AIM 120
-
@Mav-jp And what about SAM mode then ? It is between STT and TWS in a way no ? It must stay good to track the primary bugged target at least ?
-
-
You are terribly wrong about that
The aim120 is guided with Datalink messages
Even if the AIM 120 is pitbull…?
-
-
@Bloodhound161
We have intensively tested the AIM 120 today. It was very sobering. Partially, the missile did not track the target despite pitbull (!), even worse: the weapon performed a 90° direction change (what a bullshit).
The “Husky” mode is obviously no longer implemented Despite all the correct BVR parameters (which you can get from professionals as an interested layman) -> high altitude, fast, small M-Pole, perfect loft… the missile goes into nirvana. The magic forces of a MiG 29A are not even taken into account, the AMRAAM is simply seen through the clouds and exactly at the right moment I turn out with exactly the right speed… you can do it that way. But it’s grout. I love the challenge, but that’s not really possible. And when I read that TWS is actually no longer useful and you have to clarify everything in the STT… well. Since if this goes on there are alternatives in BVR with better graphics.
Sorry, I really appreciate your work but I’m really worried… -
@Bloodhound161 said in AIM 120:
@Bloodhound161
We have intensively tested the AIM 120 today. It was very sobering. Partially, the missile did not track the target despite pitbull (!), even worse: the weapon performed a 90° direction change (what a bullshit).
The “Husky” mode is obviously no longer implemented Despite all the correct BVR parameters (which you can get from professionals as an interested layman) -> high altitude, fast, small M-Pole, perfect loft… the missile goes into nirvana. The magic forces of a MiG 29A are not even taken into account, the AMRAAM is simply seen through the clouds and exactly at the right moment I turn out with exactly the right speed… you can do it that way. But it’s grout. I love the challenge, but that’s not really possible. And when I read that TWS is actually no longer useful and you have to clarify everything in the STT… well. Since if this goes on there are alternatives in BVR with better graphics.
Sorry, I really appreciate your work but I’m really worried…Tested again during 3 hours with unleashed code in order to catch. Glitch
Absolutely no issue except the glitch I found when HPRF track is lost after a crank and missile is guiding back in Datalink with original error Build in.
HPRF is of course perfectly implemented
I have no idea of what you are doing but obviously something wrong
I would appreciate very much a solid repro case of what you are doing
By the way in order for you to better understand which phase the missile is’ flying , just watch the missile in external view and read the info bar.
-
@Bloodhound161 Do you have any acmi? Missiles are much more realistic now. Husky is absolutely fully implemented and working. The only thing that sparks my interest in your post, is your missile which went to ‘nirvana’ after being fully supported to pitbull. This is something that we tested and have seen before but I think during our test Mav caught something in relation to HPRF and datalink information which may cure this anomaly. Otherwise all other tests (I’m talking many tests for days in MP environment) the missile behaviour is working better than ever. No more magic missiles, no more cut and run! TWS mode is still a useful and effective mode…but not like before. Please get an acmi / video / data if you can. Otherwise nothing can be done to help or to see what may have been the issue, if there is one.
-
@unleashedcode said in AIM 120:
@Bloodhound161 Do you have any acmi? Missiles are much more realistic now. Husky is absolutely fully implemented and working. The only thing that sparks my interest in your post, is your missile which went to ‘nirvana’ after being fully supported to pitbull. This is something that we tested and have seen before but I think during our test Mav caught something in relation to HPRF and datalink information which may cure this anomaly. Otherwise all other tests (I’m talking many tests for days in MP environment) the missile behaviour is working better than ever. No more magic missiles, no more cut and run! TWS mode is still a useful and effective mode…but not like before. Please get an acmi / video / data if you can. Otherwise nothing can be done to help or to see what may have been the issue, if there is one.
Not trying to nitpick, just trying to understand my best tactics:
If my AMRAAM goes PITBULL, does my radar-locking mode STILL matter (RWS/TWS/STT)?
-
@SoBad No… once the missile is pitbull… it is guiding purely off it’s own missile radar only… hopefully you supported the missile during HPRF so the missile has it’s ‘best’ optimal chance of being near the target so the missile can go active and find what you fired at…
-
@unleashedcode
So if the missle goes off the rail and is pitpull immediatelly (at least according to FRC) then everything should be fine?
That’s what we thought too. -
@unleashedcode said in AIM 120:
@SoBad No… once the missile is pitbull… it is guiding purely off it’s own missile radar only… hopefully you supported the missile during HPRF so the missile has it’s ‘best’ optimal chance of being near the target so the missile can go active and find what you fired at…
be careful
Even if the missile is guiding in HPRF, if the contact is manoeuvering it can break the HPRF lock, and therefore the Missile will be back on the DataLink
If you didnt support until MPRF , it may therefore go AWOL if the bandit broke HPRF lock
-
I flew Instant Action a bit and found out that AMRAAMs fired in target rich environments in TWS (didn’t test RWS) have a much lower chance of locking the right target than in 4.35.
The problem is not that they don’t hit anything, it’s that they often lock the wrong target, often one that is closer than the real target. This happens at any range, it happens at 15 NM (I rarely launch from further away) and it also happens below 10 NM (instant pitbull), both with maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets.
4x AIM-120 launched at 4x MiG-29 resulted in multiple missiles picking the same MiG and only two MiGs actually being hit.
But also 2x AIM-120 launched at 2x MiG-23 (15 NM IIRC) both hit MiG-19s something like 5 NM in front of the 23s. How can a missile be this far from the actual target?
-
Is it me or 120 losing too much energy from small movement? slight zig-zag and it cant reach target anymore. Revisited BARCAP TE again, can’t even touch Mig 29 now.
-
@Mav-jp
First of all thanks to MavJP and especially to unleashedcode for the support. Actually I understood some things Understand me correctly: for years you fly tactics that work and suddenly (almost) nothing works. The 120 is the most important weapon in our squadron and the handling of it is essential, that might be the problem: we didn’t know that something elementary has changed. I always assume that the DEV team is trying to make BMS even more realistic. That should be the plan. Please communicate something like that, it’s important. Sorry for my somewhat harsh criticism, that was the result of a memorable evening of flying. Still, documentation of the changes in AMRAAM behavior and appropriate tactical guidance would be appreciated. -
@Bloodhound161 did you read the changelog?
It’s clearly mentioned
-
@MaxWaldorf said in AIM 120:
@Bloodhound161 did you read the changelog?
It’s clearly mentioned
Is this what you call “clearly mentioned”?
From the change log:
“AA Missiles logic and homing radar logic completely reworked for better realism (Fox3)” -
„AA Missiles logic and homing radar logic completely reworked for better realism (Fox3)“
That could also mean: now kill them all, everywhere and always!
Sorry, that only says that you have worked on the 120. Nothing more.
As I said, I appreciate your work very much, it is just missing the documentation here. And if you have not made it in time, it is also ok. I know it now. -
@Bloodhound161 said in AIM 120:
„AA Missiles logic and homing radar logic completely reworked for better realism (Fox3)“
That could also mean: now kill them all, everywhere and always!
Sorry, that only says that you have worked on the 120. Nothing more.
As I said, I appreciate your work very much, it is just missing the documentation here. And if you have not made it in time, it is also ok. I know it now.There won’t be any documentation about AHR implementation
There are still a few glitches to iron out for U1
-
We have done very intensive AIM-120C5 testing within our squadron too the moment 4.36 was released to review our usual BVR timeline & MAR numbers.
Interestingly, during our live firing tests, we have very similar encounters. I would say most of the time the missile works well. But there are a few surprising discoveries that we are still closely monitoring and need more data as proof as it behaves very differently vs 4.35-
Missile goes pitbull - target maneuver - regardless of launcher snips or not, at times the missile would lose track of target and acts like a cheapshot
-
Missile goes cheapshot due to launcher snips well before husky - target does not maneuver & without ECM - at times the missile would surprisingly keep effectively tracking the target
-
Target fox3 hot aspect at you while you fly a crank / flank aspect toward the target, regardless of entering MAR or not, the moment you get a “M spike” on RWR, just execute notch maneuver, survival chance is very high, i would say 80%+. This makes respecting MAR & Out maneuver no longer that important. In 4.35 if you entered MAR even if you notched, the chances of being killed was very high & respecting MAR & Out was very important.
These tests were done mostly in the range of 18-30nm and showed a much lower pK of AIM-120C5 vs. 4.35
From one perspective i kind of believe it may be more realistic because the pK of long range BVR missile shot may not be that high actually in real world (?) and there’s no any public document / data proofing that real life long range BVR shot has high pK anyway. Whether the pK would increase significantly in the range of 5-18nm & maybe having a more reliable pitbull / husky tracking are something we would explore more with more tests.
From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day it’s really about “probability”. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world it’s real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.
And in real life maybe there’s always defect in production. Maybe some of the AIM-120C5 stock age is too old or maybe some defect resulting in even pitbull but still lose track on the target - who knows
Anyway it’s interesting to have these discoveries to compare vs. 4.35
-
-
We have done very intensive AIM-120C5 testing within our squadron too the moment 4.36 was released to review our usual BVR timeline & MAR numbers.
Interestingly, during our live firing tests, we have very similar encounters. I would say most of the time the missile works well. But there are a few surprising discoveries that we are still closely monitoring and need more data as proof as it behaves very differently vs 4.35-
Missile goes pitbull - target maneuver - regardless of launcher snips or not, at times the missile would lose track of target and acts like a cheapshot
-
Missile goes cheapshot due to launcher snips well before husky - target does not maneuver & without ECM - at times the missile would surprisingly keep effectively tracking the target
-
Target fox3 hot aspect at you while you fly a crank / flank aspect toward the target, regardless of entering MAR or not, the moment you get a “M spike” on RWR, just execute notch maneuver, survival chance is very high, i would say 80%+. This makes respecting MAR & Out maneuver no longer that important. In 4.35 if you entered MAR even if you notched, the chances of being killed was very high & respecting MAR & Out was very important.
These tests were done mostly in the range of 18-30nm and showed a much lower pK of AIM-120C5 vs. 4.35
From one perspective i kind of believe it may be more realistic because the pK of long range BVR missile shot may not be that high actually in real world (?) and there’s no any public document / data proofing that real life long range BVR shot has high pK anyway. Whether the pK would increase significantly in the range of 5-18nm & maybe having a more reliable pitbull / husky tracking are something we would explore more with more tests.
From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day it’s really about “probability”. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world it’s real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.
And in real life maybe there’s always defect in production. Maybe some of the AIM-120C5 stock age is too old or maybe some defect resulting in even pitbull but still lose track on the target - who knows
Anyway it’s interesting to have these discoveries to compare vs. 4.35
The missile loosing MPRF track sometimes is a glitch
Missile going sometimes weirdo after loosing track in HPRF and reguiding on DL is another glitch
Both will be solved in U1
For the rest , you think people realize how arcade was the aim120 prior to 4.36 ….
-
-
From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day it’s really about “probability”. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world it’s real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.
This issue is coming from glitch #2
When HPRF lock is broken due to the notch , the missile starts guiding back on DL which sometimes was too far off to acquire in MPRF
You need to realize guys that before 4.36 the aim120 didn’t really had any limitation in Seeker FOV so now if your target is out of the FOV of the seeker it won’t see it
And btw aim120 seeker is able to orientate its seeker but NOT scan. Therefore when trying to acquire the seeker is not necessarily orientated in front of it particularly when the missile is flying with a big LEAD on the DL target