Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[GGTharos]

Actually, the seeker is based on available technology.

 

Because the Maverick locks onto a contrast differential (ie. blob) on what it sees, which has to be x number of pixels big, its lock on range is limited at MINIMUM by the seeker's resolution+available optical zoom.

 

I have here a camera which has MUCH higher resolution with a 3x optical zoom, and that *might* be able to lock onto something 6nm away.

 

The mav's seeker? Not so sure ... 640x480 pixels vs. my 1600x1200 ;)

 

I've looked through a camera with 8x zoom at cars 10km away too, an IIR camera that was likely better than the Mav's seeker - it's the Lav-Recce's surveillance system.

 

The cars at that range even at full mag look TINY (and don't even dream of seeing Mr. Igla guy that far out)

 

And mind you, this was in PERFECT seeing conditions.

[D-Scythe]

Actually, the seeker is based on available technology.

 

Because the Maverick locks onto a contrast differential (ie. blob) on what it sees, which has to be x number of pixels big, its lock on range is limited at MINIMUM by the seeker's resolution+available optical zoom.

 

I have here a camera which has MUCH higher resolution with a 3x optical zoom, and that *might* be able to lock onto something 6nm away.

 

The mav's seeker? Not so sure ... 640x480 pixels vs. my 1600x1200 ;)

 

I've looked through a camera with 8x zoom at cars 10km away too, an IIR camera that was likely better than the Mav's seeker - it's the Lav-Recce's surveillance system.

 

The cars at that range even at full mag look TINY (and don't even dream of seeing Mr. Igla guy that far out)

 

And mind you, this was in PERFECT seeing conditions.

 

I agree completely. A 24 km launch range is probably what the AGM-65K is aerodynamically capable of, but I doubt its seeker is effective at all at those ranges.

 

Still, I'd expect better performance than it currently is in Lock On. The AGM-65B had 2.5 degrees FOV (as opposed to 5 degrees in the -65A), and the AGM-65H/K has a 1.25 degrees FOV (as provided by SK, on this site: http://home.wanadoo.nl/tcc/rnlaf/agm65.html). I have no idea the relationship between FOV and magnification, but from what I can gather, the AGM-65K has a fourth of the FOV as the AGM-65A, whose EO sensor was roughly the equivalent of a "200mm lens on a standard 35mm camera."

 

Personally speaking, I have no idea what this means.

[SwingKid]

AGM-65K should have 6x magnification and be measured by its ability to lock up concrete structures the size of a bunker or bridge.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

D-Scythe, magnification is simple (converting fov to mag is not as simple)

 

With a 6x mahg, you'll see something that's 6km away as if it was 1km away.

[D-Scythe]

D-Scythe, magnification is simple (converting fov to mag is not as simple)

 

With a 6x mahg, you'll see something that's 6km away as if it was 1km away.

 

Yeah, I just got confused. I know magnification - I work with microscopes sometimes - but its just the FOV coupled with magnification that throws me. This is what I guess we need to know, since no actual magnification is given for the AGM-65 missile, just the respective FOV of their seekers.

 

AGM-65K should have 6x magnification and be measured by its ability to lock up concrete structures the size of a bunker or bridge.

 

Yeah, stuff like that throws me...I have no idea how you got 6X magnification from 1.25 degrees FOV, but I guess that's irrelevent :D At least you got that the magnification for the AGM-65K in LOMAC is off...by a lot (currently it seems to me at least to be 1X or 1.5X at most)

[GGTharos]

The problem is that to compute the mag from the FoV you actually have to have some data about the optics - I've tried it, and found out you need to know focal lengths etc.

 

 

I own a telescope so I'm amateurishly clued in on the 'viewing things from afar', but I don't have the equations drilled into my head sadly.

 

(BTW, my scope's mag is 236. Horrible image - I mean, it's the max theoretical mag and that just about never gives you a good image - but it really brings the 'this is what magnification does' for into perspective, eheh)

[Guest IguanaKing]

FOV has a lot to do with a combination of focal length and the size of the aperture.

[Guest IguanaKing]

The problem is that to compute the mag from the FoV you actually have to have some data about the optics - I've tried it, and found out you need to know focal lengths etc.

 

 

I own a telescope so I'm amateurishly clued in on the 'viewing things from afar', but I don't have the equations drilled into my head sadly.

 

(BTW, my scope's mag is 236. Horrible image - I mean, it's the max theoretical mag and that just about never gives you a good image - but it really brings the 'this is what magnification does' for into perspective, eheh)

 

GG, I know its OT, but is that telescope a refractor or reflector?

[GGTharos]

Reflector. a 4.5" refractor would have been somewhat cumbersome :D

[Prophet_169th]

OT: The latest machine from my employer has an NA (numeric aperture) of 1.27 and a mag of 4. Thats used to make the next gen Pentium. We use water water between the lens and wafer to get that NA also. Good for 45nm.

[SwingKid]

Yeah, stuff like that throws me...I have no idea how you got 6X magnification from 1.25 degrees FOV, but I guess that's irrelevent :D At least you got that the magnification for the AGM-65K in LOMAC is off...by a lot (currently it seems to me at least to be 1X or 1.5X at most)

 

 

Looks more like 8x for the "K" and 8x and 32x for the "D" to me... :confused:

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

Reflector. a 4.5" refractor would have been somewhat cumbersome :D

 

LOL! :D Well, you could have mounted it on a truck or something. :icon_jook

 

I've got a 60mm refractor and its not exactly easily portable either. The other problem is that, for objects much dimmer than say...the moon...its pretty much worthless.

[GGTharos]

I can imagine! I can see some deep space objects through mine, but a lot of them with difficulty (ie. not looking directly at them etc)

[Gazehound]

Stingers shoot at KH29Ts, is that supposed to happen?

[SwingKid]

Looks more like 8x for the "K" and 8x and 32x for the "D" to me... :confused:

 

Oops...

 

Just to clarify, in my first post the "6x" was "linear" magnification, and should have been "around 36x". So the AGM-65D in Lock On is fine, the AGM-65K is just missing its zoomed view.

 

Sorry for confusion

 

-SK

[S77th-GOYA]

GG, I would venture to guess that the optics in your telescope don't compare with the optics in a maverick. Nor would I think the optics in the mav compare with the optics in spy satellites, but that is probably a closer match in quality of glass and precision grinding.

[GGTharos]

I wasn't comparing the two, though I see how I may have come across as doing so.

 

I was just showing that I have some understanding of magnification.

 

By the way: The optics in my scope likely equal or better the ones in the mav. You need a LOT more precision in a telescope looking at the stars than you do in any sort of opticsto resolve something 5-6nm away. On the other hand, mav optics are likely just plain more intresting from a technical point of view, made to be sturdier and not require realigning, likely layered with filter coatings and who-knows-what-else ;) Oranges and apples there.

[S77th-GOYA]

Every refractor telescope I've ever had/seen has coated lenses. Probably the same for binoculars. Usually to deal with chromatic aberration. That applies to both celestial and terrestrial telescopes. Given the military application of the Mav's seeker, it's an easy assumption that Raytheon would use high quality optics. If you've got a reflector with crappy image quality at 236x, no offense, but you have crappy optics. Either the objective or the eyepieces or both. Likely both.

 

But to get back on track, we will all deal with unrealistic SAM behavior until it is fixed. Trying to pin down how these things get into a release, from past experience, would be fruitless. I'll just change tactics and mission making practices. The Mav-K will continue to be under-modeled and we'll deal with it. Just like the list of other things known to be incorrect in LOMAC. There will be long technical discussions about why the stroke of the johnson rod in the fighter jet should be 3.75cm instead on 4.25cm and it will be resolved with everyone agreeing on 3.75cm and when the patch comes along it will still be 4.25cm. It's just a game. We'll play and we'll have fun. (and occasionally bitch)

[Weta43]

That's the attitude...

They might be - congress has deep pockets, but there's no garantee the optics in the seeker are built to any better tollerances - any chromatic abberation will be reduced to 36/236 or 1/6.5 of that of the telescope simply by virtue of the fact that its not magnifying as much, & GG's really only talking asthetics here - a coloured fringe looks bad to us, but on a monochrome sensor it would disappear...

It's all relative to magnification really.

There's a nice carl ziess lens on my camera & at full zoom prints at 8"x10" look fine, but at 52"x79" you can probably start to see fringing etc.

[EvilBivol-1]

I just did a round of testing (which I didn't get to finish due to a very rude loss of electricity) and have found similar results to GGTharos. GG, did you install the actual patch, or just left Beta-8 as your 1.11? In either case, did you run it over your existing Lock On, or a fresh install? I myself simply kept B8, but installed it over a fresh LOMAC installation.

 

Anyway, here's what I've done so far. Mission created from scratch in 1.11 (B8) mission editor. One AI A-10 armed with 4 AGM-65Ds (IR) vs. a single Tunguska, Strela-1 with and without Dog Ear, and Strela-10 with and without Dog Ear. All AI on excellent, in the flat country of central Crimea, in the daytime. Results:

 

A-10 vs. Tunguska

 

1) First Mav is shot down (by missile), second one destroys the SAM as it unsuccessfully engages the A-10.

 

2) First Mav kills the SAM. Didn't note whether the SAM attempted to defend itself, but by memory want to say that it did, obviously unsuccessfully.

 

3) Same as #1

 

4) SAM ignores the incoming Mav and engages the A-10, only to suffer damage (not destruction!) by the Mav. The A-10 is hit, but survives. Having jettisoned his load to evade the SAM, he goes home.

 

5) SAM again ignores the Mav and engages the A-10 instead. However this time the A-10 gets away clean and the SAM is destroyed.

 

6) First Mav is defeated by missile, second Mav damages (not destroys) the SAM, while the SAM kills the A-10.

 

7) SAM and the A-10 kill each other with first respective shots.

 

8) Same as above.

 

9) As #2.

 

10) Experiment with AGM-65K... A-10 never gets to fire and is killed by the SAM.

 

So, using the -D, out of 9 flights, the A-10 is hit or destroyed 4 times, while the SAM is hit or destroyed every time.

 

In putting the A-10 vs. the Strela-1 and Strela-10, both with and without Dog Ear support, the SAMs never even attempted a launch, against either the A-10 or the Mavericks. All flights resulted in the destruction of the ground vehicles without a single defensive measure on their part. I gave each situation 5 attemps, for a total of 20 flights. Same result every time.

 

I guess there are two lessons we can take away from here. One is a confirmation of Alfa's earlier point about the need to do multiple tests of identical situations to get a better idea of the outcomes. In the case of the Tunguska, it appears that some sort of randomization is occuring within the SAM AI. It is not timing, because in every flight both the A-10 and the SAM would take actions (detection and fire), as far as I could judge what the AI was doing, at the same point in time as in previous flights. For example, the A-10 would always engage the Tunguska at 12:01:03. Depending on whether the SAM was engaging the Mav or the A-10, the time at detection (judged by the movement of the turret) and fire was the same for each respective attempt.

 

The other thing is that, as already established, different people are getting wildly different results. I'd recommend that anybody trying to test this be very mindful of anything that could alternate the outcome. Geographic location (mountains and such), unit skill, unit isolation, mission creation strictly in 1.11, multiple attempts, simplicity, missile slider... etc.

 

*EDIT* I forgot to mention that my missile slider was at default (50%).

[Jason76]

I would have to concur with EvilBivol... I have never seen the Strelas engage a Mav yet. I've tried testing against 2 BUK SAM sites and tried to hit a Tung in between them and about 70% of the time the 2nd mav will hit the target (or at least hit the ground near the target).

 

Tactics wise I think one thing has definitely changed, sending at least 2 mavericks per target is definitely a good idea.

[Bouddha]

EvilBivol :

I am not sure to understand you correctly.

Is there a difference of success rate when engaging Tunguska with AGM-65D and K ?

regards

[EvilBivol-1]

Well, you only need 2 Mavs per SAM. The rest is as before. It seems to me that this would be a much better simulation of the real world, but the problem is that some people are apparently witnessing ridiculous capabilities from outdated and rather impotent systems. I don't see it on my end.

 

Bouddha,

apparently so. But remember two things: 1) this was AI A-10, not myself and 2) the *K* is shorter ranged, so the A-10 had to get closer to fire it, bringing it within SAM range, which is why it got killed. It had to evade the SAM before it could fire on it using the *K*. Also, I only tried it once. Then I had a power outage.

[EvilBivol-1]

I know this seems unlikely, but the only thing I can think of to explain the different results is the variable of a clean install vs. one over an existing 1.1 install. This might also have something to do with various files edited by mods and such. It'd be interesting to see who among us installed over 1.1 and who loaded a fresh LOMAC.

[Yellonet]

The problem is that to compute the mag from the FoV you actually have to have some data about the optics - I've tried it, and found out you need to know focal lengths etc.

 

 

I own a telescope so I'm amateurishly clued in on the 'viewing things from afar', but I don't have the equations drilled into my head sadly.

 

(BTW, my scope's mag is 236. Horrible image - I mean, it's the max theoretical mag and that just about never gives you a good image - but it really brings the 'this is what magnification does' for into perspective, eheh)

Well, with telescopes you're supposed to watch stuff at an (almost ;)) infinite distance. And the more you magnify the image the more you "stretch" the light coming into the telescope, thus making it more blurry... well, that's how I understand it.