Jump to content

AIM-120 is broken for months (since late 2021), and no update since then.


Archer.xd

Recommended Posts

As mentioned in that old thread does seem quite strange that an advanced missile has a battery life that doesn't cover its kinematic potential. That said I do not have access to proof that says otherwise, so I guess it's a moot point.


Edited by MARLAN_

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Ironhand:

Proximity fusing

In DCS, proximity fusing is almost non-existent for many rockets

https://streamable.com/lzmwov

vor 2 Stunden schrieb MARLAN_:

As mentioned in that old thread does seem quite strange that an advanced missile has a battery life that doesn't cover its kinematic potential. That said I do not have access to proof that says otherwise, so I guess it's a moot point.

and it is not mentioned which Aim120 is meant, 80 seconds for B and C or only B?

But in the end, the possible range that the 120C can reach in DCS is quite plausible.


Edited by Hobel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

In DCS, proximity fusing is almost non-existent for many rockets

https://streamable.com/lzmwov

and it is not mentioned which Aim120 is meant, 80 seconds for B and C or only B?

But in the end, the possible range that the 120C can reach in DCS is quite plausible.

 

Doesnt matter on what the timer is, if your kinematic is bad the missile will have less range.

If the target doesnt defend, the missile will have more range.

Timer has nothing to do with this.

 

 

And yes the lockon Fox 3 is quite better but still letting it use its own radar ( its a fox 3 lol?) its still the same.

So please dont test it with lock on active capability. If i dont want to defend id use a  FOX 1


Edited by PatatOorlog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
23 hours ago, vtaf_archer said:

OB 2.7.14.23966 (18.05 Latest Patch)
  - Weapons. AIM-120. Fixed tracking issues due to wrong reference range gate choice when target locked.

1st test, going to do some more later today but don't have much time atm. Close range low alt shots, can be seen in the vid and the .trk

sum: I think its still the same

It's not the same. Please watch tracks form your previous post. Missile hits the target in all these tracks now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, vtaf_archer said:

OB 2.7.14.23966 (18.05 Latest Patch)
  - Weapons. AIM-120. Fixed tracking issues due to wrong reference range gate choice when target locked.

1st test, going to do some more later today but don't have much time atm. Close range low alt shots, can be seen in the vid and the .trk

sum: I think its still the same

2.trk

 

 

Agreed @NineLineI'll get a track when I can but from what i've been seeing the missile is still really easy to notch, I tested with a few dozen shots and was pretty easy to notch almost all of them.  There were a few that made it through, however the majority didn't.  The difference this patch is it seems that if you support the missile it will at least reacquire now, most of the time, sometimes it just doesn't and I have no clue why. 

22 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Then be patient while we look at the tracks. There is more tweaks to come, for now the range gate issue has been adjusted. 

 

Has there been any progress on proximity fuzes?  Also can the team re-examine the random aiming errors thing as far as I'm aware one of the many major advantages of monopulse is scintillation is essentially not a factor for it.  There is a video which I don't have time to find now of an amraam hitting a tiny target drone at low alt, as in a direct shack while in look down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
5 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

As mentioned in that old thread does seem quite strange that an advanced missile has a battery life that doesn't cover its kinematic potential. That said I do not have access to proof that says otherwise, so I guess it's a moot point.

 

We will revise power supply lifetime for C version. But it not possible just to increase battery lifetime IRL. There are several limitations: available room, allowable mass excess(impact on ballistics), reasonable lifetime also limited by overall control system/INS accuracy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Маэстро said:

We will revise power supply lifetime for C version. But it not possible just to increase battery lifetime IRL. There are several limitations: available room, allowable mass excess(impact on ballistics), reasonable lifetime also limited by overall control system/INS accuracy.

The C did received a brand new electronics package that was much smaller.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't also more power efficient as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

The C did received a brand new electronics package that was much smaller.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't also more power efficient as well.

We would need verifiable public data on that, and it is unlikely that we will. 

 

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Маэстро said:

It's not the same. Please watch tracks form your previous post. Missile hits the target in all these tracks now.

Its the same "as in they are still too easy" ≠ its the exact same "as in nothing changed"

I appreciate the work been going on lately and its obvious that some of the problems have been improved. However, there are still problems as I've posted another track, and some others also did. Is it better? yeah, it's not going completely trash after simple turns. Is it good as it was before (early to mid 2021)? definitely not imo. 

Again, I and many others appreciate the last update as it made 120s somewhat better in certain scenarios. But, they are still too easy to evade, especially at low altitude and even in extremely close ranges. I will post more tracks later on, have my final exams going on atm and can't get on it much. Meantime, please watch the .trk and the video I've posted yesterday.
Thanks again for the work has been going on.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

The C did received a brand new electronics package that was much smaller.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't also more power efficient as well.

Smaller size make sense-more room for battery, efficency improvement of circuits I suppose not so signinficant. Moreover, main power consumers is transmitter and fin servos. 

BTW, control section was shortened too. Less room for servo battaries? 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Маэстро said:

Smaller size make sense-more room for battery, efficency improvement of circuits I suppose not so signinficant. Moreover, main power consumers is transmitter and fin servos. 

BTW, control section was shortened too. Less room for servo battaries? 😉

Maybe, something else to consider would be battery tech would have improved somewhat since the original design in the early to mid 70's.  IMHO a small increase in flight time from the B to C is more then likely, i'm not talking 30+ but at least 10-20sec more is extremely probable.

16 minutes ago, vtaf_archer said:

Its the same "as in they are still too easy" ≠ its the exact same "as in nothing changed"

I appreciate the work been going on lately and its obvious that some of the problems have been improved. However, there are still problems as I've posted another track, and some others also did. Is it better? yeah, it's not going completely trash after simple turns. Is it good as it was before (early to mid 2021)? definitely not imo. 

Again, I and many others appreciate the last update as it made 120s somewhat better in certain scenarios. But, they are still too easy to evade, especially at low altitude and even in extremely close ranges. I will post more tracks later on, have my final exams going on atm and can't get on it much. Meantime, please watch the .trk and the video I've posted yesterday.
Thanks again for the work has been going on.

I agree with your findings 100% I really need to get a track that works.  The one I had was 30min long and after a short time the track diverged from what happened pretty radically.


Edited by nighthawk2174
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread will soon be closed, but what left now for ED, is ONLY to start AIM-120 coding from scratch. There is nothing else left I`m affraid. The base is a decade if not more old, and whey only added stuff to it through out the years. And now its a damn mess, which simply cannot be fixed. I know how this goes, I`m a software developer my self. Best to start from scratch.

ED: STOP Investigating, and go something about it, that it won`t be too late.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a post about the AIM-120 problem, in my opinion, it's not so much a problem in loading but in intercepting the target, the rocket makes a big angle of interception and that's why it gets lost and if it's in pit bull, probably Ed already knows, but if they didn't notice the suggestions,maybe u right,start from scratch and wee wayt 2 yearsXDDD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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