Is this a 120c's bug?

[yanyu]

hello, ed,

 

I found that some people use this method to avoid 120c. 
And after many times tested, it is almost 100% effective (not network delay).

 

See attached video.

 

I don’t know if this is a 120c's bug or normal ?

 

thanks.

[Mike_Romeo]

Video doesnt work for me.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Mike_Romeo

[sthompson]

I couldn't view the video in the forum but could download it. It shows a Tacview replay of an F-16 evading a rear aspect AIM-120C by rapidly rolling continuously while flying straight. Not a barrel roll as the longitudinal axis vector only rolls a little bit during the rolling maneuvers. The missile just flies right by.

 

[yanyu]

@Mike_Romeo  you can download the video .   this method can evading 120c almost  100%  ,  you can  test  from  10nm   5nm    4nm    3nm  and so on  。

@sthompson  yes， you are  right.

 

 

[Archer.xd]

This is a known long-going bug (i guess), constant rolls with a little AoA causes missiles to miss. Idk about if its in the works to fix, but ED did release a fix back a few updates. Seems like its still a thing

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I think a little latency compensation would work wonders here. 

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Latency_Compensating_Methods_in_Client/Server_In-game_Protocol_Design_and_Optimization#:~:text=Lag compensation is a method,the user performed some action.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Cmptohocah]

I could be wrong, but it seems that the AMRAAM's guidance is tied somehow to the traget's AoA, at least from this video.

I wonder what's the logic behind it, since there is no way that this data could be read by the missile in real life.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[okopanja]

On 9/4/2021 at 10:09 AM, Cmptohocah said:

I could be wrong, but it seems that the AMRAAM's guidance is tied somehow to the traget's AoA, at least from this video.

I wonder what's the logic behind it, since there is no way that this data could be read by the missile in real life.

 

Ha, ha, probably just side effect of primitive simulation of the guidance system. I gather that implementation in DCS depends on access to all flight parameters, tuned with some probability that:

- missile will eat chaff

- missile would loose the target from FOV.

 

On a real missile you would have its own coordinate system. That could be based on azimuth, relative elevation, distance, or perhaps angular coordinate system with distance. From there additional parameters need to apply such as:

- transmitter output strength

- target RCS at given aspect

- antenna gain diagram which essentially determines the FOV the missile has.

- receiver sensitivity

- A/D convertor resolution precision and frequency.  I would say 16-bit (perhaps 24-bit) based on the time it was developed).

- signal processing to determine coordinates relative to the missile

- time to actuate control surfaces of the missile

- and speed (frequency) with which the missile can process between 2 readings and actuate. The more frequent the better. but given the fact we are talking about early 80s technology being used (in terms of CPU, please do not confused with the time rocket got to the market), something on the order of around Intel 286 (perhaps overclocked since CPU does not need to be reused after firing). E.g. tomahawk had 286.

 

More all less those steps are pretty much the same in all AA missiles, being digital, analogue, IR/Radar.

 

So if they really want to simulate the things they would need to have that level of complexity this would actually enable simulation of ECM system, that is better than simple denying range information of breaking TWS. In case of ECM you have to added effects of white noise, real signal as well ECM signal (curbed by the limits of the azimuth and antenna diagram).

 

This would mean that per each missile flying at any time, they would have to have equivalent of 286 processing power.

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by okopanja