4.37 killed the AMRAAM
-
@Stevie said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Razor161 - a compendium of known issues that can be caused by hardware would be a good reference to include in the Documentation.
I totally agree. Maybe @Micro_440th could consider this for future releases.
-
The thing that makes no sense with this model is the degree of both range and angular error. For example below:
It make 0 sense that there are angular errors this large, TWS uses the same exact waveform as RWS and SAM. If a radar had this level of angular inaccuracy it would literally be unusable as an FCR. Lets be clear engaging multiple targets with TWS was a thing demonstrated successfully in the 60’s. TWS can have issues with correlation algo’s but ranging and angle accuracy will not be one of these issues.
the above is from U2 also.
-
@nighthawk2174 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
It make 0 sense that there are angular errors this large, TWS uses the same exact waveform as RWS and SAM. If a radar had this level of angular inaccuracy it would literally be unusable as an FCR. Lets be clear engaging multiple targets with TWS was a thing demonstrated successfully in the 60’s. TWS can have issues with correlation algo’s but ranging and angle accuracy will not be one of these issues.
It’s more than just the waveform with TWS, it’s the computing power to develop and interpolate the tracks, radar power to actually get a usable return every scan to keep a quality track, and then time to go through scan volumes with the mechanical scan, with less time being better to keep accurate tracks.
TWS may have been around since the 60’s, it doesn’t mean it’s as accurate as the other modes. It’s always some guess work, see my previous posts about the AWG-9 vs APG-71. What made the APG-71 better was really the processing power than the radar dish and RIOs say that is when TWS really became a viable mode.
@Snake122 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@WPNS24 See this thread I think people got their wires crossed between STT and RWS maybe for a minute and forgot to address the TWS.
@Stevie AWG-9 and APG-71 were different beasts than the F-16’s puny APG-68 and even then I believe I’ve heard a few F-14 RIOs that said that TWS was pretty amazing, but only on the APG-71, not as effective except for bombers on the AWG-9.
@Snake122 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Stevie see my edit above re: F-14. Yes scan volumes and and such are important, but there is also the processing power to develop and maintain the tracks, which was my impression why the AWG-9’s TWS was not the main bread and butter mode like it was for the F-14D.
Check out that thread, you did participate in it some, but especially @OPPOTATO’s reply I found interesting.
-
@Snake122 The angular resolution and accuracy in both range and angle of the radar will be no different between rws and tws. What tws does is it stores the last set of track data in a memory bank then when it goes over the same area it will correlate what it sees with the previous tracks using a correlation algorithm. Beyond this it is not doing anything special that RWS/SAM already don’t do. These radars the 68 and up will have absolutely no issues once so ever with the processing power needed for this task. TWS is set up so that it should go over the same area every 2 seconds or so, this is enough for accurate tracking especially for the case I showed where they were just flying level and straight. What issues a radar may have in its correlation algorithms handling maneuvering targets does not explain the massive angular and range errors being added to the missiles.
-
@nighthawk2174 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Snake122 The angular resolution and accuracy in both range and angle of the radar will be no different between rws and tws. What tws does is it stores the last set of track data in a memory bank then when it goes over the same area it will correlate what it sees with the previous tracks using a correlation algorithm. Beyond this it is not doing anything special that RWS/SAM already don’t do. These radars the 68 and up will have absolutely no issues once so ever with the processing power needed for this task. TWS is set up so that it should go over the same area every 2 seconds or so, this is enough for accurate tracking especially for the case I showed where they were just flying level and straight. What issues a radar may have in its correlation algorithms handling maneuvering targets does not explain the massive angular and range errors being added to the missiles.
-
@Mav-jp I fail to see how this is relevant to what I posted. I’m talking radar physics and how these systems actually work not what your model actual is right now.
-
@nighthawk2174 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
It make 0 sense that there are angular errors this large, TWS uses the same exact waveform as RWS and SAM. If a radar had this level of angular inaccuracy it would literally be unusable as an FCR. Lets be clear engaging multiple targets with TWS was a thing demonstrated successfully in the 60’s. TWS can have issues with correlation algo’s but ranging and angle accuracy will not be one of these issues.
Thanks for your experiments.
I am wondering that during the mid-course, the missiles do not correct the course although the angular error in TWS. It seems that the angular error is fixed at the time the shot. -
@nighthawk2174 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp I fail to see how this is relevant to what I posted. I’m talking radar physics and how these systems actually work not what your model actual is right now.
enough for accurate tracking especially for the case I showed where they were just flying level and straight. What issues a radar may have in its correlation algorithms handling maneuvering targets does not explain the massive angular and range errors being added to the missiles.
Clearly we are talking about BMS implementation, viz. above, and this thread titled “4.37 killed the Amraam”
Mav-jp is saying they’re working on improving it. That’s all we can ask for.
-
@nighthawk2174 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp I fail to see how this is relevant to what I posted. I’m talking radar physics and how these systems actually work not what your model actual is right now.
Because you said you don’t understand those big angle deviations and what I posted you tells you than we will reduce those angle deviations and base the model on small deviation and window selection
Comprende now ?
-
Dis thread…
-
@Mav-jp These angle deviations should be incredible small, fractions of a degree, same with the range deviations. Additionally your linked post are just percentages can’t really convert that into how those equal 15+degrees of angle error.
-
@nighthawk2174
I may be mistaken, but as I read Mav-jp’s post above, that is the adjustment that is under development, to not see such large deviations. Probably by decreasing the variance of the error distribution (and perhaps the choice of distribution itself). -
WPN, I don’t want to highjack your thread, so please excuse this announcement…The OFMNevada 1.7, coming out very soon, has something a bit different in it. It will include the AIM-120D, stock, but will also include simple executables where you can remove it from the Theater if you like. We’re doing that in response to some feedback we got from Multiplayers.
I’m posting this here to invite all of you to check it out and give us your feedback, so we can continue to refine the missile. -
@drtbkj said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
It will include the AIM-120D, stock
Nice work, could u share aim120d data. I can compare it with other variants.
-
@nighthawk2174 - this is pretty much the sort of thing I was expecting based on previous commentary concerning the “improvements” to the model. I knew it was wrong then, and it’s wrong here…
…and I still feel the best solution is to return to the 4.35 model and just leave that alone.
-
2 weeks vacation. First and last warning from me. I-Hawk.
-
@Stevie I am not sure what is irony here, but please, have some consideration with MavJP work.
You may not like it, that is totally up to you. It may have some bugs, and some were acknowledged by the team, some stuff was fixed already and some stuff is being worked on. And some problems come from people PC.
MavJP has been working quite hard to deliver an experience which is based on data the team could gather. Telling him to dump everything sounds very disrespectful to me.
-
@Stevie luckily not every one thinks like you. Else we would have today the same simulator as twenty years ago.
Refining simulation, improve it, and in fact all things in general are a long process with their problems. But it’s the price to be paid if we want things to progress…
You know what? You are free to launch 4 35 and play with your arcade missile but let us experiment all these new things. Even if they are not yet perfect or with some bugs., we are able to enjoy it or to wait for their realisation and find some compromise the time needed.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Mav-jp - this is pretty laughable, really…
you can laugh as you wish
Enjoy your masturbation time
-
@Mav-jp said:
Enjoy your masturbation time.
I was just sitting here (bored) thinking: “What can I do now…?”
Stumble upon your post… BOOM…!
Great idea…!!