Jump to content

Air-to-Air Missile Discussion


Shein

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

um, wasn't the point of this to be that the 27ER should NOT lose its target and NOT go after chaff at all. End of Story.

 

So, in the game the 27ER will sometimes track chaff instead of the intended target. Does this need to be fixed OR will the 27ER if locked on target miss due to chaff ? and we are just complaining?

 

thanks

Intel i9-9900K 32GB DDR4, RTX 2080tiftw3, Windows 10, 1tb 970 M2, TM Warthog, 4k 144hz HDR g-sync.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point you make about all shots being look up really doesn't guarantee tracking. Missiles aren't perfect even in real life, why would you expect them to be in game. Back in FC2 I figured out a technique where I could evade an R-77 at 8nm head-on while supporting an AIM-7. The R-77 was fired looking up. AIM-7s and AIM-120s seem to miss sometimes where it would seem nonsensical, without the bandit going defensive. I don't believe the ERs are any more flawed than the rest because none of them are realistically perfect. "Optimum conditions" are still not perfection as it would unrealistic to expect such. I still get smacked by ERs from time to time, when trying my hardest to evade, while in advantageous position.

 

We are discussing FC3. This is not pK. I am only testing tracking. Would you commission/buy a missile that did not track 60% of the time it was supposed to? Chaff is WW2 technology.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 missile launches.

ONLY 7 TRACK CORRECTLY WHEN THEY ALL SHOULD.

7 missguide for despite optimum conditions.

 

Ptrack, as before, still only 0.44. Abysmal performance still.

 

ED/Chizh, Any comment? Are you planning to improve on this?

I don't think all of the missiles in the track files should track perfectly, for example when the bandit performs a perfect notch the chaff would be at its most effective, but the instances where the missile lose track because of chaff in a head on situation beggar belief. How can it be right that a bandit can fly head on drop chaff and defeat a solid unhindered lock and track, nonsense.

 

The point you make about all shots being look up really doesn't guarantee tracking. Missiles aren't perfect even in real life, why would you expect them to be in game.

All missiles are susceptible to post-launch failure but this failure rate is quite low, more in the region of 10%. ED's missiles don't suffer from mechanical failure so missile failure is a moot point.

The point of this test I believe is to evaluate the current versions chaff effectiveness which actually includes every missile. Rage is focusing purely on the R-27ER for balanced results.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think all of the missiles in the track files should track perfectly, for example when the bandit performs a perfect notch the chaff would be at its most effective, but the instances where the missile lose track because of chaff in a head on situation beggar belief. How can it be right that a bandit can fly head on drop chaff and defeat a solid unhindered lock and track, nonsense.

 

Agreed. But they very often miss even head on, as you say, or even if a lousy notch is attempted...far far from a perfect notch in which case I could understand if they miss sometimes. The chaff power of distraction is so high that currently they usually missguide in the notch and often miss head on.


Edited by ///Rage

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are discussing FC3. This is not pK. I am only testing tracking. Would you commission/buy a missile that did not track 60% of the time it was supposed to? Chaff is WW2 technology.

 

This being FC3 doesn't make my point any less valid. As it has been mentioned in the forums before, the seeker behavior code is largely unchanged from FC2 to FC3. The largest changes have been around aerodynamics and kinematics, AFM code. They changed the chaff itself, which has an an effect on seeking. Would I personally buy something with a 60% failure rate, probably not. Doesn't mean military organizations have always had the benefit of options. Lots of early version of missiles were quite poor starting off but still had to be fielded. I've mentioned before interviews of USAF pilots regularly salvoing AIM-7s in pairs cause they expected and experience a 50% failure rates. I don't think the laws of physics have changed much since WW2, still working as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the laws of physics have changed much since WW2, still working as intended.

 

If the R-77 have 15 km of effective range with a 40 % against chaff and the R-27 have 50 % effectiveness against chaff, that mean this special law of physics have not solution and should be fixed, but they ingnore us, simple like that.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly, people like to bring up Vietnam when the argument is made that 'AMRAAM should be better', yet I see no one bringing it to your argument even though it really deserves it ;)

 

In any case, this is really moot if my suspicions are correct, and we'll all need to just sit tight and wait for replacement of the CM code.

 

We are discussing FC3. This is not pK. I am only testing tracking. Would you commission/buy a missile that did not track 60% of the time it was supposed to? Chaff is WW2 technology.

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly, people like to bring up Vietnam when the argument is made that 'AMRAAM should be better', yet I see no one bringing it to your argument even though it really deserves it ;)

 

In any case, this is really moot if my suspicions are correct, and we'll all need to just sit tight and wait for replacement of the CM code.

 

;) Amraams in vietnam? They were barely used in the gulf war (with little success if you count pilot testimony on discovery wings a source). Yet I agree they should be effective when employed correctly.

 

By Ed's own admission, FC3 is its most successful line. A2A combat is at the heart of this simulator. Despite the huge improvements since Lockon I see a decline in multiplayer. If you don't respect an Aim120 launch within 30km you should (and will) die. Currently you can just dump chaff and carry on happy fat and dumb past a barrage of ERs. This is not the simulator I want. I suspect its not the simulator you want either. The question is will ED do anything about it? When I first started this thread I did not expect an instant solution. If ED say they will re-write the CM code to deal with this issue than thats great. But they haven't (to my knowledge). And they defend the (seeker) status quo. If I had not started this thread would the chaff bug have been corrected?


Edited by ///Rage

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read slower and more carefully. :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dcs please make products closer to reality, make some corrections

 

dcs I'm a fan of the work done by you guys, but I'm a little sad because I'm hoping you guys improve the data of missiles but that is not happening, please fix the burn time on the first stage and second stage, please fix the speed of the missile as the corresponding altitude, please fix the range of missiles.

 

 

grateful.

 

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dcs I'm a fan of the work done by you guys, but I'm a little sad because I'm hoping you guys improve the data of missiles but that is not happening, please fix the burn time on the first stage and second stage, please fix the speed of the missile as the corresponding altitude, please fix the range of missiles.

 

 

grateful.

 

thumbup.gif

 

Sure there are problems , but:

Where is the Data ?


Edited by PeterP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A2A work as they should.

:megalol:

 

 

sure they do, if you compare them to missiles from the 60s, but its true they are being worked on, albeit slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i take it you never played FC2 then.

 

and realistic missile evasion tactics are differently not being employed people or are they not needed currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the missiles, both A2A and A2G work as they should.

They've been worked on for 20 years since the Flanker series.

And now they all also have the AFM and fly realistic speeds and trajectories.

 

You asking for a fix without any examples or corresponding data is just absurd.

 

And you defending the status quo so stridently without corresponding data is just absurd.

 

You say that everything regarding missile performance is correct ("All the missiles...work as they should"), yet you don't present any data to back up this claim. Sure, there is such a thing as burden of proof, but saying that the missiles "work as they should" means there's no room for improvement or refinement. That's a bold claim, one even ED will disagree with. Where's the evidence for that?

 

The problem here is that the arguments you are using to hold other people to account apply to you too, yet you fail to consider this. You deride other people for "com(ing) in as if (they) are the expert", yet you fail to understand that you give the same bad impression.

 

Moreover, you need to stop with this "20 years" of development argument. It's nonsense. Just because something has been worked on for 20 years doesn't necessarily make it better or correct. You say that missiles "work as they should" after 20 years, but by own your logic, wouldn't 21 years of development be better? Why not 25 years? Or 30? Why, after 20 years, does ED just happen to have it correct?

 

Furthermore, if we accept your claim that more time in development means better performance (not always), can you provide evidence that there actually has been "20 years" of development on the missiles as you claim? Or is it more likely that this is the amount of time ED has been developing games, as opposed to missiles.

 

Finally, the tone of your posts does not help your rhetorical position. Your sarcastic use of smilies to poke fun at people's positions doesn't endear you to anyone, and it is simply boorish to imply that someone is too young to be taken seriously ("probably before you knew that simulators existed").

 

A little humility and respect for others is in order.


Edited by Crescendo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bold claim, one even ED will disagree with. Where's the evidence for that?

 

Indeed, the missiles 'working as they should' is only a product of the best of the knowledge we can publicly gather, tempered by what can be implemented.

 

Or is it more likely that this is the amount of time ED has been developing games, as opposed to missiles.

 

Missiles are a very small part of the overall software in terms of weight of code and development time.

 

(That said, ED isn't done improving them, but improvements are going to take time. A lot of time - and I mean this in both the data adjustment sense and the addition of features sense)

 

A little humility and respect for others is in order.

 

Very good advice.

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False. It's up to you to prove that the missiles are wrong, not the other way around. It's innocent until proven guilty.

 

I can state with confidence that the missiles have been worked on for many years and thus are extremely well simulated.

 

The ball is in the corner of those who are trying to prove otherwise.

 

I mentioned the concept of "burden of proof" in my first post in an attempt to diffuse this criticism.

 

The problem is that your default position, your claim that "all missiles...work as they should", is logically absurd, to the effect that you have your own burden. You will be proved wrong when new patches are released and further adjustments to the missiles are made, all of which shouldn't occur if the missiles indeed work as they should. The wasteful loft trajectory of active missiles in their 'pull down' phase is just one example of something that will need to be addressed in the future.

 

It's interesting that this is the only part of my post you chose respond to. That said, at least "20 years" of missile development has now transformed into "many years", although the problems with that still remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False. It's up to you to prove that the missiles are wrong, not the other way around. It's innocent until proven guilty.

 

I can state with confidence that the missiles have been worked on for many years and thus are extremely well simulated.

 

The ball is in the corner of those who are trying to prove otherwise.

take a chill... Sept 30th, 2013

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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