Jump to content

[BUG] RB 74 No Front-Aspect

Delta59R

By Delta59R
in Bugs and Problems

 Share

Recommended Posts

Delta59R

Delta59R

Posted
Posted (edited)

Title says it all. You can't get a front or even a side aspect lock with the RB74. I'm running a 13900ks with 8 P cores active. E cores and hyperthreading are both disabled.

Edited by Delta59R

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 2tb m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Delta59R

Delta59R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here is the track. 👍

ajs74.trk

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 2tb m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can confirm that locking from front-aspect with RB74 is not working right now.
Rear-aspect is fine.

 

2024-06-08_AJS-37_RB74_no_front_aspect_vs_MiG21.trk

Edited by TOViper
  • Like 2

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G 4.4 GHz | NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB | 32 GB 3.2 GHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TRP | Rift CV1
 

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
Delta59R

Delta59R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Did this get fixed in the las major update?

  • Like 1

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 2tb m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

  • Silhou changed the title to [BUG] RB 74 No Front-Aspect
TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted (edited)

No, this is still an open issue, even in 2.9.8.1214. Tactical ping to @BIGNEWY.

 

2024-10-06_AJS37_Viggen_RB74_no_front_aspect_lockon.trk

Edited by TOViper
  • Like 1

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G 4.4 GHz | NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB | 32 GB 3.2 GHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TRP | Rift CV1
 

Spirale

Spirale

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi yesterday, in a map session with buddies, i had had a Mirage F1 in front of me, full burner on, i was in his 6,about  3km away and....no tone, nothing, it was impossible to launch my RB74...

I will test today solo but yesterday it was very confusing.

Edited by Spirale
Gunfreak

Gunfreak

Posted
Posted

No front aspect, can't bend as much as the regular AIM9Ls. Gets easier spoofed by flare than the regular Ls.

My guess is that the Rb74 uses the stats of a P3 or J and not the P5 or L.

i7 13700k @5.2ghz, GTX 5090 OC, 128Gig ram 4800mhz DDR5, M2 drive.

  • 5 weeks later...
Machalot

Machalot

Posted
Posted

@BIGNEWY Any acknowledgement or status on this bug?  Thanks.

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

  • 4 months later...
Skyracer

Skyracer

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/6/2024 at 9:17 AM, BIGNEWY said:

I will ask the teams to take a look. 

thank you

Please provide an update regarding this matter. 

You also need to drastically improve your communication skills, you cant leave us unread for 5 months. You need acknowledge that this demonstrates a severe deficiency in your communication protocols and customer service standards.

Edited by Skyracer

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

Northstar98

Northstar98

Posted
Posted

The funny thing is - the RB 74 is front aspect as soon as it comes off of the rail. It just shows how having modules simulate the seeker prior to launch, instead of having a seeker model that all applicable aircraft then use leads to somewhat of a mess.

For instance, in this track, I have no tone, but once I fire the missile still tracks a front aspect, high-altitude, supersonic target.

RB74_FrontAspectWhenFired.trk

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Machalot

Machalot

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It just shows how having modules simulate the seeker prior to launch, instead of having a seeker model that all applicable aircraft then use leads to somewhat of a mess.

Is this actually a Viggen issue? 

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

Northstar98

Northstar98

Posted
Posted
Just now, Machalot said:

Is this actually a Viggen issue? 

As I understand it, probably - but I'm not a developer so I'm not in any position to say yes or no.

At the moment it's just the way the game is - ideally you'd have one seeker API if you will, that all modules then utilise, what seems to be the case at the moment is that the simulation of seekers prior to launch is actually emulated by the module (if not, what explains the difference in behaviour of the exact same missile across different aircraft).

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted

After re-reading my post, I removed it, and in the same second I asked HB guys about the status.
My anger about it isn't gone though.

  • Like 4

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G 4.4 GHz | NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB | 32 GB 3.2 GHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TRP | Rift CV1
 

Skyracer

Skyracer

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TOViper said:

After re-reading my post, I removed it, and in the same second I asked HB guys about the status.
My anger about it isn't gone though.

Sometimes DCS feels like a moneygrab.

DCS Eco-system in a nut shell:

  1. Release a module/map
  2. Pre-order discount
  3. Release the module/map in an very early access
  4. Fix some minor bugs 
  5. Announce the next module/map
  • Like 1

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

TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let's see if the next days will bring light into our darkness (or "... some infrared radiation to our seeker heads" so to speak 😛 ) ...
maybe we just have to have some patience ...

Edited by TOViper
  • Like 2

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G 4.4 GHz | NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB | 32 GB 3.2 GHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TRP | Rift CV1
 

DSplayer

DSplayer

Posted
Posted
On 3/22/2025 at 3:17 PM, Northstar98 said:

As I understand it, probably - but I'm not a developer so I'm not in any position to say yes or no.

At the moment it's just the way the game is - ideally you'd have one seeker API if you will, that all modules then utilise, what seems to be the case at the moment is that the simulation of seekers prior to launch is actually emulated by the module (if not, what explains the difference in behaviour of the exact same missile across different aircraft).

Rb74 is a direct copy of the AIM-9L rn and since this is prelaunch, it would be on the launch aircraft's side so that indications are provided if the missile can track the target or not. 

Technically IMO the current way of how it is implemented does allow for more freedom since some aircraft may implement some things differently with how they interact with the missile but it would allow for these bugs and inconsistencies to happen.

  • Like 1

Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro

Resources I've Made: F-4E RWR PRF Sound Player | DCS DTC Web Editor

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Northstar98

Northstar98

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Technically IMO the current way of how it is implemented does allow for more freedom since some aircraft may implement some things differently with how they interact with the missile but it would allow for these bugs and inconsistencies to happen.

Do you have an example?

It's just that when broken down the launching aircraft ultimately controls:

  • Whether the seeker is enabled or not.
  • Where the seeker should be pointing.
  • Whether the seeker is uncaged or not.
  • Whether the seeker is cooled or not (or how cool the seeker should be wrt. supplying/enabling coolant)

In return, the aircraft should get whatever signal back from the seeker (which could be abstracted into 3 primary staes), that may be presented in different ways - that obviously would be down to the aircraft, but the seeker model should, in an ideal world, be something common to the missile itself as it doesn't change dependending on the aircraft.

This way, any change to seeker modelling need only be done the once and it would apply to every applicable aircraft.

Obviously the functions that govern and provide the output for where the seeker should point for instance should be provided by the aircraft (as some aircraft can only do boresight acquisition, some can slave to radars or HMD LoS, some can command a pattern for the seeker to scan etc).

Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

DSplayer

DSplayer

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Do you have an example?

It's just that when broken down the launching aircraft ultimately controls:

  • Whether the seeker is enabled or not.
  • Where the seeker should be pointing.
  • Whether the seeker is uncaged or not.
  • Whether the seeker is cooled or not (or how cool the seeker should be wrt. supplying/enabling coolant)

In return, the aircraft should get whatever signal back from the seeker (which could be abstracted into 3 primary staes), that may be presented in different ways - that obviously would be down to the aircraft, but the seeker model should, in an ideal world, be something common to the missile itself as it doesn't change dependending on the aircraft.

This way, any change to seeker modelling need only be done the once and it would apply to every applicable aircraft.

Obviously the functions that govern and provide the output for where the seeker should point for instance should be provided by the aircraft (as some aircraft can only do boresight acquisition, some can slave to radars or HMD LoS, some can command a pattern for the seeker to scan etc).

I gotta preface that I can't speak on how it works 100% within DCS but theoretically, it could provide for certain circumstances like attempting to fire an AIM-9 that hasn't been completely cooled down yet which could cause a reduction in detection range or target obfuscation by the aircraft or some aircraft has some arbitrary limitation on something. There might be more benefits to the current system but there definitely are cons related to it.

 

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

This way, any change to seeker modelling need only be done the once and it would apply to every applicable aircraft.

The missile definitions (such as those within aim9_family.lua) do provide the basic max seeker slew, max trackable target aspect, etc. as a base but I believe aircraft devs don't have to exactly follow this. For example, the detection range for the AIM-9B when mounted on the Mirage F1 was higher than it should be compared to other aircraft.

Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro

Resources I've Made: F-4E RWR PRF Sound Player | DCS DTC Web Editor

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Skyracer

Skyracer

Posted
Posted
On 11/6/2024 at 9:17 AM, BIGNEWY said:

I will ask the teams to take a look. 

thank you

 

On 3/26/2025 at 3:23 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi folks, the teams are investigating, hopefully a solution will be found. 

thank you 

This is the same message that you gave us in November.

You clearly need to organize your team better!

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

Rudel_chw

Rudel_chw

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Skyracer said:

You clearly need to organize your team better!

 

and you clearly could be more polite 🤨

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia RTX2080 - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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