New Aim-120 Thoughts?

To me the SD-10 feels like a “crowd pleaser”. There is no evidence provided by DEKA that what they’ve done is based on real data. Of course there never will be such data. The real data is classified. All they can do is educated guessing.

DEKA is being smart about getting a lot of PR features. The JF got the most advanced weapons (based on half-baked ED API) – and everyone wants to play with the newest and coolest toys, right?

They do everything so that the product will sale. I get that… It’s a different philosophy than Eds. In a way- its even countering Eds approach to be honest.

So, I wouldn’t compare the SD-10 to the AIM-120. There’s really no way to do it properly… Personally I trust ED more. They’ve done a long way to build their reputation. Overall, they show that they try to go the extra mile for realism when they decide to go “simulation way” with their heavy modules and projects. DEKA still got some way to go to prove us that they’ve got the highest realism standard.

This! That's exactly what I think as well.

After looking at nighthawks cfd charts,

And correct me if I’m wrong, but it does indeed seem as if the ED CFD and IASTAG CFD parallel each other almost perfectly. So drag does not seem to be the issue.

The biggest handicap right now is indeed the burn time. If the ED AMRAAM where to burn as IASTAG estimated then it would follow the IASTAG drag curve nearly perfectly correct?

After looking at nighthawks cfd charts,

 

And correct me if I’m wrong, but it does indeed seem as if the ED CFD and IASTAG CFD parallel each other almost perfectly. So drag does not seem to be the issue.

 

The biggest handicap right now is indeed the burn time. If the ED AMRAAM where to burn as IASTAG estimated then it would follow the IASTAG drag curve nearly perfectly correct?

The slopes looks very similar indeed. But the Lift/Drag parameters are only one part of the issue (in my opinion not even the biggest/most important).

Engine performance and boost time is classified for very clear reasons. You can speculate and make educated guesses... but those are guesses. ED line of thinking makes sense. They pointed out why they choose the parameters as they did.

I find the control design a crucial part and the autopilot a crucial part. Both are classified. The control - I think that every Mechanical/Aeronautical engineer will do a good job overall. The theory is very clear. The actual physical implementation will be very hard because the SPEC for aeronautical parts that need to sustain combat environment - is VERY demanding. Because in the sim the implementation do not required physical parts but only the theoretical design - it seem they've done a serious effort to build a good functioning system.

The autopilot - it's an optimization problem. It DAMN CRUCIAL. It dramatically effect the PK. And its... classified. For the same aerodynamic properties you can make missiles with a hugely different operational characteristics only due to the autopilot factor.

So, you can do the best job with creating multiple scenarios - but it's still a guess. The real algorithms are secret.

Has anyone else noticed the massive deceleration, that is actually greater than before, in the 2200-1100 knot range? It’s almost as if it’s flying through water even at 40k. A missile can have the best guidance and chaff/notch resistance in the world, but if it does not have enough energy to hit the target than what is the point? Here is are two videos showing the differences between the open beta and stable version AMRAAMS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3WCgOyc2T8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTbMXoT0BI

Now, I do indeed see that ED found a higher zero lift drag in that region of speed, but it is by a small amount it seems. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276513

The lift induced drag on the next graph seems to have been nearly cut in half at certain CL values. I would think that this would have a much greater effect seeing as how a lift force is almost always present for a flying body correct? Perhaps this is not the correct way to think about it and forgive me if it is not as I am relatively new to aerodynamics.

Also from what I am interpreting from Chizh’s post, the new AMRAAM should have better range not worse. Here is a direct quote ”Based on our internal testing, we have found that it provides a profound lethality in the AIM-120 in both range and tracking”. Again, from what I am seeing, this is definitely not the case for range.

In conclusion, I do believe ED in their CFD analysis. How could one argue that based on all the work they did? But the fact that the AMRAAM is even worse now than before in terms of deceleration and range and after looking at the data and comments, I am led to think that perhaps the new aerodynamic values did not come through the update. If not then I suppose the AMRAAM is just a bad missile.

I haven't played with it yet as I've been at work and/or doing other things but I'm getting the impression that some people seem to have new missile data and some don't...

I'd suggest a repair and clean boot and run the tests again. there are certainly people reporting that the missile is now operating as ED says it should be post patch.

I haven't played with it yet as I've been at work and/or doing other things but I'm getting the impression that some people seem to have new missile data and some don't...

 

I'd suggest a repair and clean boot and run the tests again. there are certainly people reporting that the missile is now operating as ED says it should be post patch.

Works as advertised here, I wonder if some of the other posters claiming the old behavior are on stable.

Works as advertised here, I wonder if some of the other posters claiming the old behavior are on stable.

It would be great if someone else could share a tac view or YouTube video on the open beta.

You are seeing better ranges correct than in the stable correct?

UPDATE:

Been running more tests.

Strait level Aim-120C shot, mach 1.05, 30000 ft.

Open Beta Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds Missile Travels 24.3 nm. 59.1 seconds to decelerate from 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 78 seconds--->24.3nm 59.23 seconds-----> 2000-600 knots.

Stable Version Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds missile travels 25.18nm. 55.2 seconds----> 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 25.7nm after 78 seconds, 57.46 seconds------->2000-600 knots.

Something just does not seem right here folks. It would seem my AMRAAMS are not as advertised.

Side Note. Agm-88 has less of a decceleration than the AMRAAM.

To me the SD-10 feels like a “crowd pleaser”. There is no evidence provided by DEKA that what they’ve done is based on real data. Of course there never will be such data. The real data is classified. All they can do is educated guessing.

DEKA is being smart about getting a lot of PR features. The JF got the most advanced weapons (based on half-baked ED API) – and everyone wants to play with the newest and coolest toys, right?

They do everything so that the product will sale. I get that… It’s a different philosophy than Eds. In a way- its even countering Eds approach to be honest.

So, I wouldn’t compare the SD-10 to the AIM-120. There’s really no way to do it properly… Personally I trust ED more. They’ve done a long way to build their reputation. Overall, they show that they try to go the extra mile for realism when they decide to go “simulation way” with their heavy modules and projects. DEKA still got some way to go to prove us that they’ve got the highest realism standard.

Yep I’m with you on that

It would be great if someone else could share a tac view or YouTube video on the open beta.

You are seeing better ranges correct than in the stable correct?

 

 

UPDATE:

Been running more tests.

Strait level Aim-120C shot, mach 1.05, 30000 ft.

 

Open Beta Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds Missile Travels 24.3 nm. 59.1 seconds to decelerate from 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 78 seconds--->24.3nm 59.23 seconds-----> 2000-600 knots.

 

Stable Version Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds missile travels 25.18nm. 55.2 seconds----> 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 25.7nm after 78 seconds, 57.46 seconds------->2000-600 knots.

 

Something just does not seem right here folks. It would seem my AMRAAMS are not as advertised.

 

Side Note. Agm-88 has less of a decceleration than the AMRAAM.

As the developers already said, the range increase comes from much less drag when maneuvering. Against a straight flying target not much has improved, but when it maneuvers it will keep its energy better than it did before.

Guidance has been THE biggest problem with the missiles. The PK is way higher for the same ranges compared to the old version against actual opponents.

It would be great if someone else could share a tac view or YouTube video on the open beta.

You are seeing better ranges correct than in the stable correct?

 

 

UPDATE:

Been running more tests.

Strait level Aim-120C shot, mach 1.05, 30000 ft.

 

Open Beta Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds Missile Travels 24.3 nm. 59.1 seconds to decelerate from 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 78 seconds--->24.3nm 59.23 seconds-----> 2000-600 knots.

 

Stable Version Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds missile travels 25.18nm. 55.2 seconds----> 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 25.7nm after 78 seconds, 57.46 seconds------->2000-600 knots.

 

Something just does not seem right here folks. It would seem my AMRAAMS are not as advertised.

 

Side Note. Agm-88 has less of a decceleration than the AMRAAM.

Dude, you are missing the point. I suggest you to read the development notes again.

You've conducted a drag race between the missiles while the updated version got a shorter boost time than before (due to reasons they've explained).

An A-A missile is not meant for 'drag racing' but rather for 'Formula 1' racing. It's not 'who get further' but rather who can manage energy more efficiently to deal with a maneuvering target. The test you showed is simply irrelevant - the boost time is different and the target flew straight. For 100 tests of old model vs new model with maneuvering targets - the new model should be significantly better.

(If the old model win the 100 test competition - it mean the old model was extremely overpowered because it was bleeding energy like crazy due to an ineffective flight profile and too harsh maneuvering ).

I recommend you read this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260505&page=6

A very interesting discussion.

 

An A-A missile is not meant for 'drag racing' but rather for 'Formula 1' racing.

This is exactly it. great analogy

 

Side Note. Agm-88 has less of a decceleration than the AMRAAM.

You should see the LD-10. At 2000 knots it hardly decelerates at all.

Now if it didn't have that 200-400kts reduction the amraam would have been perfect and made into the op wagon of death.

The whole Over-Powered argument is completely unrealistic as such it should never be part of any DCS feedback tho.

Unless you either meant it semi-serious, which I think, or used the other context of the term Over-Powered (OP)

Over-Powered is a term usually used in game balance and it is associated with that connotation, I would recommend that we should not use it when talking about a single system alone, comparing the real to it's virtual counterpart as a way to gauge simulation realism and provide feedback, especially for DCS because it's a simulator, not a game.

There should not ever be any type of official "balance" of DCS as it comes out of the factory. I think this idea of balance should be quickly shot down by ED management that it is an invalid feedback argument so that it doesn't snowball into some thing with the newcomers, who may fall for it, because I've seen GR mention this a few times and that's quite a bit unfortunate that one would even entertain such an idea of trying to raise a balance issue with DCS in terms of reviewing ... (it was something like: "F-14 is going to be OP now with this new missile").

The only place for DCS balance exists solely in the personal rules of server administrators and it's communities through a private relationship to what they believe it's OP and not OP and what airplanes/weapons/system (era level) they're going to play with, that should never have anything to do with the base sim. The only thing provided by the sim developer could be infrastructural and customization to provide the fine tunability of such server rules.

Great news! I wonder if this means HB finally gets access to the new missile code for the Phoenix...

Not saying it's a must or a necessity, but the philosophy at ED should be that as much gets contributed by the main and 3rd-parties into the APIs so that the whole ecosystem benefits because ultimately all of the aircraft, weapons and scenery has to work together in some fashion, now ofcourse computers don't have to know/be aware of the wholeness, they're many times just an illusion, made up of isolated parts.

In the future, ... just look at the engine space, I'm reluctant to try to compare the gaming world, I guess I'm just pointing out the graphics side, and the infrastructural core side, the core is what makes things efficient and DCS needs to be more efficient as we know and I'm not harping on that as a whine, just talking, but unfortunately it's still software and similar in many ways and it does count, and some people will just compare it and then say oh DCS isn't like this other game that uses UnrealEngine or CryEngine

For DCS to be an independent leader with it's own engine going forward, to stand against CryEngine, Unreal Engine, Unity, IdTech, GTA6 engine, DICE engine, etc ..., it will probably always be back with graphics but that is fine, for that to be acceptable by an ordinary player who is spoiled for UE5 graphics (and eventually most of us with a pretty huge tolerance capacity), including non-gamers who have unrealistic expectations of thinking it should look as good as real life before considering it, ... has to be as efficient, smooth and stable as possible. The infrastructural parity should also be considered so that it supports modern softwares, hardwares, APIs and other middleware as necessary, custom tools and internal software to make it well suited for development and easy on developers so that their limited numbers can have boost.

Obviously other public for-developers engines have a much higher hill to climb because of their wide ranging responsibilities which DCS does not, even tho DCS is expanding into a bigger deal with the RTS component for the so called "dynamic campaign" feature.

The whole spaghetti code thing should be taken extremely seriously, but as explained by management that some of the work is still appreciated and just replacing it so quickly doesn't do good for the morale of anyone, I agree, this is why I stopped pushing on Vulkan API in every post even before it was confirmed because I sensed that too little time has passed since DX11 renderer was released, long story short, I think that some of these major things, along with the circumstances, and a good lesson the impatient folks got with the Early-Access stuff, that it's just better to let the current generation play it self out in peace, without any abrupt changes, let the new features such as the Vulkan renderer, FLIR rendering, ... and my wishes for livery submodules and a folder structure reorganization take place good and solid and come at a later time when they're well polished.

I just hope FLIR rendering won't need some adjustment if it comes before Vulkan ... I hope these things are checked concurrently so that if there's major work, I rather not have it for DX11 and delay it for post-Vulkan renderer.

Big studios can afford to just have multiple renderers and throw stuff out every 2 years and replace, we'll have to get used to delays and compromises around here, I rather take all of that than see some kind of an acquirement by another company or some kind of investment. Remember first and foremost The Fighter Collection is about preserving aircraft with a true passion for this field and no random gaming company can boast about, they don't have the emotional attachement nor ideological/philosophical horse in the race to care, unfortunately these experiences coupled with inexperience with simulators is what caused the great reddit uprising of 2019, so in the end if Early-Access is what keeps the Acquirement or Chapter 11 sharks away then so be it, but well, we should still look for other additional things to offset and give a hand off E-A's weight. So don't think all of this engine issue is a good thing is some dark-humor way of well if it's bad enough for long it'll just be acquired and got into a brand new engine and things will be awesome, nobody wants to see that right, so we shouldn't be pessimistic about the engine issue, but at the same time the engine has to be the big priority even going a step further than planned.

The good thing is, other gaming engines really aren't that into simulation, so one can't just use them and make a DCS equivalent in a month, because he would have to code a lot of custom stuff in there, essentially the public engines are empty shells, the "simulation" in there is in terms of graphics, is more body animation and stuff like that oriented, that won't help you with AG-Radar, for example.

Another thing DCS could take a higher step up than other software, and I think it is in the works as confirmed, I saw it mentioned, is the audio engine, and we saw the new stuff being mentioned for UE5, because both of the new consoles from MS and Sony will be big on audio this time around. DCS should not lag behind, and DCS has more of a reason to lead in this area, audio has the power to overpower the (again justifiably) lesser graphical fidelity, remember Metroid Prime ... well you may not, it's a Nintendo Game Cube game, a First-Person Shooter ..err officially a First-Person Adventure game, well it's one of the highest rated games back when game scores really meant something, and I think I'm safe to say audio had a pretty big part on the overal score, tho it was more about the art of music and soundtrack rather than pure audio quality and fidelity, for DCS there is no need for musical art as much as there is the need for advanced effects and fidelity/quality/bitrate because most of the audio is generated, except for the main menu and perhaps others places (I would really love a new MissionEditor background music to be a different one from the main menu one, but this one needs to be a longer and calmer type optimal for longer mission editing sessions that doesn't take attention away from the primary work, better yet, a different music for each map, so the WW2 maps would have a WW2 themed music that would be awesome, I'll open a wishlist thread later!)

Not saying that we should learn from consoles, but we should take a note in general from the fact the rest of the industry woke up about audio so much, and particularly the idea, I think, that the audio community was able to persuade the big industry hardware players to finally do something about the frigging audio, who got that going behind the scenes deserves huge props! But there's a bit of a disconnect from the proper audio hardware for computers and generated audio, it seems like audiphiles come mostly from the music and entertainment and it's like generated audio which is infact totally mixed with music scores and soundtrack from real music art is kinda left out, this is partially to blame the the lazy industry as well as the gaming community for being so cheap and having a low audio standard.

The whole Over-Powered argument is completely unrealistic as such it should never be part of any DCS feedback tho.

 

Yep, nothing is OP until red side gets something more powerful than bluefor :)

I don't get involved in these things so I wouldn't know. But what always strikes me is hidden politics and patriotism 'my country's missile is better than yours' so I cannot see any realism in this regard because as stated it's all classified data on both sides and ED doesn't want a p^^ing match. I am sure that if they look and feel realistic, that's as much as you are going to get .......Oh and I forgot GAME PLAY !

It doesn't bother me, DCS is a flight simulator for me so I will go and get my coat.

Mizzy

BFR is the best!

And, I forgot to add the associated explanation from the real world ... well it's obvious most of it, but let me point it out just in case for reference. The fact that in practice in real-life it kinda seems balanced, is only because of the other side deciding to respond to the challenge and to keep things equal or better in their favor to have a sense of security, not because it necessary has to be so or that it can't be any other way, but even that's not symmetric in all fields of military, land, sea, air, infantry, scouting, rescue, management, then only handful of countries can even afford to try to be equal anyway, and on top of that, some actually decide to not respond symmetrically ON PURPOSE and one of the good examples of that is the Russian policy against the NATO "Missle Shield™" which Russia claims it can then be quickly converted to a misslile launch site with ground based tomahawk or similar missiles being that can be retroffited and are being upgraded every few years with longer and longer ranges. Putin said this himself a number of times that Russia intends to respond asymmetrically to these things, claiming it's far cheaper, that's how Putin put it, meaning that he would destroy the sites using conventional and existing closer-range arms before they're up and fully operational instead of Russia making it's own network of missile launch sites, with similar capabilities to equalize the other side. Later he actually said this was the previous long used policy, but now Russia does have it's own missile shield network which he didn't want to go into detail in this case of the video below. Perhaps the asymmetrical stance has changed a bit, but it certainly was in effect for over a decade if not more.

Now, All of this does not include secret weapons and any of that stuff, even if there is any balance it's only public balance in the end, so it's all an illusion of balance anyway, this is the final nail in the coffin for this potential "DCS balance issue" argument right here. There, shot it down before it even became a thing, now let's keep it that way :) If Reddit or similar creates this idea for DCS and it becomes a thing then community staff has a serious problem at their hands IMO ... and I know it kinda seems like most people aren't serious, well not so fast, stranger things can and have had happened, generally speaking, so this isn't that far fetched.

You might speak about balance coffins as long as you want, but the fact is that most people want to play on superior planes with superior missiles. Check late cold war servers, there're almost no blues. That means that people deep inside don't need historical accuracy or realism. They just want to win as easily as possible

There are not only competitve players & servers out there :-)

You might speak about balance coffins as long as you want, but the fact is that most people want to play on superior planes with superior missiles. Check late cold war servers, there're almost no blues. That means that people deep inside don't need historical accuracy or realism. They just want to win as easily as possible

That's their problem, not ED's or anyone elses and it's not the dev's responsibility to fix it, that's the point. What's available is available, what's realistically powerful is that powerful, no less no more. People shouldn't raise the imaginary "DCS balance" issue and use it as feedback and criticism.

The only balance may just be the balance of number of projects on each side from a practical and sort of different reasoning, I forget the word but no no not philosophical this time around hehehe, you got Eurofighter so hey you got more ... but here's the funny thing, you guys treat US EU and UK as one side, that's just world politics, who says it has to be that way necessairly in DCS, this gets into the deeper realism debate, should we only simulate raw tools or politics too or some kind of a if you will balance between those ... that's a discussion for another time.

Besides, if you want professional skill only, you pick the same exact unit to negate all other factors, this is basically what quake insagib mode was, I was a Call of Duty 2 rifle-only insagib server administrator / modder so I'm not unfamiliar with competitive gameplay in general, I still have the full server setup, custom maps, config and the whole thing right here archived, I can fire it up right now if I wanted to ;) Now the original nor the small mod wasn't a sim, but it was meant to be all about skill, there was practically difference between UK, US, German infantry unit, everyone walked the same speed, ran the same speed, jumped the same height (althought Quake 3 Engine aka IDTech3 == FPS dependant physics == jump height)

Modern Air Combat may be the place where that would be more valid, but we have yet to see what kind of relationship that product will have with reality and realism rules.

Ah sorry for interrupting this thread like ... go back to AIM-120 now, I might make a thread specifically for this and expand it even more ... and I've got a serious bug report to write today so back to work :)

To me the SD-10 feels like a “crowd pleaser”. There is no evidence provided by DEKA that what they’ve done is based on real data. Of course there never will be such data. The real data is classified. All they can do is educated guessing.

DEKA is being smart about getting a lot of PR features. The JF got the most advanced weapons (based on half-baked ED API) – and everyone wants to play with the newest and coolest toys, right?

They do everything so that the product will sale. I get that… It’s a different philosophy than Eds. In a way- its even countering Eds approach to be honest.

So, I wouldn’t compare the SD-10 to the AIM-120. There’s really no way to do it properly… Personally I trust ED more. They’ve done a long way to build their reputation. Overall, they show that they try to go the extra mile for realism when they decide to go “simulation way” with their heavy modules and projects. DEKA still got some way to go to prove us that they’ve got the highest realism standard.

100% agreed.

After further testing with f-18 and AIM-120C the ECCM and terminal guidance are still poor. AI high skill target in Mig-29S guns only will easily evade. I ran 50 fights on NTTR map. Launching at 18nm from 25000 at Mach 1 headon aspect, Aim-120C will hit about 12% of the time. 34% of the misses appeared to be due to chaff combined with AI maneuver. The missile just flew to well behind the target. 16% missed during terminal guidance phase with extreme turns and lost momentum to make intercept. 22% dove vertically down from loft to engage target and I assume lost target in ground clutter or chaff. 12% of the misses the missile just overflew the target never descending from the loft. 3% of the missiles showed LOST on HUD due to radar track loss prior to going active. I assume radar loss was due to chaff and target went into notch or outside radar scan.

Repeating the same 50 but removing chaff from AI the AIM-120C will hit 78% of the time. 12% of the misses dove vertically down to engage target and I assume lost it in ground clutter or could not pitch up to intercept climbing AI. 6% missed during terminal phase with extreme turns and lost momentum to make intercept. 2% of the missiles just overflew the target never descending from the loft. 2% of the missile showed LOST on HUD due to radar track loss prior to going active. I assume radar loss was due to the target flying into notch or outside radar scan.

After some thought I think maybe my expectations for missile performance was too high. Based on anecdotal historical evidence from AIM-120 performance in real world, if I assume the target aircraft did not have RWR, chaff, or failed to use chaff I think the DCS performance matches pretty closely with the Pk achieved in real world based on what data I could find. I will just have to accept that chaff and simple turns are extremely effective against radar guided missiles because I cannot find any public data of chaff impact on even old out of circulation missiles.

I will just have to accept that chaff and simple turns are extremely effective against radar guided missiles because I cannot find any public data of chaff impact on even old out of circulation missiles.

This sounds like the old missile again. Post update, my AIM-120 doesn't really care about chaff unless it's combined with a good notch attempt.

The split in experience could be based on a few things. Years ago when the Su-27 was upgraded to AFM I actually still had the SFM plane because of folder permission issues from installing in Program Files. I had to reinstall outside of program files to get the AFM Su-27.

Another missile that has seen updates is the 530 Super. After that update, all of my old payloads actually had the old missile for some reason. I had to use the premade loadouts as they had the correct missile. Perhaps something similar is happening here?

EDIT

Doing an abbreviated version of the testing ruxtmp did, I can't get the AMRAAM to go for chaff. I only did about 10 launches. 18 nmi at 25000 ft. 0 went from chaff. 1 missed because I didn't pitch up on launch and the MiG ran away. Everything else was 1 missile to destroy the MiG.

Also I have a question for people testing the AIM-120. Previously it was perfectly accurate, as in unless the target was maneuvering to the point where the missile was low on energy, it would always strike about the center mass of the target. The new AMRAAM seems to have some fallibility, as sometimes even with good energy it won't score direct hits, but instead relies on the proximity fuse. Anyone else seeing this?