4.37 killed the AMRAAM
-
this MIG is flying @ mach 0.15 @ 15.46.32
this MIG is not behaving as it is programmed
-
@airtex2019 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Sandman said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
Ok and it woudl be nice for all monitoring this thread, do the same
which radar/lock mode are we discussing? sry if I missed it above
do 3 shots. One in TWS, One STT and one in SAM
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
this MIG is flying @ mach 0.15 @ 15.46.32
this MIG is not behaving as it is programmed
We can not change what was programmed
-
@Sandman said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@airtex2019 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Sandman said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
Ok and it woudl be nice for all monitoring this thread, do the same
which radar/lock mode are we discussing? sry if I missed it above
do 3 shots. One in TWS, One STT and one in SAM
again there is no issue of aquisition in this ACMI
-
@Razor161 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
this MIG is flying @ mach 0.15 @ 15.46.32
this MIG is not behaving as it is programmed
We can not change what was programmed
so many things can be done wrong !
Can’t repro, can’t do anything
i will not spend again hours firing hundreds of AIM120 to just convince myself that it’s working exctly as it should
i have no idea what i’m looking in this ACMI, but it does not look like what i fly here
case closed for me
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Razor161 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
this MIG is flying @ mach 0.15 @ 15.46.32
this MIG is not behaving as it is programmed
We can not change what was programmed
so many things can be done wrong !
Code wise nothing can be done wrong by us. And we didn’t fly the Mig.
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Sandman said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@airtex2019 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Sandman said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
Ok and it woudl be nice for all monitoring this thread, do the same
which radar/lock mode are we discussing? sry if I missed it above
do 3 shots. One in TWS, One STT and one in SAM
again there is no issue of aquisition in this ACMI
You are correct missile is pitbull, launch in any mode you like just support it to pitbull and I would like to see results from different users
-
Maybe something similar here (watch my plane at the end, not at the beginning, normal avoidance)
-
@Razor161 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Razor161 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
this MIG is flying @ mach 0.15 @ 15.46.32
this MIG is not behaving as it is programmed
We can not change what was programmed
so many things can be done wrong !
Code wise nothing can be done wrong by us. And we didn’t fly the Mig.
Can’t repro, can’t do anything
i will not spend again hours firing hundreds of AIM120 to just convince myself that it’s working exctly as it should
i have no idea what i’m looking in this ACMI, but it does not look like what i fly here
case closed for me
-
@Sandman yeah I just watched the ACMI. noticed Mig callsign was “Neo11” if that helps explain things…
“You telling me I can dodge slammers?”
“No, Neo… I’m telling you, when you’re ready, you won’t have to.” -
and THIS
https://mega.nz/file/ekszXLhJ#RANVbmR3fwE-RDVkxM-lAZ7g14_OC8roLil6_3ExCRI
is the ACMI i just recorded
it shows
-
how the AI should behave during missile avoidanc => just pump
-
normal AIM120 trajectories
-
-
@Mav-jp if it helps, in terms of interpreting Bloodhound’s acmi, I notice the pair of slammers launched by the AI wingman Mustang62, at timecode 15:50, also go corkscrew-mode upon terminal guidance
the second one much more prominently than the first [edit: all 4 of the slammers actually]
but I hear you, if this is not stock KTO, and doesn’t repro in stock KTO, then not sure how to proceed with analyzing it any further
-
@airtex2019 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp if it helps, in terms of interpreting Bloodhound’s acmi,
Absolutly NOTHING in this ACMI makes sense
-
Missiles are all entering into avoidance mode instead of terminal mode
-
MIG29 AI is absolutly not flying his defense programmed code
-
MIG29 AI is flying at mach 0.15
is that a joke ? are we looking at a DCS ACMI ?
-
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@airtex2019 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp if it helps, in terms of interpreting Bloodhound’s acmi,
Absolutly NOTHING in this ACMI makes sense
-
Missiles are all entering into avoidance mode instead of terminal mode
-
MIG29 AI is absolutly not flying his defense programmed code
-
MIG29 AI is flying at mach 0.15
is that a joke ? are we looking at a DCS ACMI ?
Do they have a Balkans theatre in DCS?
-
-
as said , unless someone is able to provide me a reliable repro case of this kind of non sense, case closed
-
@Rouge1512 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
Maybe something similar here (watch my plane at the end, not at the beginning, normal avoidance)
Everything looked normal. On this last missile you mentioned I see what you are talking about. I want to see more cases for sure. I can’t tell you how many missiles I fired testing this and if I saw anything like this it certainly would have been addressed. Will need to see more cases for sure. I still can’t reproduce on my end.
-
What are you guys doing to my thread!!!
Ok, now in all 100% seriousness with a reply of yes or no. I want you to say yes the slammer should hit or no the slammer should miss to this engagement.
I am clearing a Mig-23 off my wingman that is at 12k alt. I am at 25k and in a dive at .65 Mach and increasing, the Mig is at .71. The distance is 10.63 nm and I launch my slammer.
The Mig goes immediately cold and increases speed maxed out at mach 1.13, my speed has increased to .94 mach. Time elapsed is 57 seconds and slammer dies.
Mig knows missile defeated and turns hot toward me 12 miles in trail at 18k alt and .92 Mach. Mig is at 4000 ft and 1.13 Mach, turns hot at 4.4 G and loses 2 kts airspeed. Points its nose at me and sees another slammer launched again pulls a hard right at 9.9 G’s (losing 15 kts airpseed) and accelerates to 1.11 Mach in seconds again. At the point it turned cold again, my missile was 4.39 nm from the Mig and couldn’t catch it. The Mig just sprinted away until it finally turned back in AGAIN after the 2nd slammer missed and at this point I was only 6 miles away this time and finally killed it with a 3rd slammer…
Do any of those scenarios sound reasonable? Yes or No
I can upload the ACMI but I have to trim it down first
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
is that a joke ? are we looking at a DCS ACMI ?
The thought crossed my mind already
-
@Sandman @unleashedcode @Mav-jp
The GDrive link of @EuKeule is now working. He also provided TE files. Just in case your interested. -
@Razor161 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Sandman @unleashedcode @Mav-jp
The GDrive link of @EuKeule is now working. He also provided TE files. Just in case your interested.Thank you i will try to reproduce on my end (installing balkans right now )
The ACMI where you are in MP is very interesting.
I have no idea of what is happening here,
@15:40:42 you see the missile is generating 33G , you can see the AOA is increasing drastically to achieve that and the command is clearly in the right direction as we can see the AOA is increasing in the right direction BUT => there is absolutly ZERO effect on the trajectory , the missiles does not turn to the right despite generating 32G …which is course is physically impossible.
So we have 3 possibilities here
-
This ACMI is from a client or host that is not the one who has fired the missile . could you confirm if this ACMI was recorded by who ? and have you the twin ACMI of both clients ?
-
if this missiles is fired by a client, and the ACMI is the host, then it might be an issue with the DR code ?
-
there is a bug in the Flight Model Physics here that makes the Trajectory not in line with G / AOA. This flight modeling has been unchanged from Micropose Falcon 4.0 , so i wouldnt be surprised that there bad hacks in there (as usual)
It is therefore ABSOLUTLY critical if you can provide me both ACMI of the two players and of the host if those players are not the host
the good news is that none of those ACMI show any aquisitions issues (which is what has been changed in 4.36 / 4.37 )
-