Jump to content

[OB 2.7.18.30765] AIM-120 very susceptible to chaff/notch even in look up, weird guidance after chaff decoy


Default774

Recommended Posts

Hello,

The AIM-120 is still easily notched even in a look-up situation when chaff is deployed in a specific way. When chaff is deployed in single burst, the AMRAAM seems unaffected, however when chaff is deployed in bundles of two, the behaviour changes completely. This behaviour also seems to occur in multiplayer, with an added effect of the missile desyncing massively when it gets decoyed by chaff. For the shooter the missile aggressively goes for chaff. For the target the missile goes straight without making any erratic manoeuvres. I can attach these trackfiles/acmis if needed later.

The AIM-120 also seems to behave weirdly after getting decoyed by chaff, snapping between the targeted aircraft and the chaff bundle repeatedly. This does not give an RWR warning to the targeted aircraft. 

I'm personally not very good at notching, but even I managed to perform this with about 50% success rate.

All-in-all, this behaviour doesn't seem right to me, I remember reading that the CCM value of the 120C is set to 0.1 as to mimic rare sensor/seeker failure, this behaviour seems too consistently repeatable to me to be intentional.

Trackfiles/tacviews attached. Used CMDS profile(F-16) also attached.

nr3.trk nr1.trk nr2.trk nr3.acmi nr1.acmi nr2.acmi CMDS_ALE47.lua


Edited by Minimalist
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont have to be good at notching a 120 with these rwr's, Correct me if im wrong, I dont read tacviews very well but your 89 off to the missile, If thats the case thats a perfect 90. You even adjust to what the rwr is even telling you. And this is why the missile didnt see you and went for chaff. Once again to elaborate i apologise to reading the tacview wrong if that was the case. 

null

image.png


Edited by Coxy_99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Am 7.10.2022 um 19:21 schrieb Coxy_99:

I watched the tracks also yes. This is because these rwrs are 1:1

image.png

null

image.png

nullSorry for the spam 5MB upload

image.png

 

I dont think so. The RWR is maybe a small factor but wont change that the missiles are easily notched just with your eyes and looking at 90 degrees  or in e.g. the F14 where the RWR has all inaccuracies though amraams are still easily notchable. The RWR is one problem  but not as much as you think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you find it is, You can see how purrfect your notching it just via rwr, Maybe notching should never exist? You could even argue why would you bother to model chaff also? This way the missile would completely be impossible to defeat thats what your looking for hollywood missiles? You can then argue the fact well if there that good BFM and IR, SARH missiles wouldnt even bother existing at all? Why develop them if actives are really that good? Trouble is unlike heatblur ED modelled a beautiful rwr, Enjoy before they do make it inaccurate, Otherwise we would have to get our heads out the mfds 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read what I wrote? But again: Even without rwr it is still easily possible. By the way:  SARH missiles got developed before fox 3 existed lol and except maybe <profanity>ty russian fox3  and other poor countries nobody uses fox1 anymore when he has the capability to develop actual fox 3.
Fox1 are also cheaper thats it.

Btw in reality nobody really cares about bfm any more so yeah they are actually that good.

You can notch amraams easily in the f14 aswell so thats a proof the rwr is definetly not the deciding factor


Edited by Mareno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RWR is not the problem here. Has been discussed countless times before, its still very easy to notch without RWR. Just get in a lookdown position and beam. You do not need the precise 1° info your RWR gives. 
RWR too good? Maybe yes, maybe not.
Missiles miss because of RWRs? No. 
AIM-120 has been going downhill after the 2.8 update again, and its acknowledged that theres something wrong with it. So why continue trying to derail every AIM-120 bug report with saying the same thing? Its obvious that its not the problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, vtaf_archer said:

RWR is not the problem here. Has been discussed countless times before, its still very easy to notch without RWR. Just get in a lookdown position and beam. You do not need the precise 1° info your RWR gives. 
RWR too good? Maybe yes, maybe not.
Missiles miss because of RWRs? No. 
AIM-120 has been going downhill after the 2.8 update again, and its acknowledged that theres something wrong with it. So why continue trying to derail every AIM-120 bug report with saying the same thing? Its obvious that its not the problem. 

No where near derailed the thread nore is it even marked as a bug i quite clearly pointed an issue out. Let me re phrase it lets say ED change it harder to notch. Guess what will happen? The player will get better at notching that to. The track and tacview CLEARLY shows the guy heads down in his rwr watching the missile warning. The tacview CLEARLY shows 89 degrees thats perfect only way hes down that is by watching the rwr and adjusting ive done it myself its so easy to do. Again its not even a bug its not even marked as investigating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, vtaf_archer said:

RWR is not the problem here. Has been discussed countless times before, its still very easy to notch without RWR. Just get in a lookdown position and beam. You do not need the precise 1° info your RWR gives. 

3-12° depending on number of antenna.

4 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

RWR too good? Maybe yes, maybe not.

It is too good 👆, but then again, depending on the speed of target it may not be that important

5 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

AIM-120 has been going downhill after the 2.8 update again, and its acknowledged that theres something wrong with it. So why continue trying to derail every AIM-120 bug report with saying the same thing? Its obvious that its not the problem. 

What exactly? Link?

8 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

No where near derailed the thread nore is it even marked as a bug i quite clearly pointed an issue out. Let me re phrase it lets say ED change it harder to notch. Guess what will happen? The player will get better at notching that to. The track and tacview CLEARLY shows the guy heads down in his rwr watching the missile warning. The tacview CLEARLY shows 89 degrees thats perfect only way hes down that is by watching the rwr and adjusting ive done it myself its so easy to do. Again its not even a bug its not even marked as investigating.

Technically, if you have SA, e.g. bandit is on 0 degree for you, you can just add/subtract 90 degree for a turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We sure ED is not investigating the AIM-120 being notched single handedly in up look? Or in general, do you think they really consider AIM-120 is fine?
Its not derailed, yet.
"The player will get better at notching that too"
Well, yes. But no. Lets take the past 2 years as example :
Notching existed all the time, RWRs did not change. 
2 years ago, AIM-120 was tracking fairly decent in close range. Now its missing the target in uplook inside <4nm launches and sometimes even with STT support. 
RWR was the same back then, so we were not seeing 10x10 amraams ending up in merges as much as we see now. Im not saying "Notching should be impossible"
It'll be possible, I am pointing that it should be harder for missile to lose track this stupidly in very close ranges and with support.

Make RWR unprecise? Then players will get better at reading angles and headings. Players will always play with what they have. Now they have a missile with very poor tracking + precise RWR, so they can play just by looking at RWR
Give them unprecise RWR, they'll look at hud (or in VR just look to the 3/9)
Give them better missile, they'll still do either of those but at least you'll have a missile that is properly tracking inside extremely close ranges and best possible conditions. 

Do not try to fix the problem A with making the C worse. Fix the A.
 

edit: very simple example of what Im saying 
DCS Trash AMRAAMs #4 (OB 2.7.16.27869) - YouTube

DCS World 2022 - Trash AMRAAMs - YouTube

 


Edited by vtaf_archer
added links
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, okopanja said:

What exactly? Link?

Its not on forums, I and a few friends of mine submitted tracks privately after the 2.8 and some of the issues were already being checked internally, rest is hopefully being worked on after the reports. We do not know what exactly got changed in the update because nothing was on the notes but behaviour change is reported and acknowledged as a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, vtaf_archer said:

Its not on forums, I and a few friends of mine submitted tracks privately after the 2.8 and some of the issues were already being checked internally, rest is hopefully being worked on after the reports. We do not know what exactly got changed in the update because nothing was on the notes but behaviour change is reported and acknowledged as a problem.


You could of just said that in the first place? And to clarify ive not even mentioned theres no issue with the 120.

This is a derail post:

7 hours ago, Mareno said:


Perfect derail post right there i rest my case.

Did you even read what I wrote? But again: Even without rwr it is still easily possible. By the way:  SARH missiles got developed before fox 3 existed lol and except maybe <profanity>ty russian fox3  and other poor countries nobody uses fox1 anymore when he has the capability to develop actual fox 3.
Fox1 are also cheaper thats it.

Btw in reality nobody really cares about bfm any more so yeah they are actually that good.

You can notch amraams easily in the f14 aswell so thats a proof the rwr is definetly not the deciding factor

 

 


Edited by Coxy_99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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