pre-flare useless vs AIM-9X ?

[D4n]

There is no public source indicating that an AIM-9X can distinguish very hot flares from a (not so hot) idle jet-engine, correct? May it depend on the types of flares used?

And ED never claimed that they have access to data that they aren't allowed to share, right?

So this trackfile would prove to be a valid DCS bug-report? What one can definitely say is that it ruins the DCS PvP experience for all those players on the opposite end, to have a basically un-evadable thrust-vectoring missile like that one...

 

There you go.... ~8 out of 10 -9X hitting the idle-engine Harrier...

 

 

PreFlare AIM-9X impossible.trk

Edited December 28, 2020 by DanielNL

[Dagger71]

Where's your documentation to prove that the flares from the Harrier version we have in game should spoof the 9x FPA seeker in your scenario?

 

Where was the bandit who fired? What aspect ration?

Edited December 28, 2020 by Dagger71

[Dagger71]

ok sorry, I did see  the bandits in the video.    You are using AI and yes a saw almost all hit.  unfortunately AI "cheats" , and have been since the beginning. You need to redo the track with a human player , I doubt you will get the same results.

 

Either way you have to provide the proof that the 9x is bugged.

 

[Mars Exulte]

9 hours ago, DanielNL said:

There is no public source indicating that an AIM-9X can distinguish very hot flares from a (not so hot) idle jet-engine, correct? May it depend on the types of flares used?

 

Because filtering out based on a range of temperatures is utterly alien and nobody would possibly ever think to do that? For that matter, the whole point of the 9X is to be harder to spoof, it uses an IR camera, it SEES the plane, not just ''a heat source''.

 

 

9 hours ago, DanielNL said:

And ED never claimed that they have access to data that they aren't allowed to share, right?

 

Irrelevant.

 

9 hours ago, DanielNL said:

So this trackfile would prove to be a valid DCS bug-report?

 

Not necessarily.

 

9 hours ago, DanielNL said:

What one can definitely say is that it ruins the DCS PvP experience for all those players on the opposite end, to have a basically un-evadable thrust-vectoring missile like that one...

 

Irrelevant.

 

9 hours ago, DanielNL said:

 

There you go.... ~8 out of 10 -9X hitting the idle-engine Harrier..

 

Even a idling engine is well above ambient. For that matter, if you think ''chopping the throttle'' to be useful in a fight, things exposed to heat tend to stay for a while. That's why your kettle still burns you even after you turn off the fire!

[G.J.S]

As Zhukov032186 has said, the 9X sensor is so sensitive, it can distinguish the shape of a target - not just its single point heat output.

<<  Have a look at my avatar - this is an image of an F-4 aerial target from the seeker of a fired 9X telemetry round, this is how good the seeker is.

Also, if the missile seeker is sensitive, much better than 9M - say 9X, R-73, then the seeker can still see target heating generated by skin friction, not just the exhaust signature, which is what an all aspect heat seeker uses.

Edited December 28, 2020 by garyscott

[Wizard_03]

I'd say pre flaring works fine, since you did zero evasion, dumped few flares very slowly, yet still managed to spoof 2/10 missiles. 

[D4n]

4 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

it uses an IR camera, it SEES the plane, not just ''a heat source''.

But doesn't that mean that it does image-processing, which requires huge processing power? So AIM-9Xs have something like an Intel i9 or hexa-core Ryzen 5 (or even Threadripper) in them? (processing-power wise.)

[falcon_120]

Based on videos i've seen of Growing sidewinder youtube channel in 9x only dogfights I would say the 9x is actually susceptible to preflaring. It is in fact less susceptible that other older missiles as i would expect from a very modern missile. If you want to improve your spoofing rate try putting together more flares and cutting engines to idle when doing so and maneuvering, all that together may gave you close to 30-50%  success rate evading the missile.

[Wizard_03]

35 minutes ago, DanielNL said:

But doesn't that mean that it does image-processing, which requires huge processing power? So AIM-9Xs have something like an Intel i9 or hexa-core Ryzen 5 (or even Threadripper) in them? (processing-power wise.)

Wikipedia says the missile costs close to 400K US so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the missile has a pretty powerful computer strapped on to it.

[drPhibes]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

Wikipedia says the missile costs close to 400K US so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the missile has a pretty powerful computer strapped on to it.

 

Regular computer hardware isn't comparable with the ASICs, DSPs, FPGAs and CPUs used in these embedded systems. It's apples and oranges.

[D4n]

4 minutes ago, drPhibes said:

 

Regular computer hardware isn't comparable with the ASICs, DSPs, FPGAs and CPUs used in these embedded systems.

not comparable in which way, which systems have more raw processing power (FLOPS)?

Edited December 28, 2020 by DanielNL

[drPhibes]

You can't compare a general purpose processor with hardware built for a single purpose. Comparing FLOPS is just as pointless as using MIPS as a measure of performance when comparing RISC and CISC architectures. If an ASIC performs a certain signal processing task using integers, the concept of FLOPS doesn't exist in that context. The concept of "raw processing power" is irrelevant for a FIR filter.

 

Ruggedizing and certifying components for use in avionics is a slow and expensive process, so any designs that are derivatives of commercial components are ancient technology compared to current commercial products.

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, drPhibes said:

It's apples and oranges.

It's still a computer.

[dundun92]

@DanielNLI would highly recommend you actually educate yourself on how IR missiles work before making baseless bug reports. Here are some sources:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdf/file

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=697101

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a566304.pdf

 

BUT as a TL;DR, FPA seekers (even simple non-FPA dual band seekers) can easily reject pyrotechnic flares like we have in DCS. Against pyrophoric flares its a bit different, but even that FPAs can reject under certain circumstances, but irrespective we do not have pyrophoric flares in DCS. So no its not too flare proof, if anything the 9X isnt flare proof enough especially at closer ranges thanks to the RNG CCM of DCS but thats a whole other topic.

Edited December 28, 2020 by dundun92

[TotenDead]

22 hours ago, garyscott said:

As Zhukov032186 has said, the 9X sensor is so sensitive, it can distinguish the shape of a target - not just its single point heat output.

 

Nope, too few pixels to distinguish a flare from a jet, except, maybe, when the missile is really close to the target, about a few hundret meters.

22 hours ago, garyscott said:

<<  Have a look at my avatar - this is an image of an F-4 aerial target from the seeker of a fired 9X telemetry round, this is how good the seeker is.

 

 

Bad proof, show us that F-4 5 kilometres away

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Bad proof, show us that F-4 5 kilometres away

 

  It's a good thing it's like... flying toward the jet and the flares are like... in its immediate vicinity and stuff.

 

 That's not ''bad proof''. It's proof of exactly what was claimed, they aren't single pixel or heat source only like earlier missiles. A flare looks like a flare, and a airplane looks like an airplane. If earlier, cruder missiles could engage targets when they're basically hot/cold sensors, it's reasonable to think something using an actual camera can as well. 

 

Especially since it's logical to think somebody in the last 70 years of missile design would've thought to include some simple filtering logic and trajectory prediction, both of which go a long way toward rejecting this ''slowly falling, non-airplane burning in a specified temperature range that's out of sync with projected trajectory, while this other, considerably larger heat source that is clearly an airplane remains on the original course ''

[D4n]

Woooow... Matra Magic is affected aswell now... (it appears an OpenBeta patch in the past months changed the pre-flaring logic to not be 100% successfull anymore... either only vs. -9X and Magic, or even vs all heater missiles in DCS) 

SameB....sh.tWithMagicNow.trk

 

who added the tags "missile evasion - dcs mechanics" btw? ^^

Edited December 29, 2020 by DanielNL

[TotenDead]

15 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

  It's a good thing it's like... flying toward the jet and the flares are like... in its immediate vicinity and stuff.

 

 That's not ''bad proof''. It's proof of exactly what was claimed, they aren't single pixel or heat source only like earlier missiles. A flare looks like a flare, and a airplane looks like an airplane.

 

 

Hate to bring it to you, but 5km away from its target aim-9X will only see it as a pixel, and a flare like another pixel. Its resolution is pretty poor (128×128) so sorry, but nope, still "bad proof". 

 

15 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

If earlier, cruder missiles could engage targets when they're basically hot/cold sensors, it's reasonable to think something using an actual camera can as well. 

 

Yep, just like aim-9X they are capable of selection between hotter and colder targets.

 

15 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

Especially since it's logical to think somebody in the last 70 years of missile design would've thought to include some simple filtering logic and trajectory prediction, both of which go a long way toward rejecting this ''slowly falling, non-airplane burning in a specified temperature range that's out of sync with projected trajectory, while this other, considerably larger heat source that is clearly an airplane remains on the original course ''

Do you think that only IIR missiles are capable of "some simple filtering logic and trajectory prediction", or do you think that these missiles are better in that regard? May i ask you why do you think so?

 

Quote

''slowly falling, non-airplane burning in a specified temperature range that's out of sync with projected trajectory, while this other, considerably larger heat source that is clearly an airplane remains on the original course ''

Flares fly along woth the plane for some time and loose speed slowly, they do not stop like in no time. And planes usually tend to maneuver when they are being fired upon, except, of course, if that plane in not an F-15, operated by saudis

[D4n]

On 12/30/2020 at 7:05 AM, TotenDead said:

Yep, just like aim-9X they are capable of selection between hotter and colder targets.

Ok, one could think that AIM-9X detects an idle-engine near flares and then the processing-logic tells the 9X to go for the colder target, which is the idle-engine in that case.

But until anyone can confirm (with source) whether 9X really is such a smart missile, it'd be a lot more fun gameplay-wise if pre-flaring makes DCS 9X miss in for example 80-90% of shots, instead of only 30-40%.

Edited December 31, 2020 by DanielNL

[dundun92]

4 minutes ago, DanielNL said:

But until anyone can confirm (with source) whether 9X really is such a smart missile

I see you didn't bother to read any of the posted sources, or do any research (such as actual videos of 9X test shots vs flaring targets). W/e, ED has the 9X where they want and its gonna take more than a rant about PvP balance to change it.

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

I see you didn't bother to read any of the posted sources, or do any research (such as actual videos of 9X test shots vs flaring targets). W/e, ED has the 9X where they want and its gonna take more than a rant about PvP balance to change it.

 

He's one of our most prolific bug reporters. Not a bad thing, except many of the ''bugs'' he reports stem from not reading the manual and his own personal theory crafting of how things ''should'' work

[Boogieman]

Thought this might be relevant:
 

 

infrared_guiding_systems_PASTOR.pdf

Edited January 2, 2021 by Boogieman

[D4n]

22 hours ago, Boogieman said:

Thought this might be relevant

in none of those videos, they fired it on the direct rear of a pre-flaring target.

Edited January 3, 2021 by DanielNL

[Boogieman]

On 1/3/2021 at 12:18 PM, DanielNL said:

in none of those videos, they fired it on the direct rear of a pre-flaring target.

 

True enough, nevertheless the targets did deploy a rather massive quantity of flares, which is consistent with a very high level of IRCCM from the missile. This is also echoed in all of the literature I have read on the subject (eg. the source I attached to that same post) indicating that imaging infra-red (IIR) seekers like the one on the AIM9X represent a generational step above those you might be used to on missiles like the AIM9M, R73 or Magic II, with a corresponding jump in IRCCM capability. This is also reflected in the trend toward IIR guidance found in numerous current and emerging SRAAMs ranging from the AIM9X to Python 5, ASRAAM, PL-10, MICA-IR and possibly K74M2.

I am not aware of any data indicating that pre-emptive or reactive use of DCS-style pyrotechnic flares (as a missile seduction measure) should provide an effective method of defeating such missiles, even in scenarios like the one you have shown above. The closest thing I have seen proposes that the use of a distributed flare (ie. not the type depicted in DCS) may provide the target with a fleeting opportunity to break the missile's lock (at ~600m or less from impact) by momentarily bleaching out the seeker of an IIR missile approaching from the rear, giving the aircraft a last ditch chance to break away from the missile FOV. This is not what you have depicted above though.

The take-away message (p7) seems to be that DIRCM systems like the one on the Su-57 will be needed to provide an adequate level of protection against IIR seekers going forward (and even that might not be enough). To quote the source I just described:
 

Quote

"As a result of the evolving threat, the expendable countermeasure has also seen significant improvements in the type of material used, spectral coverage, kinematic behavior and deployment tactics. The open-literature suggests that the imaging seeker has made nearly, if not all types of point target flares unsuitable for aerial platform protection. Major government programs in the field of aerial platform protection discussed in the open-literature favor research and development of activities related to directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) technologies. It is unclear how countermeasure developers will evolve the flare technology to continue to be effective against the next generation of (imaging) seekers"

Nevertheless, if you know of any high quality sources/data supporting your position by all means present them. In the absence of this all you are doing is arguing from incredulity, which probably won't lead to any significant changes being made in DCS.
 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Boogieman

[GGTharos]

On 1/3/2021 at 12:50 AM, Boogieman said:

I am not aware of any data indicating that pre-emptive or reactive use of DCS-style pyrotechnic flares (as a missile seduction measure) should provide an effective method of defeating such missiles,

 

It is the only effective method, for the same reason that is has been effective against older seekers:  The seeker has no clue what it is that you want to lock it onto, so it will just lock onto whatever the software (or as you go further back in time, the hardware) say the seeker has locked on to.  There's a lot of blah blah about image processng etc, but there's literally zero indication regarding the missile doing anything to distinguish a flare from a target aircraft before it is locked on.   This is why you have to check that the seeker is functioning correctly and it is (very strongly) preferred to shoot when there are no flares in the seeker's FOV.

 

None of this is modeled in DCS. 

 

In DCS, once the missile spawns, it is assigned object X (which will be an aircraft if you've locked onto it) to attack.  Any flares in the FoV will cause a die roll that if successful, will cause the missile to switch targets to another object, in this case a flare.  And that's all there is to this.