reported AIM-120C losing targets easily for chaff even at close ranges

[dorianR666]

On 2/8/2021 at 1:41 PM, captain_dalan said:

Indeed, people keep screaming for a change, and when a change finally arrives, people scream about why the change was made.

Thats because both before and after it never works correctly...

[falconzx]

who are you to say what is correct and what is not?

Nobody has such data to say what is possible to happen and what it's not. In the real world you have a lot of factors to take in account in the simulation: like packet loss in the missle-plane transmissions, degradation of signal by weather, various malfunctions, ground moving objects in the clutter that emerge from the doppler filter appearing as chaff, time of the dispersion of every chaff can't be equal, it depends by wind, speed of the aircraft at release.

In DCS chaffs should move in the wind, that's mean that all your tacviews are not very useful if you don't specify the wind conditions.
In short words, a hot moving chaff will emerge from the clutter filter differently and permits a notching aircraft to disappear in favor of a well visible chaff. A flanking moving chaff change completely the scenario.

So, i hope guys who fly both MP and SP knows very well how an AI can notch much more precisely than a human. If you go on a MP server you will see how this kind of AIM120 close range fails will not happen so easily. 

I think ED did a great job in the latest patches to improve and get closer to a much more realistic missile. The probability coefficient way it's the only way at the moment to implement all the possible causes of missile guidance errors.

People who whine and scream about a perfect missile, remember we are not in Ace Combat, and here you will find other likewise people who will scream and ask for a less perfect missile.
 

Edited February 10, 2021 by falconzx

[dorianR666]

24 minutes ago, falconzx said:

who are you to say what is correct and what is not?

Pretty sure amraams often flying unguided right after launch while keeping STT is not correct behaviour (as reported in other threads). Or those weird super-high-g turns out of nowhere when nearing the target. Or complete immunity of some jamming targets against amraams. Or amraams abandoning their target for an approaching r-77.

You dont have to be a missile engineer to recognize that this aint correct.

24 minutes ago, falconzx said:

well visible chaff

It decelerates very quickly and should be visible on doppler radars for roughly half a second according to one USAF research paper posted on hoggit. Afterwards it doesnt pass the doppler filter. It doesnt behave that way in DCS. What chaff also does is to behave like a veil, decreasing visibility of what is behind it for some time. Entirely unsimulated in DCS.

As someone else put it, chaff in DCS is flare for radar.

 

Im very happy that ED is working hard on improving it, because its such a crucial part of a combat sim, but pretending that there arent new incorrect behaviours after the change is delusional.

Edited February 10, 2021 by dorianR666

[dundun92]

7 hours ago, falconzx said:

In DCS chaffs should move in the wind, that's mean that all your tacviews are not very useful if you don't specify the wind conditions.

They dont in DCS

 

7 hours ago, falconzx said:

If you go on a MP server you will see how this kind of AIM120 close range fails will not happen so easily.

Nope, its super easy to chaff AMRAAMs in MP:

 

[dorianR666]

5 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

Doppler is a TOOL not a GOD radar.

Consider reading the following sentences as well.

[Teknetinium]

Tacview-20210210-235853-DCS-aim-120_TEST.zip.acmi

Aim-120 lose track only when there is a perfect notch, you cant even have 5 degree of. Not going for chaff at all if you are not in a 100% notch witch is almost impossible to achieve if you are not AI knowing where the missile is.  Then watch ER-27 at work from 28min. I dont think I need to say more. 

Magic INS at work again? 

 

Something we noticed is that if you dont point your nose to the bandit and have it on you gimble the AIM-120/ER-27 prone to lose track at 12.45 is the example. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Teknetinium

[dundun92]

4 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

Magic INS at work again? 

nope, just 5 sec memory mode, nothing particularly wrong either.

[Northstar98]

All chaff is in DCS, is as dorianR666 put it - it's a flare that works on RADAR.

 

All that happens in DCS is if you deploy chaff, somewhere in the missile guidance logic it does a dice-roll of whether it goes for chaff or doesn't - it's solely probability, though different missiles have different probabilities (ccm_k0 I believe). Exactly the same as how flares are modelled in DCS.

 

It has a pretty short life - far shorter than RL, and it doesn't have any effect on any RADAR in DCS, even up against less sophisticated pulse RADARs like on the MiG-21bis and F-5E-3, as well as the Tomcat's pulse mode. Though AI RADARs are incredibly simplified from what I can find looking through db_sensors.lua (particularly shocking are ships), largely just a scan zone, with a range at hot and cold aspects in 2 hemispheres + a probability of detection + an update rate.

 

Only other thing DCS does is account for LOS, I also think it factors Earth curvature, even though the maps assume it's flat.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[Hodo]

I would like to say it isn't just AMRAAMs.  But all fox 3 missiles and even fox 1 missiles.  I have had a AIM-7MH turn almost 60deg from target to go after chaff when I had a lock on the target the whole time. 

 

I have had the R-27ER and the 530D Super Matra go almost 70deg off target for chaff.  

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

All chaff is in DCS is as dorianR666 put it - it's a flare that works on RADAR.

 

All chaff in DCS are GEN-X

[Cmptohocah]

On 2/10/2021 at 7:49 PM, dundun92 said:

They dont in DCS

 

Nope, its super easy to chaff AMRAAMs in MP:

 

Lol @dundun92,
where was that 2nd ET going at the beginning of the video? Ground attack
You forgot to mention that you are using a script to deploy chaff. Try doing it manually and AIM will stick to you like a nicotine patch.

[dundun92]

15 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

You forgot to mention that you are using a script to deploy chaff. Try doing it manually and AIM will stick to you like a nicotine patch.

Su-27 yes (not that it really matters thb though), but in the F-16 im using the built in CM programmer. And that ET, yea thats what happens firing by forcing LA too far off boresight :P.

[GGTharos]

If by script you mean we all program our dispensers (be they the aircraft onboard dispenser or our HOTAS), everyone has done it since LOMAC.  There's nothing of use to observe.

[Hodo]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

Lol @dundun92,
where was that 2nd ET going at the beginning of the video? Ground attack
You forgot to mention that you are using a script to deploy chaff. Try doing it manually and AIM will stick to you like a nicotine patch.

Script?  

 

LoL what?!  You know every high fidelity module with countermeasures made from 1970-2010 all have programmable countermeasures.

[Cmptohocah]

9 hours ago, Hodo said:

Script?  

 

LoL what?!  You know every high fidelity module with countermeasures made from 1970-2010 all have programmable countermeasures.

Flaming Cliffs 3 modules don't have programmable ECM, so one is left with good ol' manual key/button punching to release them (there is an automatic dispensing option but it's hard-coded to release every second or so). Many people use external programs or controller settings to implement their own "programable" ECM.
On of such is this one here :

Funny enough, even though I created the example from above, I don't actually use it due to my laziness. 

[Hodo]

7 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Flaming Cliffs 3 modules don't have programmable ECM, so one is left with good ol' manual key/button punching to release them (there is an automatic dispensing option but it's hard-coded to release every second or so). Many people use external programs or controller settings to implement their own "programable" ECM.
On of such is this one here :

Funny enough, even though I created the example from above, I don't actually use it due to my laziness. 

I thought we were talking about the guy in the F-16?  And I don't use a script but yet I can get bursts that close.  I have chaff set to one button and flare to another on my FC3 aircraft.

[Cmptohocah]

12 minutes ago, Hodo said:

I thought we were talking about the guy in the F-16?  And I don't use a script but yet I can get bursts that close.  I have chaff set to one button and flare to another on my FC3 aircraft.

It was the comment about the "AMRAAM vs Su-27" video.

[Hodo]

5 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

It was the comment about the "AMRAAM vs Su-27" video.

Fair enough.  On a side note I do think all BVR missiles right now are acting odd.  Not just fox-3s.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I've tried to find info on this, but i can't find it. 

What are the seeker ranges (in degrees) of the Amraam and Phoenix missiles respectively ? 

Also "autohotkey" is usually considered a cheat in other games, just saying . 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Coxy_99]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I've tried to find info on this, but i can't find it. 

What are the seeker ranges (in degrees) of the Amraam and Phoenix missiles respectively ? 

Also "autohotkey" is usually considered a cheat in other games, just saying . 

 

 

Hot key as been about before you was born, In theory its not "cheating" Its been about since FC2 and lock on its nothing new, I have already set up hotkey for 18 16 14, Exporting MFD's and the TAD pages must be cheating to, You clearly listen to the DCS police to much. Back on topic will ED ever get this right? Doubt it, Will it get fixed? Yes then have something else broken with the missiles and radar most likely.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

You say "in theory it's not cheating" yourself, so i'm sure you know it's always been a gray area.
It depends on what you use it for.

I have not a clue what you mean by "DCS police" , but if you use auto-hotkey for something you can't do physically , or can't do reliably with your own abilities, some might consider it cheating.

Anyone have anything about the seekerhead range of the amraam and phoenix respectively ? 
 

[Coxy_99]

DCS is not and never will be E-sports, If you think its cheating why does the 120C have magic INS to guide the missile is that not exploiting? Ill leave there have a good day sir.

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You say "in theory it's not cheating" yourself, so i'm sure you know it's always been a gray area.

 

There's no such thing in DCS WRT HOTAS programming don't even try.  People program their HOTAS to do all sorts of stuff.   Discuss things that matter.

 

Quote

Anyone have anything about the seekerhead range of the amraam and phoenix respectively ? 

 

They aren't comparable without knowing details that we don't be getting our hands on.  The technologies used are different, and the only little piece of information that you might find about an IRL 120 is that it can start HPRF search 13nm away from target (yep, it goes active that far).  Well, maybe there's more out there today, I just haven't seen it.

There's even less information about the 54, and less so about the 54C.

 

So, we'd be left with guessing based on physics, but we're missing the important figure of self-noise.   We can expect it to be higher for the 54A, but how much higher?  Who knows.  It's irrelevant WRT this thread anyway.

Edited February 13, 2021 by GGTharos

[captain_dalan]

On 2/10/2021 at 12:02 AM, dorianR666 said:

Thats because both before and after it never works correctly...

Unless they try, it never will. Heck, isn't that what Open Beta is all about?

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

13 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

There's no such thing in DCS WRT HOTAS programming don't even try.  People program their HOTAS to do all sorts of stuff.   Discuss things that matter.

 

 

They aren't comparable without knowing details that we don't be getting our hands on.  The technologies used are different, and the only little piece of information that you might find about an IRL 120 is that it can start HPRF search 13nm away from target (yep, it goes active that far).  Well, maybe there's more out there today, I just haven't seen it.

There's even less information about the 54, and less so about the 54C.

 

So, we'd be left with guessing based on physics, but we're missing the important figure of self-noise.   We can expect it to be higher for the 54A, but how much higher?  Who knows.  It's irrelevant WRT this thread anyway.

 

So we don't know what how big the search angle is for the missiles ? 
In degrees ?