4.37 killed the AMRAAM
-
-
@Rouge1512 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
Salut Mav-JP
Unfortunately (or fortunately), right, it is MP.
server overloaded or VERY bad refresh rate on the client that is the target
, are you using windows remote desktop on your server ?
-
@Mav-jp - no, not that. Strictly what I read about changes to probability of intercept tables - that, and that alone.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp - no, not that. Strictly what I read about changes to probability of intercept tables - that, and that alone.
Well
First that’s not how it works , we don’t have « PK tables »
And second : no changes will be done ing the PG
We will improve guidance though which will result in higher PK
-
-
I just had to test the AN-72 vs F-16 Block 40 x 6 AIM120C, sniper pod. 14.5 Nm out
One AIM-120C, one dead duck, whats the problem?
-
@Kavelenko the repro case under discussion has been more of a head-on aspect… fired from 24-28nm out. not sure if that matters, but maybe amplifies the guidance error, if the target closes to an acute angle, outside missile seeker fov when it goes pitbull.
and apparently there’s some randomness to the error applied… I guess I got “lucky” above when I missed twice in a row, once 11 degrees left then 12 degrees right
I did try a couple more times, and got hits each time.
-
@airtex2019 Ok sorry I misread the post.
-
@Kavelenko it’s ok … I misinterpreted my 2 datapoints as being statistically significant.
-
@Mav-jp - whatever you did, what I read was that you decreased what could be “observed” or expected as Pk…or more correctly - probability of intercept in certain cases.
-
@Kavelenko Did you take the time to watch the ACMI yet? please do so and then return and I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the engagement
Thanks!!
-
@WPNS24 Which ACMI file are you referring to and what’s your call sign so I can see what’s happening from your perspective please?
-
Some of the things here make no sense.
In order of “how good is the lock”:
TWS (worst, but required for multi-target)
RWS (better, but not great; arguably worse than TWS but TWS is slower)
STT (best, but not magic)Head-on aspect can only be a problem if the target turns when the missile is already half-way to the target or more. If the target beams/turns cold on the missile by luck, then the missile is an instant lose as it won’t have the energy to take up pursuit.
The target shouldn’t be out of the FoV of the missile at pitbull. The DL guidance up to then should mean the missile is pointing somewhere at the target, otherwise there is no point even updating the missile with intermediate updates.
So there remains two problems: either the target radically changed their vector since missile launch, or there is a problem with intermediate guidance of the missile.
As far as I can recall, it has always had a low PK if a target was fired upon, then they started to maneuver some time later. It’s just how it is.
The definition of a “non-maneuvering target” is one that hardly changes flight parameters from the moment of launch until impact, i.e. maintains speed, course, and altitude. If they start to change any one of those parameters, even for a simple heading change due to flight plan, that can make the difference between hit and miss, depending upon geometry of the shot.
I haven’t flown 4.37 much, and fired exactly zero missiles, but there isn’t much being said here that I wouldn’t already expect.
The best test would be to fly human-vs-human in F-16 at known parameters and see if you can replicate it. This way, you can guarantee zero maneuvering of the target, to eliminate at least one parameter.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp - whatever you did, what I read was that you decreased what could be “observed” or expected as Pk…or more correctly - probability of intercept in certain cases.
Correction , I indeed did something in order to match what is expected , which is a PG ranging from 20% to 90% which will result probably ina. PK between 0% and X%
But the topic here of the OP is not a topic of acquisition model (I know it bothers you a lot but you will have to accept the fact PG can be as low as 20%) but more a topic of guidance , which is under deep scrutinizing right now
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
Those parameters have been unchanged for the last 15 years at least, we might start to open the pandora box now
Oh no, my beloved evasive maneuver is going to nuts
Indeed, now the C version is working again and better than the B version at least in speed and terminal maneuverability. We do not have any issues fighting up to Su30, Su35. It is tough though, but we want tough, right? -
at the risk of continuing to piss everyone off:
i havent had much issue with MY missiles hitting the targets. i always aim to launch at R-tr if i can. there is little a target can do if you launch within R-tr.
i do have a problem with the AI i fly with. they are wasting slammers at long range. their kill ratio is around 25%. multiple occasions where an F-16 will shoot all of its slammers at a target, miss, then get killed in an ensuing close range engagement.
i do believe the AI needs to be tweaked to reflect whatever change has been made in 4.37. they need to be much more conservative with missile employment.
-
@FreqiMANN
It will sound weird to you … but 25% is not a bad ratio.
FYI: IRL, a missile is not necessarily launched to kill a target, but to force enemy to abort or to waste his fuel. Don’t expect AIs to look for a kill anytime. -
@Mav-jp - glad to hear you are still thinking, and I’ll accept that for now. Once you get on the step, I’m expecting your expectations to change…
I know I’ve probably said this before, but I’m far more interested in how BMS behaves than I am in how it “works”. And for the most part, it behaves as I expect. Which is way cool.
-
@Kavelenko Blitz is the call sign and here’s the ACMI.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j1gAsjLIMNrzgV3ySqI6GiFgVAU3w1p9/view?usp=share_link
My AI wingman is trash, how come our AI is so bad but thiers is so good? LOL
-
@WPNS24 Well for most of that ACMI replay I thought you did fine, the only part I thought was a bit dodgey was at 5:09:51 when the SU-30 pulls off a tricky maneuver to dodge your first AIM-120C, then also manages to spin on a dime as indicated by the arrow below, then out runs another missile launched by your wingman. That seems unrealistic to me, how many Gs would anyone expect to pull in a turn like that I wonder? Otherwise it looked like some pretty good flying from both sides.
-
@Kavelenko TacView shows the G and turn rate. was about 6.5G sustained, 6.7 max. seems ok. turns sometimes look comical in TacView because of the enlarged icons.
the shot from Blitz that goes pitbull at 05:15:24 is probably more concerning… fired at ~15nm, 90 degree aspect, and with a +20k ft alt advantage… the Su-30 does a high-slice turn at 8.5G then accelerates to outrun the 120C, while actually climbing in altitude slightly.