4.37 killed the AMRAAM
-
this is ABSOLUTLY CRITICAL that you confirm me that you are in SP in the first ACMI (the one with only one player)
and by SP i mean it’s not a MP game on a distant server.
-
i dont think it’s SP, it’s impossible to have such a mismatch between accélérations and trajectories
-
I played your TE on a fresh Balkans install in SP
RUN 1
https://mega.nz/file/7ol2hAIA#HjmyXzKPKtJFCzbqLf7-rWGOK2ihsGW7EaXWnsta_woRUN 2
https://mega.nz/file/z1tBVAjK#yIKMe3RkG6edlpB2-bmcT4fMoXCgx7R-i-I13CrHX8ARUN3
https://mega.nz/file/X1lUyBBA#1_ERYVAZqpV0WwQ6mktMLy1UCWLTCV-srwfFiPuvHyoRUN4 long shot TWS against manoeuvering
https://mega.nz/file/G8NgUJpR#TYaxzXG8KABxZ_yJo7dSZ1yArMO1EoGXKasw0sZCs2gRUN5 multiple engagement
https://mega.nz/file/St9x2YBJ#ZJKzTftfx9CzIMeAe7V_xqUThIWzcTmg0VOb1bcQZCIinteresting demonstration of the aquisition ;:
@15:52 Mustang 2 fires on the closest MIg, but @15:52:09 it looses lock , missiles goes Inertial based on the last parameters (+ errors). The migh Nothes Right , the missiles does not follow since last known DL was previous to the notch. @15:53:02 , the missiles goes HPRF / MPRF (ACMI does not have the info), and the only Aircraft in his FOV is the second MIG , it start tracking the second mig but it does not even have the energy to close up enough and time is ticking…RUN 6
https://mega.nz/file/Opc0lCDa#95Pw71GpE8QozQLIIaRIhbjiVojBz7Ur8bDYYF6SoIURUN7
https://mega.nz/file/6o8h3AwA#L3i4yGX1vCmiBh0wqh1ZYuUxt2uCIADr4DPgeFl3q6YEverything smooth, no weird G’s vs Trajectory inconsistencies in the ACMI (AIM120 does not go to 33 G’s without turning and MIG29 does not fly mach 0.15)
, absolutly normal AIM120 aquisition and trajectories
-
I honestly don’t understand the basis of discussion of some people here.
They say: I flew such and such and such happened and not that was posted from other people here.
That is not the point!
The point is that AMRAAM and AI aircraft do things that are not subject to the rules of physics and common sense.
About the specific case:
I built the TE.
I planned three MiG-29S to take off from Yougoslavia and serve as a target for BVR testing. I deliberately assigned the AI aircraft the Rookie, Veteran and Ace levels in order. I cloned 3 times the 3 MiG-29S with MissionCommander and then moved the clones to three other areas to provide more training opportunities. I also adjusted the times, altitudes, speeds and armament with MC to my liking.
I flew the TE of 2023-02-01 alone, therefore self-hosted. My wingman was an AI F-16 Blk 50. My computer has no problems managing that. The frame rate is consistently above 60 fps. I use a monitor that can only display 60 fps. I have installed the latest NVIDIA driver.
The operating system is up to date (Windows 10). I don’t use Win 11 because there is a conflict with the parallel installed Linux. (secure boot).
What I don’t understand:
Same TE, once flown only on my computer and a second time hosted by a dedicated server, a total of 5 pilots in the MP mission and at the same point similar “errors”?
I will analyse the ACMI tape and point out some questions in an other post. -
@Prot said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
I honestly don’t understand the basis of discussion of some people here.
They say: I flew such and such and such happened and not that was posted from other people here.
That is not the point!
The point is that AMRAAM and AI aircraft do things that are not subject to the rules of physics and common sense.
About the specific case:
I built the TE.
I planned three MiG-29S to take off from Yougoslavia and serve as a target for BVR testing. I deliberately assigned the AI aircraft the Rookie, Veteran and Ace levels in order. I cloned 3 times the 3 MiG-29S with MissionCommander and then moved the clones to three other areas to provide more training opportunities. I also adjusted the times, altitudes, speeds and armament with MC to my liking.
I flew the TE of 2023-02-01 alone, therefore self-hosted. My wingman was an AI F-16 Blk 50. My computer has no problems managing that. The frame rate is consistently above 60 fps. I use a monitor that can only display 60 fps. I have installed the latest NVIDIA driver.
The operating system is up to date (Windows 10). I don’t use Win 11 because there is a conflict with the parallel installed Linux. (secure boot).
What I don’t understand:
Same TE, once flown only on my computer and a second time hosted by a dedicated server, a total of 5 pilots in the MP mission and at the same point similar “errors”?
I will analyse the ACMI tape and point out some questions in an other post.And I flew 10 times the same mission as you and have absolutely no issue at all with very smooth trajectory
Your ACMI where you fly alone is absolutely not consistant in term of positioning of objects
You understand the fact that we have never seen a 33G object without a turn right ?
So you are showing something that I absolutely cannot reproduce , with same parameters
So obviously I am not in a position to help you whatsoever here because i cannot reproduce your object positionning issue
You acmi is not consistant with what a normal game execution should be ,
where is the problem ? No idea !
-
Could other guys interested in the topic test the same TE in balkans please ?
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
You acmi is not consistant with what a normal game execution should be ,
where is the problem ?What is a normal execution of the game? It was a regular version of Falcon BMS 4.37 U1 Balkans-Theater on my computer.
I have not changed anything, neither the BMS code nor the ACMI recording. You mean that was a whim of my computer?
I can only hope that such whims do not occur more often. -
@Prot said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
You acmi is not consistant with what a normal game execution should be ,
where is the problem ?What is a normal execution of the game? It was a regular version of Falcon BMS 4.37 U1 Balkans-Theater on my computer.
I have not changed anything, neither the BMS code nor the ACMI recording. You mean that was a whim of my computer?
I can only hope that such whims do not occur more often.What I mean is that obviously the program did not run as it should as indicated by wrong position vs accels and wrong AI speeds. If you look my acmi you obviously see that the sim is running very differently .
At that stage it’s no more aim120 issue and could be linked to many many other things . Not necessarily your computers fault.
That is why a repro case would be a big step
-
@Prot said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
I honestly don’t understand the basis of discussion of some people here.
They say: I flew such and such and such happened and not that was posted from other people here.
That is not the point!
The point is that AMRAAM and AI aircraft do things that are not subject to the rules of physics and common sense.
About the specific case:
I built the TE.
I planned three MiG-29S to take off from Yougoslavia and serve as a target for BVR testing. I deliberately assigned the AI aircraft the Rookie, Veteran and Ace levels in order. I cloned 3 times the 3 MiG-29S with MissionCommander and then moved the clones to three other areas to provide more training opportunities. I also adjusted the times, altitudes, speeds and armament with MC to my liking.
I flew the TE of 2023-02-01 alone, therefore self-hosted. My wingman was an AI F-16 Blk 50. My computer has no problems managing that. The frame rate is consistently above 60 fps. I use a monitor that can only display 60 fps. I have installed the latest NVIDIA driver.
The operating system is up to date (Windows 10). I don’t use Win 11 because there is a conflict with the parallel installed Linux. (secure boot).
What I don’t understand:
Same TE, once flown only on my computer and a second time hosted by a dedicated server, a total of 5 pilots in the MP mission and at the same point similar “errors”?
I will analyse the ACMI tape and point out some questions in an other post.Could you indicate me your full specs please ?
-
@Mav-jp
What do you want? The size of my panties?
Otherwise feel free to read my signature. -
@Prot
It might be a 'lil problem, at least her I can’t see your sig at all.
Is that so difficult to post your system specs? -
@Prot said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp
What do you want? The size of my panties?
Otherwise feel free to read my signature.I don’t see any signature
And I advise you to calm your tone
-
@Prot hi Prot, we are trying to help here. If there is a person that understands a lot of aim120 code this person is MavJP.
All his is asking is more information, because we are unable to reproduce the situation on our side.
We are trying to get more people to try this and see if there is a common denominator. So all kinds of informations will be useful. Except, perhaps, the size of your panties (although I suspect @Aragorn will find it useful).
-
-
@Seifer said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Prot hi Prot, we are trying to help here. If there is a person that understands a lot of aim120 code this person is MavJP.
All his is asking is more information, because we are unable to reproduce the situation on our side.
We are trying to get more people to try this and see if there is a common denominator. So all kinds of informations will be useful. Except, perhaps, the size of your panties (although I suspect @Aragorn will find it useful).
Is there a clear repro procedure? We know how we are.
-
@LorikEolmin seems to me there is some serious overclock. I would recomment to revert the stock values and try again to discard this variable from the equation.
-
@LorikEolmin said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Seifer said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Prot hi Prot, we are trying to help here. If there is a person that understands a lot of aim120 code this person is MavJP.
All his is asking is more information, because we are unable to reproduce the situation on our side.
We are trying to get more people to try this and see if there is a common denominator. So all kinds of informations will be useful. Except, perhaps, the size of your panties (although I suspect @Aragorn will find it useful).
Is there a clear repro procedure? We know how we are.
Just fly the TE of this post and engage the MIG29s
-
In case you want to check if the multithreaded code could be related to it, you can disable it by adding to your
Falcon BMS.cfg
set g_sCpuPerfOptimizations "all-PARALLEL_DRAW_OBJLIST-PARALLEL_DRAW_PLATFORM"
-
@Seifer said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
In case you want to check if the multithreaded code could be related to it, you can disable it by adding to your
Falcon BMS.cfg
set g_sCpuPerfOptimizations "all-PARALLEL_DRAW_OBJLIST-PARALLEL_DRAW_PLATFORM"
@Prot please test same TE in SP with those lines in your CFG
-
Hey guys,
first, sorry for the dead link to my GDrive yesterday. It was a classic error 66.Here the Link again for everybody who wants to test the TE.
I’ve just flown the mission again, offline
Mustang 61, human
Mustang 62, AI
MIG’s, of course AII also provided the ACMI on the GDrive. (2023-02-03_17-49-08.zip.acmi)
In my opinion the first 2 missiles shot in the first engagement performed normally. The next missiles went wired again like in the other two tests. Especially in the endgame!
On the second engagement everything was ok.So I think I was only partial able to reproduce the strange behavior of the missile.
Next test will be in MP later on.