AIM 120
-
I never had the impression that the FCR is this imprecise, even in TWS. The TD box is always on the target (unless the radar lost it) and the distance shown on the MFD looks plausible (also, isn’t ranging just a matter of measuring the time between emission and return?).
I understand that speed and direction may be inaccurate (though closure rate should be rather easy to measure too), but I never saw the TD box show me anything other than the actual position.
What I did notice (already in 4.35) is that TWS needs a while to update the target location. When using the TGP to look at a radar contact, the target would slowly drift out of the FOV until the next position update hits.
Are RWS/TTS (it’s such a pain in the ass to get the cursor off the bugget target in RWS) better or is only STT good?
-
@sungad
The issue with the cursor stuck at the bugged target is there since 4.35.
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/21207/radar-cursor-in-crm-sam-mode
And since then I never came across a solution.
The advices are known (cursor speed = 100% and make sure that the cursor axis can provide full deflection) but they don’t help.For me it takes a while to get the cursor off from the bugged target and select the 2nd target in SAM mode. If I can’t make it in time then I only engage a single target. TWS is no option any more.
-
@Mav-jp
Very interesting AIM-120C5 behavior which in my opinion is considered abnormal.
Would like to hear your opinion what is going on with such behavior.Case1: Fox3 at about 15nm range to leading edge heavy group, supporting the missile all the way to pitbull and timeout. The missile just simply lofted too much and overfly the entire heavy leading edge group as if the FCR datalink were giving too much error, ending up pitbull & killing the trail group which is far behind.
2D & 3D acmi FYI as follow
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nIL0VmQjbuQQ8CtbAx-ChWSQt59NuCrx/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l0hgQT1t3uC7-IDCk8AJFj2Cn6j3J0Zz/view?usp=sharing!Case2: Fox3 at about 25nm range to leading edge group, supporting the missile all the way to pitbull and out maneuver. The missile just like case 1 overfly the leading edge group as if the FCR datalink were giving too much error, ending up pitbull & killing the trail group behind. Leading edge destruction seems difficult & becoming out of human control to execute which does not make sense.
2D & 3D acmi FYI as follow
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GLeJmjAPAIfpcuVomRCbxMXvGNfqNQ1R/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1ydJWf_QChs7MTvZU5qLkI9tJ2nNhcb6Y/view?usp=sharing
-
We’re slowly getting familiar with the new missile behavior. However sometimes we see things in the ACMI that doesn’t seem to be right to our eyes.
Here are two things that happened just recently. Maybe you can have a look give us some feedback.-
AIM-120C5 going after wrong targets:
We had a range presentation of 2x2 Mig-29. Jaguar51 picked up both contacts of the trail group in SAM mode (even if that was not the smartest decision :D). But the missiles actually went after the target that was locked by Jaguar53 at this point.
https://imgur.com/HLPbnKz -
AIM-120C5 successfully avoids target:
Well… I don’t really know what to say about this. Maybe you have some words?
https://imgur.com/67Z9BQU
Full tape:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjt15i8ksl0ids5/2022-05-16_FE-ITO.zip.acmi?dl=0Disclaimer:
This was recorded in ITO and we know that you probably don’t care for any issues here. But maybe it’s worth to have a look at it.
Asking the ITO dev’s if something is wrong with their AIM-120C5 doesn’t seem to make sense as they would probably refer back to you. -
-
We’re slowly getting familiar with the new missile behavior. However sometimes we see things in the ACMI that doesn’t seem to be right to our eyes.
Here are two things that happened just recently. Maybe you can have a look give us some feedback.-
AIM-120C5 going after wrong targets:
We had a range presentation of 2x2 Mig-29. Jaguar51 picked up both contacts of the trail group in SAM mode (even if that was not the smartest decision :D). But the missiles actually went after the target that was locked by Jaguar53 at this point.
https://imgur.com/HLPbnKz -
AIM-120C5 successfully avoids target:
Well… I don’t really know what to say about this. Maybe you have some words?
https://imgur.com/67Z9BQU
Full tape:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjt15i8ksl0ids5/2022-05-16_FE-ITO.zip.acmi?dl=0Disclaimer:
This was recorded in ITO and we know that you probably don’t care for any issues here. But maybe it’s worth to have a look at it.
Asking the ITO dev’s if something is wrong with their AIM-120C5 doesn’t seem to make sense as they would probably refer back to you.There is no right or wrong target, this is something you guys need to understand , when the seeker activates it will search into an area of space and it will select the target , not necessarily the one the FCR was targeting, this is especially true if the seekers acquires in HPRF since HPRF doesn’t know anything about target position and direction but only azimuth…
For the rest there are some bugs that have been identified indeed and already fixed for U1
-
-
COOL…!!!
AIM-120C5 pulls a Fast & Furious DRIFT manoeuvre…!
Paul Walker would be proud.
-
@Mav-jp Focus on U1!
-
In all of the versions of BMS Falcon, the TWS sub mode has one indispensable attribute. That is its track file. This advantage provides the pilot or pilots with the ability to launch multiple AIM-120s at multiple enemy aircraft simultaneously. If the sim cannot handle one AIM-120 fired at one aircraft, the mission plan should immediately change to OCA flights against their airbases. It seems obvious to me that if this shortcoming were in the real world, the DOD would have rescinded the contract to the manufacturer.
I truly hope that this make some sense.
Raven8tr
-
In all of the versions of BMS Falcon, the TWS sub mode has one indispensable attribute. That is its track file. This advantage provides the pilot or pilots with the ability to launch multiple AIM-120s at multiple enemy aircraft simultaneously. If the sim cannot handle one AIM-120 fired at one aircraft, the mission plan should immediately change to OCA flights against their airbases. It seems obvious to me that if this shortcoming were in the real world, the DOD would have rescinded the contract to the manufacturer.
I truly hope that this make some sense.
Raven8tr
You can use TWS to fire on multiple target , just expect lower PK that’s all
Just be aware that for now there is a bug when HPRF lock is broken and before MPRF acquisition that lower the PK overall
-
We’re slowly getting familiar with the new missile behavior. However sometimes we see things in the ACMI that doesn’t seem to be right to our eyes.
Here are two things that happened just recently. Maybe you can have a look give us some feedback.-
AIM-120C5 going after wrong targets:
We had a range presentation of 2x2 Mig-29. Jaguar51 picked up both contacts of the trail group in SAM mode (even if that was not the smartest decision :D). But the missiles actually went after the target that was locked by Jaguar53 at this point.
https://imgur.com/HLPbnKz -
AIM-120C5 successfully avoids target:
Well… I don’t really know what to say about this. Maybe you have some words?
https://imgur.com/67Z9BQU
Full tape:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjt15i8ksl0ids5/2022-05-16_FE-ITO.zip.acmi?dl=0Disclaimer:
This was recorded in ITO and we know that you probably don’t care for any issues here. But maybe it’s worth to have a look at it.
Asking the ITO dev’s if something is wrong with their AIM-120C5 doesn’t seem to make sense as they would probably refer back to you.There is no right or wrong target, this is something you guys need to understand , when the seeker activates it will search into an area of space and it will select the target , not necessarily the one the FCR was targeting, this is especially true if the seekers acquires in HPRF since HPRF doesn’t know anything about target position and direction but only azimuth…
For the rest there are some bugs that have been identified indeed and already fixed for U1
I’m looking forward to the arrival of U1, to put an end to doubts. Because I love flying BARCAP missions!
-
-
@Mav-jp I’m assuming it will attempt to pick the target which is the closest to the predicted target point and to the expected doppler?
-
Because the aim120 are not guiding to the targets but to a position where the FCR believes that the target is.
The accuracy of this FCR estimation is very dépendant on FCR submode
On TWS which is the worst , the accuracy on position and speeds are very poor. When the aim120 then activated his seeker , he will look at the position where it believes the target is. But in reality this target can be miles out. If other targets are within the seeker it will pick up those ones.
The aim120 can not check if the target it’s seeker picks up is the same of the original
From FCR
This is why having q clear avenue of
Fire is crucial
If you want to maximize your chance to pick up the correct target , fire in STt…and even then it tWo contacts are very close there will be no garantee that the aim120 will pick the original oneNo doubt that STT is more precise than TWS, but this example makes it clear that something is off. TWS tracks would not have an error of 6nm. If they did, they would not even be able to build and maintain the track files, because there would be far too much uncertainty. If the radar is confusing the tracks at 4nm for the ones at 10nm, than the correlation algorithims would be going nuts because they would be seeing 4 targets in the same zone. Range, doppler, and angle accuracy in TWS is going to be the same as that in search for the actual radar hits. Even HPRF radars that must rely are far less accurate FM ranging have much better range accuracy than that (and thats talking true range, not apparent). And there is more than enough dwell time during the raster scan to obtain sufficiently accurate apparent range, doppler, and angle information even of closely space targets unless they are so close that they are inside the same res cell, and even then there are ways of resolving that problem.
In this particular example, we have a MPRF only radar and the first set of targets in virtually certainly inside the first interval of Ru, and the second set of targets is right on the edge. There is not possibility of overlapping in apparent range. The targets probably also have different doppler, and the have different angles. All of these things go into the TWS logic.
What appears to have actually happened here is that there is something missing from the datalink logic and when the missile went pitbull, almost immediately after coming off the rail given the range, it was not told to ignore the closer in targets.
-
I seem to be getting better results with AIM-120B than C in 4.36.
-
Hello
Same impression for me too .
Anyway, we want the U1 now
Tired of this kind of thing, happened again last night:
- F16 : FL 246 mach 1.03
- Enemy F15 : FL 248, mach 1.84
- almost head to head
The F16 shoots an A120C to F15C at 8 nautical miles.
After only 8 nautical miles of flight, the A120C is slower than the F15 which has turned around (180 ° !) , and the missile misses.In order to shoot down an F15 or SU30 head to head, it must be shot at less than 5 nautical miles with an A120C.
Maybe the good loading is to be only with AIM9X ?
-
@Rouge1512 acmi available for sharing?
-
Here it is.
Two examples in this short extract:
1st example: shot by myself:
F16 - A120 C - ASL 24 500 - M 1.04
vs
F15 - ASL 2500 M 0.72 (which is dogging a chopper)
Shooting at 12.5 nautical miles
In spite of the difference of altitude and speed, the F15 manages to make a 180° turn and to flee. But one can still consider that the F15 being low, the density of the air slowed down my missile a lot, a lot…2nd example which is the best, a few moments later. The shooter is my wingman Choch who is at my southwest at the beginning of the ACMI.
The conditions of his shooting are those I quoted above.
His F15 made a turn at 880 knots and 10.2 G.These facts are not exceptional : they are the new norm.
-
Please pace yourselves guys
No need to search and argue around this.
You can resume those discussions once U1 is out… -
@Rouge1512 said in AIM 120:
Thank you very much.
This gives us a chance to hope that the U1 will change that… good news
-
Actually the fix will not make into U1. U2 for sure.
-
@Seifer What? Are you saying the AIM-120 guidance issue won’t be fixed yet with U1? Can’t wait for this issue being fixed as it literally put most of our proper BVR training on pause. Issue of RWR won’t spike at 32nm+ hopefully will be fixed too with U1. I can wait longer for the release of U1 but please don’t release U1 with these issues unfixed.