Jump to content

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

ColdClaws

By ColdClaws
in Weapon Bugs

 Share

Recommended Posts

SparrowLT

SparrowLT

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Hobel said:

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.

 

Between the AIM9X being utterly useless as it was before (also annoying to launch a X against a phantom or 21 see it pop a couple flares and the missile decoid 4 out of 5 times) and what is now wich is having even the AIM9B perform like an AMRAAM there is a big space to NOT ruin the game doing this...

  • Like 5
Hobel

Hobel

Posted
Posted
vor 13 Minuten schrieb SparrowLT:

Between the AIM9X being utterly useless as it was before (also annoying to launch a X against a phantom or 21 see it pop a couple flares and the missile decoid 4 out of 5 times) and what is now wich is having even the AIM9B perform like an AMRAAM there is a big space to NOT ruin the game doing this...

The core of the discussion was mainly about modern IR missiles. if an Aim9B is too strong or Flare is too weak, and it seems to be at the moment, a friend and I have done more tests, then that should be investigated.

SparrowLT

SparrowLT

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hobel said:

The core of the discussion was mainly about modern IR missiles. if an Aim9B is too strong or Flare is too weak, and it seems to be at the moment, a friend and I have done more tests, then that should be investigated.

I can tell you the Lima is now god mode missile head on... wich it shouldnt.. the L was all aspect but that doesnt mean it was particulary good head on (and contrary to forums-belief ALL Lima kills in the Falklands war were from the rear aspect, no head-on kills wich doesnt mean it cant do them, they were definitily a capability of the L but was still not intended at that)

  • Like 2
GGTharos

GGTharos

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Hobel said:

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.

Depends on IRCCM type.  An AIM-9X (and missiles using similar digitally processed imaging) wouldn't care unless the flares and smoke can completely hide the target that is, like a curtain, and the target is able to escape the FoV at that time.

Other missiles may care, and in some cases it can overwhelm even certain older digital IRCCM (non-imaging or pseudo-imaging).

Flare effectiveness is proven against certain types of seekers, but not just by existing - release spacing can easily be important.  There are situations where flare effectiveness is zero as well.  None of this stuff is modeled in DCS AFAIK, other than some aspect and afterburner in/out effects and maybe distance from target.

Until such things are modeled, it would probably be fair to return the flare effectiveness where it was.

 

As for the inverted release thing, that's just silly.   In some cases the aircraft itself may hide the flares but please point to a case of IRL advice to 'invert when flaring' - if it mattered, why not simply mount the buckets in the correct position?   Why do aircraft whose biggest problem is stuff coming up from the ground have buckets mounted to shoot up?

Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Hobel

Hobel

Posted
Posted

 

vor 8 Minuten schrieb GGTharos:

Depends on IRCCM type.

Absolutely, it depends.

Zitat

Flare effectiveness is proven against certain types of seekers, but not just by existing - release spacing can easily be important.  There are situations where flare effectiveness is zero as well.  None of this stuff is modeled in DCS AFAIK, other than some aspect and afterburner in/out effects and maybe distance from target.

And in DCS, the aspect, FOV and thus also the range are very important, all of which have a strong impact on the missile seeker.  🙂

here are a few behaviors, (the last one was probably Maverick)

 

 

Hobel

Hobel

Posted
Posted
vor 14 Stunden schrieb SparrowLT:

I can tell you the Lima is now god mode missile head on... wich it shouldnt.. the L was all aspect but that doesnt mean it was particulary good head on (and contrary to forums-belief ALL Lima kills in the Falklands war were from the rear aspect, no head-on kills wich doesnt mean it cant do them, they were definitily a capability of the L but was still not intended at that)

I agree. But as already mentioned, let's wait for an answer. 🙂

DoorMouse

DoorMouse

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Depends on IRCCM type.  An AIM-9X (and missiles using similar digitally processed imaging) wouldn't care unless the flares and smoke can completely hide the target that is, like a curtain, and the target is able to escape the FoV at that time.

Other missiles may care, and in some cases it can overwhelm even certain older digital IRCCM (non-imaging or pseudo-imaging).

Flare effectiveness is proven against certain types of seekers, but not just by existing - release spacing can easily be important.  There are situations where flare effectiveness is zero as well.  None of this stuff is modeled in DCS AFAIK, other than some aspect and afterburner in/out effects and maybe distance from target.

Until such things are modeled, it would probably be fair to return the flare effectiveness where it was.

 

As for the inverted release thing, that's just silly.   In some cases the aircraft itself may hide the flares but please point to a case of IRL advice to 'invert when flaring' - if it mattered, why not simply mount the buckets in the correct position?   Why do aircraft whose biggest problem is stuff coming up from the ground have buckets mounted to shoot up?

Yeah... It's because the modeling is poor

 

In real life a hot flare moving away from the aircraft would pull the seeker head away from the target. (Let's presume a less modern missile without fancy ccm or multi spectrum sensors like an Aim9x)

However in DCS, the ir missiles aren't locked on an IR signal, they are locked to a game entity and don't even bother to look at flares unless they dice roll comes up. There is likely some sort of additional math done if the seeker is in the FOV, in front of the aircraft, or is closer to the missile than the aircraft... Who knows. Net-net what it means is that flares that should be effective, if they do not get a positive dice roll, do not do anything. 

This is also why IR missiles cannot jump targets and are completely safe to shoot into merges (IN DCS) if you have a positive lock. It is impossible for them to pick up a second target once launched. 

Whatever the underlying code, the behavior is definitely strange and unrealistic. When you're doing that inverted maneuver it's exploiting some limitation or implementation of the game code, who knows what. 

Edited by DoorMouse
  • Like 4
  • BIGNEWY locked this topic
  • 2 weeks later...
Nahemoth

Nahemoth

Posted
Posted

I found that while defeating MANPADs using flares is feasible, evading the IR missiles launched during a dogfight is nearly impossible for me. I do what it is supposed to be done: engine idle/mil, launch burst of flares and pull-g's to evade IR missile. I have plenty of tacview records, where I see that the flares are not working properly, the IR missile does not lose the target and it goes directly to me. Any advice? Thanks!

Here are some tacview screenshoots (I may share the tacview files as well):

nullimage.png

image.pngimage.pngimage.png null 

Nahemoth

Nahemoth

Posted
Posted
hace 18 minutos, Tholozor dijo:

There's a reported topic regarding flare effectiveness/flare rejection of air-to-air IR-guided missiles: 

 

Thanks! 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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