How close is 1.1 demo AAM performance to 1.1 rel? WARN Imag

[Kula66]

All,

I know its only a demo and A2A missiles are not supported officially, but how close are missile dynamics to the final version? Have they undergone further tweaking?

 

AMRAAMs seem really dumb ... turning away during the end game or just not exploding ... see below. They seem very different than in 1.02 ... much easier to dodge. AA-10s however, seem to be quite capable of going past you, then turning around and running you down ... after being fired at 30miles ...

 

Is it just the AI is much improved ... and executes perfect manauvers, at exactly the right time ... everytime?

 

Anyone else finding this? Or is it just my terrible BVR skills ... I've tried beaming (thanks to SK, I think I finally understand it ;), turning and running (my usualy tactic), chaff/flares, switching ECM on and off), dragging ...

 

James

 

Why no bang?

[GGTharos]

Probably didn't come close enough to fuze - the fuze radius is about 15m, which is just a bit less than the flanker's own length - about 3/4 or so.

[Starlight]

I also agree that NATO radar AAMs seem a bit "underpowered" in this sim both as range and as performance.

[Guest ruggbutt]

You get a longer WEZ w/the 120's now (in the demo) but they are much more stupid.

 

Not sure if I like them or not.

[GGTharos]

The aerodynamics are still wrong (for all missiles, not just the 120)

 

Insofar as the guidance logic goes, who knows.

[Starlight]

I also noticed that missiles are very difficult to spot in Lomac. Instead in many videos I noticed that most AAMs produce a huge smoke/condensation trail that makes them quite easy to spot. I know that modern weapons like AIM-9M, -9X, -120, and a lot of Russian ones have their smoke trail reduced, but still Lomac seems much more about late 80s/ early 90s scenarios, when these modern weapons were not available.

Same thing holds true for SAMs.

 

Smoke trails, contrails and such effects IMHO are not accurately reproduced in Lomac, yet in real life they are a quite big factor in air combat, because as the old quote told, "to see is to win".

[D-Scythe]

Easy answer: Pure pursuit missile logic (for HoJ) still does not work. Note that the AIM-120 in the pic is flying to where the Su-27 is, not where it's gonna be. I'm not surprised: such a system didn't work in V1.01 and sure as hell does not work in the V1.1 demo, and I'm very puzzled (and disappointed) that ED decided to re-introduce this into the game.

 

Anyway, it's just the demo. Although highly unlikely, may be pure pursuit actually works in the full version of Flaming Cliffs.

[britgliderpilot]

I also noticed that missiles are very difficult to spot in Lomac. Instead in many videos I noticed that most AAMs produce a huge smoke/condensation trail that makes them quite easy to spot. I know that modern weapons like AIM-9M, -9X, -120, and a lot of Russian ones have their smoke trail reduced, but still Lomac seems much more about late 80s/ early 90s scenarios, when these modern weapons were not available.

Same thing holds true for SAMs.

 

Smoke trails, contrails and such effects IMHO are not accurately reproduced in Lomac, yet in real life they are a quite big factor in air combat, because as the old quote told, "to see is to win".

 

At which point in flight, though?

 

 

After missile motor burnout, smoke trails are non-existent . . . . . is that represented in the videos, or just the launch phase?

[GGTharos]

There's condensation if the missile turns hard, which is modelled in LOMAC.

 

AMRAAMs have a rather difficult to see smoke trail, and the AIM-9X is up there too in that respect, though the ranges it gets fired at make this matter a lot less.

 

The 'pure pursuit' for HoJ is a compromize - HoJ missiles follow a proportional navigation course, but smart jammers can walk the gate and do other interesting tricks to make the missile thing that the aircraft is where it isn't - this is difficult to simulate, so pure pursuit for HoJ is the compromize to represent such things.

[D-Scythe]

GG, if you reinstall Lock On and patch just up to V1.01, if you fire a missile - any missile - at a non-jamming target, you would see that it follows a pursuit profile that's something between the current HOJ pure pursuit and proportional navigation. It resembles a pure pursuit more than the current proportional nav, but IMO, it was the best compromise and best profile to simulate HOJ, for two reasons: its intercept profile is less efficient than proportional nav AND it still killed its targets ;)

[GGTharos]

GG, if you reinstall Lock On and patch just up to V1.01, if you fire a missile - any missile - at a non-jamming target, you would see that it follows a pursuit profile that's something between the current HOJ pure pursuit and proportional navigation. It resembles a pure pursuit more than the current proportional nav, but IMO, it was the best compromise and best profile to simulate HOJ, for two reasons: its intercept profile is less efficient than proportional nav AND it still killed its targets ;)

 

It was probably PN with a less-than-optimal parameter. ;)

[coldcrew]

it's always fun when people who have no clue about how the missile works in the real world always complain about it being ineffective

[GGTharos]

it's always fun when people who have no clue about how the missile works in the real world always complain about it being ineffective

 

Do you know?

[D-Scythe]

it's always fun when people who have no clue about how the missile works in the real world always complain about it being ineffective

 

Ineffective? Right now, the missiles don't work. They miss in HOJ - all the time. And that we do know.

 

Maybe you should get a *clue* about this thread before you start complaining about what we're complaining about ;)

 

It was probably PN with a less-than-optimal parameter.

 

Isn't this what we're trying to get? Less-than-optimal flight profiles?

[GGTharos]

Yep...specifically, my point is...same PN algorithm, just less optimal parameters ... it just so happens that you can work the PN formula this way from what I've read.

[Starlight]

 

At which point in flight, though?

 

 

After missile motor burnout, smoke trails are non-existent . . . . . is that represented in the videos, or just the launch phase?

 

These photos are from "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick and from "SR-71 The Secret Missions Exposed" by Paul Crickmore". Displayed here just for instructional purposes, don't want to have problems about copyright issues.

 

The first one is a SA-2 SAM launched against an SR-71 and shot by the Blackbird camera. Huge smoke trail in the boost phase (encircled)

 

 

 

The second one is an AIM-7 Sparrow high altitude shot, target and missile contrailing due to condesation trail freezing. But the trail is very large and distinctive

 

 

 

Two AIM-9L Sidewinder shots, missile shouldn't be in the boost phase, anyway a good trail is clearly visible.

 

 

 

The last is a Magic AAM shot... again huge smoke from missile booster

 

 

 

What I want to say is that spotting AAMs and SAMs in LockOn is really hard until you hear a loud "boom" (and unless you use realism-killer labels)

Instead in real world you should have larger trails (both due to boost and to contrail) and also much brighter flashes when the weapon was fired.

I remember that in the wargame "Air Superiority" by USN pilot J.D. Webster, there were good spotting modifiers on the die roll when checking for missile sighting, and it was explained that most of the older missiles made a huge flash and a huge trail when fired, making spotting quite easy. Those modifiers didn't apply to more modern weapons like the AIM-9M.

[Kula66]

it's always fun when people who have no clue about how the missile works in the real world always complain about it being ineffective

 

Thats why I was asking for opinions of others ... if you are unable to help, don't bother ...

 

james

[Kula66]

Probably didn't come close enough to fuze - the fuze radius is about 15m, which is just a bit less than the flanker's own length - about 3/4 or so.

 

Possibly ... but from that screen shot, the missile did pass very close (at the bottom of the shot). And it isn't a trick of angles, if you turned 90s the AMRAAM track is in line with the 33.

 

Its just that AMRAAMs seem ALOT dumber ... and AA-10s seem ALOT smarter (possibly down to HOJ).

 

I guess if it stays like that, we'll all be flying Suks on-line - very boring ... nobody likes to fly a lemon!

 

James

[GGTharos]

It's the physics in a lot of cases - SARH missiles in general seem to be too hard to evade compared ot ARH missiles.

 

Also the 120 is somewhat nerfed in terms of range.

[D-Scythe]

Hmm, the AIM-120 seems fine to me in terms of range. Depending on altitude, you can kill things at 30 nm or greater.

 

What the AIM-120C seems to be lacking is end-game energy and accuracy. The AIM-120 should retain energy better than all BVR missiles in the game except MICA, but currently both these missiles are severely undermodelled in this aspect. Moreover, in terms of robustness to decoys, SARH missiles and the R-77 both are either much more resistant to chaff or require less time to reacquire its target than the AIM-120.

[GGTharos]

Hmm, the AIM-120 seems fine to me in terms of range. Depending on altitude, you can kill things at 30 nm or greater.

 

What the AIM-120C seems to be lacking is end-game energy and accuracy. The AIM-120 should retain energy better than all BVR missiles in the game except MICA, but currently both these missiles are severely undermodelled in this aspect. Moreover, in terms of robustness to decoys, SARH missiles and the R-77 both are either much more resistant to chaff or require less time to reacquire its target than the AIM-120.

 

And that's simply not right - the R-77 seems to have a design that will produce more parasite drag than the 120 - it may indeed have better end-game maneuverability, but the RuAF has promplained that it doesn't have the needed end-game velocity, from what I heard (and it was a while ago, and I don't know if it was a good source or not - but it seems to be the reason why they're building the E version)

 

Similarely, there's zero reason to believe that the R-77's logics will perform any ebtter than the 120's at all ...

 

In any case, range for the 120 is bad - when I say this I certainly do mean the low-altitude performance of the missile. It's -too- draggy at low altitudes. That thing's asleek dart with barely anything other than a pair of strakes to generate serious drag; and the R-77 isn't lagging behind when it comes to srakes - it's also heavier, and it has a somewhat draggier tail-end. What the AMRAAM DOES have a problme with by comparison is loss of speed in turns - as I understand it, it's control surfaces will supposedly generate more drag than the R-77's in a turn - on the other hand, the R-77 has some vanes which will generate jsut a much drag in a turn as well, despide it's ability to turn like the devil.

 

BTW, SK ... about the guy who said missiles slow down faster ... I heard somewhere that missiles rotate in flight along their length. Is this is so, then the control surfaces could cause the slow-down you're missing.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

And that's simply not right - the R-77 seems to have a design that will produce more parasite drag than the 120 - it may indeed have better end-game maneuverability, but the RuAF has promplained that it doesn't have the needed end-game velocity, from what I heard (and it was a while ago, and I don't know if it was a good source or not - but it seems to be the reason why they're building the E version)

 

"What you heard" proves nothing.

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/index.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/R-77.html

 

:roll:

 

Similarely, there's zero reason to believe that the R-77's logics will perform any ebtter than the 120's at all ...

 

Because you say so? :lol:

[GGTharos]

And that's simply not right - the R-77 seems to have a design that will produce more parasite drag than the 120 - it may indeed have better end-game maneuverability, but the RuAF has promplained that it doesn't have the needed end-game velocity, from what I heard (and it was a while ago, and I don't know if it was a good source or not - but it seems to be the reason why they're building the E version)

 

"What you heard" proves nothing.

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/index.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/R-77.html

 

:roll:

 

Similarely, there's zero reason to believe that the R-77's logics will perform any ebtter than the 120's at all ...

 

Because you say so? :lol:

 

Neither does your website. It doesn't agree with physics. Unless of course you launch the missile going mach 2 from 60000' altitude ;)

 

And, if you have a reason to think that the R-77 seeker logics perform better than the 120's, do enlighten us.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

Neither does your website. It doesn't agree with physics. Unless of course you launch the missile going mach 2 from 60000' altitude ;)

 

I'll take their word against yours any day. So far, everything you said about russian tech being inferior is 100% garbage.

 

And, if you have a reason to think that the R-77 seeker logics perform better than the 120's, do enlighten us.

 

Let's see YOUR reason to think that the AMRAAM's seeker performs better than R-77's: "because we have more money!!!!1!! because we are merrikans!!1! because I say so!!!!11! because I am god!!!11! because I know more than Air Force itself!!111!" :roll:

[GGTharos]

Neither does your website. It doesn't agree with physics. Unless of course you launch the missile going mach 2 from 60000' altitude ;)

 

I'll take their word against yours any day. So far, everything you said about russian tech being inferior is 100% garbage.

 

My conclusions have a reasonable basis. You're just conforontational and actually have nothing reasonable to back up your claims with. Doesn't make me 100% right, but it does make me more likely to be right than you ;)

 

And, if you have a reason to think that the R-77 seeker logics perform better than the 120's, do enlighten us.

 

Let's see YOUR reason to think that the AMRAAM's seeker performs better than R-77's: "because we have more money!!!!1!! because we are merrikans!!1! because I say so!!!!11! because I am god!!!11! because I know more than Air Force itself!!111!" :roll:

 

Right, okay, so my reason is apparently your reason to think otherwise?

I think there's a name for this fallacy ...

 

Can you actually make an argument that doesn't make you look like a kiddie?

 

Are you actually curious at all as to any reasons why someone might think the performance of those missiles is one thing and not another, or do you just like to jump up and down and shout at the top of your lungs whenever you get the opportunity to attack anyone for any reason? ;) You've done so in a number of threads now, and so far you've failed to produce any reasonbale explanations of your own. How do you think that lends you any credibility at all?