Jump to content

New Aim-120 Thoughts?


DCS FIGHTER PILOT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah:

 

-Drag is perfect matches very well if not perfectly to IASGATG's results from 6 years ago.

 

-Lift is perfect (just google first amraam kill on youtube DCS amraam's can now make that kill)

 

-Various small things like pitching moments are great (See above)

 

-Guidance is BMS levels of good now. (still need to check and see if the loft profile updates dynamically over time based on TWS updates anhd what the bandit is doing.)

 

-The only thing wierd to me is the reduction in ISP and burn time, now the thrust has actually gone up from 16,703N to 18084N! But the reduction in burn time is so great we see a drop in top speed. Again these values are wierd to me and i'll have to see ED's reasoning when they publish their paper on their changes.

 

Now 200kts of top speed was lost but the drag reduction was so great that at long range the actual difference in Rmax is not really noticeable. If anything its better as its faster at longer ranges meaning it can turn better. Now if it didn't have that 200-400kts reduction the amraam would have been perfect and made into the op wagon of death.


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A related question. Is the DLZ accurate and representative of the missiles new performance? Specially interested in the Hornet, but the question applies to all airframes.

 

It seems to be. Mach 0.9 at about 33,000 feet I'm getting Rmax indication at around 34nm on a head-on co-altitude target who's also at Mach 0.9. (in the Hornet). And the missile performance seems to be matching.

 

Also I noticed the control fin deflections are animated. Is that new? It's pretty cool!


Edited by NoJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well two possibilities exist from what everyone is saying, One, either I am nuts or two, my update was somehow corrupted.

 

I just ran two tests, one in the stable version and one in the new open beta. There is absolutely no question that the missile in the open beta hit its target about 200 knots slower than in the stable version. Just by eyeballing both missiles during flight, the drag seems to be identical but seeing as how 200 knots of top speed was lost in the new amraam, the OB missile appears inferior.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3WCgOyc2T8 STABLE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTbMXoT0BI Open Beta

AMRAAM SHOT OB.trk

AMRAAM TEST STABLE.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest change is the improved guidance, which you won't see against a straight a level target. I have not done comparisons to stable yet but I feel like the OB missile is an improvement even with the surprise loss of ~200 knots top speed.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this change alone make proper BVR tactics (launch & leave, MAR, banzai, etc) a realistic possibility now in DCS? Or is the claimed over powered notching issue still preventing these strategies from being realistically used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this change alone make proper BVR tactics (launch & leave, MAR, banzai, etc) a realistic possibility now in DCS? Or is the claimed over powered notching issue still preventing these strategies from being realistically used?

I've only launched a handful of missiles so far, but unless it was just luck, the missile shows a massive increase in chaff and/or notch resistance.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds promising. I can’t wait for the BVR experience in DCS to match that of the “other” sim. Seems we’re heading in the right direction.

 

From what I can see it’s even worse now than before when it comes to speed. My update must have been corrupted because I see absolutely no difference in deceleration between OB and stable AMRAAMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be wise not to get ourselves too hung up on the 200kts figure as this is a fairly small fraction of the AIM120s top speed so although this is the simplest change to quantify it is probably the least significant change to its Pk in the update.

 

It’s also good to give credit when it’s due, even the biggest detractors of DCS would have to acknowledge the team has their heart in the right place and have made many many positive steps in recent months to earn goodwill from the community - that is worthy of our own respect in turn.

 

This update represents multiple things - firstly a massive step forward in modelling for air to air missiles but also and almost equally important - an explanation of the working that arrived at these performance figures.

 

The amount of research and thought that has gone into giving us this simulation of an AMRAAM is second to none and I think given time we will see the uptick in Pk bear out.

 

My own questions are more towards how much time and effort this research required and whether it is prohibitively expensive to expect the same level of detail across the board.

 

I’m personally far more interested in the Aim-7, Aim-9 and Aim-54, you can guess which module I fly!

 

The only downside to this as I see it would be if red air and non AMRAAM capable aircraft find their own armament not as competitive since it would probably drive the multiplayer community even further toward an F-16/F-18 combination and I’ve always felt the real USP of DCS was as a combined study-survey sim. The breadth of meticulously detailed aircraft can’t be found anywhere else. Even in that other sim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this change alone make proper BVR tactics (launch & leave, MAR, banzai, etc) a realistic possibility now in DCS? Or is the claimed over powered notching issue still preventing these strategies from being realistically used?

Just looking at the lua(which finally has the ccm_k0 values) the ccm_k0 for the 120C is 0.04, while the Bs is 0.06. This compares to the SD-10s 0.15, and the AIM-54Cs 0.5. So assuming whats in the lua is correct, its safe to say the chaff resistance has increased a lot, which in turn reduces notch effectiveness.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After doing a bunch of tests, I have found that it is even more difficult to get a kill than before seeing as how the missile looses its speed just too damm fast.

 

So, the Aim-120b/c are really that bad in real life? I mean who am I to say ED is wrong? It’s also been verified by tons of community members so I guess that is that.

 

One thing that is still quite troubling is that the SD-10 is still leagues ahead, even more so now, of the AMRAAM. Is this accurate?


Edited by DCS FIGHTER PILOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After doing a bunch of tests, I have found that it is even more difficult to get a kill than before seeing as how the missile looses its speed just too damm fast.

 

So, the Aim-120b/c are really that bad in real life? I mean who am I to say ED is wrong? It’s also been verified by tons of community members so I guess that is that.

 

One thing that is still quite troubling is that the SD-10 is still leagues ahead, even more so now, of the AMRAAM. Is this accurate?

 

This patch did not change AMRAAM range at all. SD-10 is maybe 2% ahead in range, way easier to notch and smokey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firing from the Hornet both the Aim-120B and Aim-120C eat chaff more than before and are still easily notched. Simple lazy S turns is all it takes. Lofting is also really odd. When they loft they either never arc down even if lock is maintained or they cannot make the arc and the enemy aircraft happily flies on as it tries to make a U-turn and misses by at least a mile.

 

As an extra the Aim-7s loft the same way either attempting to be a moon shot or cant arc back down in time to make an intercept. They eat chaff and are notched on par with the AIM-120 family.

 

This is in Single player against AI (High, Good, Average) not sure if it reacts different in MP.


Edited by ruxtmp
added SP/MP clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firing from the Hornet both the Aim-120B and Aim-120C eat chaff more than before and are still easily notched. Simple lazy S turns is all it takes. Lofting is also really odd. When they loft they either never arc down even if lock is maintained or they cannot make the arc and the enemy aircraft happily flies on as it tries to make a U-turn and misses by at least a mile.

 

As an extra the Aim-7s loft the same way either attempting to be a moon shot or cant arc back down in time to make an intercept. They eat chaff and are notched on par with the AIM-120 family.

 

This is in Single player against AI (High, Good, Average) not sure if it reacts different in MP.

This really sounds like you don't have the updated missile somehow. Notch resistance may be the same, but I'm almost 100% certain chaff resistance is many many times greater than previously. The old AMRAAM basically had a 50-75% chance of going for chaff. This version seems to ignore it unless you also notch.

 

 

The new loft algorithm also fixes the issue you point out. I wasn't able to get the missile to pitch up indefinitely like I was before.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aim120 behaves like the old SD10 at the launch time of the JF17 now. ED's team just slapped their own face
I disagree, SD-10 used to waaaay less draggy on initial JF-17 released.

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the SD-10 feels like a “crowd pleaser”. There is no evidence provided by DEKA that what they’ve done is based on real data. Of course there never will be such data. The real data is classified. All they can do is educated guessing.

DEKA is being smart about getting a lot of PR features. The JF got the most advanced weapons (based on half-baked ED API) – and everyone wants to play with the newest and coolest toys, right?

They do everything so that the product will sale. I get that… It’s a different philosophy than Eds. In a way- its even countering Eds approach to be honest.

So, I wouldn’t compare the SD-10 to the AIM-120. There’s really no way to do it properly… Personally I trust ED more. They’ve done a long way to build their reputation. Overall, they show that they try to go the extra mile for realism when they decide to go “simulation way” with their heavy modules and projects. DEKA still got some way to go to prove us that they’ve got the highest realism standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...