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

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.

Hey i'm just quoting Heatblur man.

Heatblur buffed the chaff resistance of the phoenix C missile because, and i quote heatblur AGAIN:

"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"

So, why not change it back again ? Heatblur forgot by accident or something ? I mean, they BUFFED it because of "same as aim 120" , but they don't revert it back when 120 gets changed ?

Isn't that weird ?

Hey i'm just quoting Heatblur man.

Heatblur buffed the chaff resistance of the phoenix C missile because, and i quote heatblur AGAIN:

"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"

 

So, why not change it back again ? Heatblur forgot by accident or something ? I mean, they BUFFED it because of "same as aim 120" , but they don't revert it back when 120 gets changed ?

Isn't that weird ?

OR just not in patch notes and forgot by ED? And was changed. I 100% none of us tested it lol

OR just not in patch notes and forgot by ED? And was changed. I 100% none of us tested it lol

It wasn't changed or at least it's still better than the AIM-120C has now. Currently, ccm_k0=0.1 for the AIM-120C and ccm_k0=0.05 for the AIM-54C. Lower is better.

Yeah, well isn't that weird when heatblur´s argument to buff it was :

"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"

The realism argument only works one way it seems ?

Hey guys, this is the answer I received:

 

"Balance has nothing to do with it. Everything is simpler. We first increased AMRAAM's ability to chaff reject on the erroneous assumption that its CCM capability would diminish with the new autopilot and navigation. But the missile capabilities did not diminish, but rather increased. After this was shown to us and we checked ourselves, we returned the old values."

 

I apologize for the delay, we should have had this answer at the time of update. I hope this clears things up.

Thanks for letting us know why it was changed for the correct reason :thumbup: This bug is fixed close thread.

Right, but why isn't heatblur fixing their mistake ?

They just keep the wrong value ?

Right, but why isn't heatblur fixing their mistake ?

They just keep the wrong value ?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4430136&postcount=1

DCS F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations

Fixed broken normals on NACA vents on engine nacelles.

Fixed the boxy halo around the afterburners visible at night.

Increased strength of landing (taxi) light.

Corrected countermeasure resistance for AIM-54 missiles.

He even said patch notes were missed.

That "corrected" is old , look at the date :D

It's when they BUFFED the chaff resistance for the phoenix missile to be the same as for the aim 120 . Dude, i mean, really ? You are not very up to date.

Now that the aim 120 has it's chaff resistance lowered, so should the phoenix because heatblurs argument for buffing was "aim 120 seekerhead and phoenix seekerhead = same perfomance so we keep chaff resistance value THE SAME"

take it up with heatblur then i dont know

They're just deleting my posts

Im not surprised.

Me neither.

They don't have an answer as to why a 1970's analog seeker missile has almost double the chaff resistance as a modern aim 120

80's. The 54C has a late 80's seeker. It may have been about as capable as a 120A or maybe even an early B, but that's about the best it could do IMHO. It could be a but ahead of the A just because it as already a mature system and the sheer size of the missile combined with the ability to miniaturize electronics at that point may have helped a bunch.

The chaff resistance for the A and B phoenix missiles is set to 0.06 .

They are 70's , and analog seekerheads right ?

Also, at first chaff resistance of the 54's was 0.5, but heatblur buffed that to 0.05 because: (the argument they used) the seekerhead of the phoenix c and aim 120c was 'the same performance'.

So remember, argument for buff was "phoenix seekerhead same as aim 120".

But now that the aim 120 chaff resistance is corrected (in effect, worsened 2x) , heatblur decides NOT to keep it the same as the aim 120, but instead keep the old (buffed) erronous values.

This makes me wonder, why ? It appears as if the earlier used argument only applies in certain situations. (so buffs only, when it's nerf : ignore)

Even the old analog A and B's have almost twice the chaff resistance of a modern aim 120 now. And they're not changing it apparently.

They are now , ironmike just posted this :

"We already adjusted the values internally for the next patch."

Good i hope they won't forget (again)

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

 

 

Also, nobody here is bitter except you guys (understandably) over how ED has neglected the Flanker.

this.

Only thing reliable IRL is MAR. We did tests pre and post patch at very different altitudes. All 120 MARs have decreased in the recent patch, but not by a lot.

Main reason is : missile now briefly lose track in the middle of slice down maneuver. no chaff were used, purely energy tests.

Current REDFOR meta in DCS is

1. Split S/Slice down at MAR

2. lose 20k feet at mach 2 while notching (which IRL would send a pilot to the hospital for like 3 weeks due to pressure difference)

4. recommit

5. shoot

If FC3 radars were not instant all seeing AND/OR if bluefor SAMs were not that shitty (meaning having a true 15k feet hard deck and ability to shoot shit bellow 1k feet AGL), it would be a totally different story.

We are very far from realism as far as DCS BVR engagements are concerned, but it is not necessarily a missile issue IMO.

If FC3 radars were not instant all seeing

FC3 radars are neither instant nor all seeing.

They have a scan time, and range wise all of the FC3 radars are below their real life counterparts.

Meanwhile the F-16 radar is heavily overperforming, because it is right now just like a copy of the F-18 radar.

this.

 

Only thing reliable IRL is MAR. We did tests pre and post patch at very different altitudes. All 120 MARs have decreased in the recent patch, but not by a lot.

 

Main reason is : missile now briefly lose track in the middle of slice down maneuver. no chaff were used, purely energy tests.

 

 

Current REDFOR meta in DCS is

1. Split S/Slice down at MAR

2. lose 20k feet at mach 2 while notching (which IRL would send a pilot to the hospital for like 3 weeks due to pressure difference)

4. recommit

5. shoot

 

If FC3 radars were not instant all seeing AND/OR if bluefor SAMs were not that shitty (meaning having a true 15k feet hard deck and ability to shoot shit bellow 1k feet AGL), it would be a totally different story.

 

We are very far from realism as far as DCS BVR engagements are concerned, but it is not necessarily a missile issue IMO.

Huh? well FC3 is not instant, Flying f-18 its radar is more than instant............

Yea the FC3 radars 100% take time to scan. If you want a radar to attack for being OP just look at our F-16 radar which is almost as good as the RL F-15 radar. Even our F-18 radar is over performing, albeit by not as much.

Meanwhile the F-16 radar is heavily overperforming, because it is right now just like a copy of the F-18 radar.

Its definitely over performing but its not quite as good as the F-18s. This is especially noticeable vs cold targets. Our F-18 is pretty much on par with the RL F-15 radar.:megalol:.

The chaff resistance for the A and B phoenix missiles is set to 0.06 .

They are 70's , and analog seekerheads right ?

Ok, yep. ED sets that era at 1.0 to 3.0 off the top of my head, which makes them eat chaff beyond anything reasonable IMHO. But for sure 54A should not be having AIM-120Anything performance.

Probably but they should still be decently resistant being an active PD seeker. Not that the current interaction is realistic with chaff just being flares for radar missiles.

TBH they should remove chaff alltogether, rework multiplayer architecture to get rid of all desync issues and then tune missiles to work well without chaff or any EW. Then subsequently add all these elements.

It's nonsensical to trigger kills based on a client's PoV, while all other clients see something else. It brings so much inconsistency that even if you tune the other things it will make it extremely hard to monitor the results and determine if something works as intended or not.