Ракеты в DCS

[nighthawk2174]

9 hours ago, Chizh said:

Yes, there is such a problem.

All radar missiles now have near instant capture. We have plans to introduce a lock delay for missiles with extreme autopilot and sensors implementation. We will do this primarily for the AIM-120.

 

F-16 onboard equipment issues should be discussed in another topic.

 

I mean it is a monopulse radar it can get range and angle information with only one pulse I see no reason that the delay to acquire would be anything more than fractions of a second so long as the target is in the FOV (especially if the missile is getting datalink updates).  As pointed out by GG things like more realistic gate modeling and things like proper HPRF to MPRF mode for the amraam are probably going to be more impactful. 

[Chizh]

15 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Would you also introduce capture gates instead of 'target game object #1234'?  Ie. closure/angle/range gate, eventually provided in different formats (for example AWG-9 does this differently than an AMRAAM platform).  A lock-on delay is great but these other things are better IMHO.  Also, how much can this delay be?  The AIM-7 is used as close as 1500' in dogfighting IRL so this is probably fractions of a second, unless a there is a search phase.

 

There is also the question of how many targets can a missile discern in its FoV instantaneously (what about con-can vs monopulse?) for the purposes of search and target selection.

Also, where things become more guesswork:  should missiles do a raster search if they cannot find a target where they are expected to look?

 

Finally, I have information on how sparrow handles some of the above problems and it seems like it would be a common method to most missiles.

Probably next step.

[Breakshot]

I mean it is a monopulse radar it can get range and angle information with only one pulse I see no reason that the delay to acquire would be anything more than fractions of a second so long as the target is in the FOV (especially if the missile is getting datalink updates).  As pointed out by GG things like more realistic gate modeling and things like proper HPRF to MPRF mode for the amraam are probably going to be more impactful. 

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS).

This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

Anyway glad that ED is looking into this matter.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[nighthawk2174]

18 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS).


This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

 

 

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

 

Right but why would it take more than fractions of a second to acquire the target?  Plus lets just assume that it does take some time, it still wouldn't matter much as English bias commands would give the seeker the initial information it needs to keep the target in the seeker fov anyway.  So again in comparison to proper gate modeling and HPRF-MPRF modes (again assuming that your assumption is right, which I don't hink it is, its probably a truly minor factor.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[dundun92]

5 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Right but why would it take more than fractions of a second to acquire the target?  Plus lets just assume that it does take some time, it still wouldn't matter much as English bias commands would give the seeker the initial information it needs to keep the target in the seeker fov anyway.  So again in comparison to proper gate modeling and HPRF-MPRF modes (again assuming that your assumption is right, which I don't hink it is, its probably a truly minor factor.

 

 

I think you and breakshot are talking about different things.  You are correct is that once the target has a SNR acceptable enough to be picked up, there isnt gonna be some sort of significant acquisition delay. What breakshot is referring to is the fact that the DCS AIM-120 has a fixed detection range for all aspects. closures, and lookup/lookdown. There is no SNR simulation at all. The AIM-120 shouldnt pickup a hot lookup target at the exact same range as a cold lookdown target.

[falcon_120]

I think you and breakshot are talking about different things.  You are correct is that once the target has a SNR acceptable enough to be picked up, there isnt gonna be some sort of significant acquisition delay. What breakshot is referring to is the fact that the DCS AIM-120 has a fixed detection range for all aspects. closures, and lookup/lookdown. There is no SNR simulation at all. The AIM-120 shouldnt pickup a hot lookup target at the exact same range as a cold lookdown target.

This is true, but what if the defined pitbull range is already considering a good %of locking success (good Snr) for incoming and cold target (eg. Radar is going pit bull at 8nm but acceptable locking range is 14 nm for hot and 8nm for cold target for 5m2 rcs targets...)

This of course is classified info and I don't think we are going to get this info anywhere.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

There's some unclassified info regarding these ranges wrt HPRF (husky) but not MPRF - aka pitbull.    The 120 can lock onto a target from quite far head-on, possibly surprisingly far.  We don't know anything about the MPRF functionality and the 120 has an interesting battery stack which could indicate MPRF capability that doesn't quite align with an aircraft radar comparison for example.

As usual, MPRF doesn't care about aspect.

 

Point being very little is known or understood about the PRF effect on anything here since the information is lacking.  The search process, other than what's known for sparrow, is also not known for the 120 although it 'seems' obvious that under certain circumstances it would have to raster instead of stare.

[dundun92]

2 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

This is true, but what if the defined pitbull range is already considering a good %of locking success (good Snr) for incoming and cold target (eg. Radar is going pit bull at 8nm but acceptable locking range is 14 nm for hot and 8nm for cold target for 5m2 rcs targets...)

This of course is classified info and I don't think we are going to get this info anywhere.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Thats fair, but I doubt it would wait until the 8nm to start searching. Itd likely start searching from further out, and using the DL attempt to find the target as quickly as possible.

[Rich]

On 7/13/2021 at 9:13 PM, BlackPixxel said:

 

Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.

 

On 7/13/2021 at 9:14 PM, Chizh said:

Yes

 

Will R-27 also be corrected and use PN instead of pure pursuit when HOJ?

Edited July 17, 2021 by Rich

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, Rich сказал:

 

 

Будет ли R-27 также исправлен и будет использовать PN вместо чистого преследования при HOJ?

 

Not

[BlackPixxel]

Why not? What prevents it from guiding like an IR missile, so purely based on angular rate and angle of the seeker head? Who says that the pure pursuit is the correct form of guidance?

[nighthawk2174]

Its a horrible form of guidance for A/A missiles, i'd be shocked truly shocked if it uses pure at all in any mode.  PN is just a significantly better form of guidance.

Edited July 17, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[tavarish palkovnik]

...

Edited April 23 by tavarish palkovnik

[Max1mus]

On 7/17/2021 at 6:51 AM, Chizh said:

Not

 

Could you elaborate?

[Breakshot]

Not

You are so close to normalizing a good standard for A2A missiles in DCS and ER has been worked on recently. Why not finish it once and for all? Fix its PN (to same standard as other missiles)

Why leave things hanging in the air for more years?

Perhaps ED team can look into this from a general game dynamics standpoint?

Introduce new features that affect A2A uniformly and don't leave missiles and dynamics that are fundamental to the MP community neglected (your most hardcore group of customers).

People like to pay for complete products. Not a 5yr WIP plans, and having to chase the developer. All these affect the gameplay, hence we are here.

Less moaning from customers, more fun!

Don't treat everything as just a 'bug report'...

Just MHO.

Anyway, recent progress brings some optimism. Looking forward to new upcoming patches.

S!





Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[FoxAlfa]

On 7/18/2021 at 4:10 PM, tavarish palkovnik said:

Tavarish Palkovnik, where are this number coming from, so I can crossreference them with DCS?

 

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

...

Edited April 23 by tavarish palkovnik

[Hoarfrost]

какие сейчас планы по ракетам ? До конца года 77-ю получим?

[Hulkbust44]

On 7/15/2021 at 3:46 AM, Breakshot said:

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS).

This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

Anyway glad that ED is looking into this matter.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Uh, you CAN'T support the missile all the way, it doesn't work like that. 
"This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range."
lmao, that defeats the point of the missile design.

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Uh, you CAN'T support the missile all the way, it doesn't work like that. 
"This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range."
lmao, that defeats the point of the missile design.

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.

[Breakshot]

 
Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.

@chizh can you please also look into making the relevant PN adjustment and remove variable PN logic and loft for SD10 and Aim54s vs ECM.

Because they can just be manually lofted into space with a high pitch angle. ECM makes no difference to those missiles.

Thanks

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Hulkbust44]

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.

What missile are you talking about? Certainly doesn't work that way for an AIM-120C-5. Once pitbull the datalink connection is severed and the missile is on its own.

Mobius708

[Breakshot]

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.

Exactly! This is how it should be. A supported missile should have much better PK than an unsupported one.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[dundun92]

18 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

What missile are you talking about? Certainly doesn't work that way for an AIM-120C-5. Once pitbull the datalink connection is severed and the missile is on its own.

Mobius708
 

No. Supporting 120s does increase PK, there are post active DL updates. All relevant manuals (F-16 -34 to name 1) support this

[nighthawk2174]

21 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

What missile are you talking about? Certainly doesn't work that way for an AIM-120C-5. Once pitbull the datalink connection is severed and the missile is on its own.

Mobius708
 

Yes it doesn't work this way in DCS as of right now but it should work this way

 

20 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

Exactly! This is how it should be. A supported missile should have much better PK than an unsupported one.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Yes it'll result in a higher PK but the missiles even without out datalink updates the missile is still going to be extremely resistant to both countermeasures and notching.  Datalink updates are just the icing ontop for the rare circumstances where something weird happens or there are friendlies mixed in with hostiles.

Edited July 22, 2021 by nighthawk2174