R-73 & R-27T tracking issues in MP (again)

[Cmptohocah]

I am not sure if the issue is in net code or what, but it seems that R-73s and R-27Ts in front hemisphere serve no more than decorative purpose.
In the gif you are able to see both of them missing at < 8km for some reason.

In the HUD view you can see me struggling to pick up the target on radar, 'cause for some reason Flanker's radar can't pick up a target at 10-15km distance almost co-alt, and had to go into vertical scan and do aileron rolls.

https://imgur.com/a/Qp168iE

[Susi]

those IRs were probably blinded by sun 

[Cmptohocah]

9 hours ago, Susi said:

those IRs were probably blinded by sun 

Their FOV was nowhere near the sun. At least that's how it looks like from the HUD view.

[okopanja]

5 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Their FOV was nowhere near the sun. At least that's how it looks like from the HUD view.

R-73: ±40° off-boresight

In your HUD I think I see sun within 30°, however tacview would be more interesting to examine. I think R-27 has smaller fov.

Btw: my subjective feeling is that both missiles are less reliable in the latest openbeta.

[GGTharos]

Maybe if you weren't rolling around so much the missiles wouldn't get so dizzy ...

Anyway, head-on IR shots are not reliable due to the relatively weak IR signature.   The missile should definitely guide but distractions are not your friend in that case (sun, flares).  Are you using LA override?   If so you might be shooting that missile blind.

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Anyway, head-on IR shots are not reliable due to the relatively weak IR signature.   The missile should definitely guide but distractions are not your friend in that case (sun, flares).  Are you using LA override?   If so you might be shooting that missile blind.

First one fired form 7.2 and second 6.5 km, IMHO he did not need to override.

 

[okopanja]

On 11/14/2021 at 2:37 AM, Cmptohocah said:

In the HUD view you can see me struggling to pick up the target on radar, 'cause for some reason Flanker's radar can't pick up a target at 10-15km distance almost co-alt, and had to go into vertical scan and do aileron rolls.

I noticed this behavior roughly in September, when F-16/F-18s got some radar improvements. From that moment it became really difficult to lock them before they do lock you (and shoot). Frequently I ask myself if the vertical scan works at all on flankers.

[Cmptohocah]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Maybe if you weren't rolling around so much the missiles wouldn't get so dizzy ...

Next time I will give'em some motion sickness tablets before the flight.

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Anyway, head-on IR shots are not reliable due to the relatively weak IR signature.   The missile should definitely guide but distractions are not your friend in that case (sun, flares).  Are you using LA override?   If so you might be shooting that missile blind.

I understand that, but this was very close and it's not like they tracked and lost track, they went dumb off the rail and this was before he even started flaring. They look like S-8 rockets. No LA override was used, but since you have mentioned it, many times 27Ts and 27ETs don't get a LA until 10km in front hemisphere, which basically makes them R-73 when it comes to seeker range.

 

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

I noticed this behavior roughly in September, when F-16/F-18s got some radar improvements. From that moment it became really difficult to lock them before they do lock you (and shoot). Frequently I ask myself if the vertical scan works at all on flankers.

I am having a really, really hard time picking up anything that is close to the ground. Vertical scan for some reason has only 10km range, so if you are using it make sure that the range is less than that or you won't get a lock.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Cmptohocah
My English is not the goodest

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

I understand that, but this was very close and it's not like they tracked and lost track, they went dumb off the rail and this was before he even started flaring. They look like S-8 rockets. No LA override was used, but since you have mentioned it, many times 27Ts and 27ETs don't get a LA until 10km in front hemisphere, which basically makes them R-73 when it comes to seeker range.

Seeker size isn't that different between those two.

However, that means also you shouldn't get LA if the seeker can't lock on, so we're onto a different problem with these missiles (it could also be that you're being given LA before the seeker locks, but that would be a new and wrong behavior if you also don't get the seeker lock tone).

Regarding the sun:  It's close enough to be a factor IMHO especially for the 73 shot but eeeeh.

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

I am having a really, really hard time picking up anything that is close to the ground. Vertical scan for some reason has only 10km range, so if you are using it make sure that the range is less than that or you won't get a lock.

Yes, vertical scan is limited like say an eagle's vertical scan is limited in distance also.  Could it be extended?  Yes, it's all software, it's made to reject targets that are at longer ranges deliberately - this is done probably based on pilot input alone.  The purpose of these close combat modes is WVR acquisition, you don't want to accidentally pick up the tanker 100km away, but rather the thing you are looking at.

Maybe the IRL limitation is not 10km, that I wouldn't know.

Edited November 15, 2021 by GGTharos

[okopanja]

11 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Yes, vertical scan is limited like say an eagle's vertical scan is limited in distance also.  Could it be extended?  Yes, it's all software, it's made to reject targets that are at longer ranges deliberately - this is done probably based on pilot input alone.  The purpose of these close combat modes is WVR acquisition, you don't want to accidentally pick up the tanker 100km away, but rather the thing you are looking at.

Start the video and observe the paint zone of WVR. You will notice that he is moving several times over the enemy (and he kept rolling). We are talking hear about 3-4 seconds (so the aircraft was the within visual range all the time).  I am pretty sure that radar did not lock (he kept turning). The lock was achieved in less than 10km. This means that Flanker's radar is under-performing heavily (Mig-21 performance!). I think the changes in September silently reduced the performance of Flanker radar.

IMHO: for R-73 sun was close enough to be a factor. Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the R-27ET seeker has smaller FOV than R-73, so it should not have been affected by sun.

[falcon_120]

I don't think R73/R27ET effectiveness has been reduced, neither flanker radar performance. There might be other culprits... (Sun, enemy cutting throttle all the way down...)

 

By the way, check out this channel, he is a great pilots exclusively flying Mig29/SU27 planes and he reliably wins BVR/WVR fights in PVP servers like the Growling sidewinder, he posts videos quite regularly and in those you can clearly see how a good pilot can turn a flanker or fulcrum into a killing machine, lots of very recent, i mean after this patch, of R27Et and r73 kills, so i see no problem.....

https://www.youtube.com/user/xShakaGG

 

[GGTharos]

7 hours ago, okopanja said:

Start the video and observe the paint zone of WVR. You will notice that he is moving several times over the enemy (and he kept rolling). We are talking hear about 3-4 seconds (so the aircraft was the within visual range all the time).  I am pretty sure that radar did not lock (he kept turning). The lock was achieved in less than 10km. This means that Flanker's radar is under-performing heavily (Mig-21 performance!). I think the changes in September silently reduced the performance of Flanker radar.

Vertical scan is not instantaneous (at least it shouldn't be), the antenna is moving up and down to complete this scan and rolling around could easily have the aircraft not fall into the antenna beam for the moment that  it cross the VS pattern.   Same goes for EOS.

7 hours ago, okopanja said:

IMHO: for R-73 sun was close enough to be a factor. Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the R-27ET seeker has smaller FOV than R-73, so it should not have been affected by sun.

No heater has a 20-30deg FoV.   The gimbals are larger than this but the FoV is anywhere from 2 to 4 degrees.   The way the sun or other distractions affect this type of seeker it through reflections inside the dome itself; if there are any imperfections that would cause a bright spot when shone on by the sun this would make things even worse.

[Cmptohocah]

19 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Yes, vertical scan is limited like say an eagle's vertical scan is limited in distance also. 

Maybe the IRL limitation is not 10km, that I wouldn't know.

Just checked the MiG-29B's manual and locking the targets in vertical mode is limited to 10km and is to be used to lock visually acquired targets.

[Cmptohocah]

6 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

I don't think R73/R27ET effectiveness has been reduced, neither flanker radar performance. There might be other culprits... (Sun, enemy cutting throttle all the way down...) so i see no problem.....

Do you see a problem here, perhaps?

 

[GGTharos]

^^^^ If you can reproduce this in a short track ED would be able to tell you what happened.  It may well be a bug.

[okopanja]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Vertical scan is not instantaneous (at least it shouldn't be), the antenna is moving up and down to complete this scan and rolling around could easily have the aircraft not fall into the antenna beam for the moment that  it cross the VS pattern.   Same goes for EOS.

Well, the purpose of vertical mode is to reduce the scan time and focus on specific area. However...

 

4 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Just checked the MiG-29B's manual and locking the targets in vertical mode is limited to 10km and is to be used to lock visually acquired targets.

It might have been actually limited, quite possibly through the requirements of the common customer.

 

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No heater has a 20-30deg FoV.   The gimbals are larger than this but the FoV is anywhere from 2 to 4 degrees.   The way the sun or other distractions affect this type of seeker it through reflections inside the dome itself; if there are any imperfections that would cause a bright spot when shone on by the sun this would make things even worse.

I was not talking about the sensor but rather seeker as a whole, but you might be right, the narrow FoV of the sensor itself, focused on the target would rule out direct sun influence.

As for reflections I very much doubt that reflections and corresponding lens effects are modeled in DCS, and I recall such effects tend to be computationally expensive.

Sadly FC3 generation of aircraft modules and their weapons seem to be in a permanent feature freeze, except for F-15 which benefits from being AMRAAM/Sidewinder carrier.

[GGTharos]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

As for reflections I very much doubt that rflections and corresponding lens effects are modeled in DCS, and I recall such effects tend to be computationally expensive.

There's no need to model them, you model the sun as a source of reduced SNR or complete distraction if it's within a certain angle of the seeker. LOS.

[Cmptohocah]

16 hours ago, GGTharos said:

^^^^ If you can reproduce this in a short track ED would be able to tell you what happened.  It may well be a bug.

I think it will be difficult to reproduce this in SP as I have experienced this kind of behavior only in MP so far. Also, it's not that they Alamos and Archers don't track at all in MP, but there are instances like these that they just go dumb for no apparent reason. The amount of cases this happens on is limited at the moment, but I have not experienced this with a SARH Alamo.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

I think it will be difficult to reproduce this in SP as I have experienced this kind of behavior only in MP so far. Also, it's not that they Alamos and Archers don't track at all in MP, but there are instances like these that they just go dumb for no apparent reason. The amount of cases this happens on is limited at the moment, but I have not experienced this with a SARH Alamo.

Hi, if planned in advance and you can arrange for the setup (mission, server? ), I can help with reproduction. You can find me on the discord of GS.

[Cmptohocah]

35 minutes ago, okopanja said:

...You can find me on the discord of GS.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Cmptohocah
Resized the image

[okopanja]

Try now please, I guess my settings were to "private"...

Meanwhile I have checked if I can create the server. Although RAM is not a problem (64 GB), the disk storage is...

Edited November 17, 2021 by okopanja

[Cmptohocah]

Clearly there are major issues with IR tracking in MP.
I mean look at this encounter: 1 out of 4 Archers tracked - the others: God only knows what they were doing.

1st one tracks but gets decoyed by flares - nothing unusual there
2nd tracks initially but decides to go away from the target at one point - doesn't track the target, doesn't go for the flares
3rd and 4th just go stupid off the rail. Maybe the batteries were dead? xD

It's to early to say, but I think that this does not happen against other FC3 planes, like the F-15. It only seems to happen, so far, with F-16 and F/A-18.
https://imgur.com/a/untwENb

 

Conclusion at the moment is: both R-27Ts and R-73s are useless in the front hemisphere in MP when it comes to Hornet and the Viper.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[GGTharos]

I wonder if this is the result of their IR signature being smaller, the launch occurring while they're in AB and them cutting out AB right after launch or something.

[Cmptohocah]

10 hours ago, GGTharos said:

I wonder if this is the result of their IR signature being smaller, the launch occurring while they're in AB and them cutting out AB right after launch or something.

Is there a way of checking if the aircraft is in AB in TacView?
During the launch of 4 archers his speed dropped from M0.76 to M0.73, so it's really hard for me to tell judging by speed alone.
I also find it hard to believe that just by turning the AB off the missiles would go ballistic at 3~4km - seems kind of too easy no?

[GGTharos]

Just now, Cmptohocah said:

Is there a way of checking if the aircraft is in AB in TacView?
During the launch of 4 archers his speed dropped from M0.76 to M0.73, so it's really hard for me to tell judging by speed alone.
I also find it hard to believe that just by turning the AB off the missiles would go ballistic at 3~4km - seems kind of too easy no?

I think unless it's your own aircraft, no.

Turning off AB causes a massive signature change IRL.  It's not just the intensity but also the IR spectrum.   I don't know how/if the seeker handles this; I imagine it would but I suspect it is also a weakness for the tracker here.   Obviously the DCS seekers are very simplified with respect to what happens IRL.