[REPORTED]Is the AIM-9X going to get fixed?

[Airhunter]

So, I am not going to include any trackfiles as this is literally the easiest thing to reproduce in any quick SP or MP mission. The AIM-9X has been performing really terrible as of late, missing headon 5nm to 2nm shots with the target not flaring and flying straight or in a slight turn, they also seem to have higher drag than 9M's in a straight shot, front and rear aspect. CCM and seeker perform very poorly and sometimes even one flare sends it into the ground or into space. This should not be the case for a FPA seeker. Flares should barely matter unless you flood the seeker with them. So ED, please take a look at the 9X code and make sure all values are what they are supposed to be (as in, what we had last year). The 9X is almost useless now and all my friends are observing and reporting the same.

[Shadow KT]

Why don't you post a track, so we all can be on the same page.

[Fri13]

All missiles has the basic seeker. Once you lock on target, and CM is released, missile will perform a dice roll that what is probability that missile locks on CM. If example R-27ET seeker has 0.7 probability, AIM-9X has 0.08.

Now every second you roll dice does it happen or not.

 

And then add the target attitude, so you get simple rearward/forward seeker capability for older missiles that has rearward launch limit.

 

Now why does AIM-9X miss in the head-on ranges?

Provide track so we can check it out. Even better, offer Tacview file so we don't need to launch DCS at all. And even simplest is YouTube video about Tacview.

[Airhunter]

I am fully aware of how missiles work and are coded in DCS. See, if you'd have used the 9X yourself you'd know what I am taling about and describing. Go hop into a quick SP mission or any MP server and try it yourself. This is literally so obvious that it doesnt require more than 5 minutes of testing (which ED never does).

 

Regardless, here is just one quick tacview showing said issue. My target did not preflare before the first launch and just did some slight 7G pulls and rolls, both my 9X's went stupid. I have more later on if I can find them. Even a 120C can hit a target pulling more G's than that...

Edited April 27, 2020 by BIGNEWY

[Airhunter]

Did a few quick tests, the 9X for one has the same drag values low level (below 25K down do sea level) as the 9M, which from an aerodynamis standpoint makes little sense. But regardless, at least in the Viper the first 9X shot seems to miss pretty frequently despite being well within parameters and with good tone. Below two tacview files to demonstrate that.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Airhunter

[Fri13]

I used AIM-9x to shoot down missiles coming straight from front. No issues.

[Airhunter]

Just did a few quick tests for drag and lift + energy retention. ISA, 500KTS TAS except for 50.0000ft, which was roughly 380ish TAS.

 

In descending order (top to bottom), 5K, 25K, 40K and 50K feet, all straight line shots with millisecond intervals.

 

 

 

 

 

You can clearly see that the 9X has almost identical drag and energy retention to the 9M below 5K feet and the 9M is superiour in lift and energy retention from 25K feet and up, which makes sense due to the larger fins and more surface area, assuming they use the same motor, have very similar burn times and chemical energy stored. Given this very fact one would assume the 9X would have a range advantage closer to sea level since it has less surface ares and thus less aerodynamic (induced and form) drag.

[Shadow KT]

I think if you can get a track from current patch and from an older patch which worked fine, can seal the deal on this one

[Airhunter]

I think if you can get a track from current patch and from an older patch which worked fine, can seal the deal on this one

 

That's not the point. This does NOT need a track, go use the 9X and see for yourself. Literally the easiest thing to reproduce and check. I'm currently working on gathering public info on 9X Block I performance as it is kinda hard to belive that is has worse kinematics than the much older 9M.

[dorianR666]

why are you so adamant on not sending the track? its required to send it, as stated in the sticky thread.

[Airhunter]

why are you so adamant on not sending the track? its required to send it, as stated in the sticky thread.

 

I've attached several tacview files, why would I need to send a track if this can literally be reproduced in various ways 5 minutes into using said weapon system. A track brings NOTHING to this discussion.

 

EDIT: Here are some videos illustrating this.

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Airhunter

[Shadow KT]

It brings more than videos of tacview, as it can be replayed multiple times , in-game, on different machines.

[FSKRipper]

We also ask since not everyone is sharing your experience and as it is asked as a minimal requirement in bug reports we need to know what kind of config you are using (mods, specs eg.)

[Fri13]

I've attached several tacview files, why would I need to send a track if this can literally be reproduced in various ways 5 minutes into using said weapon system. A track brings NOTHING to this discussion.

 

For BUG REPORTING the TRACKFILE is required.

 

For easy COMMUNITY comparison and checking TACVIEW file is preferred (no requirement for having DCS installed and easy time browsing).

 

For easy FORUM sharing YOUTUBE is preferred (no requirement to launch anything, possible use even smartphone).

[dundun92]

I may be able to dig the track from the test session me and airhunter did but it was a long session. But I also can confirm the AIM-9Xs weirdness, as do my squadron members.

Edited April 27, 2020 by dundun92

[Airhunter]

Ok, have you guys used the 9X? That's my first question. Did you also not read what I just wrote? You can reproduce all these issues simpy by USING the AIM-9X in game. Drag values at low altitudes aside. A trackfile is totally useless here and I absolutely WONT provide one, no matter how often you ask me to. If you haven't used the 9X yourself and can't provide anything productive to this conversation apart from "muh trackfiles" then please refrain from posting.

 

Because everyone I know who is flying the Hornet or Viper regularly reports the exact same.

 

EDIT: You guys do realize that DCS is such a buggy mess because ED requires everyone to include trackfiles and do the testing themselves instead of testing something for 5 minutes before releasing it? That's a core issue within the QM of Eagle Dynamics.

[dundun92]

OK so here's the track, too big to upload, but the timestamp (not sure how helpful that would be) is 1:45:50 into the session, of 5:45:50 in-game time (the mission started at 4:00:00). https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=server-20200424-160043.trk

[Contact409]

you didn`t get the point.

 

It doesn`t matter weather we read it or not. it`s about let ED check the work. and they will not check the work unless you provide the track file. Get it ?

 

if everyone you know is regularly having problems. them please have them submit a track file so ED can check.

 

it`s not about us, we`re just end user here.

[Airhunter]

you didn`t get the point.

 

It doesn`t matter weather we read it or not. it`s about let ED check the work. and they will not check the work unless you provide the track file. Get it ?

 

if everyone you know is regularly having problems. them please have them submit a track file so ED can check.

 

it`s not about us, we`re just end user here.

 

Which is EXACTLY the problem I was talking about, ED expects me to upload a track (which is too big to upload by the way) so they can check a thing that I excatly described on how to reproduce (both in SP and MP after 5 minutes or less). Most people fly in MP and experience these bugs there, so the trackfiles will be too big, corrupt or simply not be available. This method of checking and reporting bugs does NOT work whatsoever.

 

Also, have YOU used the 9X recently? Or are you just here to scream " where is the trackfile" at people?

[opps]

I think I managed to reproduce some sort of fuse malfunctions. First and third shot should have detonated.

 

NOTE : I set max FPS limitation to 35 so in order to replay you may need same limitation.

AIM-9X.trk

Edited April 27, 2020 by opps

[NineLine]

So, I am not going to include any trackfiles...

 

This is part of the process we require for reporting a bug, if you do not wish to take part in reporting bugs as requested, that is your choice, but then do not report bugs, thanks.

 

With all the posts and other things you added to this report, you could have easily just submitted a track as well.

[NineLine]

I think I managed to reproduce some sort of fuse malfunctions. First and third shot should have detonated.

 

NOTE : I set max FPS limitation to 35 so in order to replay you may need same limitation.

 

Thank you very much for the track. Because of this, we are now able reproduced this and it is reported, thanks!

Edited April 27, 2020 by NineLine