Missiles loosing track on low flying targets.

[oxking]

Hi!

 

Today we had on the S77th Server an discussion about the

guys flying under 20 meters (~70 feet) to fool the enemy missiles.

In my opinion it is true, that missiles loosing track and go in the ground.

Ive also read an discussion here in the forum elsewhere, and i ask about it

in the german UBI forum and in an other german forum,

where we have guys who have been working on Migs as Technicans.

Now the actual stand there is that in reality, missiles don`t hit you

if you flying verry low, or at less the chances that you be hit by them, is dramaticly decreased.

 

One reason is the disturbances of the radar signals, caused by the ground.

(Also maybe a factor is the Earth's curvature, and when the missile itself

flying to low, it looses track because it cant see you anymore and kind of this stuff.)

On this matter it is an common tactic, to flying under the radar coverage,

like Tornados with their terrain following radar does.

 

The other is the "proximity detection" in the missiles itself,

wich tells the missile to turn itself off, when detecting the ground,

or to self distruct when they do.

 

Ok, this is what comes out on the discussion on the german forums,

and i like to hear your opinion about this.

 

Imho, the 20m ruling in lockon is maybe not 100% perfect,

but it is pretty close to the reality. The only thing that devs should

be fixing, is that you can fly through trees, like they dont even exist.

When you have to try to don`t hit the trees, you wouldnt be able to hide

you under the magic 20m line, to avoid the enemy`s missiles.

And than an balanceing up to more reality is given, without touching the

20m rule, with is alrady an good compromise to what we have in reality.

 

Ok, i hope you can read and understand my english typings :roll:,

and we can peacefully discuss about that topic. :D

[Drakkhen]

Well, I imagine the trees collisions were disabled for low performance machines:

since when you play at low detail level you don't have trees while a performant computer shows them all, on a HvsH on-line match, the one without trees can't collide what he can't see, so they prefered to make them immaterial for the one who sees them. Just a hunch, but it would be a reasonable compromise.

 

Activating these collisions will make HvsH balance harder to set in accordance with machine performances.

[GGTharos]

The 20m ruling in lock on is nowhere NEAR close to reality.

 

Missiles lose accuracy the lower they go but they -do not- stop tracking.

 

They have issues with radar bounce and radar glint from the ground, which means they may end up tracking some spot close to the AC since the reflectionf rom the ground near it might be momentarily stronger, causing them to 'wobble' but they WILL TRACK TO ZERO ALTITUDE!

 

There's even an incident where an F-15 'shot down' a truck with an AIM-7.

 

THe reason why this 20m thing is a huge deal is that ground bounce affect (SEVERELY) a low-flying aircraft's radar as well. Not so in LOMAC: you can go below 20m and enjoy all the unrealistic benefits and none of the realistic disadvantages.

 

The devs are already working to fix this issue in either 1.2 or the successor. There is a -good reason- why fighters are made to get as high and fast as they can in the shortest time possible. THat reason isn't so they can 'stay near the ground where nothing will touch them and shoot missiles up' in real life. It's SPECIFICALLY because you are at /an advantage/ when you are /high/.

[oxking]

Hmm maybe than ED should fix the trees,

and make them not availible to turn off by the User in Multiplayer matches.

(Like the outside views and Map)

 

Trees couldnt cost that mutch performance.

(Low water, or less AA and AF, is a much better performance improvement)

And now after one year of playing Lock On,

most of the users sureley have upgradet their Computer.

[GGTharos]

The trees arent' a good way of handling it (but they WOULD add something nice...)

 

the problem is that people can alter wether trees are displayed or not regardless of server settings (but I believe that ED has adressed this particular issue with the server-pushed scenery files)

 

In any case, the issue here is that this 20m cut off not ONLY doesn't model reality closely, it only models HALF of it (the low flying aircraft's radar is ALSO supposed ot be majorly affected ... in the negative direction) ... so as I explained previously ...

 

See the problem?

[Drakkhen]

See the problem?

Yes.

 

most of the users sureley have upgradet their Computer

Nope... except if you're okay for giving us some check :wink:

[S77th-GOYA]

The one real problem I've seen is that even with a solid lock from my 15, the missle won't track. If the plane's radar can get a lock, the missle should track. That seems pretty simple. Maybe it's not.

 

And heaters should track, shouldn't they? I know we just had this discussion not long ago, but I don't remember the outcome. Will changes be implemented in 1.1?

[oxking]

Oh, i forgot to post a 3rd reason why the people in the german forum

dont belive missiles can track at such low altitude:

Missiles maybe can not steer good enough to fly such low.

 

But to the radar thing: The low flying aircrafts radar also not work verry well

on low level, this might be true. But also the highflyer shuld loose his lock,

when he tracks an very low flying bandit. (Now it just happens to the missiles)

And an SARH missle can be iritated by the ground radar reflections too,

even when you have a lockon.

 

And Lomac plays 15 jears in the past, maybe some problems with that are

no more to day, or less strong, but they might be at this time?!

 

Ok, i have not much knowledge about radar and missilespecs and technics, but thats why i startet this thread, cause i wonder about it, that one side says: "No, they can`t do!" and the other side: "Yes they do!" I only want to find out whats true.... (an i guess it is something in the middle. ;) )

[GGTharos]

No, high flyer shoudl nto lsoe lock. The situation is -worse- for hte low flyer than high flyer. The high flyer has to deal with clutter which doppler radar can reject. That's all.

 

The low flyer must deal with powerful ground-bounce that increases noise in the return SNR to an unacceptable level.

 

I suggest if you want an overview of radar without the equations etc you look at the Falcon 4.0 RP5 manual. These guys did a LOT of research including getting documents they had to pay money for.

 

It is WORSE to fly down low to attack another aircraft, and BETTER to run away low.

 

The reasons:

 

Ground bounce destroys your radar capability at such low altitudes, so you can't shoot back.

The enemy's missile is less accurate but he can hit you, while you can't even really fire back.

Your missile has to go UP. You /compeltely/ lsoe the range fight.

BUT! If you're runnig away, the clutter and rear-aspect tracking fo radar which is worse than forward-aspect tracking combine to help you get away much more easily. The aspect issue is already modelled in lock on, so it radar clutter. Ground bounce is NOT modelled, or at least, not modelled well.

 

Goya, the temporary 'bandaid' fix in 1.1 is Heat seekers will track down to 3m. Radar missiles are still screwed.

[4c E x p e r t]

Hi

 

OK because as I see this is not a secret no more...

 

 

We used this tactic 2-3 months ago against JaBoG32 German squad. In one situation I had 2 JaBoG32 pilots in close formation 10km far from me. They were firing many missiles but all missed and than I fired R77 one on each pilot.

They were a "bit lucky" :) and avoided both of them and in dogfight I was unable to fight 2 of them for long...

 

That mach was the best we had in our LomacLeague history and they were the hardest enemy for sure. (currently its 1-1 so I hope next war will be with more adrenaline :-) )

 

 

This is not a bug in game! The problem is that missiles can not go under 20m and you could find that information about R27ER family as well as R77 and AIM120C

 

Thats why there is a R27EM for low flying targets and cruise missiles...

[GGTharos]

And if you look at real life engagements you'll find that these weapons will track right down to ZERO altitude. IT IS A BUG. Why do you guys not read everything that's been written?

 

It is VERY CLEARLY explained why this is wrong.

[britgliderpilot]

And if you look at real life engagements you'll find that these weapons will track right down to ZERO altitude. IT IS A BUG. Why do you guys not read everything that's been written?

 

It is VERY CLEARLY explained why this is wrong.

 

Bug, or erroneus feature?

[GGTharos]

Sort of equivalent in this case?

 

I mean, it's somethign ED used to attempt to simulate 'ground bounce' ... they did the same with the radar in 1.1 which -maybe- evened things out a -little- ... but then they removed ground bounce problems for low flying aircraft and flying low has zero disadvantages in this particular case.

 

But yes, erroneous feature would be more correct. ED is looking into working on a better way to simulate low-alt probs for missiles.

[Skarp]

it's not exactly a bug. it just wasn't modeled to do that in game. mabey it will be fixed in 1.1

[oxking]

And if you look at real life engagements you'll find that these weapons will track right down to ZERO altitude.quote]

 

So can you give me a source for that infos?

Are this only Specs from the manufacturers of the missiles,

or from test at ideal conditions, where they hit an big slow moving target,

what dit not even a bit changed its flightpath, or something? :roll:

(I also will belive they hit an Beluga Airbus. :lol: )

 

But, when you have realy serious sources for that,

i would thank you for a link. :D

[GGTharos]

Gulf War reports. They're out there - I'll see if I can find it again and if I do I'll post the link for ya.

 

So yeah, these weren't in 'test conditions' these were done in combat. There is also an account of an F-15 getting notched by a Mirage and diving down in autoguns in panic trying to reacquire him as well. (I think that ED modelled this part pretty well! ;) )

 

There's /lots/ of info out there, it's just hard to find, and sadly sometimes you even have to pay for it :( (through FOIA)

[F l a n k e r]

I totally agree with GGTharos. The very first missiles had the problem well illustrated from Oxking (for a further example there were also the reflection of the sun beam on the condense generated by the target that can confuse the missile!), but today these problems have very marginal consequences, due to technical modifications, for example the AIM-9 have also a laser proximity detonator. With this I don't think that a missile can easily reach you when you fly low in a hilly territory!

[Ice]

Well, I imagine the trees collisions were disabled for low performance machines:

since when you play at low detail level you don't have trees while a performant computer shows them all, on a HvsH on-line match, the one without trees can't collide what he can't see, so they prefered to make them immaterial for the one who sees them. Just a hunch, but it would be a reasonable compromise.

 

Activating these collisions will make HvsH balance harder to set in accordance with machine performances.

 

I dont see why turning off trees to improve frame rates should mean someone with a lesser machine won't run into them. Someone who turns off trees should just stay above a certain height or know they will hit something.

 

The irony is in IL2 no matter what settings you have, flying low you can't see the razor blade trees but they will take you out no problem at all LOL!