Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[Darkwolf]

Anyway whatever ED do to missile, half of the board will complain one way or another.

 

I am not a missile expert and will leave some people that knows more talk about details. However for those who have been away, be aware that missiles flight model calculation has completely changed last year. It is now more advanced - and it is likely not perfect at the moment. (eventually failed- but i can't judge by myself ;) ). I am convinced Eagle Dynamics is aware of this and i'm sure it is not leftover, however they are working in a lot of things and this may not be their prime priority.

 

A constructive step would be to "study" ED missile dynamics, instead of relying on 'feelings', and make some charts. that would help point inaccuracy, and this will obviously help everyone adapting their tactics with this hard data.

[pyromaniac4002]

I had the standard eight 120's and was at angels 40 painting some newbie headed towards me in the weeds for about 15 or so.

 

Reading this made me burst out laughing. 8 x AIM-120s is not the "standard loadout," it's a SPAMRAAMing noob's loadout. And if you have any familiarity with DCS, you know that hanging out at 40,000 feet gives you absolutely no advantage. Anyone who knows what they're doing either stays "in the weeds" like your opponent or dives down there when the missiles start flying. Also, you were on his RWR. Basically you're doing just about everything wrong, including coming on the forums and telling everyone how wrong you're doing it.

 

The point is if you change the AMRAAM but you skip the others you're not making it more realistic' date=' you're just creating bullshit.[/quote']

 

Nobody is talking about fixing the AMRAAM but leaving everything else broken except you. The idea is to make the simulator (because it is a "simulator" rather than just a "game") reflect the real-world behavior of the things it simulates.

 

Or you want it to be too real. This is a friggin game and as much as I want it to it's not getting much closer to anything realistic. Even the so called FULL REALISM A-10C has next to nothing to do with the real airframe. But people tend to forget this in their clickable barbie house.

 

:chair:

 

It's honestly baffling every time someone makes this argument. First off, the A-10C module has plenty to do with the real airframe. It's not the newest version of the A-10C and it's not a complete representation, but it has a hell of a lot to do with the real A-10C. It actually has more to do with the A-10C than anything else you could buy and install on your computer, so it's definitely in the running for "things most A-10C-like."

 

You act like it's a foregone conclusion that ED could do anything to make the game more realistic, and that's the real bullshit. The missiles were much more accurate to their real-life performance before the AFM. ED tried to make the missiles more realistic but in practical terms they made it less. They can make the game more realistic by fixing what they broke like 2 years ago, and they should. Anyone that has a problem with that should be playing Tom Clancy's HAWX.

 

Remind me again how many kills were scored in actual combat beyond 15nm. Not a lot eh?

 

How many World War IIIs have we had since that World War II happened? Oh, right. None.

 

What we've seen since BVR has been introduced are limited-scale conflicts and limited-scale combat has some restrictive rules of engagement. If something like World War III broke out between evenly-matched opponents, you can bet your ass you'd see plenty of BVR. Fighter aircraft are almost never allowed to engage bandits from maximum range, especially the most modern and capable ones. It doesn't mean they can't fight BVR or don't excel at doing it.

[TAW_Blaze]

A constructive step would be to "study" ED missile dynamics, instead of relying on 'feelings', and make some charts. that would help point inaccuracy, and this will obviously help everyone adapting their tactics with this hard data.

 

That was done enough times already..

 

Nobody is talking about fixing the AMRAAM but leaving everything else broken except you. The idea is to make the simulator (because it is a "simulator" rather than just a "game") reflect the real-world behavior of the things it simulates.

 

I came up with that there is a finished AMRAAM model but it won't be implemented until the other missiles are overhauled. They related to it and I explained to them that makes no sense.

 

It's honestly baffling every time someone makes this argument. First off, the A-10C module has plenty to do with the real airframe. It's not the newest version of the A-10C and it's not a complete representation, but it has a hell of a lot to do with the real A-10C. It actually has more to do with the A-10C than anything else you could buy and install on your computer, so it's definitely in the running for "things most A-10C-like."

 

Yeah. Flight model is close, 3D model is close. Weapons systems? They pretend they are close, they aren't. It's a combat simulator after all isn't it? Surely it's the best representation in commercial market. That doesn't mean it's FULL REALISM.

 

You act like it's a foregone conclusion that ED could do anything to make the game more realistic, and that's the real bullshit. The missiles were much more accurate to their real-life performance before the AFM. ED tried to make the missiles more realistic but in practical terms they made it less. They can make the game more realistic by fixing what they broke like 2 years ago, and they should. Anyone that has a problem with that should be playing Tom Clancy's HAWX.

 

I don't act like it, there's no hope to fix guidance. There's hope for kinematics to be fixed. As long as ED continues with their current business strategy nothing good is going to happen to guidance. It's been more or less the same junk for a very long time anyway. The same shit goes for multiplayer. They haven't even managed to make a new lobby. Multiplayer only exists because some people from my squadron and a bunch of other enthusiasts push ED to do stuff. Otherwise DCS would be single player only.

[USARStarkey]

That was done enough times already..

 

 

 

I came up with that there is a finished AMRAAM model but it won't be implemented until the other missiles are overhauled. They related to it and I explained to them that makes no sense.

 

 

 

Yeah. Flight model is close, 3D model is close. Weapons systems? They pretend they are close, they aren't. It's a combat simulator after all isn't it? Surely it's the best representation in commercial market. That doesn't mean it's FULL REALISM.

 

 

 

I don't act like it, there's no hope to fix guidance. There's hope for kinematics to be fixed. As long as ED continues with their current business strategy nothing good is going to happen to guidance. It's been more or less the same junk for a very long time anyway. The same shit goes for multiplayer. They haven't even managed to make a new lobby. Multiplayer only exists because some people from my squadron and a bunch of other enthusiasts push ED to do stuff. Otherwise DCS would be single player only.

 

100% Agree. Getting ED to do anything about realism on some things just isnt going to happen. Just look at the the Link 16, been missing since lock on. They had time to add a gimped "AFM" for the missiles, do a PFM for the eagle, work on a graphics engine that still isnt release, add several WW2 planes, many other projects, and we still dont have well documented systems for the F-15 that has been in game since day 1. Yet the flanker has its data link...hmmm

[NineLine]

This feels overly negative and far from helpful, most things you list are WIP, none of these things are easy, I think the realism settings on peoples expectations need to be fixed as much as anything at times.

 

100% Agree. Getting ED to do anything about realism on some things just isnt going to happen. Just look at the the Link 16, been missing since lock on. They had time to add a gimped "AFM" for the missiles, do a PFM for the eagle, work on a graphics engine that still isnt release, add several WW2 planes, many other projects, and we still dont have well documented systems for the F-15 that has been in game since day 1. Yet the flanker has its data link...hmmm

[TAW_Blaze]

But they have time to fix the rear gunner of the Tu-22, fix some rocket launcher 3d models, and all of this stuff that nobody cares about. Just to pretend something happened in a patch. Not to mention all these projects about planes with no contemporary or environment to fit in. Why is it so difficult to make a set of planes from one era. Might aswell make zeppelins then..

[NineLine]

But they have time to fix the rear gunner of the Tu-22' date=' fix some rocket launcher 3d models, and all of this stuff that nobody cares about. Just to pretend something happened in a patch. Not to mention all these projects about planes with no contemporary or environment to fit in. Why is it so difficult to make a set of planes from one era. Might aswell make zeppelins then..[/quote']

 

You are comparing apples and oranges, do you think the guy doing the Missile AFM is the same as the guy doing the rocket launcher 3D model? And because YOU dont care about something doesnt mean that everybody doesnt care about it...

[USARStarkey]

This feels overly negative and far from helpful, most things you list are WIP, none of these things are easy, I think the realism settings on peoples expectations need to be fixed as much as anything at times.

 

:)This whole game can be considered work in progress. But a decade of not having the Data Link is just crazy. This is only one of many issues that have not been fixed despite being known for eons. Criticism is by definition negative. People are tired of the nonsense, which is why this is one of about a billion threads on this general issue. Cant imagine why that would be. Given this, one would imagine that perhaps people don't actually care very much about rocket 3d models and Tu-22 gunners over basic fundamental game issue like having broken missiles and missing unclassified features and not being able to see anything. :)

Perhaps, just perhaps, when you have 90 zillion people complaining about it, and even those who go the length of writing whole reports on reverse engineering missiles in a attempt to get things changed----Then it might be the thing people care about. :) Perhaps it shouldnt take 11 years for planes in the original iteration of this game to get functional modeling of systems whose existence and general capability is well known. Perhaps peoples expectations of ED 's realism would be less if ED wasn't constantly touting its "unrivaled" realism as part of ever bloody model when they release it. :)

 

Smiles to enhance positive nature of post.

[Buckeye]

Is it just me or have they completely gimped Slammers?

 

And if you have any familiarity with DCS, you know that hanging out at 40,000 feet gives you absolutely no advantage. Anyone who knows what they're doing either stays "in the weeds" like your opponent or dives down there when the missiles start flying. Also, you were on his RWR. Basically you're doing just about everything wrong, including coming on the forums and telling everyone how wrong you're doing it.

 

 

If you're in an F-15, you are very wrong here.

Edited September 24, 2014 by =Buckeye=

[NineLine]

In your mind, how easy would Data Link be to add, I mean to code, etc... has it blocked you from enjoying the sim, does it block you from playing it? Is it the most important thing DCS WOrld needs right now? I know its easy to get tunnel vision on the stuff you want, but thats not the way it works.

 

There is such a thing as constructive criticism, its possible to convey issues without being negative, repeating a problem that has been acknowledge is not constructive, posting about a perceive issue without concrete proof is not constructive either, these are just a few examples... they may or may not be relevant to this post, but I see it all over the forums.

[Buckeye]

There is such a thing as constructive criticism, its possible to convey issues without being negative, repeating a problem that has been acknowledge is not constructive, posting about a perceive issue without concrete proof is not constructive either, these are just a few examples... they may or may not be relevant to this post, but I see it all over the forums.

 

 

Being on a WIP list doesn't mean much to some people when it's been on that list for a while and there has seemingly been no progress made (no we don't know that is true for certain, but we also don't know for certain that progress HAS been made). That's the issue that is driving the negativity you are seeking to avoid, and until it's finished and off the list it's going to be very difficult to avoid the negativity from those who have simply run out of patience.

 

I, personally, am fine with waiting and being patient, but at the same time I realize they have a very valid point.

[NineLine]

Fine, but there is no excuse for being overly negative or anything else when it comes to these issues. All you ca do is submit your issue, show as much data to support it, and leave it in ED's hands. What one person thinks is important doesnt translate as important for the overall health of the sim AND an important issue doesnt mean it can be solved easily or fast... ED wont communicate progress with anyone, because when issues arise and timelines change people get their panties wadded up.

 

We made this bed, we need to sleep in it...

 

PS:

 

1.10. - Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, up to Bring A Particular issue Repeatedly After it has already Been Acknowledged will be Considered "trolling" - in such Cases A Warning will be Issued to the Author and the Post will be removed.

 

Being on a WIP list doesn't mean much to some people when it's been on that list for a while and there has seemingly been no progress made (no we don't know that is true for certain, but we also don't know for certain that progress HAS been made). That's the issue that is driving the negativity you are seeking to avoid, and until it's finished and off the list it's going to be very difficult to avoid the negativity from those who have simply run out of patience.

 

I, personally, am fine with waiting and being patient, but at the same time I realize they have a very valid point.

Edited September 24, 2014 by NineLine

[karambiatos]

I still find it funny how people compare high level coding with low level coding with 3d modeling, as if its the same person making 3d models and texturing and then coding the entire aircraft.

 

Though if there is such a person at ED, i bow down to him for he is the messiah.

 

though a complaint about having a new Mig-31 and su-24 model when the mig-29 looks what it looks like, is valid, most likely.

 

That is not to say that people complaining about missing systems do not have a point on their own.

Edited September 24, 2014 by karambiatos

[NineLine]

Here is the bottomline on this

 

Missiles are a WIP, both FM and guidance... they are trying to model to a level never done before, its not easy... its actually rocket science lol... so this issue is acknowledge... you can discuss it till you are blue in the face, but ED is aware that work needs done.

 

I still find it funny how people compare high level coding with low level coding with 3d modeling, as if its the same person making 3d models and texturing and then coding the entire aircraft.

 

Though if there is such a person at ED, i bow down to him for he is the messiah.

 

though a complaint about having a new Mig-31 and su-24 model when the mig-29 looks what it looks like, is valid, most likely.

 

That is not to say that people complaining about missing systems do not have a point on their own.

[TAW_Blaze]

Do they have the engineers who are capable of reproducing appropriate guidance? From what I've heard so far they don't.

[NineLine]

Do they have the engineers who are capable of reproducing appropriate guidance? From what I've heard so far they don't.

 

 

That I dont know. I think its time and complexity over lack of ability. Modelling guidance on mostly classified stuff can prove challenging :)

[USARStarkey]

Here is the bottomline on this

 

Missiles are a WIP, both FM and guidance... they are trying to model to a level never done before, its not easy... its actually rocket science lol... so this issue is acknowledge... you can discuss it till you are blue in the face, but ED is aware that work needs done.

 

Ok, but noone is saying it isn't WIP. I think what people would like is a in depth explanation of what the limiting factors are in making any meaningful progress on this and other issues afflicting BVR. The AFM for the missiles was introduced ages ago. The fundamental issues with it haven't changed much since then---a year ago. If it is a information problem, what specific information is missing? If its a math issue, why does it take a year to make zero major changes? If ED doesnt know exactly how to fix it and there isnt any expectation for the required information to ever surface, then that should be stated. If that is the case, what is ED's intention? To just sit on it forever and not tell anyone? Again, if the issue can be fixed, what is the limiting factor and when might ED get what the need to fix it?

[NineLine]

Its a WIP, it continues to progress, progress doesnt always mean a public patch. That is all you are going to get right now, when they are ready to update us, they will.

 

Ok, but noone is saying it isn't WIP. I think what people would like is a in depth explanation of what the limiting factors are in making any meaningful progress on this and other issues afflicting BVR. The AFM for the missiles was introduced ages ago. The fundamental issues with it haven't changed much since then---a year ago. If it is a information problem, what specific information is missing? If its a math issue, why does it take a year to make zero major changes? If ED doesnt know exactly how to fix it and there isnt any expectation for the required information to ever surface, then that should be stated. If that is the case, what is ED's intention? To just sit on it forever and not tell anyone? Again, if the issue can be fixed, what is the limiting factor and when might ED get what the need to fix it?

[falcon_120]

I think it should be in the high priority list, many patches now without changes, nor a complaint just an observation.

[NineLine]

I think it should be in the high priority list, many patches now without changes, nor a complaint just an observation.

 

Most of the recent patches have been for adding new aircraft and minor bug fixes, dont expect anything more on missiles till 2.0 and after, thats not official, thats my opinion.

[Frostie]

Features missing from Eagles that result in relative realism imbalance compared to IRL:

 

1. No Eagle data link

The F-15 in DCS has the cockpit of an APG-63PSP variant therefore it must be 20th century tech.

JTIDS was cancelled in 1989 so the F-15 didn't receive D/L until the introduction of MIDS which began with 200 F-15 being fitted in the early part of the 21st century.

 

2. No inertial guidance after lock lost.

This is not an F-15 issue, it affects several missiles.

3. Missing radar features of APG-63 make tactics like notching or ducking behind mountains far more effetive

All measure of features missing from every flyable. The only outstanding one that would help this situation is contact history which is sorely missed but for every feature missing on F-15 I could name an equally important feature on another a/c.

4. Across the board BVR missile ineffectiveness. Reducing effective range.

 

What this ends up meaning is that a hostile opponent is under essentially no threat until he is about 9-20nm depending of the geometry of the engagement. If he is trying to hide down low, he only has to effectively notch perhaps once or twice to get under the enemy radar assuming the eagle is adjusting flight path to constantly require. (especially since he doesnt have to fear continued detection via AWACS or a wingman on datalink) If they are both low and no notch is occuring, then can still close much closer before any effective shooting begins. Essentially, the window of opportunity for the BVR person is much smaller than in IRL, meaning that the WVR person has a much higher chance of closing. I end up in dogfights because of this all the time. I have seen people dodge multiple missiles as close as 5nm. And this all gets quite irritating when you think about how if they ever fix the visbility in this game to a reasonable level, WVR will get pushed out to about 7nm.

 

I totally agree on it bringing the fight closer to WVR but on the other side of the fence having an effective big stick like the R-27ER, keeping the BVR long range is priority because having to run the gauntlet against an active less than 20 km is very undesirable. Keeping the BVR long range doesn't work anymore so what you think is bad for Eagle pilots is also bad for Flanker pilots.

 

In FC1 the F-15 could succesfully make kills over 40nm in servers and was an extremely potent killer from angels 50. But likewise the R-27ER was also a BVR killer but without the silent efficiency of the AMRAAM. The balance was there but because of the nature of the terrain many fights still ended WVR. The main issues with missiles was that the ARHs lacked speed and the SARHs were easily chaffed. The active seekers were overmodeled in the scan area like all sims overmodel stuff to compensate for the complexities they can't simulate such as MCU and missile datalink etc.

 

Now the issue I have is where is the info that says X missile should hit a hard maneuvering target from x range everytime, there isn't any. All we know is that missiles kill drones everytime and missiles usually have poor Pk in real combat. So people play their uber sims with underdeveloped overmodeled missiles which kill on sight and then believe this must be reality. I'm not disputing it isn't but lacking any real evidence and noticing the general real world Pk of missiles I harbour doubts.

 

Regarding FC3 there is a definate issue with range yes and also an issue with guidance, but it affects all missiles and where does it state that missiles don't get confused, kinematically drained or out maneuvered after all these are realistic defences against missiles. Missiles fail and missiles miss, sims over the years have been tailored to satisfy the user and brainwashed us into thinking missiles are infalable.

[TAW_Blaze]

All measure of features missing from every flyable. The only outstanding one that would help this situation is contact history which is sorely missed but for every feature missing on F-15 I could name an equally important feature on another a/c.

 

Yeah TWS radar memory missing is a real pain.

 

Now the issue I have is where is the info that says X missile should hit a hard maneuvering target from x range everytime, there isn't any. All we know is that missiles kill drones everytime and missiles usually have poor Pk in real combat. So people play their uber sims with underdeveloped overmodeled missiles which kill on sight and then believe this must be reality. I'm not disputing it isn't but lacking any real evidence and noticing the general real world Pk of missiles I harbour doubts.

 

Regarding FC3 there is a definate issue with range yes and also an issue with guidance, but it affects all missiles and where does it state that missiles don't get confused, kinematically drained or out maneuvered after all these are realistic defences against missiles. Missiles fail and missiles miss, sims over the years have been tailored to satisfy the user and brainwashed us into thinking missiles are infalable.

 

How do you excuse multiple slammers missing on a straight flying targets head on launched inside NEZ? How do you excuse slammers lofting 30 degrees up from angels 40 launched on a target at 5 000 ft 12 nm in front of you then 3 seconds later pull 90 degrees down to waste every piece of energy it has?

 

I've seen enough fancy maneuvers to dodge missiles and many of them present an incredible level of understanding of game mechanics and also execution. I'm not arguing to make missiles something uber that they should hit every time.

 

But.

 

There are cases where there is absolutely no reason for them to miss yet they do.

 

/this is not an insult to ED's work/

[Frostie]

How do you excuse multiple slammers missing on a straight flying targets head on launched inside NEZ? How do you excuse slammers lofting 30 degrees up from angels 40 launched on a target at 5 000 ft 12 nm in front of you then 3 seconds later pull 90 degrees down to waste every piece of energy it has?

 

I've seen enough fancy maneuvers to dodge missiles and many of them present an incredible level of understanding of game mechanics and also execution. I'm not arguing to make missiles something uber that they should hit every time.

 

But.

 

There are cases where there is absolutely no reason for them to miss yet they do.

 

/this is not an insult to ED's work/

I agree there is work to be done on certain aspects but the whole my missile should have hit complaint has been going on since before time began.

[GGTharos]

Do any of you have a point that hasn't been made before or are you all just upping your post counts? Not all of you, you know who you are.

[RIPTIDE]

 

But.

 

There are cases where there is absolutely no reason for them to miss yet they do.

 

/this is not an insult to ED's work/

Yep. As I said to my cohorts recently.... it would appear that there was a Guidance Malfunction dice roll with every shot.