Aim 120-C

[Xhonas]

50 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

Does not address the core problem of the seeker modelling. This should be focus'd on rather tan trying to find ways to work around it.

Other than the seeker search pattern, what problem is there to solve?? And what i'm suggesting should be one of the techniques employed by the missile to effectively fight a notching bandit. If the missile knows it will get notched, why wait for it when it can go for an agressive lead pursuit trajectory to fly outside of the notch window and reacquire the target? 

[Muchocracker]

33 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

Other than the seeker search pattern, what problem is there to solve?? And what i'm suggesting should be one of the techniques employed by the missile to effectively fight a notching bandit. If the missile knows it will get notched, why wait for it when it can go for an agressive lead pursuit trajectory to fly outside of the notch window and reacquire the target? 

Plenty. This topic has been covered many times 

[Xhonas]

4 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

Plenty. This topic has been covered many times 

Honestly, the only relevant issue that i saw in this thread is the seeker search pattern that could be improved, most here are complaining about the missile being easily notched or having poor range, the thing is the notch will not be removed because that would be unrealistic. At low altitude the seeker radar still needs doppler to differentiate the target from the ground. But ED can implement techniques for the missile to deal with this problem. You can test the R77 and the Aim54, you will notice that they are harder to notch, as they are constantly reacquiring you, this doesn't happen with the Aim120 and its not because of the seeker. Its the trajectory. 

[Muchocracker]

5 hours ago, Xhonas said:

Honestly, the only relevant issue that i saw in this thread is the seeker search pattern that could be improved, most here are complaining about the missile being easily notched or having poor range, the thing is the notch will not be removed because that would be unrealistic. At low altitude the seeker radar still needs doppler to differentiate the target from the ground. But ED can implement techniques for the missile to deal with this problem. You can test the R77 and the Aim54, you will notice that they are harder to notch, as they are constantly reacquiring you, this doesn't happen with the Aim120 and its not because of the seeker. Its the trajectory. 

it's not only this thread. And yes, it is the performance of the seeker and missing processing techniques in relation to its MPRF waveform and tracking targets with low radial velocity in high clutter enviornments (which there are plenty of ways to mitigate this problem). it has nothing to do with the more kinematically efficient control gains. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Muchocracker

[Xhonas]

8 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

it's not only this thread. And yes, it is the performance of the seeker and missing processing techniques in relation to its MPRF waveform and tracking targets with low radial velocity in high clutter enviornments (which there are plenty of ways to mitigate this problem, and ED has thus far refused to acknowledged them). it has nothing to do with the more kinematically efficient control gains. 

 

MPRF wont change that, if a target is flying 200 feet of the ground the only way to differentiate it from the clutter is using doppler, which is not happening if a target is notching. We already have a 25kts notch, it is decent. Missile autopilot should take the notch into consideration. If a certain criteria is met, (radial velocity and tgt aspect), the missile should adjust its lead pursuit to expect to reacquire the target in a future point. Either that or switch to LPRF, which no one knows if the 120 is capable of.

[Hobel]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Xhonas:

You can test the R77 and the Aim54,

Yes this is also something I have to scratch my head about, the speed gate is the same for all or at least very close, but when it goes over re-acquisition the Aim120 can't even see the target if this is over 200-500kts RV.  Either there is something wrong with the seeker or it is looking in the wrong direction.  Idk, this may be due to several things.

 

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Xhonas:

MPRF wont change that, if a target is flying 200 feet of the ground the only way to differentiate it from the clutter is using doppler, which is not happening if a target is notching. We already have a 25kts notch, it is decent. Missile autopilot should take the notch into consideration. If a certain criteria is met, (radial velocity and tgt aspect), the missile should adjust its lead pursuit to expect to reacquire the target in a future point. Either that or switch to LPRF, which no one knows if the 120 is capable of.

could discuss it, but in DCS it's not just 200feet, even at 30k feet the missile in STT can lose the target in the notch just like that.

I think we would all be very happy if the missile lost the target near 200feet, but unfortunately that is not the case.

[plott1964]

On 5/20/2024 at 3:19 PM, ACS_Dev said:

That is not a credible source...It could be implied that you are talking about ED code (which itself may be of dubious veracity), not a mod made by a unverified source.

Way late on this response - I am...

A source is a source. The .LUA file (that can be created by anyone, including ED) can define what a particular entity's (missile, bomb, whatever) properties are. So, "verified" (whatever that means) or not, it really doesn't matter. I wasn't declaring a "source" as much as I was stating how the missiles deployed on the F-15EX mod will behave. To the best of my knowledge, this could be the same for any mod.

Edited September 16, 2024 by plott1964

[Xhonas]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

could discuss it, but in DCS it's not just 200feet, even at 30k feet the missile in STT can lose the target in the notch just like that.

I think we would all be very happy if the missile lost the target near 200feet, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Yeah, with that i can agree. Looks like we are missing a range gating feature that would prevent that from happening.