Jump to content

Active Missile Look Down Notch Width Seems Excessive


nighthawk2174

Recommended Posts

Nope. That’s the AI F-14’s AIM-54 employment problem. Problem with the AI and not the 54. Player fired 54s are fine. Player and AI AIM-120s are not.
Lol... I know you're reguler player on GS. Why don't you just observe inside its tacview and count how many AIM-54 fired by player that actually hit.

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Oceandar said:
11 hours ago, DSplayer said:
Nope. That’s the AI F-14’s AIM-54 employment problem. Problem with the AI and not the 54. Player fired 54s are fine. Player and AI AIM-120s are not.

Lol... I know you're reguler player on GS. Why don't you just observe inside its tacview and count how many AIM-54 fired by player that actually hit.

Because 90% of the people on the server get their AWG-9's notched and lose the missile or the old missile API decides to do drastic high G turns like it's always done. If you actually know what the limitations of the radar and missiles, you can make the AIM-54 do its job effectively. Anyway, HB has said themselves that the AI is currently bugged in AIM-54 employment and they will overhaul it later.


Edited by DSplayer

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really really want to known what is the staff opinion about this matter, I think the point of OP is pretty good and the documentation is really consistent, anyone of ED can say something about please?

  • Like 2

Computer: Potato

Modules: FC3 | M2000C | A/V8B | Viggen | F-5E | F-14B | F-16C | F/A-18 | A-10C | Supercarrier :mad::mad: | UH-1 | MI-8 | Gazelle | KA-50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really really want to known what is the staff opinion about this matter, I think the point of OP is pretty good and the documentation is really consistent, anyone of ED can say something about please?
You'd have better chance getting their attention on the Russian forum. Make a thread there (in Russian ofc) to state the case
  • Like 1

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think this issue is also affecting the SD10. I dont have a track to show, but Im seeing the SD10 being really really easy notched by target flying at 30K, something almost impossible to do in the past. Also, Im seeing the SD10 behave exactly as the 120s now when loosing track. It seems as if the INS system added to the 120s is also working on the SD10s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2021 at 12:26 AM, Tinchus2009 said:

I think this issue is also affecting the SD10. I dont have a track to show, but Im seeing the SD10 being really really easy notched by target flying at 30K, something almost impossible to do in the past. Also, Im seeing the SD10 behave exactly as the 120s now when loosing track. It seems as if the INS system added to the 120s is also working on the SD10s

I agree that it's very easy to notch SD-10s too, and usually it's the best option instead of going cold against this missile.
I'd like to know if it's using the same API or the old one.

HRP | Derby
"Wardog, launch!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/3/2021 at 9:55 PM, nighthawk2174 said:

Yeah as I said in the original post when I first tested it was extremely hard even in look down, as it should be.  But recently I've noticed that it is now child's play to do this.

Copy that! So I'm not up to date with the changes, so I'll check to see what your track shows. I still couldn't find the time to do so, but can't wait to see what's in there! Cheers!

On 10/21/2021 at 8:34 PM, DSplayer said:

Nope. That’s the AI F-14’s AIM-54 employment problem. Problem with the AI and not the 54. Player fired 54s are fine. Player and AI AIM-120s are not.

That's not good if the AI stuff (planes / launched weapons) simulates one thing and the player's ones simulate another! This already happens regarding the flight models (which for me are the most important aspect of a simulator, less the avionics and weapons simulation) where there are great differences in performances between AI and player driven aircraft. I don't get ED's logics to this.

Good knowledge and common sense make the absurd run for defense.

Flying has always been a great interest for mankind, yet learning everything about it brought the greatest challenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 85th_Maverick said:

That's not good if the AI stuff (planes / launched weapons) simulates one thing and the player's ones simulate another! This already happens regarding the flight models (which for me are the most important aspect of a simulator, less the avionics and weapons simulation) where there are great differences in performances between AI and player driven aircraft. I don't get ED's logics to this.

They plan on overhauling the AI for the F-14 anyway. No use just bandaiding a system that is going to be replaced or overhauled anyway.

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 1:56 AM, Harker said:
On 10/3/2021 at 9:55 PM, nighthawk2174 said:
Yeah as I said in the original post when I first tested it was extremely hard even in look down, as it should be.  But recently I've noticed that it is now child's play to do this.

Yeah, it has become really easy to notch both missiles and radars (at least the F-18's) in look down conditions, even if the target is at high altitude, but below the horizon.

Maybe that's how it's more realistic, did you think of that? This isn't suppose to be a Star Trek tech or for how we'd like it, it should be simulation oriented only. That's how I love DCS!

On 10/21/2021 at 4:45 AM, KenobiOrder said:

Actually I am not so sure now, need to do more testing. My first tests were vs ace ai and they may have been doing some humanly impossible notch maneauver. Doing tests now where I try to notch ai fired amraam and I have not been successful once yet, even with an ass load of chaff. So maybe we jumped to conclusions too quickly. Not sure how your tests were done

Tacview-20211020-214303-DCS.zip.acmi 42.4 kB · 12 downloads

Tacview-20211020-214706-DCS.zip.acmi 51.35 kB · 8 downloads

Exactly, and you're not the only one seeing these kind of results where it's impossible to notch it in conditions where you'd think it should be doable. It depends on conditions and some find it as if it's very easy cause they get a random chance of eventually notching it, while some try all sorts of things and still can't get it notched as it would be logical. None of those finding very different results being noobs at this...!

Good knowledge and common sense make the absurd run for defense.

Flying has always been a great interest for mankind, yet learning everything about it brought the greatest challenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 3:27 AM, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said:

Notch 1 -  That's normal...!

Notch 2 - That's normal...!

Notch 3 - Now you see? And that's also normal...! It depends on a lot of parameters that most of "you and me" can't understand and can say that it's either non-notchable at all or too easily notchable. I say that how it is right now, it's as far as realistic as it's ever been and I doubt there's any other sim out there today that is able to replicate this. Good job ED!

  • Like 1

Good knowledge and common sense make the absurd run for defense.

Flying has always been a great interest for mankind, yet learning everything about it brought the greatest challenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2021 at 12:34 PM, KenobiOrder said:

There are literally several examples of notching missiles where the ground isnt even close to the target and it's barely look down in those tacviews he posted. Notching right now is effortless and absurdly effective.

 

Like I said before, it still remains. I don't see your "effortless and absurdly effective" ways of notching the AIM-120C. Please, show us how as most who reply here come with a track or something. Yes, now I see the change... and you know what that change is between what I've already said it was happening and what happens now? The chaff effectiveness is the only change, NOT the seeker's ability to lose or maintain track. At least, I've done the same tests again like in the original ones that I've first put here and there it is. Now, the chaff does also affect the AIM-120C, which wasn't happening when I've posted those first tracks. All other missiles were affected by beam notch and chaff, the AIM-120Cs weren't. Now they are as well, that's the change...! I still can't easily (just one in 5-7 times maybe) notch an AIM-120C's radar through maneuvers low and slow close to the ground with no chaff. So, this contradicts what you say about being "effortless and absurdly effective". Just words, no proof! If you try notching an AIM-120C at higher speeds to make it lose lock without chaff, I wish you good luck. Yes, there will be chances, but not many without using chaff.

Here are 4 fresh (up to date game version) ACMI tracks proving what I say, the only difference between the first ones that I did, being the effectiveness of chaff:

These 2 attempts are without chaff:

beam notch only testing (no chaff) at medium speed very low alt - 0 chance to break lock.acmi

beam notch only testing (no chaff) at very low speed and alt - 0 chance to break lock.acmi

These other 2 attempts are now with quite some chaff:

Beam notch + loads of chaff low and slow works now to break the lock of an AIM-120.acmi

Beam notch + loads of chaff works now to break the lock of an AIM-120 even at higher speeds.acmi

Regards!


Edited by 85th_Maverick
AIM-120C models only were for my subject. The B models are now indeed more prone to lose lock as expected!

Good knowledge and common sense make the absurd run for defense.

Flying has always been a great interest for mankind, yet learning everything about it brought the greatest challenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED, don't change a thing! It's probably in the best shape as it is right now! Not thinking about balancing and stupid ideas like that others think about! By what the tests show, the number of chances to avoid an Aim-120 (at least, cause it's the best in the sim) could be about right. From how I see it, slowly but surely, ED has now managed to make it about as realistic as it can get in terms of active radar missiles seekers performances.

  • Like 1

Good knowledge and common sense make the absurd run for defense.

Flying has always been a great interest for mankind, yet learning everything about it brought the greatest challenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things they should change, but without having the ability to look deeper into it, it's hard to quantify.   The super-low and super-slow thing is ... a thing, but for example the entire idea behind low altitude flight messing with the aim point isn't applicable the way ED has made it, IMHO.   This is more old-missile territory and I do mean old.

They have the opportunity and method to implement seeker settling which would result is better (IMHO) simulation still, and they can do this by varying the aimpoint 'wandering' against a target that maneuvers in a specific way.   This way you have to start combining maneuver with other tactics, instead of a simple 'jump through the notch at lawnmower altitude' move.   But again still IMHO.

This would also make it more possible to evade missiles in look-up conditions (a lot of people don't realize that look-down is not as simple as how the game presents it.   Look-down isn't just 'below the horizon) if you follow the right procedure and have ECM and CMs helping you out.

On the other hand, any aspect outside of on-the-beam should make the missile next to impossible to evade, barring energy state issues or ECM.  The further back in time you go, the 'easier' evasion gets.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 85th_Maverick said:

Like I said before, it still remains. I don't see your "effortless and absurdly effective" ways of notching the AIM-120B or C. Please, show us how as most who reply here come with a track or something. Yes, now I see the change... and you know what that change is between what I've already said it was happening and what happens now? The chaff effectiveness is the only change, NOT the seeker's ability to lose or maintain track. At least, I've done the same tests again like in the original ones that I've first put here and there it is. Now, the chaff does also affect the AIM-120B and C, which wasn't happening when I've posted those first tracks. All other missiles were affected by beam notch and chaff, the AIM-120s weren't. Now they are as well, that's the change...! I still can't easily (just one in 5-7 times maybe) notch an AIM-120's (B/C) radar through maneuvers low and slow close to the ground with no chaff. So, this contradicts what you say about being "effortless and absurdly effective". Just words, no proof! If you try notching an AIM-120B/C at higher speeds to make it lose lock without chaff, I wish you good luck. Yes, there will be chances, but not many without using chaff.

Here are 4 fresh (up to date game version) ACMI tracks proving what I say, the only difference between the first ones that I did, being the effectiveness of chaff:

These 2 attempts are without chaff:

beam notch only testing (no chaff) at medium speed very low alt - 0 chance to break lock.acmi 42.31 kB · 2 downloads

beam notch only testing (no chaff) at very low speed and alt - 0 chance to break lock.acmi 49.96 kB · 2 downloads

These other 2 attempts are now with quite some chaff:

Beam notch + loads of chaff low and slow works now to break the lock of an AIM-120.acmi 73.89 kB · 2 downloads

Beam notch + loads of chaff works now to break the lock of an AIM-120 even at higher speeds.acmi 314.3 kB · 1 download

Regards!

You quoted what I said 3-4 months ago. I am also not certain what you mean by "just words no proof" since I was literally quoting someone else's proof....

You also somehow whittled my point down to claiming the missile is wrong when down low and slow. I did not qualify my statement that way, you just read that into it. I am not opposed to missiles potentially being notched under certain circumstances. I was referencing, when I said that, that the missiles in the game were being notched far too easily in general. All you had to do to have a virtually guaranteed defense was to make a lazy turn to the beam, no countermeasures needed, and the geometry of the engagement such as the look down angle and range to the ground, and range of missile to target were irrelevant. 

After they released the INS patch the missiles were just as susceptible to notching as they were before, as well as the absurd problems with tracking cold targets. I have not played recently so I dont know exactly how they are now, but I havent heard anything from anyone recently claiming its been substantially improved. I know ED has said they are going to implement range gates now (which is one of the main things we were asking for in this thread so I dont know what you are complaining about). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

There are some things they should change, but without having the ability to look deeper into it, it's hard to quantify.   The super-low and super-slow thing is ... a thing, but for example the entire idea behind low altitude flight messing with the aim point isn't applicable the way ED has made it, IMHO.   This is more old-missile territory and I do mean old.

They have the opportunity and method to implement seeker settling which would result is better (IMHO) simulation still, and they can do this by varying the aimpoint 'wandering' against a target that maneuvers in a specific way.   This way you have to start combining maneuver with other tactics, instead of a simple 'jump through the notch at lawnmower altitude' move.   But again still IMHO.

This would also make it more possible to evade missiles in look-up conditions (a lot of people don't realize that look-down is not as simple as how the game presents it.   Look-down isn't just 'below the horizon) if you follow the right procedure and have ECM and CMs helping you out.

On the other hand, any aspect outside of on-the-beam should make the missile next to impossible to evade, barring energy state issues or ECM.  The further back in time you go, the 'easier' evasion gets.

 

Copy that! Good explanation and yes, changes may need to continue to be done, but imho it's never been better as it is a the moment. Except for all the A-A missiles drag at low AoAs which I still find too high to be real (this is a different subject), the keep lock / loose lock performances seem more appropriate.


Edited by 85th_Maverick

Good knowledge and common sense make the absurd run for defense.

Flying has always been a great interest for mankind, yet learning everything about it brought the greatest challenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 85th_Maverick said:

Maybe that's how it's more realistic, did you think of that? This isn't suppose to be a Star Trek tech or for how we'd like it, it should be simulation oriented only. That's how I love DCS

Right, and Iisted a bunch of technologies and various qualities of PD radars and monopulse systems that are specifically able (if not outright developed) to counter notching to make it borderline impossible to happen.  Again not impossible just a 1 in a million chance.  One of the sources I posted is a literal Raytheon patent from the early 80's.  You have yet to post anything more than your opinion.

3 hours ago, 85th_Maverick said:

Exactly, and you're not the only one seeing these kind of results where it's impossible to notch it in conditions where you'd think it should be doable. It depends on conditions and some find it as if it's very easy cause they get a random chance of eventually notching it, while some try all sorts of things and still can't get it notched as it would be logical. None of those finding very different results being noobs at this...!

There have been a bunch of tacviews and tracks posted, and flying competitive it is more than a common sight to see people just notching amraams left right and center.  Hec examples are posted in the first post of this thread.  Now as a disclaimer I haven't played the latest patch so it may be better.  But as of the last time I played it was pure child play to notch amraams so I have no clue what your seeing.  Especially in MP.  When I tested with friends before making this thread it was nearly a 100% success rate with notching so long as I wasn't an idiot and completely botched the maneuver.  

I watched your tacviews and here's my notes.  In the first one you did notch the missile at ~25sec and it began reducing G slowly (new AP lets of G slowly) but then it reacquired at 28sec.  Which is a dice roll if it happens it doesn't happen often.  So you did infact notch the missile the moment you reduced closure below 100kts.  You can tell as the G suddenly spikes from ~2G to 4.5G and stays high for the rest of the intercept.  For the second you just got unlucky, you did notch the missile at ~29 sec.  And it started to fly straight it may have been flying on datalink hard to tell, G reduced to nearly 1G and it was flying straight for about 7sec.  However you flew so level in straight it was essentially going to hit you ballistically.  Now when it got closer to you it seems to have reaquired for just the briefest of moments at 38sec and that gave it just enough time to pull onto you. So for this one I think you just got unlucky due to flying so straight and level that you flew right into the PIP.  For the last two the moment you got below 100kts of closure they were immediately notched.  And did not require and were not in a position to essentially hit you ballistically.  Proving exactly what was posted in my original post I might add.  Which based off of all the documents we have is not how it should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, why the hell does that discussion even exists, when we know that the new guidance API is not even finished yet, and range gates are not implemented, among other things?

Let ED finish the API first, then everyone can discuss what seems right or wrong...


Edited by Mad_Shell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...