reported IR Missiles Much Harder to Flare if not Impossible From Latest Patch

[ColdClaws]

As of the new patch Infrared missiles (fox 2) are much harder if not impossible to flare. The tested missiles were the Aim-9M, R-73, and R-27T. Yes, we were out of afterburner doing these tests. Prior to this patch these missiles would have been flared off even at these ranges. Track files and Tacview are shown to back up my claim. 

server-20241224-174944.trk Tacview-20241224-174950-DCS-Host-1v1 miz2.zip.acmi server-20241224-174211.trk

[Xhonas]

Indeed, something changed and flares are very innefective now. Together with the rng... 

 

flare innefective.trk

 

F16 flare dodge2.trk This 2nd track is from a previous patch for comparison (DCS 2.9.8.1214.1)

Edited December 26, 2024 by Xhonas

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Xhonas:

Indeed, something changed and flares are very innefective now. Together with the rng... 

 

flare innefective.trk 391.96 kB · 3 Downloads

 

F16 flare dodge2.trk This 2nd track is in the previous patch for comparison.

now the missiles you are testing have more or less IRCCM or not? maybe there have been changes and you have to pay more attention to the aspect now?

What about older missiles?

here is an example from your tracks.

The first missile was fired very close, so many potential flares fall out of the Seeker FOV.
In addition, the missile seems to fight against the flares, but since the aspect is good, it always catches you again

the 2nd missile comes directly from the front, and the flares are behind the plane, so no wonder the hit follows here.
3rd missile, apparently no lock idk.
4th missile similar to 1-2

try to adjust the tests or compare older Missiles,  but to my understanding it looks like IRCCM is doing its job now and not more so Easy.
to my subjective impression, this even looks like an improvement.

 

 

https://streamable.com/tiy2ch

Edited December 25, 2024 by Hobel

[Dragon1-1]

9 minutes ago, Hobel said:

the 2nd missile comes directly from the front, and the flares are behind the plane, so no wonder the hit follows here.

That shouldn't matter, the flares are ejected upwards and much brighter than a plane would be from the front. If they're not physically obscured by the fuselage, they should be able to decoy the missile pretty well.

[NytHawk]

21 minutes ago, Hobel said:

What about older missiles?

Just did a few tests with an AI F-5E shooting a 9B. It will consistently still hit when you are manually dumping flares as fast as possible in the F16 using afterburner while doing a very slow turn.

Edited December 25, 2024 by NytHawk

[Hobel]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Dragon1-1:

That shouldn't matter, the flares are ejected upwards and much brighter than a plane would be from the front. If they're not physically obscured by the fuselage, they should be able to decoy the missile pretty well.

Yes of course the flares are much brighter but that is exactly what IRCCM is there for. It compares the target's position to the position of the flare and can distinguish the constant position of the aircraft from the separating position of the flare and so on.

 

vor 14 Minuten schrieb NytHawk:

Just did a few tests with the an AI F-5E shooting a 9B and will often still hit when you are manually dumping flares as fast as possible in the F16 and doing a very slow turn

If older missiles are just as difficult to Flare, this should of course be investigated. tracks would be helpful here

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by Hobel

[NytHawk]

3 minutes ago, Hobel said:

If older missiles are just as difficult to Flare, this should of course be investigated. tracks would be helpful here

Will upload a track shortly.

[Xhonas]

36 minutes ago, Hobel said:

now the missiles you are testing have more or less IRCCM or not? maybe there have been changes and you have to pay more attention to the aspect now?

What about older missiles?

here is an example from your tracks.

The first missile was fired very close, so many potential flares fall out of the Seeker FOV.
In addition, the missile seems to fight against the flares, but since the aspect is good, it always catches you again

the 2nd missile comes directly from the front, and the flares are behind the plane, so no wonder the hit follows here.
3rd missile, apparently no lock idk.
4th missile similar to 1-2

try to adjust the tests or compare older Missiles,  but to my understanding it looks like IRCCM is doing its job now and not more so Easy.
to my subjective impression, this even looks like an improvement.

 

 

https://streamable.com/tiy2ch

They are super strong against flares now. They were strong already, now it is even more. After our last discussion about this topic i tested the missiles extensively and came up with a way to deal with them consistently, even from close range. It took a lot of flares to reach the desired luminosity, but it would work. Now it doesn't anymore, as you can see in the track. Idk if you are able to compare both tracks rn due to the different versions, but on the 2nd track that i sent you can see consistent results. 

 

Take a look at this track: i doubt that these missiles have an irccm so strong that could keep up with this: flare innefective2.trk

 

And even from that close range, lots of flares will be in the seeker fov, plus i'm using a cms program that dispenses 3 flares each time the cms button is pressed, sometimes 4 flares. You can do a test, pick a frame, freeze the game and zoom it all the way until you have a 2° fov and see how many flares will be in the fov (many)

Edited December 25, 2024 by Xhonas

[account_so_i_can_download]

36 minutes ago, Hobel said:

to my subjective impression, this even looks like an improvement.

So, you are saying that you do notice a change, correct?

37 minutes ago, Hobel said:

now the missiles you are testing have more or less IRCCM or not? maybe there have been changes and you have to pay more attention to the aspect now?

Have you looked at the tracks from the original poster?

 

[NytHawk]

Here is a .trk file of an AI F4 shooting an AIM-9B at a player controlled F16 spamming flares while in a gentle turn.

9B_FLARE_NOEFFECT.trk

[account_so_i_can_download]

We could proceed in a more scientific manner if someone from ED could confirm if there was an intentional change or not.

If it was intentional, we could discuss the merits of the tuning.

If it was not intentional, then we could be looking for examples of where this is happening.

Edited December 25, 2024 by account_so_i_can_download
spelling, clarity

[Hobel]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Xhonas:

They are super strong against flares now. They were strong already, now it is even more. After our last discussion about this topic i tested the missiles extensively and came up with a way to deal with them consistently, even from close range. It took a lot of flares to reach the desired luminosity, but it would work. Now it doesn't anymore, as you can see in the track. Idk if you are able to compare both tracks rn due to the different versions, but on the 2nd track that i sent you can see consistent results. 

Well maybe, but without going into it further, is that wrong and does that exceed the capabilities of IRCCM? the examples in the video are from your track and the situations are very easy for the missiles especially at close range.

 

vor 5 Minuten schrieb account_so_i_can_download:

So, you are saying that you do notice a change, correct?

as it looks, but whether this is global or intentional i can't say. if the behavior is similar for older missiles it seems clearer that something is wrong here.
but the examples shown and this is just my opinion is an easy thing for IRCCM.

 

vor 8 Minuten schrieb account_so_i_can_download:

Have you looked at the tracks from the original poster?

I even posted a video that I took from the tracks

vor 13 Minuten schrieb NytHawk:

Here is a .trk file of an AI F4 shooting an AIM-9B at a player controlled F16 spamming flares while in a gentle turn.

I took control and compared to the other missiles, the B can be fooled with just a few flares.
here a video where you can also see the behavior of the missile
In your original track you didn't move at all, but I don't know if that should be enough against the old Aim9B with some flare, but in any case it's much easier to do flare.

  

vor 14 Minuten schrieb account_so_i_can_download:

We could proceed in a more scientific manner if someone from ED could confirm if there was an intentional change or not.

If it was intentional, we could discuss the merits of the tuning.

If it was not intentional, then we could be looking for examples of where this is happening.

agree

 

 

[Xhonas]

nullThere are roughly 36 flares in the fov, out of 56 fired.  flare innefective4.trk not a single twitch from the missile.

 

aa ir msl dodge.trk

F16 flare dodge.trk these two tracks were recorded in previous updates where this problem wasn't happening. The exact same situation, missile will go for the flares with the right conditions, consistently. That is why i believe there is a problem / undocumented change. 

[Xhonas]

1 minute ago, Hobel said:

Well maybe, but without going into it further, is that wrong and does that exceed the capabilities of IRCCM? the examples in the video are from your track and the situations are very easy for the missiles especially at close range.

Idk if that would be incorrect, but based on what we know, IR missiles in DCS are way too strong. Also, these changes were not documented in the changelog, so if something important like this was left out then it probably isn't working as intended. If you are able, watch my tracks from previous updates. The missile was already strong in there, but you could defeat it consistently using a certain amount of flares and doing the right positioning. Now doing the same thing results in you getting killed  

[NytHawk]

6 minutes ago, Hobel said:

I took control and compared to the other missiles, the B can be fooled with just a few flares.
here a video where you can also see the behavior of the missile
In your original track you didn't move at all, but I don't know if that should be enough against the old Aim9B with some flare, but in any case it's much easier to do flare.

I was being careful about maneuvering too much because the AIM-9B is obviously quite easy to outmaneuver. Before this update, the amount of flares i deployed would have been absolutely overkill in any situation.

Your video definitely does show the 9B falling for flares, however at 0:41 i think there *may* be a possibility of you maneuvering too hard and exiting the 9Bs seeker FOV and then just tracking flares normally. I am not an expert with the 9B obviously.

[Xhonas]

7 minutes ago, NytHawk said:

I was being careful about maneuvering too much because the AIM-9B is obviously quite easy to outmaneuver. Before this update, the amount of flares i deployed would have been absolutely overkill in any situation.

Your video definitely does show the 9B falling for flares, however at 0:41 i think there *may* be a possibility of you maneuvering too hard and exiting the 9Bs seeker FOV and then just tracking flares normally. I am not an expert with the 9B obviously.

The first track shows that the missile is "cracked". The aim9b doesn't have any irccm mechanism, it can only see the engine, any kind of flare on its seeker defeats it instantly, yet on the first track it goes for the flares but keeps reacquiring the jet. 

[NytHawk]

7 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

The first track shows that the missile is "cracked". The aim9b doesn't have any irccm mechanism, it can only see the engine, any kind of flare on its seeker defeats it instantly, yet on the first track it goes for the flares but keeps reacquiring the jet. 

Interesting

[SparrowLT]

Yes..

 

Since this last update.. i have a series of SP missions to dogfight 1 AI aircraft with a chose of client aircraft. .. its a head on encounter from 20nm separtion , intented to both aircraft merge and fight from there..

 the AI aircraft in this case was equiped with AIM-9L .. the AI could or could not fire the 9L head on before the merge.. and until now when it fired head on the 9L it could be decoid cutting engines, flaring a lot and doing wide barrel roll..

 

Now it cant.. now the AI will ALLWAYS fire the 9L head on and it has hit 100% of the times.. repeated the mission a lof of times and tried many things and different airframes.. same result.. now the 9L head on behaves like an AMRAAM with 100% hit rate

[Hobel]

vor 59 Minuten schrieb Xhonas:

Idk if that would be incorrect, but based on what we know, IR missiles in DCS are way too strong. Also, these changes were not documented in the changelog, so if something important like this was left out then it probably isn't working as intended. If you are able, watch my tracks from previous updates. The missile was already strong in there, but you could defeat it consistently using a certain amount of flares and doing the right positioning. Now doing the same thing results in you getting killed  

Well, why do you think these missiles are too powerful? does it exceed the capabilities?

here in the video the first missile misses.
and you shoot the 2nd one at ~1km!
The FOV is already enormously small here and the flares fall out of the relefvant FOV extremely quickly. that doesn't seem unusual to me for IRCCM at such a short distance.

 

vor 44 Minuten schrieb Xhonas:

The first track shows that the missile is "cracked". The aim9b doesn't have any irccm mechanism, it can only see the engine, any kind of flare on its seeker defeats it instantly, yet on the first track it goes for the flares but keeps reacquiring the jet. 

Now we need to know in detail how much the flares in DCS cool down or whether this happens at all.
the airplane continuously sprays new hot flare and does not move, the missile therefore leaves the cool flare and follows the “hot trail” to the airplane.

can you check this up to a certain point? yes here i have taken control from exactly the point where the missile "cracked" out and thus stopped the flare stream, the missile stays there and does not follow the new hot flares to the Plane.

 

you can see how The Missile followed the last flare and stayed with it as there were no new ones

the example without manipulation:

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by Hobel

[DoorMouse]

12 hours ago, Hobel said:

Well, why do you think these missiles are too powerful? does it exceed the capabilities?

here in the video the first missile misses.
and you shoot the 2nd one at ~1km!
The FOV is already enormously small here and the flares fall out of the relefvant FOV extremely quickly. that doesn't seem unusual to me for IRCCM at such a short distance.

 

Now we need to know in detail how much the flares in DCS cool down or whether this happens at all.
the airplane continuously sprays new hot flare and does not move, the missile therefore leaves the cool flare and follows the “hot trail” to the airplane.

can you check this up to a certain point? yes here i have taken control from exactly the point where the missile "cracked" out and thus stopped the flare stream, the missile stays there and does not follow the new hot flares to the Plane.

 

you can see how The Missile followed the last flare and stayed with it as there were no new ones

the example without manipulation:

 

Flare cooling? DCS doesn't model any systems near sophisticated enough for that to be relevant 

 

Countermeasures are a dice roll. There is also a CCM dice roll to reject countermeasures. That's it. People have pulled the exact coefficients from the files previously.

This is likely just they put the wrong values on the wrong weapons somehow.

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb DoorMouse:

Flare cooling? DCS doesn't model any systems near sophisticated enough for that to be relevant 

 

Countermeasures are a dice roll. There is also a CCM dice roll to reject countermeasures. That's it. People have pulled the exact coefficients from the files previously.

This is likely just they put the wrong values on the wrong weapons somehow.

It is not perfect. But it's no longer just a dice roll. Aspect And how many flares are in the FOV also has a strong influence on it, in another thread I have also demonstrated this. See here:

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/353582-problem-regarding-the-way-that-ir-missiles-react-to-counstermeasures-irccm-inconsistency/page/2/#findComment-5525579

 

No idea if flare cooling, but the missile seeker more or less always moves to the "new/hot" flare. Also demonstrated in the video when I stop the flare stream the Aim9b does not follow more but stays on the last flare as seen in the video.

 

[rcjonessnp175]

Tried with fog on yet……..

[stefasaki]

Something drastic definitely happened, I came here specifically to check if anyone else noticed it... I went from comfortably avoiding any IR missile, including -9X's, with careful positioning and flares dispensing to dying consistently and unavoidably to IR missiles. This is breaking all my missions, please ED do something.

[DoorMouse]

33 minutes ago, Hobel said:

It is not perfect. But it's no longer just a dice roll. Aspect And how many flares are in the FOV also has a strong influence on it, in another thread I have also demonstrated this. See here:

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/353582-problem-regarding-the-way-that-ir-missiles-react-to-counstermeasures-irccm-inconsistency/page/2/#findComment-5525579

 

No idea if flare cooling, but the missile seeker more or less always moves to the "new/hot" flare. Also demonstrated in the video when I stop the flare stream the Aim9b does not follow more but stays on the last flare as seen in the video.

 

It's still very much just a dice roll, but it takes into account distance. The inverted flaring is.... Interesting. But hilarious, and unrealistic. It's very interesting it's so consistently defeating missiles.

I'd venture the consistent ability to push negative G is some poor guidance implementation. Missiles used to have strange issues when going through zero degree axis values, so everything is on the table. 

Otherwise, it's likely a very crude implementation of the FOV of the seeker. Test it with the mig 21 who launches flares off the top. Or pull different directions.

 

The whole missile implementation is just, bad across the board. But in this case it seems they just messed something up, because it wasn't in the change notes. Maybe something they edited for the new fog messed with the core IR code. 

 

 

 

[Hobel]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb DoorMouse:

The inverted flaring is.... Interesting. But hilarious, and unrealistic

The inverted flare is there to fill the FOV of the missile with as much flare as possible otherwise the flare will fly out of the seeker's FOV too fast. With Su27 you don't have to do this as the flare is thrown upwards in this scenario. So why is it unrealistic that many flares in the FOV have a negative effect on the seeker, that's what you're trying to do to best fool the missile.

 

Otherwise you could take the trouble to show a few demos.

 

In the last thread people complained that aim9x is too easy to flare now it seems to be harder and now others are complaining again. Just respect the NEZ with modern IR seeker and there will be no problem.

 

 

Do you also not care about IR missiles irl? Because you always have Flare with you and the right program and you're safe...?

I used to have a Flare program and I didn't worry about IR Missile in DCS and almost ignored it, Flare still has an influence but now I have to respect the NEZ more.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Hobel