[NO BUG] AIM120:countermeasure spoofing returned to the old value, Why??

People still think the AIM-54 is OP? :megalol:

Ask growling sidewinder to teach you how to get a kill with a 120? $140 p/m tho maybe you will get better?

I just realized my previous post was kind of nonsensical.

Last night my buddy fires amraam at mirage from 10nm at co altitude of 15000 ft and the missile missed big time. My expectation is that it would have hit the mirage.

People still think the AIM-54 is OP? :megalol:

indeed, old news

Did i said that? :no: ... you seem a little lost. :yes:

Ask growling sidewinder to teach you how to get a kill with a 120? $140 p/m tho maybe you will get better?

Fortunately idc about his BVR "tactics" ;), I dont need him to be good at BVR. But it appears you guys have started insulting peoples BVR skills rather that giving facts or participating in a productive discussion about missiles, as I expected.

All i see is whining.........

Exactly. Nobody IRL is running around notching AMRAAMs at 250KIAS intentionally trying to force a merge.

 

You can sat that about any missile, why is the AMRAAM always the exception like a specal child that needs attention. Yes probably the best MRM in the World, funny thing, it is in DCS World too.

As Falcon says you're just another new comer saying the same stuff everybody knew 15 years ago, come with some facts and make a bug report and stop with the supposed video revelations I don't possess enough cookies.

Yes its true for all modern radar missiles, I already said that. Not sure what the point is?

...You guys have given me zero reason to believe that IRL you defeat AMRAAMs (or ANY AAM, ERs included) by spamming chaff and being in the notch for 0.1 sec and immediately recommitting...

Nice to see!

 

To everyone complaining that their 120% PK missile got nerfed:

 

Chizh said very clearly that they did not want to change the counter-chaff-effectiveness of the Aim-120 with the new autopilot. It was always supposed to be comparable to the chaff-effectiveness before the autopilot change.

 

The almost perfect chaff resistance of the Aim-120 was proably introduced as an unwanted side effect of the new autopilot.

So the few months of almost complete chaff resistance were actually a bug.

Thank you for bringing clarification that what was before, what was after and how it was changed in the last patch. As I didn't even find that information as the patch notes were obscuring the change just by stating "Fixed".

When required to go through bug reports, I was annoyed that people gave so vague names for reports that didn't give straight and clear information for what was the problem. And then when others marked the bugs "Fixed" without clarification that how something was fixed.

It is not so difficult really to spend little time to clarify all the patch notes that how things were changed, like "AIM120:countermeasure spoofing returned to the old value" to become "AIM-120 Counter-Counter-Measurement returned to lower effectiveness" as one would need to know what "old" was and wasn't.

If one can't read a patch notes and understand what was fixed and how, it makes too confusing to even add them. Be it a "Bug: Targeting Pods Laser Ranging fires through buildings. Fixed: Now range is correctly measured on building model." as it doesn't leave to guess what was problem and what was a fix.

Yes its true for all modern radar missiles, I already said that. Not sure what the point is?

It has been put to ED numerous times to sort the dice roll chaff nonsense out. Obviously no easy solution, until that point why should the AMRAAM be the exception to this gamey feature and all other missiles suffer its nonsense.

@Dundun. Who's we? You mean ED, surely?

 

Let's look at the facts, ED made a well informed decision to fix the 120.

 

You are here crying and blaming Flanker pilots for that? You serious? Sounds pretty bitter and stupid thing to do, doesn't it.

 

Surely thats what it looks like. So you got two options:

 

Let it go and enjoy what is still the best missile in DCS hands down.

 

OR,

 

You have some new data to contribute? Go post on Missile Discussion thread instead of picking fights.

 

That's my 2c back to you.

 

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Im not "crying" about anything. From a enjoyment standpoint IDC how chaff resistant the AMRAAMs are. I could notch the old ones, and I can notch the new ones. If they make it hard to notch ill just respect MAR. If they dont Ill notch it. IDC. My concern is that ED is still in that phase of trying to force the "gladiatorial gunfights" as Nick Grey put it. They admited thats why the old chaff resistance of all the missiles are so horrible and unrealistic, yet it seems some people want it back there, and ED is doing it. I'm not picking fights with anyone. I asked for facts. As I said I havent seen anyone here give any evidence to convince me that modern RF AAMs are this easy to dodge IRL.

It has been put to ED numerous times to sort the dice roll chaff nonsense out. Obviously no easy solution, until that point why should the AMRAAM be the exception to this gamey feature and all other missiles suffer its nonsense.

I say raise all the missiles to the new standard of CCM, which is what I was saying in the russian missile thread.

I just realized my previous post was kind of nonsensical.

 

Last night my buddy fires amraam at mirage from 10nm at co altitude of 15000 ft and the missile missed big time. My expectation is that it would have hit the mirage.

Can you show an acmi?

It has been put to ED numerous times to sort the dice roll chaff nonsense out. Obviously no easy solution, until that point why should the AMRAAM be the exception to this gamey feature and all other missiles suffer its nonsense.

Community should come up the ideas that what replaces the current dice rolling with hard-lock function. Almost anything is improvement than the current one.

This is interesting from reddit (NineLine's comment):

Seems like maybe this wasn't communicated internally to everyone before being changed? The plot thickens.

This is interesting from reddit (NineLine's comment):

 

Seems like maybe this wasn't communicated internally to everyone before being changed? The plot thickens.

I’m sure the answer he will get is the same one from the Russian thread, that it was reverted in the absence of EW modeling that would allow chaff illumination

Why not just ditch chaff completely no chaff bug for ER aim7 120C will be op again nato fan boyd will end there crying employ ecm to f16 and f18 job done.

So the phoenix missile will follow i assume ?

Did heatblur accidently forget ?

Wasn't their whole argument to 'buff' the phoenix's chaff resistance something like "same seekerhead as 120" or something ?

So the phoenix missile will follow i assume ?

Did heatblur accidently forget ?

Wasn't their whole argument to 'buff' the phoenix's chaff resistance something like "same seekerhead as 120" or something ?

They said that? Why on Earth would a missile from the 80's have the same seeker performance as the AIM-120C5?? It should be way worse. Can you please point me to the thread about this?

"1. The phoenix has been guided like an amraam since release, because that is the only possible compromise until we can implement the new guidance with ED. However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same. "

Quote from HB ^

Thread : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=281483&page=3

So, that was the argument to buff chaff resistance of the phoenix.

But, it seems that now they uhm, i don't know, forgot ?

Why not just ditch chaff completely no chaff bug for ER aim7 120C will be op again nato fan boyd will end there crying employ ecm to f16 and f18 job done.

I mean its so memey in DCS RN that i wouldnt mind ED just removing it.

So the phoenix missile will follow i assume ?

Did heatblur accidently forget ?

Wasn't their whole argument to 'buff' the phoenix's chaff resistance something like "same seekerhead as 120" or something ?

The AIM-54 is not hard to chaff rn, easier than the current 120s, have you like actually tested it?

The countermeasure value for the phoenix C variant is still the same as the 'pre-nerf' aim120 c . Their whole argument to get that buffed to aim 120 levels at the time was because "basically same seekerhead performance bla bla".

So, isn't it weird that this argument is first used to 'buff' , but ignored completely when it would mean a 'nerf' ?

"1. The phoenix has been guided like an amraam since release, because that is the only possible compromise until we can implement the new guidance with ED. However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same. "

 

Quote from HB ^

 

Thread : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=281483&page=3

 

So, that was the argument to buff chaff resistance of the phoenix.

But, it seems that now they uhm, i don't know, forgot ?

Seeker power output has little to do with CCM/ECCM beyond noise jamming. CCM and ECCM it's more about the related target selection algorithms and signal analysis etc, which would be much better on a newer seeker.

The AIM-54A was introduced in 1974 and the AIM-54C (with an improved seeker), in 1986. The AIM-120C(-1) was introduced in 1994 and the C-5 variant in 2003. There is no way that seekers in missiles that were introduced that many years apart have the same capabilities with respect to target selection etc. Unless the only improvements were on the on the side of ECCM and not CCM, which would make the seeker performance comparable in DCS, because we don't have any serious ECM to speak of.

Please note that I'm not arguing with you personally, just giving my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the link, I'll go take a look in that thread as well.