Jump to content

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


wumas0201

Recommended Posts

I notice a change in this new update:

"AIM-120 missile. The probability of countermeasure spoofing returned to the old value."

Why??? any reason??

the previous patch of AIM120 is very good, why it need to be returned to old one??


Edited by wumas0201
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it makes no sense to be returned to old value, because of complaints from some players.

ED gave us new value, and now returning to old one.

OH~~~come on, this game is not "warthunder" OK!

 

Agree.

 

It has not good enough reasons to be returned to old value if only about some players complaint AIM-120 OP. ED, please give us more persuasive reasons about that rather than OP or imbalance causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answered here

Being economical with the truth I see.

According to Chizh, the change regarding CCM was never supposed to increase its immunity beyond levels we had prior to counter measures, and it also wasn't supposed to become immune to chaff while using its memory mode.

 

 

You can find his post on that here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4368210&postcount=8027

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being economical with the truth I see.

 

 

What did I say wrong in my message? I do see a lot of statements about buffed AIM-120 in that thread *all the time*. Recent complaints were about its notch/chaff resistance after previous update. I didn't say is it right or wrong, looking into this message from GGTharos for example, it seems that it's not AIM-120 sensitivity to notch/chaff that should be increased, but rather other missiles it should be reduced for. Users here asked about the reason - I pointed them to the thread with corresponding discussion and more specifically to the statement from Chizh (and even suggested to use Google Translate to read the answers in russian and ask questions in english if needed).


Edited by lester

Все написанное выше является моим оценочным суждением

Everything written above reflects my personal opinion

 

Занимаюсь "активной пропагандой Американцев на данном форуме" © Flanker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did I say wrong in my message? I do see a lot of statements about buffed AIM-120 in that thread *all the time*. Recent complaints were about its chaff resistance after previous update. I didn't say is it right or wrong, looking into this message from GGTharos for example, it seems that it's not AIM-120 sensitivity to notch/chaff that should be increased, but rather other missiles it should be reduced for. Users here asked about the reason - I pointed them to the thread with corresponding discussion and more specifically to the statement from Chizh (and even suggested to use Google Translate to read the answers and ask questions in english if needed).

You claimed in this thread

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4497855&postcount=2315

That ED nerfed the AMRAAM as a result of people whining, which was patently false. The reason was that they wanted to revert the CCM effectiveness to what we had seen before.

 

 

 

It wasn't a balance related change.

 

 

 

 

GGTharos is a smart feller indeed, I tend to agree with it often. Yet moving the goal post doesn't change the fact that ED reverted the change back to what ED thought was a correct implementation of the AMRAAM.

 

 

If you could come forward with information proving the previous implementation was correct, please tell Chizh and ED.

I take it you know what thread to post it in.


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You claimed in this thread

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4497855&postcount=2315

That ED nerfed the AMRAAM as a result of people whining, which was patently false.

 

 

Where exactly in this thread I "claimed that ED nerfed the AMRAAM as a result of people whining"?

 

 

Again I answered there to the specific statement and provided corresponding link:

 

I'm little bit dissapointed by this after few testing both SP and MP because the Amraam is now more susceptible to chaffs , no idea why ED did it. Have not found a thread discussing why this was necessary.
I also wrote that in the thread I provided link to:

1) A lot of people accuse ED that AIM-120 is buffed on regular basis - do you want me to provide links with examples?

2) Recently in that thread there were complaints (like this one) about its notch/chaff resistance with subsequent discussion and finally statement from Chizh about correction - I pointed to his statement directly.

 

 

At least my *expectation* was that users will read (translate) this message from Chizh then proceed to the thread it belongs to in order to find about motivation behind this decision (that's what I would do).


Edited by lester

Все написанное выше является моим оценочным суждением

Everything written above reflects my personal opinion

 

Занимаюсь "активной пропагандой Американцев на данном форуме" © Flanker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its very funny how people are whining without actually understanding or better yet, TEST for themselves. The fact that the chaff resistance value was changed back to a nominal value did NOTHING to the new 120s in terminal guidance.

 

The missile still rejects chaff in memory mode and reacquires the target. Its practically chaff proof regardless of that value.

 

But yes, we get it, 120s must have 100% PK or its Redfors fault... LOL

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least my *expectation* was that users will read (translate) this message from Chizh then proceed to the thread it belongs to in order to find about motivation behind this decision (that's what I would do).

 

You would not be fully informed relying on a translation algorithm. Do you read Russian?

 

I really don't care one way or the other about the Aim-120. Multiplayer will be a 120 spam fest with or without the change.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yes, we get it, 120s must have 100% PK or its Redfors fault... LOL

Right, the 100% Pk OP undefeatable SuperAMRAAM... oh wait

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, 24 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/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as why ED reduced it, I think this post sums it up: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4476779&postcount=9465

TLDR; it was realistic before but to compensate for lack of EW they nerfed the CCM resistance to compensate.

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, 24 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/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just from a casual glance at 1:40 and 3:00 the missiles went for chaff, and I have plenty of other tacviews with the pre patch AMRAAMs going for chaff.

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, 24 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/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Browsed through a few of my tacviews, you can see in these that the AMRAAM clearly went for the chaff, and this is pre-patch. And these were all SP to remove the MP chaff desync bug:

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, 24 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/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would not be fully informed relying on a translation algorithm. Do you read Russian?

 

I realize that Google Translate is not ideal. But nevertheless looking into discussions in that thread many people asked questions in english and got answers in russian they were able to translate from (and understand) with it and then come up with follow-up questions.


Edited by lester

Все написанное выше является моим оценочным суждением

Everything written above reflects my personal opinion

 

Занимаюсь "активной пропагандой Американцев на данном форуме" © Flanker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Browsed through a few of my tacviews, you can see in these that the AMRAAM clearly went for the chaff, and this is pre-patch. And these were all SP to remove the MP chaff desync bug:

 

So previous AMRAAM gets chaffed and latest AMRAAM gets chaffed, so no change.

Either that or these tracks are from 2016 like your 'mission made' states in the top left corner of tacview but I guess this is your go to notch test mission.

Thanks for your efforts.


Edited by Frostie

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havent tested the new AMRAAMs yet (the first tacview posted was pre patch), this is just an illustration that even the pre patch AMRAAMs would go for chaff if you deploy it correctly, it was far from unchaffable. The question is how much easier is it to chaff the missile in the new patch (e.g, how "less strict" you need to be with timing your chaff deployments, etc).

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, 24 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/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice a change in this new update:

"AIM-120 missile. The probability of countermeasure spoofing returned to the old value."

Why??? any reason??

the previous patch of AIM120 is very good, why it need to be returned to old one??

 

I suppose you didn't start a tread like this after the last change

 

I notice a change in this new update:

"AIM-120 missile. The probability of countermeasure spoofing buffed."

Why??? any reason??

the previous patch of AIM120 is very good, why it need to be even better??

 

Or did you? Correct me if I'm wrong because right now it seems like you're just upset that your "win stick" was corrected to the "wrong" side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly in this thread I "claimed that ED nerfed the AMRAAM as a result of people whining"?

 

 

Again I answered there to the specific statement and provided corresponding link:

 

I also wrote that in the thread I provided link to:

1) A lot of people accuse ED that AIM-120 is buffed on regular basis - do you want me to provide links with examples?

2) Recently in that thread there were complaints (like this one) about its notch/chaff resistance with subsequent discussion and finally statement from Chizh about correction - I pointed to his statement directly.

 

 

At least my *expectation* was that users will read (translate) this message from Chizh then proceed to the thread it belongs to in order to find about motivation behind this decision (that's what I would do).

Simple, you knowingly or not put a nice spin on your post to lead people to believe it was an intentional change, which was then undone at the behest of the Russian forum community as a result of their outcry. When that wasn't the case at all.

 

 

I just felt people should know your post was a red herring is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, you knowingly or not put a nice spin on your post to lead people to believe it was an intentional change, which was then undone at the behest of the Russian forum community as a result of their outcry. When that wasn't the case at all.

 

 

I just felt people should know your post was a red herring is all.

 

Why do you call that a red herring? Pointing out a coincidence like that and leaving it to the reader to draw the conclusion, well, that might be something nefarious, but it's not a red herring.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, you knowingly or not put a nice spin on your post to lead people to believe it was an intentional change, which was then undone at the behest of the Russian forum community as a result of their outcry. When that wasn't the case at all.

 

I just felt people should know your post was a red herring is all.

 

 

Yes, it's dead simple. Answering to the statement:

 

Have not found a thread discussing why this was necessary.
I provided a link to the exact thread with the discussion questioned.

 

After that follows my description of the aforementioned thread:

1) A LOT of people accused ED that they buffed AIM-120. Is this true or false?

There are so many messages confirming it in that thread that it doesn't make sense to list them here.

 

2) complained about its chaff resistance in particular. Is this true or false?

Here are some of the messages with complains:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4472634&postcount=9400

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4472825&postcount=9405

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4472854&postcount=9406

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473153&postcount=9420

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473158&postcount=9421

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473481&postcount=9430

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473863&postcount=9432

 

I'm fine if you want to provide some context to the discussion in that thread here or even if you consider that my post was misleading. But you accused me of statement I didn't make and called me a liar dude. Nice spin, huh?


Edited by lester

Все написанное выше является моим оценочным суждением

Everything written above reflects my personal opinion

 

Занимаюсь "активной пропагандой Американцев на данном форуме" © Flanker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you call that a red herring? Pointing out a coincidence like that and leaving it to the reader to draw the conclusion, well, that might be something nefarious, but it's not a red herring.

You misintepreted something my friend. I pointed out the specific thread. If it's too hard for you to read answers in english from the devs there or use Google Translate it doesn't mean other users can't do that.


Edited by lester

Все написанное выше является моим оценочным суждением

Everything written above reflects my personal opinion

 

Занимаюсь "активной пропагандой Американцев на данном форуме" © Flanker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...