RWR is a lot less because a modern jet has, what, about 3 RWR antennaes?

 

The Patriot still shouldn't be able to pull 30 gs. Fine, it needs the capability, but the g limit in a missile has more to do with structure and the size of the guidance fins in relation to the missile body/mass. Both the MIM-104 and the S-300 have huge missile bodies, with relatively small fins in relation to the size, speed and mass of the missile itself. Thus, you shouldn't be expecting them to be making the same tight turns as AIM-120s and R-77s...the equation would be something like this:

 

Ag = v^2/r____where Ag is the g-load, v is velocity and r is radius. G I will use 9.8m/s^2.

 

So we sub in 30 g for the MIM-104, 1360 m/s (Mach 4 at sea level) and solve for 'r'

 

30G = 1360^2/r

r = 6291 m

 

Now we sub in 22 g for the AIM-120, 1156 m/s (Mach 3.4 at sea level) and solve for 'r'

 

22G = 1156^2/r

r = 6198 m

 

I assume Mach 3.5 is a reasonable speed for the AIM-120, and as you can see, the turn radius of the MIM-104, if fully exercised at 30 g (which it fortunately usually isn't in Lock On), is almost the same as the much smaller and more agile AIM-120. This should not be true.

 

Anyway, on to the forces acting on the missile body:

 

F = (m*v^2)/r

 

MIM-104: 26.5 x 10^4 N

AIM-120: 33 x 10^3 N

 

So...when the MIM-104 is pulling 30 gs, its tiny guidance fins are generating a force of 265000 N, almost 8 times the force that the AIM-120 is sustaining at 22 gs. So, this huge missile can not only turn as well as the AIM-120 at a higher speed, but its structure is so much stronger than the AMRAAM's that it can also sustain 8 times the force acting upon it? Highly doubt it - the missile would break apart, It's not like the missile body of the Patriot is made of titanium and the AIM-120's isn't.

 

Okay, I know this is a huge simplification of the physics regarding g in a missile, but I'm gonna use it nonetheless as an example. This is basically high school physics, but fundamentally it's correct.

 

To put it another way: The R-73 doesn't need to do 30g maneuvering during the vectored thrust portion of its flight against a close-in target, specifically ebcause regardless of what you think you're seeing, in RL that would happen at fairly low speed (for the missile) ... so you pull fewer G's. The enormous G capability is required for high speeds maneuvering since it is that regime where it occurs.

 

It doesn't matter. The R-73 is just that much more agile than the AIM-120 and R-77...I would expect that from a fourth generation dogfight missile. Pulling high gs at slower speeds would mean that it is even more agile (although it would lose a lot of speed) than the R-77. With TVC, wouldn't you sorta expect that from the Archer?

 

But the representation which YOU are asking for (quite clearly I think) is something that isn't coming until the next project.

 

Just making the issue known :D

 

Hence it's possible to make a very wide turn, and pull more G's than something doing a very narrow turn . . . . you just have to be going very, very fast.

 

Ah, its all high school physics ;)

[GGTharos]

Yes, it IS a huge simplification. Point here is that what YOU think a missile can or cannot withstand or how many G's it can pull isn't an issue, since we really don't know.

 

Sure, what you say makes sense on the surface but, does it bear any semblance to reality?

 

Here's the thing: Can a maneuvering aircraft get out of the way of a missile while the missile is at its peak speed, or does the 30G limit apply only to end-game maneuvering, where the speed is slower anyway?

 

I'm inclined to agree with you on the Patriot's fins but, again, who knows? We've seen some pretty powerful hydraulics and structures before, eh? On the other hand the Patriod needn't actually hit.

 

I find the reasoning for the RWR not picking up the 'lock' a bit faulty, simply because the thinner a beam is, the more it spreads ;) And you /still/ need the reflection (guidance is TVM) so it's can't be particularely weak. I think the trick here is that the Patriot radar uses more of a TWS style tracking for missile guidance (so the beam isn't pounding the aircraft all the time, it just quickly flicks over it, then over other targets) and thus doesn't give a lock indication.

 

With modern SARH missiles you shouldn't really be getting a launch indication unless you can pickup the datalink I believe, anyway. This would probably apply to both R-27 and AIM-7, for example (modern versions thereof)

 

Regarding the archer, remember that the TVC capability lasts only until motor burn-out. As in, not very long, and only at the start of the engagement anyway where it probably jsut needs to orient itself towards the target very quickly. It's specifically set up to be able to do its initial turn very sharply, and that's about it. Same for AIM-9X, Python, etcetc. After -that- it's good old guidance fins, and the maneuverability goes down accordingly. The thing is, at the first turn is likely where it pull max G, but it likely won't break the sound barrier (I could be wrong) until it completes the turn.

 

But anyway, I'm no expert so let's just agree that more realistic missile physics modelling in the next project will be cool ;)

[D-Scythe]

Yes, it IS a huge simplification. Point here is that what YOU think a missile can or cannot withstand or how many G's it can pull isn't an issue, since we really don't know.

 

Sure, what you say makes sense on the surface but, does it bear any semblance to reality?

 

If I knew that, then I wouldn't even be having this discussion :lol:

 

Here's the thing: Can a maneuvering aircraft get out of the way of a missile while the missile is at its peak speed, or does the 30G limit apply only to end-game maneuvering, where the speed is slower anyway?

 

I was always under the impression that a missile (or fighter jet) can pull it's max g up until the point that it's speed is low enough that the force acting on the guidance fins cannot generate 30 g maneuvers for the missile anymore. That's just me.

 

I find the reasoning for the RWR not picking up the 'lock' a bit faulty, simply because the thinner a beam is, the more it spreads ;) And you /still/ need the reflection (guidance is TVM) so it's can't be particularely weak. I think the trick here is that the Patriot radar uses more of a TWS style tracking for missile guidance (so the beam isn't pounding the aircraft all the time, it just quickly flicks over it, then over other targets) and thus doesn't give a lock indication.

 

I’m not saying the RWR wouldn’t pick up the radar itself, but that the RWR would provide little to no warning in the case of a missile launch. From my understanding (maybe JJ alfa can chime in on this) on the phased arrays of the S300 and MIM-104, the radar sends out thousands of pinpoint pencil beams of energy which last for only a tiny fraction of a second. The computer on board then remembers an interesting return, and rather than keeping the target illuminated by the radar, it will only periodically redirect another pencil beam back at the aircraft to keep track of its location. Thus, the RWR seldom receives much of a signal, and what signal it does receive can be easily mistaken for clutter.

 

In addition, the S300PMU and the MIM-104 use a different approach then command guidance (where both the radar and the command signals can be detected by RWR), called track-via-missile (TVM. The missile is launched without the need for either a reconfigured radar signal (that would indicate a launch) or a stream of RF commands. The missile flies out to a near interception course based on initial data from the FCC prior to launch, through an ideal course (e.g. firing upwards and then coming down on its target = loft). In the terminal phase of the engagement, the missiles turn on a passive receiver in the nose, which picks up on reflections of the phased array radar’s pencil beams, and sends its view of these signals back to the FCC. The computer on the FC station then interprets the data and sends back any needed course corrections via a discrete and short signal. Thus, the targeted aircraft receives very little RF energy for its RWR to provide warning.

 

Regarding the archer, remember that the TVC capability lasts only until motor burn-out. As in, not very long, and only at the start of the engagement anyway where it probably jsut needs to orient itself towards the target very quickly. It's specifically set up to be able to do its initial turn very sharply, and that's about it.

 

Yeah, the extra g missing in the Archer would only be useful in an off-boresight snap shot.

[GGTharos]

Argh! Quit calling them pencil beams! ;)

 

Anyway, yes, what you described is 'TWS' actually, and yes, there is a datalink (TVM requires one) ... basically the missile itself, as I understandit, doesn't have a guidance processor - rather, it sends the 'image' it has back to the command vehicle which processes the return and actually commands the missile to change course etc (this is why the timing was significant in the GF1 Patriot failures) so it's really an interesting form of command guidance.

 

The missile still requires a strong reflection, but the reason why you do -not- get a warning is because the radar, as you said, doesn't bang on your aircraft with a radar beam continuously, rather, it hits you with it, say, once every second or two. Once the missile is close, it might speed up the scanning since the missile needs to work its guidance magic. The missile then is command or fuze detonated once near the target (the datalink/TVM updates obviously will only get you so close to a target)

 

I don't think any impression that this radar is 'low powered' is correct at all, gven its scanning range and the fact that the TVM requires a strong reflection like any other SARH missile; it's just that it'll be interpeted as scanning (which it is) instead of locking (which it isn't).

 

 

Going back to the Archer and G's ... I don't think these formulae apply very well when you consider TVC. The idea here is that your missile - the Archer - isn't using conventional flight to alter its vector, but using TVC. The second thing is that the TVC isn't -really- altering the velocity vector, it's altering the force vector radically - that is, re-orienting the missile without doing a 'conventional high-g turn' ... basically it's as if you pushed a stick so it rotates about its balance point. You don't need to pull a lot of G's ... the end result is, of course, that the missile's force vector is now pointed at the correct direction. I'm not sure if you see what I'm saying, but an Archer using TVC isn't going to pull more G's than if it didn't have it, but it -will- bring its nose around much faster. The idea here is that the TVC produces a centrifugal force which has less to do with actual turning (the modification of the velocity vector using a conventinal manner which fits the formulae) and more with simply reorienting the object in space. If you want a vaguely reasonable analogy, thing of the space shuttle's reaction control system.

 

The R-73's TVC isn't exactly that, but the point is that it actually /avoids/ the whole 'high G' problem when it comes to pointing the nose around, thus getting the missile on target and then burning straight for it.

[Kula66]

in RL you get no lock/launch warnings from SA-12/Patriot) -precicely- because it travels at higher speed.

I thought in GW2 an F-16 fired a HARM at a Patriot that 'locked' him ... so there must be some warning.

 

James

[Avimimus]

 

______________a) R-73 and MICA missiles have TVC. Their g-limits should be around 40-50g. Currently the Archer is at 30 and the MICA at 18

 

Maximum G for the R-73 is just under 30g in real life. TVC allows the missile to gain control at up to forty degrees angle of attack allowing it to have a much sharper turn radius.

 

I think your other estimates are a bit high.

[GGTharos]

You've misquoted me and people reading yoru quote will misinterpret what I said :P

 

Yes, you get the radar on the RWR, but AFAIK no lock/launch warnings.

[D-Scythe]

 

Maximum G for the R-73 is just under 30g in real life. TVC allows the missile to gain control at up to forty degrees angle of attack allowing it to have a much sharper turn radius.

 

MICA is rated at 50 g according to most sources, and it has TVC. The African Darter dogfight AAM is said to be able to pull 100 gs, also because of TVC according to AFM. AIM-9X, which also has TVC, according to some sources is rated between 50-60 g.

 

Since the R-73 is about the same size, and travels the same speed, and also has TVC, I don't see why it would only be able to pull 30.

 

I think your other estimates are a bit high

 

My only 'estimate' in my post is that the R-77 and the MIM-104 shouldn't be able to pull upwards of 30% more g than the AIM-120 and the AIM-9. I don't think that is too high, by any means, but that's just my opinion. And I realize that :D Since I don't want to get in a 'here's my source, where's yours?' battle, let's just leave it at that :)

[GGTharos]

Don't matter anyway, anyone who says 'here's my source' and gives a reliable one, will be getting a nice cell with bars anyway right? ;)

 

I'll tell ya what though, the human body can (and has) withstood 80g acceleration before - so long as it lasts for a tiny fraction of a second, that's fine.

 

So I'm not entirely certian what all those '30g' and '50g' ratings are all about. I'd imagine they're end-game ratings for the most part, where velocity is low. As for the MICA, it's a medium range missile, so the TVC doesn't make -too- much sense ...

[D-Scythe]

As for the MICA, it's a medium range missile, so the TVC doesn't make -too- much sense

 

Heh, you never know with those French people... :lol:

 

But the IR MICA is set to replace the R550 Magic SRAAM, and since both the IR and RF MICA use the same airframe, I guess they were intended to be used in some WVR situations as well. Due to its greater speed over normal SRAAMs, it makes sense to make a 50 g capable BVR missile that can also handle some WVR combat.

 

Although I really don't know. :shrugs:

[GGTharos]

I dunno. Kinda strange since it's a relatively heavy missile compared to the Magic, which as I understand is still used ... well, who cares, right?