AIM-7 Disable loft please

double bump

I'm starting to wonder if ED ever even looks in here anymore, or cares about FC3...

I'd prefer the loft for the 7 to work correctly. This means that:

IF the switch for loft is ON

AND

IF the aircraft is pitched 20 degrees or more above the horizon

AND

IF time to target greater than some amount (40 sec)

Loft the AIM-7MH.

This can work fine for both the 18 and 15 and 14 ... for the 15, just assume the loft switch is always on, but don't loft if the other conditions are not met.

No rush, this would be new functionality anyway so not expecting it overnight or anything.

If you want to do a stopgap fix, set the loft distance to 36000m and this will satisfy most people.

20nm min. for a lofting Sparrow? Or did I understant loft distance wrong?

Hi, any news as another week has past.

Hi

 

This is not a bug as far as I am aware for the F-15, but I am enquiring about the suggested changes.

 

This will not be something that gets looked at overnight, so don't expect any quick changes. As mentioned Chizh will be looking at the missiles in the new year.

Hi, thank you very much for your answer.

It might not be a bug for F-15. But if many really experienced DCS pilot say it is broken on F-15, then it might need a review.

As far as I can see the potential fix for the broken AIM7M/AIM7MH on F15 can be as simple as changing two numbers in one txt file in the game client.

Of course I fully respect the ED team's professional spirit in making things perfect. Finding a much more sophisticated way to improve the missile behavior.

Please take your time. We will be patiently waiting. But as I said, I see many familiar names of quite experience players in all the posts that I can find regarding to this lofting issue on F-15. Let's not call it a bug, it might just be something that worth look into. :)

Many thanks!

The way this works on the F-15 is terrible enough to quality as a bug.

Two very easy fixes exist:

Turn off loft by default (it's not really needed) or extend the range-beyond-which-you-loft to 36000m. Both are very, very easy changes to make; I make them in the missile mod and they're literally a matter of changing one line of text.

It would be nice to see this sorted in the next patch.

I understand that realistic, more complex lofting logic needs a much longer look - but this little fix does not.

Hi

 

This is not a bug as far as I am aware for the F-15, but I am enquiring about the suggested changes.

 

This will not be something that gets looked at overnight, so don't expect any quick changes. As mentioned Chizh will be looking at the missiles in the new year.

The way this works on the F-15 is terrible enough to quality as a bug.

 

 

 

Two very easy fixes exist:

 

 

 

Turn off loft by default (it's not really needed) or extend the range-beyond-which-you-loft to 36000m. Both are very, very easy changes to make; I make them in the missile mod and they're literally a matter of changing one line of text.

 

 

 

It would be nice to see this sorted in the next patch.

 

 

 

I understand that realistic, more complex lofting logic needs a much longer look - but this little fix does not.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I have spoken with Chizh they will consider this change when the missiles get reviewed in the future.

 

thanks

Thank you so much!

20nm min. for a lofting Sparrow? Or did I understant loft distance wrong?

That's what it would end up being. Sounds really excessive and could limit the AIM-7's performance pretty significantly.

Given how the sparrow loft is meant to be used (knowledge gained from limited materials), no it wouldn't.

Sparrow loft is quite specifically intended to extend Rmax some 20%. It is activated by selecting loft AND pitching the aircraft up. There are other logic rules around the activation which I don't recall off the top of my head.

Missile loft implementation is not the same or equal for all missiles IRL.

I think minimizing time to impact is much more important than increase Rmax. IRL the algorithm cannot be this ridiculously simple as only involves middles school mathematics...

Calculus is a must here to solve the optimization problem for either Rmax or time to impact. Of course, only very basic Calculus is involved here...

Given how the sparrow loft is meant to be used (knowledge gained from limited materials), no it wouldn't.

 

Sparrow loft is quite specifically intended to extend Rmax some 20%. It is activated by selecting loft AND pitching the aircraft up. There are other logic rules around the activation which I don't recall off the top of my head.

 

Missile loft implementation is not the same or equal for all missiles IRL.

If we're modeling the real missile, then it is what it is. However the range suggestion is supposed to be a "good enough" stand in if I'm understanding correctly.

From my own testing I've seen superior performance gained from lofting within 20 nmi (again I admit to having to deal with the AI, which can bias the tests), and of course Rmax is going to vary with altitude anyway.

I think minimizing time to impact is much more important than increase Rmax. IRL the algorithm cannot be this ridiculously simple as only involves middles school mathematics...

 

Calculus is a must here to solve the optimization problem for either Rmax or time to impact. Of course, only very basic Calculus is involved here...

We have almost no insight into the actual implementation other than instructions written in the manuals.

You might be right, you might be optimistic - that last part shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

A long range AIM-7 shot is only good if you have a really big RCS target, since the sparrow is pretty much lock on right off the rail and is then guided via PN with some range-to-target (or TTG?) based capability schedule.

If we're modeling the real missile, then it is what it is. However the range suggestion is supposed to be a "good enough" stand in if I'm understanding correctly.

 

 

From my own testing I've seen superior performance gained from lofting within 20 nmi (again I admit to having to deal with the AI, which can bias the tests), and of course Rmax is going to vary with altitude anyway.

By all means, suggest a better range.

However the current lofting algorithm fails to take anything but range into account. What works for you now might not work under different circumstances, ie a high-low shot.

We have almost no insight into the actual implementation other than instructions written in the manuals.

 

You might be right, you might be optimistic - that last part shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

 

A long range AIM-7 shot is only good if you have a really big RCS target, since the sparrow is pretty much lock on right off the rail and is then guided via PN with some range-to-target (or TTG?) based capability schedule.

I mean the current implementation by ED or the proposed possible future implemented in this thread are all too simple to be efficient. If you look into the code of current AIM7M/MH lofting logic: It only looks at the distance between you and the target. If it is longer than about 5NM, then aim7 flys initially flys at the required angle plus 30 degree up for four seconds. Then resume on an intercepting course to the target.

I would say a six grader can write a better algorithm than that. If the real missiles engineers do something like that then he should be tied on the missile and fired.

At least one should consider the time of impact and also the lofting trajectory should be optimized as well. You are not shooting 1 dollar 556 bullet after all. The cost of one missile should be enough to at least hire a college graduate to work on the optimization problem.

That is basically why many others and I think the current lofting mechanism of AIM7 on F15 is a bug. The missile will work much better if this kind of lofting behavior is disabled.

By all means, suggest a better range.

 

However the current lofting algorithm fails to take anything but range into account. What works for you now might not work under different circumstances, ie a high-low shot.

Generally I've found the 7M to work for me as it is now. A missile lofting for a close high-low shot can be exploited, but from what I've seen if the target turns to run, the loft tends to do better as the non loft shot just bleeds off all of its speed in dense air. Also as far as I know the 7F isn't meaningfully inferior in DCS (please correct me if I'm wrong), so carrying them alleviates the problem if you don't like to loft. If the F has reduced seeker performance as compared to the real M, then I guess changing the loft behavior makes more sense.

As far as loft cut off range, I'd want to say maybe 7-10 nmi. I'll have to see if I still have the tracks comparing F and M. 20 nmi is probably OK above 30000 ft, but if you have to shoot lower I'm pretty sure it's a detriment.

^ Nice angst. (not you Exorcet, you ninja'd me)

I mean the current implementation by ED or the proposed possible future implemented in this thread are all too simple to be efficient.

The proposal is an absolute stop-gap and everyone knows it.

If you look into the code of current AIM7M/MH lofting logic: It only looks at the distance between you and the target. If it is longer than about 5NM, then aim7 flys initially flys at the required angle plus 30 degree up for four seconds. Then resume on an intercepting course to the target.

I maintain the missile mod, I know all about it.

I would say a six grader can write a better algorithm than that. If the real missiles engineers do something like that then he should be tied on the missile and fired.

 

At least one should consider the time of impact and also the lofting trajectory should be optimized as well. You are not shooting 1 dollar 556 bullet after all. The cost of one missile should be enough to at least hire a college graduate to work on the optimization problem.

 

That is basically why many others and I think the current lofting mechanism of AIM7 on F15 is a bug. The missile will work much better if this kind of lofting behavior is disabled.

I've already sent a better algo to ED.

FYI, yes, it does operate on TTI - there is also doubt that it is applicable to the MH, which seems to do something far simpler.

The 7M should have no loft at all.

Generally I've found the 7M to work for me as it is now. A missile lofting for a close high-low shot can be exploited, but from what I've seen if the target turns to run, the loft tends to do better as the non loft shot just bleeds off all of its speed in dense air. Also as far as I know the 7F isn't meaningfully inferior in DCS (please correct me if I'm wrong), so carrying them alleviates the problem if you don't like to loft. If the F has reduced seeker performance as compared to the real M, then I guess changing the loft behavior makes more sense.

 

 

As far as loft cut off range, I'd want to say maybe 7-10 nmi. I'll have to see if I still have the tracks comparing F and M. 20 nmi is probably OK above 30000 ft, but if you have to shoot lower I'm pretty sure it's a detriment.

M should have no loft, only MH. Regarding tail-aspect shots, I agree. But frankly that close range thing as it is right now is extremely annoying. In MP this is pretty much on the border of the range you're taking shots at.

Regarding 7F, should be a LOT more vulnerable to chaff. I'd be ok with 10nm. I consider it slightly too close, while at the same time it doesn't really cover your tail-chase use case. This is because the whole thing operates on range instead of TOF.