Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMRAAM Chaff Bug

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by dundun92 View Post
    I think your confusing "keeps in the air flying for long time" and having a doppler shift. Yes chaff stays airborne for a long time, but only for a very short time does it have a Vc above the doppler filter. Once the chaff drops below the Vc filter (again this happens very quickly, chaff is very light), the radar can filter it out as normal. Now if the plane is passing through the beam when dispensing chaff, and the chaff has a higher RCS, its very likely that it could, for that moment, switch to the chaff, and temporarily take the beam off the target. However as most sources make clear, the chaff will drop below the doppler filter very quickly, and the missile would go back into search/memory, and find you when you reaqcuire IF you are in the FoV, which would be true for the almost instant recommits you see me doing in the vid.

    Now IK that proper chaff modeling isnt quite so simple to emulate. But at least ED, for now, can tune things so the same net effect is produced: e.g, you cant expect to notch for 0.1 sec and recommit and not expect the missile to find you again. And this is for all the DCS RF missiles.
    Actually so much more is going on, however chaff just doesn’t disappear cause it’s not moving. A radar beam or radar pulse is nothing more then just radiation going out and bouncing back to the antenna yes there is multiple ways pulses can be manipulated but no matter What radar your using everything is going to reflect energy back to the antenna, even a cloud. So yes even though the radar is a Doppler shift radar the Radar still has to deal with everything out there. So chaff just doesn’t disappear when it slows down. In fact as the missile is getting closer the Antenna will have so much energy bouncing back from the chaff the radar will not be able to detect anything else plus there is also a minimum range between objects before a radar can determine the difference and although it is small it is still in the meters. So that’s why we have anti clutter circuits to help the user or help the radar process what’s going on within the pulses. So if chaff is over whelming the antenna then the radar will have to use AGC of some sort (or another circuits we use on our own radars but don’t wish to talk about) which is now making the antenna less sensitive which now helps it to detect pulses that are bouncing of a moving target but that now decreases detection range and it also takes time, in fact it will Most likely be using pulse to pulse integration to build up enough research to now determine that there is actually a moving target, it’s not instant And it can actually take a second or 2 or even 3. Now every time it loses the target it will have to go through the process again and depending on how long it has lost track can mean the processing has to start from the beginning taking all that time again. So while the radar is dealing with all that the target has now flown outside the missiles FOV so unless it’s updated by datalink it will never find the target again cause it has recalculated the intercept point by its last track, I know someone here will talk about how it has 60degree FOV but even that is pushing the boundary as that will more then likely be on the very limits of the 3db point so will only pickup targets that are very close meaning the target actually won’t be hugely off bore sight before it picks it up again. I’m not confident on what I can say so I’ll leave it at that but I have had doubts for awhile that the Aim-120 can be so resistant to chaff. Especially against aircraft will low RCS
    Last edited 09-28-2020, 11:37 PM.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Blinky.ben View Post
      I know someone here will talk about how it has 60degree FOV but even that is pushing the boundary as that will more then likely be on the very limits of the 3db point so will only pickup targets that are very close meaning the target actually won’t be hugely off bore sight before it picks it up again.
      With FOV they are refering to the gimbal limit of the seeker, which is propably +/-60°.

      But the -3dB beamwidth (the beamwidth of the seeker antenna) will be far far less. To cover the whole +/-60° gimbal in both dimensions the seeker has to do mechanical scanning with its antenna which will take some time (not really modelled in DCS).

      Comment


        #23
        Im not saying the chaff just dissapears, im saying that the radar can filter out the chaff reflections because it has the wrong frequency. Granted, you could overwhelm the seeker at really close range, but thats clearly not whats going on here, at least not at the ranges encountered here. And BlackPixxel is correct, the AMRAAM works like a normal radar scan; it has a narrow beam that is swept across the 60° FoV, and it should take some time, though not a whole ton. Definitely would be an issue if the lock is lost at close ranges however. Also afaik its ±30 for a total of 60° though i could be wrong here.


        EDIT yup I was wrong it is ±60° for a total of 120°
        Last edited 09-29-2020, 12:40 AM.
        Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?
        HP Z400 Workstation
        Intel Xeon W3680(i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-...J-QUX5M7Dh1pGg
        sigpic
        The Alamo Squadron is looking for dedicated Air-to-Air focused pilots
        For more detailed recruiting information, see our forums.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by BlackPixxel View Post
          With FOV they are refering to the gimbal limit of the seeker, which is propably +/-60°.

          But the -3dB beamwidth (the beamwidth of the seeker antenna) will be far far less. To cover the whole +/-60° gimbal in both dimensions the seeker has to do mechanical scanning with its antenna which will take some time (not really modelled in DCS).
          I came back cause I realised what I said about this was not stated correctly. Thanks for that tho

          But one thing I would Like to put out there. People in the DCS community do have a lot of knowledge in certain areas so we will always find some way to point out something that’s wrong. But in the end it is impossible to programme real world correctly so in the end the Aim120 we have is a very good missile and is easily the best missile in DCS. There’s no cheating going on and people will always want the missile that wins no matter how fake it my be. So let’s be happy with what We have so the dev’s can start spending time on more thing to benefit everyone. At least till the meteor comes out anyway lol
          Last edited 09-29-2020, 12:19 AM.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Blinky.ben View Post
            Actually so much more is going on, however chaff just doesn’t disappear cause it’s not moving. A radar beam or radar pulse is nothing more then just radiation going out and bouncing back to the antenna yes there is multiple ways pulses can be manipulated but no matter What radar your using everything is going to reflect energy back to the antenna, even a cloud. So yes even though the radar is a Doppler shift radar the Radar still has to deal with everything out there. So chaff just doesn’t disappear when it slows down. In fact as the missile is getting closer the Antenna will have so much energy bouncing back from the chaff the radar will not be able to detect anything else plus there is also a minimum range between objects before a radar can determine the difference and although it is small it is still in the meters. So that’s why we have anti clutter circuits to help the user or help the radar process what’s going on within the pulses. So if chaff is over whelming the antenna then the radar will have to use AGC of some sort (or another circuits we use on our own radars but don’t wish to talk about) which is now making the antenna less sensitive which now helps it to detect pulses that are bouncing of a moving target but that now decreases detection range and it also takes time, in fact it will Most likely be using pulse to pulse integration to build up enough research to now determine that there is actually a moving target, it’s not instant And it can actually take a second or 2 or even 3. Now every time it loses the target it will have to go through the process again and depending on how long it has lost track can mean the processing has to start from the beginning taking all that time again. So while the radar is dealing with all that the target has now flown outside the missiles FOV so unless it’s updated by datalink it will never find the target again cause it has recalculated the intercept point by its last track, I know someone here will talk about how it has 60degree FOV but even that is pushing the boundary as that will more then likely be on the very limits of the 3db point so will only pickup targets that are very close meaning the target actually won’t be hugely off bore sight before it picks it up again. I’m not confident on what I can say so I’ll leave it at that but I have had doubts for awhile that the Aim-120 can be so resistant to chaff. Especially against aircraft will low RCS

            Even if its a gamey emulation (like instant scans delayed by a few seconds etc) it would be nice if the new EW system tried to take a lot of this into account so NEZ shots could have a bit more weight to them

            Comment


              #26
              it is impossible to programme real world correctly
              But it is possible to do better than they've done. Again, watch the tacview at the end of the first video. It is incontravertible.
              P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Hawkeye_UK View Post
                Yea rarely fly against FC3 aircraft in our pvp server re point and shoot. way to easy and my request to make them harder is born out of a desire not to have it easy. Rare to see the FC3 aircraft going up unless we have a new player etc, most migrate onto the JF17 re redfor

                Slightly OT, but:
                Not sure I understand what your point exactly is..

                So are FC3 aircraft too easy as in too easy to shoot down in your opinion? Don't agree, highly depends who is flying them. I've met some very capable operators in FC3 Aircraft and also some not impressive ones in full blown modules.Nothing to do with the actual aircraft.

                Also at least the F-15 is still a very credible BVR threat.Within visual range the russian line up is not too shabby either ,except for the frogfoot of course.


                If you meant it the other way around, as in FC3 are to easy to fly or are point&shoot.
                Hmmm whats the difference to getting in my F-14/18/16/ Mirage whatever and hitting the next ACM radar mode on my HOTAS and off I go? Its not like you need to do a super complicated system set up first , likely the reason most modern fighter have some sort of dogfight quick mode or another to avoid that.

                Most of the FC3 aircraft also have a PFM by now as well, so they' re not game-ier/ easier to fly.

                Just curious what you meant exactly.

                Regards,

                Snappy

                Comment


                  #28
                  Most of the FC3 aircraft also have a PFM by now as well, so they' re not game-ier/ easier to fly.
                  Except for the F-15, which has no structural g-limit. It can do 12+ g break turns all day long without consequence.
                  P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by gavagai View Post
                    Except for the F-15, which has no structural g-limit. It can do 12+ g break turns all day long without consequence.
                    ...being nitpicky but that has nothing to do with the FM. You could do the same in the F-18 before they added the over-G modeling. Its the DM that needs upgrading. I just dont think ED thinks its very high priority tbh. But this is all super OT
                    Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?
                    HP Z400 Workstation
                    Intel Xeon W3680(i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-...J-QUX5M7Dh1pGg
                    sigpic
                    The Alamo Squadron is looking for dedicated Air-to-Air focused pilots
                    For more detailed recruiting information, see our forums.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by Snappy View Post
                      Slightly OT, but:
                      Not sure I understand what your point exactly is..

                      So are FC3 aircraft too easy as in too easy to shoot down in your opinion? Don't agree, highly depends who is flying them. I've met some very capable operators in FC3 Aircraft and also some not impressive ones in full blown modules.Nothing to do with the actual aircraft.

                      Also at least the F-15 is still a very credible BVR threat.Within visual range the russian line up is not too shabby either ,except for the frogfoot of course.


                      If you meant it the other way around, as in FC3 are to easy to fly or are point&shoot.
                      Hmmm whats the difference to getting in my F-14/18/16/ Mirage whatever and hitting the next ACM radar mode on my HOTAS and off I go? Its not like you need to do a super complicated system set up first , likely the reason most modern fighter have some sort of dogfight quick mode or another to avoid that.

                      Most of the FC3 aircraft also have a PFM by now as well, so they' re not game-ier/ easier to fly.

                      Just curious what you meant exactly.

                      Regards,

                      Snappy
                      Hey Snappy, both. As in super easy to operate, no challenge, easy flight models, easy to meta play. As i say on our server you mainly see new players going up in them, or people seeking to exploit the attributes. It's all to point and shoot, questionably over accurate rapid radar pictures, god like datalink etc. Perhaps i'm being harsh given been playing with the flanker on and off for over 20 years.

                      Also easy to kill the flankers out in the open since the 120 improved guidance/range combined with TWS coming into the game on the 16/18 in the last year. Hence i would suggest given the numerous contributions on the russian forums complaining of countermeasure resistance i would hypothesize that's what has brought the change, reading between the lines. The FC3 players wanted to reduce the probability of them being shot down.

                      As for PFM, they do not compare to the fidelity of the FF modules so i'd take that with a large grain of salt. Systems wise obviously they are massively simplified, take IFF or lack of it for example. Also being honest let's take the F15 as you mention it, its highly credible because of its ridiculously high G ability which can out turn any missile, its super easy to close on targets if exploited correctly its almost a cheat mode. its radar well that's another discussion, as i said we look on it as meta play to be honest.

                      As for snap hotas dogfight modes, yep but you have to know more than 3 keybinds to get their in the first place. I really do not want to get embroiled in a FF/FC3 debate, i have no interest in the subject, but its sufficient to say that at least the FF modules require some minimal study and practice.

                      Whilst we don't really use the FC3 aircraft the 120 getting toned down with chaff resistance affects the gameplay on 18vs16/JF17's, 16v's JF17's, 14's vs18's etc. Not really bothered about FC3 its the knock on effect for those wanting to employ BVR tactics correctly (and i don't mean airquake) combined with Strike and SEAD/DEAD packages.

                      At the end of the day i say have fun, that's what matters, whilst its sold as a simulation many elements of it are purely what it is, a game. That said we shouldn't be looking at balancing gameplay all because certain sectors of the community are unhappy, that is a slippery slope, the one thing that draw's many is that it is an approximation.

                      I see many comments on here, some from avid flanker fans, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just hope one day we get a full fidelity Flanker as for the more serious servers the FC3 aircraft will then no doubt be completely removed from redfor.
                      ---------------------------------------------------------------

                      DCS | F14B | AV-8B | F18C | F16C | A10C | JF17 | Viggen | L-39 | MIG 15 | SU27 | SU33 | F15 | MI8 | Huey | KA50 | Gazelle | P47 | Spitfire | CA | Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | Channel | Syria

                      Liquid Cooled i7 9700K @ 5Ghz & OC RTX2080 Ti Ultra | 64GB DDR4 3200 MHz | 500GB SSD m2 | Oculus Rift S | TM Warthog | Virpil T50/Warbrd Base | Cougar MFD | Saitek Side Panel | Steel Series Arctis 7 Heaphones

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Ps sorry i had already hit reply, went to make a drink, came back and finished then posted. 2 other replies in between that i hadn't read as in the message posting screen, but to note not only me that has picked up on the 15.
                        ---------------------------------------------------------------

                        DCS | F14B | AV-8B | F18C | F16C | A10C | JF17 | Viggen | L-39 | MIG 15 | SU27 | SU33 | F15 | MI8 | Huey | KA50 | Gazelle | P47 | Spitfire | CA | Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | Channel | Syria

                        Liquid Cooled i7 9700K @ 5Ghz & OC RTX2080 Ti Ultra | 64GB DDR4 3200 MHz | 500GB SSD m2 | Oculus Rift S | TM Warthog | Virpil T50/Warbrd Base | Cougar MFD | Saitek Side Panel | Steel Series Arctis 7 Heaphones

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Originally posted by gavagai View Post
                          Except for the F-15, which has no structural g-limit. It can do 12+ g break turns all day long without consequence.
                          If only it only pulled 12g .....exceeds that.
                          ---------------------------------------------------------------

                          DCS | F14B | AV-8B | F18C | F16C | A10C | JF17 | Viggen | L-39 | MIG 15 | SU27 | SU33 | F15 | MI8 | Huey | KA50 | Gazelle | P47 | Spitfire | CA | Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | Channel | Syria

                          Liquid Cooled i7 9700K @ 5Ghz & OC RTX2080 Ti Ultra | 64GB DDR4 3200 MHz | 500GB SSD m2 | Oculus Rift S | TM Warthog | Virpil T50/Warbrd Base | Cougar MFD | Saitek Side Panel | Steel Series Arctis 7 Heaphones

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Hawkeye,

                            OK I now understand what you mean, thanks for explaining !
                            Don't necessarily agree with all points , but as you said, there 's probably little use in a full blown FFvs FC3 debate. Both have their high and low points.

                            Thanks again and have a good day,

                            Regards,

                            Snappy

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X