4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
-
@molnibalage said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Mikyjax said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
So this is a pure gameplay choice then?
Since the aim120 is now really nerfed and more realistically modeled compare to earlier do you think that would makes senses to reconsiderate that?There is so much things that I can mess up (and I love it), mistakes that are on me, non respect of the mar, shooting too far, outside of the Circle, bad Sa, bad tactics, bad decision… that when you did “everything correctly” wasting 3 missiles just based on a random loss of lock is a bit frustrating, and that’s only because there is nothing you can do about it. And I’m even talking in STT.
Anyway “BMS will always work that way because we want more challenge” would be fine by me, just asking if it’s worth considering
ARHs in the past were modeled as some kind of holy weapons. (As were all IR missiles before the new IR code.)
-
@Mav-jp '‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.’
-
@Carbide said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Mav-jp '‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.’
Exactly.
-
@molnibalage said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
- How is modeled the radar scan of the missile? Scan rate (angle sec/bars?) If the FRQ of the radar is known based on the size is is an easy calculation to determine the beamwidth. We can assume 10 GHz, almost every ARH uses the FRQ. Is it / will be modeled the scan?
10 GHz is very common for fighter radars, but it may not be for missile radars.
For instance, Meteors and MICAs use Ku-band radars and, interestingly enough, the AV-8B Tactical Volume stated in 2002 : “With the recent availability of suitable millimeter-wave power-generating components, radar designers are developing extremely small, albeit short-range, radars which take advantage of the atmospheric window at 94 GHz to provide radar capabilities in small packages (i.e., air-to-air missiles, AH-64 longbow).”A bit earlier in the same volume it reads : “As an example, the airborne warning and control system (AWACS) radar operates in the S-band (10 cm). These radio waves are considerably longer than that used by the APG-65 (3 cm), however, AWACS utilizes an antenna which is about 24 feet wide. At the other extreme, an air-to-air missile which operates in the millimeter-wave region (94 GHz) can achieve the same angular resolution with a 3.8 inch antenna as an I-band radar would with a 36-inch antenna.”
So the AMRAAM, or some versions of the AMRAAM, may use a 10 GHz radar, but it’s difficult to conclude without clear evidence.
-
Very interesting read here guys regarding the AIM-120C but one thing is bothering me ever since I’ve been flying the F-15C Eagle since the latest update. I know its the same AIM-120C missile but it seems to behave differently to the F-16, I dont know whether its just my imagination but I think it tracks more accurately when you fire it from the F-15C. Has anyone done any testing to see if there’s any noticeable difference? Maybe its due to the radar? I know for a while we were blaming changes to the AIM-120 for missed shots and bogey’s dodging our AIM-120s but now I’m not so sure its the missile but something else. Sorry to go off topic a bit maybe this deserves a separate thread?
-
@Kavelenko said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
Very interesting read here guys regarding the AIM-120C but one thing is bothering me ever since I’ve been flying the F-15C Eagle since the latest update. I know its the same AIM-120C missile but it seems to behave differently to the F-16, I dont whether its just my imagination but I think it tracks more accurately when you fire it from the F-15C. Has anyone done any testing to see if there’s any noticeable difference?
Strictly idenditcal AIM120 model and code
Maybe its due to the radar? I know for a while we were blaming changes to the AIM-120 for missed shots and bogey’s dodging our AIM-120s
That was before 4.37.3 aquisition update
however, there are still some quirks in guidance model particularly in terminal stage.
-
@Kavelenko - and I would expect that. The F-15 has a bigger, better radar…and one can’t really consider the AIM-120 without considering the radar.
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
If you can’t change the reality, try to change your expectations…
-
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Kavelenko - and I would expect that. The F-15 has a bigger, better radar…and one can’t really consider the AIM-120 without considering the radar.
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
It’s good that you consider things but the reality is that a long as FCR lock is maintain , the relative performance (read SNR of concract) has nearly no impact ( 10% difference max in some extreme conditions on the UV)
At the moment the errors build in for every radars are identical so no difference here either
Overall we shouldn’t see any difference really if FCR lock is maintained
It is true that lock is easier to maintain with f15 than f16 due to more powerful radar
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Kavelenko - and I would expect that. The F-15 has a bigger, better radar…and one can’t really consider the AIM-120 without considering the radar.
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
It’s good that you consider things but the reality is that a long as FCR lock is maintain , the relative performance (read SNR of concract) has no impact at all .
It is true that lock is easier to maintain with f15 than f16 due to more powerful radar
100% agree. This way of thinking that if larger = better in every aspect is simply false.
-
@TOPOLO said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
If you can’t change the reality, try to change your expectations…
Exactly. I’m trying to fit the disparate performance I’m reading about here into the reality of the actual aircraft…after talking to a few RL fighter/Viper drivers I know, I’m finding some of my observations are actually correct.
-
@Mav-jp said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Kavelenko - and I would expect that. The F-15 has a bigger, better radar…and one can’t really consider the AIM-120 without considering the radar.
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
It’s good that you consider things but the reality is that a long as FCR lock is maintain , the relative performance (read SNR of concract) has nearly no impact ( 10% difference max in some extreme conditions on the UV)
At the moment the errors build in for every radars are identical so no difference here either
Overall we shouldn’t see any difference really if FCR lock is maintained
It is true that lock is easier to maintain with f15 than f16 due to more powerful radar
Not entirely…it’s FAR more complex than that - and in some cases I may not even need a radar track at all… But all that’s not a topic for discussion here.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Mav-jp said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Kavelenko - and I would expect that. The F-15 has a bigger, better radar…and one can’t really consider the AIM-120 without considering the radar.
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
It’s good that you consider things but the reality is that a long as FCR lock is maintain , the relative performance (read SNR of concract) has nearly no impact ( 10% difference max in some extreme conditions on the UV)
At the moment the errors build in for every radars are identical so no difference here either
Overall we shouldn’t see any difference really if FCR lock is maintained
It is true that lock is easier to maintain with f15 than f16 due to more powerful radar
Not entirely…it’s FAR more complex than that - and in some cases I may not even need a radar track at all… But all that’s not a topic for discussion here.
You know but you can t tell
Great , good for you , but it’s not useful at all for us.
Enjoy what you have
-
@Mav-jp - I’m still looking at ways to put the 4.35 model into 4.37. I know I’ll break things - MP mostly - but I’m not really sure I’m going to care at this point. I’ll be the only one using it…as long as it behaves in accord with my expectations/experience.
If I can actually make this play I may also start looking at a few other things I know about, just to see what can be done with what I learn. But I’m not in any rush.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Mav-jp - I’m still looking at ways to put the 4.35 model into 4.37. I know I’ll break things - MP mostly - but I’m not really sure I’m going to care at this point. I’ll be the only one using it…as long as it behaves in accord with my expectations/experience.
If I can actually make this play I may also start looking at a few other things I know about, just to see what can be done with what I learn. But I’m not in any rush.
yep, there is a way, reinstall 4.35
-
@Mav-jp music to my ears
-
@Mav-jp - I’ve kept multiple installs around for years…I may torch 4.36, though. But I’ll want the legacy ones around to compare to what I fiddle with.
…4.35 may become my personal end-point.
-
I don’t get the point of this… it’s not like AMRAAMs are totally broken and worthless.
Going back and staying at 4.35 is a ridiculous idea. There are literally hundreds (maybe in the thousands) of fixes between that version and where we are now. And it’s about to get even larger.
PS, you can’t possibly tweak anything in 4.37 to make the AMRAAM like it was in 4.35…that’s all internal code… at most you could do is mess up the flight model and seeker parameters.
-
Looks like radar (quality of data) has a much larger effect on engagement performance than missile. I have heard that TWS is of a low enough quality to that it is a rule not to use it (outside of needing 3+ or 5+ simultaneous engagement beyond TTS or MTS abilities of course).
I wish I could find the reference but I swear I’ve heard that there is an interpolation of DL updates and seeker info throughout the engagement process. Even when the missile “sees the target” he should still take efforts to blend DL data. Obviously the blend will start DL-heavy and end DL-lite but every DL update is weighed (Kalman filter?). RCS size setting would likely play a role into that blend balance.
Remind me if BMS has RAID. AIM-120 should be able to assign EONs to different missiles to sub-target a cluster which returns as a single track. I know that’s well beyond the already challenging task of a 1 missile, 1 target modeling but it is an interesting notion.
I’m a bit surprised there’s no mention of weighing targets by factors other than geometric location (PRF closure aside). Weighting a contact higher that more closely matches the closure of the DL despite being slightly farther away from the geometrical position seems sensible.
Hopefully for testing purposes there can be a debugging way to specify repeatable “random factors” to at least have a solid representative sample instead of just having to play on the final product and do the statistical analysis, at least before the final draft.
-
Can we please level up the discussion and not have “I heard”, “I know”, …?
Doing this research was heavy enough and I’d like the posts here to be documented and a bit more serious.
Facts vs facts…