Ракеты в DCS

[Chizh]

The issue is that Chizh was claiming that the R-77 has the new CCM code...

I didn't say anything like that. I said that the effectiveness of the R-77 missiles is comparable to the AIM-120B.

[dundun92]

Effectiveness in what aspect though? CCM? Range? Maneuverability?

 

At least from this post you appeared to be referring to chaff:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4446197&postcount=66

Ill grant that you never explicitly said the R-77 has the new CCM code but at least from the context it appeared that you were implying it. In saying that the R-77 has similar ccm resistance are you referring to the ccm_k0 number in the files, or its practical effect in game (which is influenced by both the ccm_k0 and whether its on the new CCM code)?

Edited September 2, 2020 by dundun92

[DarksydeRob]

There are many factors that are not modeled in DCS that degrade the missile/seeker performance in RL... so to have one value set high without those factors you end up with unrealistic missile.

 

Bench-marking current Amraam seeker performance base on other missiles/seeker performance in DCS it does seam optimistic in my humble opinion, for a start it should require much more support to achieve such CCM performance.

 

Good lucking modelling anything like that in this engine.... At the same time we cant be sure if its still worse than IRL or better . ED made the current changes for a reason i'm sure. However, reverting it due to Balance is not the way to go. IF there was any mistakes in calcuations of course they should be fixed.

 

What really makes no sense is comparing the new API missiles to the outdated missiles. Obviously they are nowhere near as one is much more advanced than the other , dont compare them until they all had the same treatment.

 

About requiring more support to achieve essentially better resistance. Currently supporting the missile till impact yields better resistance without support it is substantially easier to utilise chaff and notch the missile.

Edited September 2, 2020 by DarksydeRob

[Chizh]

Effectiveness in what aspect though? CCM? Range? Maneuverability?

I talked about end-to-end combat effectiveness in general. When a missile is launched in the DLZ.

[dundun92]

I talked about end-to-end combat effectiveness in general. When a missile is launched in the DLZ.

Thanks for clarifying, apologies for the misunderstanding on my end.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[DarksydeRob]

He has stated many times in this thread that the overall chaff resistance should be the same. So it is a bug.

 

Run the shooters tracks and you avoid this chaff desync. The singleplayer testing was done using AI vs AI, which dont challenge the missile properly and unfold the fine differences, as dundun explained.

 

 

 

In terms of realism, i dont know how realistic a 5 second, total immunity to any amount (even 1 million) of countermeasures is.

 

The balance argument makes little sense, since even with the old chaff resistance none of the red FC3 planes could win against AIM-120C.

 

 

If EDs testing consists of AI v AI . Well that needs to change as that wont give any decent results.

 

What are you on about with a 5 second immunity ? You mean the autopilot where the missile has lost track of you and is guiding on the last known flight path instead of just killing itself like before ?

 

And they could in the right hands . Even now they could in the right hands but its much much harder.

[DarksydeRob]

Just to make things clear, I was not, and am not advocating ED "nerfing" the 120 CCM, nor was that the goal. Just personally, im fine with its CCM RN, but thats just my opinion.

 

The issue is that Chizh was claiming that the R-77 has the new CCM code and are equally effective in terms of CCM compared to the AIM-120B, which is NOT true as max has pointed out several times. Now I cant speak for max but it appears all he is asking for is for all the missiles to be updated to the new CCM code standard, which they are not, despite Chizh stating that they are based on his (IMO) flawed test, which as I explained is not indicative of the missiles actual CCM because of the AI issues. I dont think this is about balance, not do I think he was advocating for the AIM-120 CCM to be reduced, its about all the missiles being consistent. (at least thats the understanding I got from Max's posts, correct me here if im wrong).

 

I'm really not sure what people want. I do believe a lot of people ( myself included ) are unhappy as only one missile family is being at a time, and it leaves the rest lagging behind hard at a big disadvantage. It Would of been better if all would of been updated at the same time or at least in quicker succession.

 

What I don't want to see if things being nerfed cause a minority has moaned the new change is "too OP" and hurts them even if its the way its meant to be .I'm not necessarily saying that the current 120 is perfect however If something is performing as it Should then it shouldn't be nerfed due to complaints.

[dundun92]

If EDs testing consists of AI v AI . Well that needs to change as that wont give any decent results.

 

What are you on about with a 5 second immunity ? You mean the autopilot where the missile has lost track of you and is guiding on the last known flight path instead of just killing itself like before ?

1) the specific test Chizh ran where the AIM-120B and R-77 came out roughly even in terms of Pk was AI vs AI yes, that was the point I was making.

2) The issue Max is referencing is where the missile in its 5 sec radar "memory" will not respond to chaff. Im not sure if max is referring to the autopilot.

[DarksydeRob]

2) The issue Max is referencing is where the missile in its 5 sec radar "memory" will not respond to chaff. Im not sure if max is referring to the autopilot.

 

Well it does , you can trash 120s pretty much fresh off the rail . Its just hard to do , add dysync ontop and good luck majority of the time.

[TotenDead]

I'm not necessarily saying that the current 120 is perfect however If something is performing as it Should then it shouldn't be nerfed due to complaints.

 

А с чего это ты вдруг решил, что аим-120 сейчас летает как должна? Может раньше она летала точнее, просто для понимания этого нужно было некоторое время. Или ты не доволен просто потому что станет сложнее побеждать?)

[GGTharos]

I understand where you are coming from, but we have been told for years now that this is what the 120 should behave like. In completely qualitative words of course.

[DarksydeRob]

А с чего это ты вдруг решил, что аим-120 сейчас летает как должна? Может раньше она летала точнее, просто для понимания этого нужно было некоторое время. Или ты не доволен просто потому что станет сложнее побеждать?)

 

Well as I hinted in some of my other statements. Who knows what the 120 really should behave like, maybe its still weak compared to real life who knows . My point being is that ED may have the better idea than us keyboard warriors and the current changes are for a reason.

 

Furthermore, it wont be more difficult to win, it would be easier with a reversion . With the current 120s its a skillgap equalizer so a lesser expereinced pilot becomes more dangerous.

 

And sure I fly competitively , however at the end of the day we are playing something that is trying to be as real as possible and I also expect it to be . Not for balance.

[BlackPixxel]

Well as I hinted in some of my other statements. Who knows what the 120 really should behave like, maybe its still weak compared to real life who knows . My point being is that ED may have the better idea than us keyboard warriors and the current changes are for a reason.

 

The thing is that the idea of ED for the Aim-120 and the implementation turned out to be different. According to Chizh the chaff immunity would not change. And in his test vs AI it indeed seemed so.

But against a player that is properly defending there was magnitudes of difference between the new and the old missile in terms of chaff immunity, which is NOT according to ED's plan.

[DarksydeRob]

The thing is that the idea of ED for the Aim-120 and the implementation turned out to be different. According to Chizh the chaff immunity would not change. And in his test vs AI it indeed seemed so.

But against a player that is properly defending there was magnitudes of difference between the new and the old missile in terms of chaff immunity, which is NOT according to ED's plan.

 

 

The chaff immunity seems to be relatively the same though from my experience . The biggest difference is how the missile reacts when loosing the target . Instead of going dumb and yanking itself away the autopilot keeps it on track. I do feel like this is giving people the wrong impression in my opinion. Especially when some people think its immune to all chaff for 5 seconds which is definitely not true at all. You can still overload the missile with chaff if done right to completely loose it. Again problem is dysync.

 

Its especially noticeable in Singleplayer as you can feel the CCM being the same when snap notching it near the end. The reason Im using this stage is that it cant rely on the autopilot anymore to keep on track towards the target and re-aqurie. It pretty much gets defeated as before. Its not so immune as some people lead it to be. The missile isn't on rails anymore and the angles the missile gets onto its target are a lot different than before leading to a more complicated notch than beforehand . Even in multiplayer in testing with the missile being supported till impact the same happens. Yes the values are different , but the new API will operate differently than before most likely needing the values to be changed. Assuming the values have been properly converted

 

However issues occur in multiplayer when the missiles have slight differences and between shooter and receiver leading to the missiles being much much harder to defeat .

 

In the end my final words are I hope ED are going to do what they feel right and not change something they beleive is right cause of a mob. If the CCM was truely calucated wrong then sure it should be changed to what it should be. I feel like this was mentioned months ago when it first released and it was checked and it was fine.

 

Even with worse chaff resistance there is still one major issue. The network issues of DCS and clientside netcode.

[TotenDead]

Well as I hinted in some of my other statements. Who knows what the 120 really should behave like, maybe its still weak compared to real life who knows .

 

Или в разы лучше реальной ракеты

[Toothless]

What a lot of the people dont see here with your singleplayer testing is that its not unreliable to defeat 120s. The issue at hand in reality is the current lackluster and crappy clientside netcode.

 

Its not true - the issue is in Aim-120 CCM effectiveness only. Yes, netcode in DCS is crappy now, but you can test how missile reacts on chaff in singleplayer - it almost doesn`t do it!

If R-77 acted like 120 act now, people here would questioned it too.

I`m sure that decreasing aim-120 CCM is not for balance, but I`m not sure why ED made it much better with new FM for the missile. It doesn`t seem realistic

 

ОК. Для ракеты AIM-120 коэффициент вероятности ухода на ловушки будет возвращен в старое значение.

 

А зачем было уменьшать эти коэффициенты изначально? Неужели в ДКС Амраам был слишком малоэффективным?

 

The chaff immunity seems to be relatively the same though from my experience ...

 

...It pretty much gets defeated as before. Its not so immune as some people lead it to be...

 

You are completely wrong - several people tested 120 resistance to notch and chaff and our statistics says clearly that it almost doesn`t see any chaff when you try to notch it. Once I had 88-90 degrees notch 350kn TAS for about 15 seconds, deployed 11 chaffs and Aim-120 hit me easily! For comparison R-77 go on chaff with 80-100 degrees notch very often, sometimes 110-70 degrees is enough. Absolutely not the same resistance.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Toothless

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

А зачем было уменьшать эти коэффициенты изначально? Неужели в ДКС Амраам был слишком малоэффективным?

The coefficients were changed originally with the intention of keeping the same effectiveness as before, the change probably stems from a desire to allow the code to handle more worse levels of ECCM/IRCCM like on missiles form the 1960s and 1970s

[Toothless]

The coefficients were changed originally with the intention of keeping the same effectiveness as before, the change probably stems from a desire to allow the code to handle more worse levels of ECCM/IRCCM like on missiles form the 1960s and 1970s

 

So, if I understand correctly, all DCS radar missiles now have decreased CCM capabilities, except Aim-120? Didn`t mentioned that R-77 decreased chaff resistance, but it`s just my observations.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

So, if I understand correctly, all DCS radar missiles now have decreased CCM capabilities, except Aim-120? Didn`t mentioned that R-77 decreased chaff resistance, but it`s just my observations.

No, a vast majority are still using the older code only a few have been changed to the new system. SD-10s AIM-120s and AIM-54s have had these changes so far if I'm not mistaken and how it affects them seems to vary on a case by case basis

[GGTharos]

AIM-120s, AIM-7s and AIM-9s (some AIM-9s?) use the new autopilot and FM code. No other missiles do, to my knowledge.

 

This does not directly affect the ECCM code, rather what happened was that Chizh said the ECCM code was changed (thus affecting everything) and the numbers were changed to achieve a similar ECCM probability as before.

 

The missile's FM can affect the exposure time to ECM/CM but does not change which piece of ECCM code is being used AFAIK.

 

Chizh, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[ААК]

AIM-120s, AIM-7s and AIM-9s (some AIM-9s?) use the new autopilot and FM code. No other missiles do, to my knowledge.

АИМ-9 вроде как старая, у неё флайт модели нового типа нету. Только АИМ-7 и АИМ-120.

[Маэстро]

AIM-120s, AIM-7s and AIM-9s (some AIM-9s?) use the new autopilot and FM code. No other missiles do, to my knowledge.

 

AIM-7 and AIM-120 only.

 

This does not directly affect the ECCM code, rather what happened was that Chizh said the ECCM code was changed (thus affecting everything) and the numbers were changed to achieve a similar ECCM probability as before.

 

The missile's FM can affect the exposure time to ECM/CM but does not change which piece of ECCM code is being used AFAIK.

 

Chizh, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yes, new missiles use their own code and it's not the same, but similar to older one.

 

IRL chaff without illumination by EW pods should not be effective against modern missiles in most of cases. However(accounting for poor EW modeling), such high chaff-resistance may not be the best option. We will improve such things, but this require a lot of time.

[Max1mus]

We will improve such things, but this require a lot of time.

 

Whatever the desired effectiveness is, please only release such changes when they are applied to all relevant missiles. Updating and releasing these changes for one type of missile first (like actives) leads to having different missiles that follow an entirely different physics standard in the simulator.

 

And please add them to the changelog too, while this may cause outrages on hoggit, it saves people a lot of time figuring out what changed through Trial & Error.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Max1mus

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Whatever the desired effectiveness is, please only release such changes when they are applied to all relevant missiles. Updating and releasing these changes for one type of missile first (like actives) leads to having different missiles that follow an entirely different physics standard in the simulator.

 

And please add them to the changelog too, while this may cause outrages on hoggit, it saves people a lot of time figuring out what changed through Trial & Error.

Sounds like it takes a lot of time to test these things and you seem thorough, ever consider being a beta tester?

[ZHeN]

хорнет, вайпер (и томкат, но это не к вам) по-прежнему способны сопровождать цели радаром вплоть до посадки и полной остановки и применять по ним амраамы (фениксы)

 

ракеты при этом попадают в 8 случаях из 10

 

это когда-нибудь пофиксят ?