Phoenix missile broken on latest beta patch?

[Callsign JoNay]

How is it a DCS issue? HB has control of the CM resistance settings for the 54s.

[dundun92]

34 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

How is it a DCS issue? HB has control of the CM resistance settings for the 54s.

The DCS issue is the way missiles fundamentally interact with chaff

[Callsign JoNay]

You're saying even if HB set the CM resistance to 0.0 the 54s would still lock on chaff? I haven't seen this mentioned before.

[captain_dalan]

4 hours ago, westr said:

Ok thanks makes sense I shall give it a try. 

My pleasure. Do write how it works out for you.

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, Callsign JoNay said:

You're saying even if HB set the CM resistance to 0.0 the 54s would still lock on chaff? I haven't seen this mentioned before.

What they are saying is that regardless of the value of the CM resistance, missiles will always interact with chaff in some unrealistic fashion until the current implementation is reworked

[Callsign JoNay]

9 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

What they are saying is that regardless of the value of the CM resistance, missiles will always interact with chaff in some unrealistic fashion until the current implementation is reworked

 

OK, good to know. Do you have a link/source for this? Not that I don't believe you, I'd just love to read it for myself because I don't remember any official reps of DCS/ED or HB mentioning this.

 

Here's hoping it will be fixed in 2.7.

[GGTharos]

Setting the cm value to zero would cause the chaff to always be rejected, yes.  No one's going to set it to zero, so it will always be a subject to the interesting things this leads to.  There's no link and no plan to do anything about it in 2.7 specifically.  The devs mentioned they're working on it but it's 'all in good time' and don't know when they'll get around to it.

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Setting the cm value to zero would cause the chaff to always be rejected, yes.  No one's going to set it to zero, so it will always be a subject to the interesting things this leads to.  There's no link and no plan to do anything about it in 2.7 specifically.  The devs mentioned they're working on it but it's 'all in good time' and don't know when they'll get around to it.

 

We have been chasing changes made by ED to these values and are continueing to tweak them. As GGTharos says above those values is a sort of percantage chance for the missile to go for the chaff, the issue that exists currently is that a player can just continue to dump chaff and each bundle will make a new "dice roll" if you will. So even if we set it very low to compensate it will still depend greatly upon the amount of chaff dumped which is unrealistic as IRL the effect is not that cumulative and also dependent on speed/wind etc.

 

Setting it to zero is not something we will do as that would in effect make our missiles cheat.

[Callsign JoNay]

11 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Setting it to zero is not something we will do as that would in effect make our missiles cheat.

 

Can you elaborate on why it would be a cheat? The goal is simulation, and not game balance, isn't it?

 

The AWG-9's MLC filter is +/- 133kts of 0 ground speed. I don't know what the MLC filter of the AIM-54 missile's RADAR is, but I would assume it would be in the ballpark, no? You'd need some pretty gnarly winds to move strips of tinfoil fast enough to be outside of a clutter notch.

[Karon]

3 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

 

Can you elaborate on why it would be a cheat? The goal is simulation, and not game balance, isn't it?

 

The AWG-9's MLC filter is +/- 133kts of 0 ground speed. I don't know what the MLC filter of the AIM-54 missile's RADAR is, but I would assume it would be in the ballpark, no? You'd need some pretty gnarly winds to move strips of tinfoil fast enough to be outside of a clutter notch.

It's Maths mate, if P=0 then it will never, ever, go for chaffs. No matter how small the probability of deceiving the missile is, it is not zero, especially for technology decades old. The problem is finding a satisfying value based on documents available and/or an analysis of several others parameters (considerations I leave to the devs because I have no docs and my knowledge of the topic is extremely superficial).

 

The task is made even more complex by ED updating and changing the missiles behaviour and the fact that the countermeasures at the moment do not behave realistically, as they are pretty much a bunch of spammable saving throws. As someone who scored way too many 1 playing WH40k, I am definitely looking forward to the much-needed overhaul of the CM system.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I don't think i've ever seen a phoenix go for chaff since a year or so, at least not more than 0.1 seconds. Even if it seems to go for chaff for that split second it will go back on course right after. 

Notching the actual missile itself is also pretty hard for some reason (maybe desync or the high velocity). If you don't notch the plane radar before missile goes active you're in trouble best bet is to run the missile into the ground. 

Thing is, when you look at your RWR missile is perfectly on 9-3, and then when you look in tacview missile is nowhere near 9-3 . I honestly don't know why you're all crying about the chaff it's not even a factor with the phoenix.  

Yet this is not a problem i guess ? Completely ignored 

t 

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[near_blind]

17 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I don't think i've ever seen a phoenix go for chaff since a year or so, at least not more than 0.1 seconds. Even if it seems to go for chaff for that split second it will go back on course right after. 

Confirmation bias is a cruel mistress, but I'd sure love to get my hands on these imaginary Phoenixes. They sound amahzing, real dart beaters and flanker abusers. 

 

20 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Yet this is not a problem i guess ? Completely ignored 

 

A strange way of ignoring it I guess, but to each their own. 

[Karon]

20 minutes ago, near_blind said:

Confirmation bias is a cruel mistress, but I'd sure love to get my hands on these imaginary Phoenixes. They sound amahzing, real dart beaters and flanker abusers. 

 

 

A strange way of ignoring it I guess, but to each their own. 

 

Ignore it. When you run into a troll ask yourself if your time is so cheap to waste it. Why is it so important to deserve an answer? So, don't waste your time, laugh about the effort it puts to  try to annoy people and move on. Unfortunately there's no "Ignore" feature in this forum, or perhaps I'm just blind (although the Mk74 thing is funny, that's why it never has issues lol ).

 

 

Back to something more useful, I have not spent much time testing the new WCS (I'm waiting for it to be finalized) but I ran a couple dozens tests in a simple scenario: TA ~60, AI flight straight and not manoeuvring or defending.

Scenario 1: target does not drop chaffs

Scenario 2: target drops chaffs

(I then repeated the scenario with TA50 with very similar outcome).

 

In the first scenario, the '54s never fail, they always hit the target no matter TWS or STT. In the second scenario instead, the missile goes for the chaffs almost always, even to ones deployed ~10" earlier. The TA is this scenario is very high and unsuitable for a normal employment, but the purpose is exactly showing the impact of the chaffs: how can the chaff deployed ~10" earlier still affect the PDSTT guidance? Perhaps there is something I'm missing or ignore, but it does what I would expect. If such outcome is instead correct and there is a technical explanation for it then cool, I learnt something new

[Karon]

4 minutes ago, draconus said:

 

Brilliant, I checked when the new forum was deployed and haven't seen it. Thanks, problem solved!

[Naquaii]

10 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

 

Can you elaborate on why it would be a cheat? The goal is simulation, and not game balance, isn't it?

 

The AWG-9's MLC filter is +/- 133kts of 0 ground speed. I don't know what the MLC filter of the AIM-54 missile's RADAR is, but I would assume it would be in the ballpark, no? You'd need some pretty gnarly winds to move strips of tinfoil fast enough to be outside of a clutter notch.

 

Because having our missiles completely immune to chaff would be a cheat. What we're after is tuning them to be affected the right amount.

 

The chaff is not stationary when launched from the aircraft but it becomes so later on so will affect doppler radars, at least at first.

5 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I don't think i've ever seen a phoenix go for chaff since a year or so, at least not more than 0.1 seconds. Even if it seems to go for chaff for that split second it will go back on course right after. 

Notching the actual missile itself is also pretty hard for some reason (maybe desync or the high velocity). If you don't notch the plane radar before missile goes active you're in trouble best bet is to run the missile into the ground. 

Thing is, when you look at your RWR missile is perfectly on 9-3, and then when you look in tacview missile is nowhere near 9-3 . I honestly don't know why you're all crying about the chaff it's not even a factor with the phoenix.  

Yet this is not a problem i guess ? Completely ignored 

t 

 

 

 

If you want to make your point please try to not lie to reinforce them. This is the 5-6th time you claim we ignore issues that are clearly bugs and that we have acknowledged.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Naquaii

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I was talking about the members in this thread. Not a peep from them about such a pretty serious bug, but enough "make chaff 0" comments though even though the chaff REALLY isn't an issue for the phoenix. 

Talk about bias ...

[Naquaii]

Just now, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I was talking about the members in this thread. Not a peep from them about such a pretty serious bug, but enough "make chaff 0" comments though even though the chaff REALLY isn't an issue for the phoenix. 

Talk about bias ...

 

Yet that isn't what you wrote. Maybe people don't care as much about something that's obviously a bug and will be fixed? Yet again you talk as if we're ignoring something because we want to cheat and you talk about bias yourself? Maybe you should check your own bias against an aircraft you clearly don't like?

 

At some point you might want to take a step back and realise that if everyone is "misunderstanding" you, you might want to refrase?

[Callsign JoNay]

5 hours ago, Naquaii said:

The chaff is not stationary when launched from the aircraft but it becomes so later on so will affect doppler radars, at least at first.

 

 

I see. Well I imagine chaff slows down to within clutter filter params pretty darn quick, so any effect it has should be very brief.

 

It's unfortunate that the current modeling of chaff attracts missile locks even when being deployed from an aircraft that is already notching in the first place. That's what bothers me the most. There's no way chaff can have a radial velocity fast enough to be detected by a PD radar if it's velocity vector is nearly perpendicular to it at the time it's deployed. (That's an ED problem, I guess).

 

I just hope people who can implement change are paying attention to this. 

 

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder for all, 

 

please stay on topic and please take the time to read the forum rules before posting. 

 

The issue is reported and being worked on, you will need to continue to be patient and wait for tweaks and fixes for the issues.

 

Thanks