Jump to content

Aim120 can be trashed with a barrel roll and chaff headon


Recommended Posts

Posted
48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Only if its airframe is made out of vibranium. Missiles have structural G limits, those tend to be large compared to fighters, but during an F-pole maneuver for instance, the fighter is very much capable of forcing the missile to make a 20G+ turn. Missiles are typically very fast when fired directly at the target, and that means even a gentle maneuver will generate a lot of Gs. Of course, missiles that loft are less vulnerable to this, but the longer the range, the more lead the missile must pull.

This is just not the case and is counter to how proportional navigation works. The lead points can possibly shift a wide amount yes, but the longer the range the lower the line of sight rates become, and by extension the commanded accelerations are proportionately lower, it's just basic geometry. You can watch it yourself with an aim-7. It will not be doing maximum performance turns at 25 miles.

 

54 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Sweeping your nose across from one gimbal to the other very much does defeat the missile. If it can't follow your turn due to hitting the G limiter, it'll pass behind you.

You're comically overstating how hard these missiles are turning in F-Poles, this is especially true for later generation high G capable ones. It's not going to be hitting anywhere near its maximum G capabilities until very late endgame and the aircraft is doing the right maneuvering. Even then it's rare that you see amraam's hitting 40G. 

  • Like 2
Posted

Great insights here.

Doesn't the 120 have a range beyond which there's nothing a target can do to outmaneuver it? Sure you can exceed the missile head's gibal limits, or make it impact the ground, but I don't think you can out maneuver/ outrun it no matter what you do. I am guessing here but something like 5-10km.

i5-4690K CPU 3.50Ghz @ 4.10GHz; 32GB DDR3 1600MHz; GeForce GTX 1660 Super; LG IPS225@1920x1080; Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB; Windows 10 Pro

Posted
14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Only if its airframe is made out of vibranium. Missiles have structural G limits, those tend to be large compared to fighters, but during an F-pole maneuver for instance, the fighter is very much capable of forcing the missile to make a 20G+ turn. Missiles are typically very fast when fired directly at the target, and that means even a gentle maneuver will generate a lot of Gs. Of course, missiles that loft are less vulnerable to this, but the longer the range, the more lead the missile must pull.

What you describe can only occur, if the missile is fired at extremely close range. And, if that’s the case, you won’t have the time to maneuver as you describe. At longer range, yes, the missile will maneuver and shed some energy but you are nowhere near either its gimbal limits or it’s G limits.

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg

 

_____

Win 11 Pro x64, Asrock Z790 Steel Legend MoBo, Intel i7-13700K, MSI RKT 4070 Super 12GB, Corsair Dominator DDR5 RAM 32GB.

Posted (edited)
vor 3 Stunden schrieb Pavlin_33:

Sure you can exceed the missile head's gibal limits,

This has not been possible for a few months.

There used to be a situation where the missile would go over the gimbal limit as you say and miss, but this has been fixed, the Aim120 now tries to keep the target in the gimbal limit if it reaches the limits.

 

Zitat

Doesn't the 120 have a range beyond which there's nothing a target can do to outmaneuver it? 

If the missile is not rammed into the ground or notch not really.

At best with a roll, but in my opinion the risk has become far too great since the pf enlargement that it is no longer worth it.

Edited by Hobel
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

I noticed that avoiding AMRAAMs with this technique has become increasingly hard after the latest patch... the reason being a proximity fuze that triggers at 30 meters. I don't think this is accurate...

image.png

Edited by stefasaki

Failure is not an option ~ NASA

Posted

The su-27 is 22 meters long, the picture is taken in a way that distances are not distorted. It’s definitely not 15 meters or less…. I will provide a track anyway 

Failure is not an option ~ NASA

  • ED Team
Posted
28 minutes ago, stefasaki said:

The su-27 is 22 meters long, the picture is taken in a way that distances are not distorted. It’s definitely not 15 meters or less…. I will provide a track anyway 

Its best we see a track replay if possible 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, PIMAX Crystal

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Hi guys, I've only recently discovered this thread in conjunction with all my missile research (mainly around Aim-7).

I'm a huge fan of realism and simulating things as closely as they possibly could be compared to real life. I love the idea of somewhat realistic missile tracking delay, which will always be present. Radar waves travelling back and forth (fast, but not instantaneous). Electronics processing speed, software/algorithmic processing speed, Kalman filters, other calculations, etc., not to mention the inertia of the missile itself (it "wants" to continue flying straight or parabolically, displays some resistance before every maneuver). All this was discussed here before, so just a reminder.

The maneuver GRY Money originally described is indeed in theory (and IRL) doable against any missile. Although in DCS, is it tied specifically to the missiles running on the new API? I don't know, you tell me. Very soon, we should have R-27 family running on this API as well. Currently, it's the Aim-7 and Aim-120. I tested the maneuver against an Aim-7 and it worked using a Flanker and an F5 (gifs attached) in singleplayer.

I also tried it once in multiplayer and I'm not doing it again, until the community educate themselves, realize this is not the treacherous AoA MP roll, which leads to desync and intentional teleportation (we've all seen this and hate it) and come up with a solution, how to distinguish between the two. There are many key differences between these maneuvers, so they should be easy to identify and I will present some of them here. But I won't risk being called a "cheater" just because I literally did my own research, practiced for a few hours and made it work, while someone else is lazy to even read and calls it an AoA MP roll (performed in singleplayer with literally no AoA - see the irony here?)

Let's call this maneuver a "sync roll". I find it amusing, because it is one single fluid motion, trying to get in sync with the missile tracking delay. I literally pulled raw data from TacView, exported with huge sampling rates (100-500Hz), analyzed in R, visualized in Tableau and came up with a number (fraction of a second) for the Aim-7 tracking delay. You could call it reverse engineering. Then I calculated the parameters of a perfect roll using mathematics and common sense. Only after all this I opted to practice in SP against AI and after a few tries, the first success came.

Let me be clear - this is an extremely difficult maneuver to pull off, even if you know exactly, what to do. Success rate (at best) is 20-50% and it only works directly head-on. It's not about achieving some arbitrary threshold of AoA or pulling too many Gs, it's the complete opposite. I've been able to do it with as low AoA as 4 (!) and pulling less than 5Gs in one fluid motion.

The key metric, however (as mentioned in this thread already) is the roll rate. Not every aircraft rolls sufficiently enough, for instance, my beloved MiG-29 can't perform this maneuver. Blue planes should have very little trouble doing it. There is no gauge for roll rate inside the aircraft, so it's only about practice, experience and feeling. You need to keep the perfect, "resonant" roll rate with sufficient precision in the correct range, or you will oversteer and run into the missile. If your roll rate is too slow, the missile will catch up. We're talking a max deviation of ~20-30 deg/s from the ideal value (which differs for every missile depending on its tracking delay, so the maneuver needs to be adjusted and practiced independently for every missile type). The smaller the tracking delay, the faster the roll rate needs to be. You see, any id*ot in multiplayer can snap or jink the joystick to disappear in ping/lag/whatever, but I dare the most experienced and best DCS pilots to try out the method described here to dodge a missile head-on in singleplayer in anything else than an F-16.

Key differences between the banned/unrealistic/cheat MP AoA roll and the supposedly hyperrealistic SP sync roll:

criteria MP AoA roll SP sync roll
where only in MP SP and MP
why breaking a threshold of unpredictability holding a very narrow roll rate window in sync with missile tracking delay
who any loser who snaps a joystick requires study, training and perfect execution without a key gauge - roll rate meter
what extreme AoA (20+), extreme G (8+) casual AoA (<6) and G (<5)
duration possibly tens of seconds 5-7 seconds
character snapping, unpredictable one single very smooth fluid motion
result desync, teleport missile tracks, but misses as separation > proximity fuze range
missile aspect from any side exclusively head-on, including pitch adjustment to fly directly toward
success rate 100% 20-50% at best if practiced and executed to perfection
type proper cheat speculative last-resort maneuver if there's no time to even notch


The reason, why the missile misses you, could be best described as follows:

1 - the missile is trying to lead your nose (velocity vector to be hardcore)
2 - you start performing the maneuver at the proper distance from the missile (again, this needs to be judged and practiced, observing contrails, etc.)
3 - missile starts maneuvering with you, after the tracking delay
4 - you're keeping the "resonant" roll rate and tight barrel roll with realistic AoA and Gs
5 - the missile starts trailing you, aims below your belly
6 - if you've kept the roll rate in the ideal window, you create and offset in the missile tracking of about 90-180 degs on the barrel roll circle (180 would correspond to the missile aiming directly below your belly, 90 degs is to the side)
7 - if you can keep this to the "merge", you've successfully created a distance offset between yourself and the missile
8 - if this distance offset is bigger than the missile's proximity fuze range, the missile misses you and doesn't explode

I've had cases when I did manage to create an offset, but it wasn't enough and the missile exploded damaging the aircraft (although still not killing me completely). Realistic offsets can be created ranging from 15 to 35 metres at the "merge".

To sum it up, I totally agree that this is not a bug. Instead, it's a feature. For me, this is actually the most realistic missile behaviour we've seen in DCS so far. It is much more realistic than the dreaded supernotch (so easy to perform in western aircraft) and would most definitely work IRL. The only reason there is no real 1st hand data on such a maneuver is, because no airforce to date and no pilot (who'd want to survive and live) is stupid enough to fly directly into a hot missile's path, if there's any other alternative, such as turning cold, trying a notch or even ejecting prematurely to ensure survival.

I'm not judging if this is "fair" (not all aircraft in DCS can do it, not every missile is prone to it) or if it should be "banned" (that's up to server owners). Just please, don't call it AoA MP roll, because it works in SP and contains almost no AoA deviations from 0.

There are ways to distinguish between an intentional cheater (sudden, snappy, jinking motions, unrealistic AoA, prolonged Gs, ...) and a legitimate maneuver that must have taken its performer many hours to master and even then contains a considerable portion of luck (one fluid motion, casual AoA, small Gs, consistent roll rate). All these can be seen and verified in TacView.

If it was up to me, unless there is video evidence of a teleport, or the aforementioned table is not sufficient to distinguish if it was legitimate or not (frontal aspect, borderline G and AoA, ...), the presumption of innocence must hold. Of course, if you see a player making unexplainable sudden deliberate maneuvers in MP, dodges missiles from the side (or even from the back), can't tell you why/how he did it and can't demonstrate (replicate) the maneuver in SP, you know you've got a cheater on your hands.

If, instead, the missile was dodged head-on, the maneuver displays realistic AoA and Gs (achievable IRL, not breaking the airframe or the pilot) AND you get a lecture on missile tracking delay, you may be dealing with a highly curious, speculative individual, always challenging him/herself, learning new things and sharing with others.

Cheers!

P.S.: attached are my GIFs from SP training (over water), the last one is the single MP attempt - no desync, no teleport, missile tracks till the last moment and displays exactly the same behaviour as in SP training (although after reviewing it, I pulled slightly more Gs, so the missile reacted also with a higher G load)

roll rate.png

sync roll.gif

beautiful.gif

F5.gif

stops leading.gif

MP missile same behaviour as SP.gif

separation.png

  • Like 2

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted (edited)

The desync in MP caused by the loaded barrel rolling is well known and has been repeatedly domenstrated, i don't know why you're trying to dispute that it doesn't exist. 

The main issue was the proximity fusing being too short (also inaccurate) and it made the HGB too effective to the point that it was an i-win card. That got fixed with the PF increase to 15m. Now it's risky, as it should be. 

The one that has not been remedied is the desync in MP. That is why people are distinguishing the MP rolling and SP rolling. 

Edited by Muchocracker
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Muchocracker said:

The desync in MP caused by the loaded barrel rolling is well known and has been repeatedly domenstrated, i don't know why you're trying to dispute that it doesn't exist. 

The main issue was the proximity fusing being too short (also inaccurate) and it made the HGB too effective to the point that it was an i-win card. That got fixed with the PF increase to 15m. Now it's risky, as it should be. 

The one that has not been remedied is the desync in MP. That is why people are distinguishing the MP rolling and SP rolling. 

Noone is trying to dispute anything. In this thread, among other stuff, you can find, that - only AMRAAM is prone to the maneuver described by GRY Money - debunked. I am also trying to raise the issue that this is NOT a MP AoA roll, as it contains no AoA and happens in SP. How many times do we need to write that down?

I am not talking AT ALL about MP AoA roll in any context other than comparing this cheating unsporting unrealistic abused exploitative move (not even working in SP) to something that could and most probably would actually work IRL and also works in game. These are completely different maneuvers, with different techniques and results (dodging missiles from all direction vs one direction only, etc.) Have you actually read what I wrote or are you simply putting words in my mouth?

What angers you? I have never ever done the MP AoA in my life and I have just performed one single instance of the "sync" roll and I'm immediately reporting on it! Are you mad that at the moment you can't to this against an R-27 (in a few weeks/months you will be able to) or that I proved something that was deemed impossible?

Of course, it's risky. And it works against Aim-7 and will most probably work against every missile in the new API with any reasonable tracking delay. And it is 100x more realistic than the current state of the notch, with which you have no issue at all, right?

Jeez.

This is honestly the last type of answer, I'd expect. Can you please focus at the thing at hand, instead of attacking me? Imagine someone else's name in the post, if it helps.

For the last time: You can dodge missiles in DCS head-on with some expected success probability. This is not due to MP, desync, lag, ping, or teleport. This can be done against AI in SP. This maneuver has its ground in maths & physics and is totally completely different from the infamous MP "loaded" AoA whatever roll, which relies on sudden spike changes in key aircraft performance metrics (I wouldn't know, as I've never performed it, but I read what other people wrote and watched all videos), while beating missiles in the physics-first way, requires an extremely smooth, calculated, cold-blooded approach and some luck. Can we please debate (I'm really interested in people's opinions on this) what do you think of this maneuvre, how do you perceive it and if it can be distinguished from the infamous banned MP roll, could we ever see its use in PVP servers as a last-resort maneuver ? That's the issue, not to trivialize the "old" freakin maneuver. I guarantee you those cheaters would never pull this one off.

Edited by Merrek
  • Like 1

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Merrek said:

If it was up to me, unless there is video evidence of a teleport, or the aforementioned table is not sufficient to distinguish if it was legitimate or not (frontal aspect, borderline G and AoA, ...), the presumption of innocence must hold. Of course, if you see a player making unexplainable sudden deliberate maneuvers in MP, dodges missiles from the side (or even from the back), can't tell you why/how he did it and can't demonstrate (replicate) the maneuver in SP, you know you've got a cheater on your hands.

If, instead, the missile was dodged head-on, the maneuver displays realistic AoA and Gs (achievable IRL, not breaking the airframe or the pilot) AND you get a lecture on missile tracking delay, you may be dealing with a highly curious, speculative individual, always challenging him/herself, learning new things and sharing with others.

Cheers!

P.S.: attached are my GIFs from SP training (over water), the last one is the single MP attempt - no desync, no teleport, missile tracks till the last moment and displays exactly the same behaviour as in SP training (although after reviewing it, I pulled slightly more Gs, so the missile reacted also with a higher G load)

Is this not you disputing the desync issue as just players cheating?

The debate on the maneuvers realism had already long ended brother. That's why the thread shifted focus to the proximity fuse. You can check my other replies in the thread i backed the opinion that it was and reinforced maestro's reasons for why it is. 

 

48 minutes ago, Merrek said:

Of course, it's risky. And it works against Aim-7 and will most probably work against every missile in the new API with any reasonable tracking delay. And it is 100x more realistic than the current state of the notch, with which you have no issue at all, right?

Lol, the current state of amraam notch width is also completely realistic but nobody wants to hear the hot take. 

 

I dont think you quite read the whole history of this thread, might wanna do that and get up to date. 

Edited by Muchocracker
Posted
1 hour ago, Muchocracker said:

Is this not you disputing the desync issue as just players cheating?

The debate on the maneuvers realism had already long ended brother. That's why the thread shifted focus to the proximity fuse. You can check my other replies in the thread i backed the opinion that it was and reinforced maestro's reasons for why it is. 

 

Lol, the current state of amraam notch width is also completely realistic but nobody wants to hear the hot take. 

 

I dont think you quite read the whole history of this thread, might wanna do that and get up to date. 


Oh no, it is not me disputing desync issue. Maybe English is the 2nd language for both of us?

It's me disputing cheating allegations when performing a non-desync maneuver that does not lead to teleport, works in SP, works IRL, but to the untrained naked eye it may APPEAR as if it was the infamous whatever roll. That's why I'm arguing there are ways to distinguish between the two. And unless someone studied the difference, they have no way of telling, hence, they shouldn't accuse anyone of anything. I even wrote that if the missile was defeated from the side or from behind, it is a clear-cut cheating. Might wanna read that and get up to date.

I read the whole history about 5 times, thank you very much. That's why I'm so happy that the legality of this move has long been established. I can see, however that for the AMRAAM this could still possibly lead to some desync in MP because of the extreme roll rate required to defeat it. However, in my example with the Aim-7, the roll rate is much less extreme and could never (in itself, with the rest of the AoA and Gs being conservative) lead to a desync. Hence, could it be a legal move in PVP MP ?

What you and many others fail to see here, is that the issue never was in the proximity fuze. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for as much realistic values as possible and if literature says that 9m is too low, so be it. However, the guys proudly presenting and performing this maneuver, where doing it in a more... let's call it... random fashion. That's why buffing up the proximity fuze worked against their maneuver, but it doesn't work if you put some good old-fashion professional-level data analysis on the table. Because in that case, it is very little problem to send the AMRAAM long way off, creating a much bigger separation than even the current 15m fuze, hence, achieving the very same effect as described earlier with the Aim-7.

You wanted it, you've got it. Haven't flown the F-16 in years, it is very sobering to feel how instantaneous the flight model seems compared to the red jets. Now that I've found the "resonant" roll rate, I have no problem creating a separation of >25 metres, so the proximity fuze doesn't activate.

amraam.gif

 

Look at that beatiful geometry and separation. That missile never had a chance. It's going completely another way. This is not about the fuze, rather about the timing, synchronization or "resonance" that I'm talking about. The roll rate is not random and it most definitely doesn't mean "push the stick all the way to the left", oh no.

amraam sync roll.png

I am (on purpose) not telling the maneuver parameters here in order not to encourage its use. However, in the F-16, I can immediately tell you, I'd estimate my odds to be much higher than the 20% in the red jet, as this aircraft can maintain its energy throughout the entire maneuver, unlike the red jet (or the F5), which has only limited timeframe to perform it.

Btw I verified the distance between the missile and my aircraft using 1000Hz export. It never got closer than 25.18m - distance was calculated from latitude, longitude and altitude of both myself and the missile.

distance.png

One try before that I thought the proximity fuze must be wrong, because it fired at 17m separation, which I felt I should've dodged. But after reviewing the geometry, indeed my wings were closer to it, so the fuze was right to go off.

fuze 17m.png

Once you find the perfect parameters, this is nearly trivial to perform it in an F-16 (imho). And thanks again for confirming the legality of this move. Now let's all explain that to the fox1 server owners so they don't get angry when we dodge their Aim-7s. Or maybe we should wait until they have the same chance against the R-27s, that would seem fair.

P.S.: Great to know that AMRAAM has had realistic notch. Maybe now's the time to look at all the other missiles/radars? For us, who don't fly modern scenarios.

Have a great day!

  • Like 2

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted (edited)
vor einer Stunde schrieb Merrek:


Oh no, it is not me disputing desync issue. Maybe English is the 2nd language for both of us?

It's me disputing cheating allegations when performing a non-desync maneuver that does not lead to teleport, works in SP, works IRL, but to the untrained naked eye it may APPEAR as if it was the infamous whatever roll. That's why I'm arguing there are ways to distinguish between the two. And unless someone studied the difference, they have no way of telling, hence, they shouldn't accuse anyone of anything. I even wrote that if the missile was defeated from the side or from behind, it is a clear-cut cheating. Might wanna read that and get up to date.

I read the whole history about 5 times, thank you very much. That's why I'm so happy that the legality of this move has long been established. I can see, however that for the AMRAAM this could still possibly lead to some desync in MP because of the extreme roll rate required to defeat it. However, in my example with the Aim-7, the roll rate is much less extreme and could never (in itself, with the rest of the AoA and Gs being conservative) lead to a desync. Hence, could it be a legal move in PVP MP ?

What you and many others fail to see here, is that the issue never was in the proximity fuze. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for as much realistic values as possible and if literature says that 9m is too low, so be it. However, the guys proudly presenting and performing this maneuver, where doing it in a more... let's call it... random fashion. That's why buffing up the proximity fuze worked against their maneuver, but it doesn't work if you put some good old-fashion professional-level data analysis on the table. Because in that case, it is very little problem to send the AMRAAM long way off, creating a much bigger separation than even the current 15m fuze, hence, achieving the very same effect as described earlier with the Aim-7.

You wanted it, you've got it. Haven't flown the F-16 in years, it is very sobering to feel how instantaneous the flight model seems compared to the red jets. Now that I've found the "resonant" roll rate, I have no problem creating a separation of >25 metres, so the proximity fuze doesn't activate.

amraam.gif

 

Look at that beatiful geometry and separation. That missile never had a chance. It's going completely another way. This is not about the fuze, rather about the timing, synchronization or "resonance" that I'm talking about. The roll rate is not random and it most definitely doesn't mean "push the stick all the way to the left", oh no.

amraam sync roll.png

I am (on purpose) not telling the maneuver parameters here in order not to encourage its use. However, in the F-16, I can immediately tell you, I'd estimate my odds to be much higher than the 20% in the red jet, as this aircraft can maintain its energy throughout the entire maneuver, unlike the red jet (or the F5), which has only limited timeframe to perform it.

Btw I verified the distance between the missile and my aircraft using 1000Hz export. It never got closer than 25.18m - distance was calculated from latitude, longitude and altitude of both myself and the missile.

distance.png

One try before that I thought the proximity fuze must be wrong, because it fired at 17m separation, which I felt I should've dodged. But after reviewing the geometry, indeed my wings were closer to it, so the fuze was right to go off.

fuze 17m.png

Once you find the perfect parameters, this is nearly trivial to perform it in an F-16 (imho). And thanks again for confirming the legality of this move. Now let's all explain that to the fox1 server owners so they don't get angry when we dodge their Aim-7s. Or maybe we should wait until they have the same chance against the R-27s, that would seem fair.

P.S.: Great to know that AMRAAM has had realistic notch. Maybe now's the time to look at all the other missiles/radars? For us, who don't fly modern scenarios.

Have a great day!

I haven't read through everything yet, I'll do that later.

But there's one thing I'd like to point out using the example gifs.


First, I see in your gif aim120 with very low energy status far below 2m... adjust your tests and try to roll out missiles over 2-3mach.

And that's one of the sticking points. Before the PF update of the aim120, the energy status was completely irrelevant, you could always roll out the missile, even the altitude was not decisive.
Now the whole thing has become much more difficult and the risk is simply too high if the missile has a lot of energy.
Your example shows it very well - the missile flies very close with low energy.

Test the same thing again against missiles that have more energy
You test under laboratory conditions and know approximately what energy status the missile has in PvP this overview is quickly lost and you just don't know whether the missile has too much energy and kills you.

 

 

Edited by Hobel
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Hobel said:

I haven't read through everything yet, I'll do that later.

But there's one thing I'd like to point out using the example gifs.


First, I see in your gif aim120 with very low energy status far below 2m... adjust your tests and try to roll out missiles over 2-3mach.

And that's one of the sticking points. Before the PF update of the aim120, the energy status was completely irrelevant, you could always roll out the missile, even the altitude was not decisive.
Now the whole thing has become much more difficult and the risk is simply too high if the missile has a lot of energy.
Your example shows it very well - the missile flies very close with los energy.

Test the same thing again against missiles that have more energy
You test under laboratory conditions and know approximately what energy status the missile has in PvP this overview is quickly lost and you just don't know whether the missile has too much energy and kills you.

 

 

Look mate, I might try this more, but my original intention was to show, that it can be done against Aim-7 without breaking the game (desync, teleport) with reasonable AoA and Gs, so that it's replicable, totally doable IRL and legal. And I will most definitely use that maneuver on a fox1 server when I find myself in a situation that nothing else is possible. I'm even sporting enough to wait until the R-27 family gets migrated to the new API, to give them a fair chance. Anyone accusing me of cheating will get immediately pointed here and will be given an extensive material on missile tracking IRL and DCS, what Maestro shared, etc. 🙂

I am using AI and I can't force it to fire at a specific range, I can try moving it closer, etc. But the missile still had 1.4M compared to my 0.93, by any and all accounts, it should've hit. I didn't do any crank, the AI launched at a range that it didn't even loft, I'm flying directly towards it, otherwise it wouldn't work (unlike that MP roll cheat that works from every aspect). The issue is not if the missile has lot of energy, but I can tell you from experience (don't wanna go into more specifics), that some missiles in DCS change their tracking pattern/behaviour depending on whether the rocket motor ran out or not. So it's more about the motor running than the energy level per se.

Another thing, why this AMRAAM lost more energy was, that I started making the maneuver too soon, because these are my first attempts on it and the F-16 can do the maneuver forever (unlike redfor) and maintain energy. But I don't wanna waste too many hours on AMRAAM, especially if this can still break the game in MP because of the too high roll rate. Then it's completely pointless, if it can only be used as a SP showoff and not save you a$$ in a PVP server if need be.

And if I test this with a partner in controlled conditions, I'm risking that the missile will miss because of desync, not thanks to the maneuver. So it's much better to first prove the maneuver in SP against AI and then try elsewhere.

I might try it a few more times, trying to achieve later launch or later maneuver start. If I manage it, I'll let you know.

Your last sentence - sorry, but I don't know what energy the missile has, because one attempt the AI launches at 25 miles, sometimes at 12 miles or even less. I don't wanna get proficient in this maneuver against AMRAAM, as it probably can't be done in any redfor plane anyway. My point was to prove, regardless of the fuze, you can do it, period.

Edited by Merrek
  • Like 1

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted
1 hour ago, Hobel said:

I haven't read through everything yet, I'll do that later.

But there's one thing I'd like to point out using the example gifs.


First, I see in your gif aim120 with very low energy status far below 2m... adjust your tests and try to roll out missiles over 2-3mach.

And that's one of the sticking points. Before the PF update of the aim120, the energy status was completely irrelevant, you could always roll out the missile, even the altitude was not decisive.
Now the whole thing has become much more difficult and the risk is simply too high if the missile has a lot of energy.
Your example shows it very well - the missile flies very close with low energy.

Test the same thing again against missiles that have more energy
You test under laboratory conditions and know approximately what energy status the missile has in PvP this overview is quickly lost and you just don't know whether the missile has too much energy and kills you.

 

 

 

Ok pal, you've got it. AMRAAM fired at 16km, started the maneuver at 9km, AMRAAM misses by 23.6 metres while having 2.15 mach. Anything else on the menu? And btw, who's got my check? 🙂

The only thing I missed was adjusting speed. If the missile has more energy, I need to compensate with speed. Other than than, I can confirm, that the AMRAAM is trying a sharp bend at the very end, but if I speed up a little, still has no chance. The resonant dance works just like previously. Always aims for my belly or to the side.

One attempt before that I almost got it, 17m and wings again. At that point I knew I was on the right track with the higher speed... I mean you can literally learn those params and adjust them here and there depending on the firing aircraft's altitude, speed and range when the missile is released. If you lock him up, you'll have all these or with human GCI as well. You can see the moment of firing at close range, you can even see if the missile lofts or not. At greater range, missile loses energy sooner and it's less of an issue and you can still dodge AMRAAMs at extreme range using traditional techniques (out cold, notch, kinematic bleed).

amraam.gif

did it.png

Distance confirmed in Rstudio

distance.png

One attempt before that, almost got it, but the wings were just enough inside the proximity fuze range.

almost.png

Cheers.

  • Like 1

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted
vor einer Stunde schrieb Merrek:

 

Ok pal, you've got it. AMRAAM fired at 16km, started the maneuver at 9km, AMRAAM misses by 23.6 metres while having 2.15 mach. Anything else on the menu? And btw, who's got my check? 🙂

The only thing I missed was adjusting speed. If the missile has more energy, I need to compensate with speed. Other than than, I can confirm, that the AMRAAM is trying a sharp bend at the very end, but if I speed up a little, still has no chance. The resonant dance works just like previously. Always aims for my belly or to the side.

One attempt before that I almost got it, 17m and wings again. At that point I knew I was on the right track with the higher speed... I mean you can literally learn those params and adjust them here and there depending on the firing aircraft's altitude, speed and range when the missile is released. If you lock him up, you'll have all these or with human GCI as well. You can see the moment of firing at close range, you can even see if the missile lofts or not. At greater range, missile loses energy sooner and it's less of an issue and you can still dodge AMRAAMs at extreme range using traditional techniques (out cold, notch, kinematic bleed).

amraam.gif

did it.png

Distance confirmed in Rstudio

distance.png

One attempt before that, almost got it, but the wings were just enough inside the proximity fuze range.

almost.png

Cheers.

Yes, what do the statistics say about how often do you achieve this with the parameters in succession?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Yes, what do the statistics say about how often do you achieve this with the parameters in succession?

 

I don't know. I haven't flown the F-16 in 2 years, I don't fly blue in general and have 0 intention of making this work against the Aim-120. How about you post something how you successfully did it and share, how many attempts it took for the 1st success ? What do you want from me, I'm not sure. 100 different parameter sets, so I can fill in a table, after which you'll dismiss it completely, or what are we talking here? I'm the only one providing any hard evidence. Maybe you could join, so we can have a discussion?

And what's your opinion on the legality of this move if it doesn't cause desync? OK or not OK? With the Aim-7 variant?

If I practiced for a few weeks, I believe I could get some experience and get success rate in the F-16 over 50% even against the AMRAAM, as it has superior energy management to everything else (especially on redfor).

And if I waste any more time on this and manage to do it 5 times in a row against different missile parameters, what then? Will you increase the proximity fuze to 25m ? What's the solution? I thought we agreed it's a legitimate and realistic maneuver. Don't tell me I'm the only one in DCS who can do it when I literally started trying few hours ago. And the sparrow 2 days ago.

M.

  • Like 1

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2025 at 12:29 PM, Muchocracker said:

That got fixed with the PF increase to 15m. Now it's risky, as it should be. 

No this is not fixed, rather its a dirty workaround further empasizing overperforming warhead. You do not survive on DCS the hit. IRL majority of pilots ejected and landed safely. 

Furthermore If it gets proved that the blast radius is correct, then the accuracy of the guidance should be less.

Edited by okopanja
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Posted
8 hours ago, okopanja said:

No this is not fixed, rather its a dirty workaround further empasizing overperforming warhead. You do not survive on DCS the hit. IRL majority of pilots ejected and landed safely. 

Furthermore If it gets proved that the blast radius is correct, then the accuracy of the guidance should be less.

What?

 

The "fix" was making the proximity fuse radius more accurate (it was the same distance the aim-9 mind you. A warhead half the weight) and make the HGB not a 100% defeat chance exploit. It was not to make the maneuver useless. 

 

The damage performance and the damage models of the aircraft had nothing to do with that. The proximity radius /= 100% kill radius.

 

 

23 hours ago, Merrek said:

And if I waste any more time on this and manage to do it 5 times in a row against different missile parameters, what then? Will you increase the proximity fuze to 25m ? What's the solution? I thought we agreed it's a legitimate and realistic maneuver. Don't tell me I'm the only one in DCS who can do it when I literally started trying few hours ago. And the sparrow 2 days ago.

...He didnt say that? Hobel is bringing up a point (which was emphasis of the original debate) that the energy state matters. What solution? There is no solution where there is no unrealistic problem. Both of us have already been over this. The HGB in of itself is not an unrealistic tactic.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

Hobel is bringing up a point (which was emphasis of the original debate) that the energy state matters.

And I did it against an AMRAAM flying 2.15M at the merge. Only needed to increase my own speed, otherwise the roll rate and Gs were virtually the same. Do you have any hypothesis at what speed the AMRAAM should be "impossible" to dodge using this particular maneuver?

  • Like 1

Joystick RED: Virpil CM2 + WarBRD-D base
Joystick BLUE: TM F-16 + HOTAS magnetic base
Throttle: Virpil CM3
Rudder:  Virpil ACE flight pedals
Panels:   Virpil control panels #1, #2

Posted
6 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

What?

 

The "fix" was making the proximity fuse radius more accurate (it was the same distance the aim-9 mind you. A warhead half the weight) and make the HGB not a 100% defeat chance exploit. It was not to make the maneuver useless. 

 

The damage performance and the damage models of the aircraft had nothing to do with that. The proximity radius /= 100% kill radius.

Kindly read again what I wrote. Proximity is one thing, and kill radius another.

  • Like 2
Posted
vor 2 Stunden schrieb Merrek:

And I did it against an AMRAAM flying 2.15M at the merge. Only needed to increase my own speed, otherwise the roll rate and Gs were virtually the same. Do you have any hypothesis at what speed the AMRAAM should be "impossible" to dodge using this particular maneuver?

Yes, and I also said that it is possible.

But statistics would be helpful in this case. How many times can you do it in a row,

The problem with the roll before was simply that even an Aim120 with 3+M could easily be rolled out and not only that, multiple Aim120s in a row and that was up to 95% safe in any altitude.


I then repeated the tests and also played old routes with the new PF and the chances of survival dropped significantly, so much so that in my opinion it is no longer worth taking the risk and these are also tests under perfect conditions. 🙂 

Posted
On 7/13/2025 at 1:06 PM, okopanja said:

Kindly read again what I wrote. Proximity is one thing, and kill radius another.

Again. It's an entirely irrelevant debate to this thread. The proximity radius was increased to be more accurate and to secondarily fix the over-effectiveness of the HGB. Debate the kill radius elsewhere. 

  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

Again. It's an entirely irrelevant debate to this thread. The proximity radius was increased to be more accurate and to secondarily fix the over-effectiveness of the HGB. Debate the kill radius elsewhere. 

I would say it was increased since the guidance could not be made more accurate, which also appears not to be the case with IRL. For the kill radius please listen and read to the actual interviews of pilots. I made some available in 29 FF section, and one of them even contains damage report. Focus was not really on amraam but you can see hopefully it will help you  understand why the current modeling in this respect has nothing to do with the reality. 

  • Like 2
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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