Jump to content

AMRAAM question


Skyracer

Recommended Posts

If I shot an AMRAAM and during its passive phase (where its takes guidance from the FCR) the radar loses its lock. And then i re-acquire the same bandit. Will the FCR keep feeding the missile with guidance information or is the missile just flying on its own?

MY SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel pentium 3 @ 800 MHz, 256 Mb RAM, Geforce 2 64Mb, Dell screen 1024x768 + Microsoft sidewhiner joystick + TrackIR 2 + TrackClitPro SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 98, Noice Attack & VIASAT PRO, SnackView

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I shot an AMRAAM and during its passive phase (where its takes guidance from the FCR) the radar loses its lock. And then i re-acquire the same bandit. Will the FCR keep feeding the missile with guidance information or is the missile just flying on its own?
The missile will keep flying to bandit last known position and will wake up there looking for targets.

Use case being that you loose lock long enough to loose the radar track.

Regards,

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In DCS, the former happens, if you regain lock the missile exits INS mode and re-gains mid course DL. This is also unrealistic. IRL datalink channels are correlated to the radar track; the radar will not correlate a completely new track to an old one.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In DCS, the former happens, if you regain lock the missile exits INS mode and re-gains mid course DL. This is also unrealistic. IRL datalink channels are correlated to the radar track; the radar will not correlate a completely new track to an old one.
Oof... This really shouldn't be a thing. Does it happen only if you create a track on the same target? What if you create a track and designate another aircraft close-by?

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Harker said:
17 hours ago, dundun92 said:
In DCS, the former happens, if you regain lock the missile exits INS mode and re-gains mid course DL. This is also unrealistic. IRL datalink channels are correlated to the radar track; the radar will not correlate a completely new track to an old one.

Oof... This really shouldn't be a thing. Does it happen only if you create a track on the same target? What if you create a track and designate another aircraft close-by?

It should go to that last tracked, I suppose. That makes sence, right? Best is to do a test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should go to that last tracked, I suppose. That makes sence, right? Best is to do a test.
What makes sense is for the missile to not guide towards a new trackfile. This is how it works IRL, based on available info. Since that's not how it works in DCS, logic goes out the window. Based on DCS's approach, if the missile is happy going towards a new trackfile, it should be happy to go towards *any* new trackfile, because the radar has no way of telling to which aircraft a trackfile belongs to.

If the above occurs, then at least it's a fault with the missile logic, which can be changed. If it only resumes guidance towards the initial target, then it means that the radar and/or missile "know" which particular aircraft corresponds to which trackfile, which would indicate a huge problem with how the radar creates trackfiles.

The logic behind the IRL behavior is that neither the pilot or the radar can tell if that new trackfile corresponds to the initially engaged aircraft. That's the reason why track memory is a thing, so that the radar has a chance to re-acquire the target, if it momentarily loses its return signal or can't find it in the noise. If the target cannot be re-acquired quickly enough, then the memory timer runs out and the track is dropped. If you detect the target again, after that window, then it'll be classified as a new trackfile, not associated with the previous one.

It can also happen that the radar detects the initial target while in memory, but fails to correlate it to the trackfile. In that case, the initial track proceeds to time out, but until that happens, there will be two tracks displayed to the pilot. Obviously the criteria for correlation etc are tuned to avoid that, but I'm guessing it's not impossible to happen. Then it's up to the pilot to use their judgement. But as far as the missile is concerned, its target is still lost, so it'll continue to the last calculated intercept point and not guide towards the new track.
  • Like 3

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harker said:

Oof... This really shouldn't be a thing. Does it happen only if you create a track on the same target?

as far as i'm aware, yes, though TBF I havent tested it in detail

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 9.5.2022 um 15:01 schrieb Harker:

Since that's not how it works in DCS, logic goes out the window. Based on DCS's approach, if the missile is happy going towards a new trackfile, it should be happy to go towards *any* new trackfile, because the radar has no way of telling to which aircraft a trackfile belongs to.

However, this is not the case in DCS, you cannot lock a new target, the missile will only recognize the first one again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, this is not the case in DCS, you cannot lock a new target, the missile will only recognize the first one again.
That's... very unfortunate. That's completely game-y...

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harker said:
14 hours ago, Hobel said:
However, this is not the case in DCS, you cannot lock a new target, the missile will only recognize the first one again.

That's... very unfortunate. That's completely game-y...

DCS is a game (runs for the door)

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a simulator, which means that rather than playability, the primary criterion is accuracy to real life. If it was a game, it'd be a pretty bad one, because it deliberately simulates several cases of bad design in aircraft it models (as well as just plain unfun design, as necessitated by the real world condition), and, by design, it has no balance to speak of.

OTOH, it is also a complex computer program, which means it has bugs. This behavior is most certainly a bug. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a simulator, which means that rather than playability, the primary criterion is accuracy to real life. If it was a game, it'd be a pretty bad one, because it deliberately simulates several cases of bad design in aircraft it models (as well as just plain unfun design, as necessitated by the real world condition), and, by design, it has no balance to speak of.
OTOH, it is also a complex computer program, which means it has bugs. This behavior is most certainly a bug. 
Sadly, it doesn't seem to be a bug (as in unintended). It seems like it's like that by design.

It seems that there is no separation between trackfiles and units, as far as the engine and the missiles are concerned. There is no real "detection" or "ambiguity", these are merely visual effects presented to the player, but not taken into account for under-the-hood calculations.

As an example, take the fact that, while the FCR cannot range jamming targets past a certain distance, the HSD shows their range just fine and very accurately. How can the HSD display info that the radar seemingly cannot provide? It's because the "aircraft" knows the range just fine, but merely hides it from the player.

It's the same with the missiles. They should guide towards "a trackfile", not only a trackfile that corresponds to the same unit. Neither the radar or the missile should know any better, but they do.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hobel said:

And a simulator is nothing more than a game.


Real jet pilots train in simulators and what do they do?

They practice real scenarios in a game environment.

Wrong but opinions are like….

I7 4770k @ 4.6, sli 980 evga oc edition, ssdx2, Sony 55 inch edid hack nvidia 3dvision. Volair sim pit, DK2 Oculus Rift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 17 Minuten schrieb rcjonessnp175:

Wrong but opinions are like….

This has nothing to do with opinion.

If dcs or other simulations have all the characteristics of a game then so be it.

They are not in any danger environment and play through certain scenarios in exercises.

 

And if the developers title their simulation as a game then the matter should be clear.

Otherwise, google the term and its meaning, which is almost all-encompassing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harker said:

Sadly, it doesn't seem to be a bug (as in unintended). It seems like it's like that by design.

A bug is an unintended, unwanted behavior in a program. I'm pretty sure ED devs didn't intend that exact thing to happen, because it realistically doesn't make any sense. They just didn't think the way they implemented the radar would result, in this particular case, in incorrect behavior (despite working well in most other cases). As such, it's a bug. It's probably possible to code around it in the current implementation, but this particular area of code likely dates back at least to FC3, so it may take some doing. Still reporting this as a bug is a good idea.

40 minutes ago, Hobel said:

If dcs or other simulations have all the characteristics of a game then so be it.

But it doesn't, it's missing the most important aspect of "gameness", which is entertainment-oriented design. A game is meant to be fun, a simulator is meant to reflect reality as closely as possible. Doesn't mean a simulator can't be fun, but if a game introduces an unfun mechanic that's faithful to reality, that's bad game design, while if a simulator does that, and the mechanic reflects reality, then it's good simulator design. The distinction is important when setting one's expectations and judging the program. 

You can argue that's not what makes a game, but I find the above definition to match common sense quite well. Mathematically, real air combat is also a game (a zero sum one: if you win, this means your opponent loses), because it involves a decision making process that can be modeled by game theory. That definition is a little broad for everyday use, seeing as "games" of that sort also involve deciding what to buy in the supermarket, whether to take a plea bargain, who to vote for in the next elections and whether to kick off nuclear war (famously a very negative sum game).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zitat

 a simulator is meant to reflect reality as closely as possible. Doesn't mean a simulator can't be fun, but if a game introduces an unfun mechanic that's faithful to reality, that's bad game design, while if a simulator does that, and the mechanic reflects reality, then it's good simulator design. The distinction is important when setting one's expectations and judging the program.   ,


These points still do not clash with the name "game" because it still has enough categories to be a game.
And it simply contains too much subjective opinion 

A simulator allows me to replay reality.

  Also, dcs in its entirety still fulfills too many categories of "game" to not be called one. 

And as before, many companies that provide simulations also call this a game - DCS is not the exception.

the people who still call DCS a game, to the annoyance of some users, simply have their reasons, because dcs fulfills those aspects that are necessary for a game.

Your view is one of many on this subject
  in the end there is no universal classification of "game"


Edited by Hobel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's a simulator, which means that rather than playability, the primary criterion is accuracy to real life. If it was a game, it'd be a pretty bad one,

"Simulator" has a few definitions.

There are professional  simulators that pilots use for training. These are big and expensive, and need to be certified by the FAA (in the US).

But "simulation" is also a genre of computer games. This is what DCS is. It's a simulation game.

As a real pilot, if I can't record sim hours in my logbook, then it's a game. If DCS really were a "simulator not a game" then I'd have a whole lot of hours I haven't been recording ...

But yes, DCS has more than a few problems as a game. Some of those are mission design related, others are just game design. 

But this is OT.

I know the Hornet has a "memory mode" where the computer continues to extrapolate and provide guidance updates for a track it has lost radar contact with. If radar contact is reestablished on that track while it is still in memory mode, before the trackfile is deleted, it'll resume using radar information to provide guidance updates to an in-flight missile. This isn't fully modeled in DCS right now, as it is intertwined with MSI, but it's partly there. I'm not sure if the Viper does something similar or not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

As a real pilot, if I can't record sim hours in my logbook, then it's a game. If DCS really were a "simulator not a game" then I'd have a whole lot of hours I haven't been recording ...

If you were flying Warthogs in the ANG, you probably could. 🙂 Or Mirages for the ADA, for that matter. A few air forces do use DCS for pilot training, and presumably this counts towards the pilots' hours. Since at least one version of X-plane is FAA certified (and standards for that are actually lower than some rivet counters over here demand), I suspect the only reason DCS isn't is that most of its aircraft aren't likely to be flown by civilian pilots. So by that definition, it is a simulator, just not one that does you any good. 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 3:01 PM, Harker said:

What makes sense is for the missile to not guide towards a new trackfile. This is how it works IRL, based on available info. Since that's not how it works in DCS, logic goes out the window. Based on DCS's approach, if the missile is happy going towards a new trackfile, it should be happy to go towards *any* new trackfile, because the radar has no way of telling to which aircraft a trackfile belongs to.

If the above occurs, then at least it's a fault with the missile logic, which can be changed. If it only resumes guidance towards the initial target, then it means that the radar and/or missile "know" which particular aircraft corresponds to which trackfile, which would indicate a huge problem with how the radar creates trackfiles.

The logic behind the IRL behavior is that neither the pilot or the radar can tell if that new trackfile corresponds to the initially engaged aircraft. That's the reason why track memory is a thing, so that the radar has a chance to re-acquire the target, if it momentarily loses its return signal or can't find it in the noise. If the target cannot be re-acquired quickly enough, then the memory timer runs out and the track is dropped. If you detect the target again, after that window, then it'll be classified as a new trackfile, not associated with the previous one.

It can also happen that the radar detects the initial target while in memory, but fails to correlate it to the trackfile. In that case, the initial track proceeds to time out, but until that happens, there will be two tracks displayed to the pilot. Obviously the criteria for correlation etc are tuned to avoid that, but I'm guessing it's not impossible to happen. Then it's up to the pilot to use their judgement. But as far as the missile is concerned, its target is still lost, so it'll continue to the last calculated intercept point and not guide towards the new track.

RWS mode, where no trackfile in created (ps: wrong, track file is also created in RWS):  1st I locked the right target, then I turned cold, and after reacquired both, I locked the left target (on my HUD I got T=2sec), and as you can see in last 2 seconds the missile actually turned left towards newly locked target.

TWS mode, with trackfiles created: - if I lock a target, and after reacquiring the same one, missile turned towards it.

                                                            - if I lock 1st target, and after reacqiring 2nd target, missile goes stupid (doesn`t change its course, goes straight)

@BIGNEWY is that OK, right?

RWS_acquite different_target.acmi TWS_reacquire_same_target.acmi TWS_acquite_different_target.acmi


Edited by skywalker22
edited some text. RWS mode
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I know the Hornet has a "memory mode" where the computer continues to extrapolate and provide guidance updates for a track it has lost radar contact with. If radar contact is reestablished on that track while it is still in memory mode, before the trackfile is deleted, it'll resume using radar information to provide guidance updates to an in-flight missile. This isn't fully modeled in DCS right now, as it is intertwined with MSI, but it's partly there. I'm not sure if the Viper does something similar or not.


That's not what the problem is though. The issue is that the trackfile is deleted, which should be the end of it. But if you create a completely new trackfile, on the same target, the system somehow knows that it's the same aircraft. This shouldn't be possible.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2022 at 4:01 PM, skywalker22 said:

RWS mode, where no trackfile in created:  1st I locked the right target, then I turned cold, and after reacquired both, I locked the left target (on my HUD I got T=2sec), and as you can see in last 2 seconds the missile actually turned left towards newly locked target.

TWS mode, with trackfiles created: - if I lock a target, and after reacquiring the same one, missile turned towards it.

                                                            - if I lock 1st target, and after reacqiring 2nd target, missile goes stupid (doesn`t change its course, goes straight)

@BIGNEWY is that OK, right?

RWS_acquite different_target.acmi 477.6 kB · 1 download TWS_reacquire_same_target.acmi 127.91 kB · 1 download TWS_acquite_different_target.acmi 133.68 kB · 1 download

 

That's actually really interesting.  This means there's a difference in behavior between RWS and TWS,  I might try the same with STT sometime and see what happens.  

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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