Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]
-
Hi,
I’m getting exactly the same issue engaging Mig 23 MLs in the C Plan TE. No burn through or lock until within 10nm. There are no issues with the Mig 29s in the same TE.Regards
Dram. -
@Dram said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
C Plan TE
normal once again heads on position !!!
we’ve just tested different fighters with integrated ECM or on Pods, and it’s always the same story: you break the Jammer at around 10nm. -
Sounds as if the ECM jammer is working as advertised??
If I may make one suggestion, try attacking the target’s beam. (From the 3 or 9 O’clock. Going Head-to-head is such a Cold War tactic).
-
@JollyFE do you mean an f-16 (not jamming) cannot burnthrough a mig 21 jammer before 10 NM?
Do you think the f-16 is not able to know the altitude of a mig 21? because you can’t even put your cursor around and see its altitude. That would really surprise me…
In this state all you have to do is to turn your jammer off, wait for the enemy to lock you and crank (he propably fired), lock him and send a missile to him, turn your jammer on, put your nose on him - done - you defeated his missile, no need to turn away, he lost the lock.
[edit] don’t try this with an AI only pvp… AI has no issue burning through your jammer and firing at 27 NM -
@Mikyjax Not 100% sure I understand your example, but what I’m saying that there better tactics than attacking head-on. Not sure where the MiG-21 came into play. I believe it began with a J-11 and then mentioned a MiG-23 and a MiG-29. All of various sizes and generations of technology.
BUT, if you want to discuss the MiG-21, its small size combined with jamming capability is not as easy as previous coded jamming would allow you to believe. Take into consideration that a Mig-21 generally attacks from a lower altitude. That means the F-16s radar has to pick out a smaller (and fast) aircraft against surface clutter. And then add in the jammer, which is specifically designed to scramble a radars return just enough to the point where that fighter can get in as close as possible to employ its weapons, thus making that attacking pilot (F-16 pilot) think twice about getting as close as they are.
Also consider whether the F-16 pilot is focusing the radar beam at that particular target. Is that pilot narrowing his radar beam down to 1 Bar and 20 degress of azimuth? Or is he/she continuously sweeping large swaths of the sky?! (Just a hint: sweeping large swaths of the sky is NOT a good tactic against a jamming target).
NOW consider that most of a Jammer’s energy is directed to the 12 & 6 O’clock of the aircraft. SO, attacking from the left or right beam (aka out-flanking) MAY be a better tactic. Not only will the target not be in a position to defend with a missile launch, the jammer’s energy is not directly pointed at your radar.
Just a thought…
-
@JollyFE I’m talking about the mig-21 because it’s one of the plethore of aircrafts we used for this test and it’s probably the worse aircraft that has jamming capabilities to put up against the f-16.
Now, I’m well aware about different/better tactics I’m just studying this particular head on case because we realized that there is no better way to break a lock than by pointing the nose at the enemy and this applies until the 10 NM mark.
So, if that’s normal, ok, great no prob, but that means that all jammer are as good and that also mean that AI’s should have the same problem, they should not be able to lock and maintain a lock @ 27NM if we are head on.
For the bar and azimut yes, just read above, we tested everything.
Altitude is not relevant in those tests, we are both around 25.000 ft -
@Mikyjax Ok I’m now “tracking”. And Mav-JP will be the best to answer specifics of jamming ability with respect to range.
-
yesterday I found an interesting information on Falcon Lounge Discord
that doesnt change the issue we have with jammer but as it talks about jammer so I post it hereMicro wrote : “Energy management is not implemented for Jammers. I asked the same questions during testing and docs writing to the coder.
Switching certain programs on/off doesn’t increase energy for other programs which are on.
Same for forward/aft jamming. Switching one jammer off doesn’t increases the capacity of the active one.
I will add this info.”Energy management, should it be effective or not? that’s the question…
Otherwise what would be the interest of having several programs? so currently, I guess It’s better to select all programs! -
@suhkoi69 said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
yesterday I found an interesting information on Falcon Lounge Discord
that doesnt change the issue we have with jammer but as it talks about jammer so I post it hereMicro wrote : “Energy management is not implemented for Jammers. I asked the same questions during testing and docs writing to the coder.
Switching certain programs on/off doesn’t increase energy for other programs which are on.
Same for forward/aft jamming. Switching one jammer off doesn’t increases the capacity of the active one.
I will add this info.”Energy management, should it be effective or not? that’s the question…
Otherwise what would be the interest of having several programs? so currently, I guess It’s better to select all programs!Energy management was implemented in first versions , however I decided to remove it for those first releases
It might be back
-
-
Oof! Someone doesn’t like The Small Faces?!
-
@Mav-jp Hello! Is it normal I can’t burnthrough any enemy jammer until I reach 10 NM? No matter the radar mode? Even if my own ECM is off (so no degradation) Head on configuration, same altitude.
We do realize the effect decreases with their change in aspect and attitude due to the jamming cones but it looks like the center spots from both rear and front are VERY performant to jam us, no matter the age of the ennemy pod used.
Do the AI have the same constraint than us on that regard?
Thank you. -
@Mikyjax said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
@Mav-jp Hello! Is it normal I can’t burnthrough any enemy jammer until I reach 10 NM? No matter the radar mode? Even if my own ECM is off (so no degradation) Head on configuration, same altitude.
We do realize the effect decreases with their change in aspect and attitude due to the jamming cones but it looks like the center spots from both rear and front are VERY performant to jam us, no matter the age of the ennemy pod used.
Do the AI have the same constraint than us on that regard?
Thank you.They have the same constraints
-
Hi, But clearly it’s a bug ??
Because burn through an ECM at only 9-10 miles with own off seems here very very close.
Eric.
-
Bonjour @Mav-jp
There are probably good reasons for all this, and the balance must obviously not be easy to find.
But, in fact, you deliver a new air-to-air weapon system with each version or update, and what has just been found means that we can no longer trust, in addition to our feeling that it has changed, the assertion that nothing has changed (F3 or ECM).
Worse still, no information on the changes.
It’s not as much fun as all that, for the “lambda” pilot, each update, to go through 20 to 30 hours of testing with his friends to find out what hasn’t changed but has.
It would be a pity to disgust us. And given what I’m expecting to hear from the back of the class, that’s starting to sound like a lot.
Realism OK, but gameplay a bit too please: it’s “also” a game, and changing rules without information is tiresome.
-
@Rouge1512 said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
Bonjour @Mav-jp
There are probably good reasons for all this, and the balance must obviously not be easy to find.
But, in fact, you deliver a new air-to-air weapon system with each version or update, and what has just been found means that we can no longer trust, in addition to our feeling that it has changed, the assertion that nothing has changed (F3 or ECM).
Worse still, no information on the changes.
It’s not as much fun as all that, for the “lambda” pilot, each update, to go through 20 to 30 hours of testing with his friends to find out what hasn’t changed but has.
It would be a pity to disgust us. And given what I’m expecting to hear from the back of the class, that’s starting to sound like a lot.
Realism OK, but gameplay a bit too please: it’s “also” a game, and changing rules without information is tiresome.
This is simple:
The ECM power vs Radar has not changed at all in theory.
Unless you have your own ECM active on the same band where your FCR power is reduced.Considering this , if with your own ECM off, your ability to break opponent ECM in the same conditiosn is less than any other previous version, then this is a bug and is not deliberate.
We never changed rules without information, the information of FCR power reduction with your own ECM in the front antenna has been published at first release of the ECM system modification.
EDIT : there is ECM power limitation with number of programs, i realized this was indeed undocumented (actually i thought it was not even in). So we will document it ASAP. however this is unrelated with the topic of breaking AI ECM
As usual an despite your very unpleasant tone , we will look deeper into it to find the issue asap, if issue there is
-
@Mav-jp Hello! Thanks for looking into this. I have no idea about previous version as I don’t remember, I just discovered it in this version.
The question is not related to previous version to me, it’s just:Is it normal for you that I can’t lock a jamming contact until 10 NM when I am in this precise configuration :
- Head-on
- Same altitute
- I have no Jammer
- Contact is in XMT 3 Pgm 4 Music on
- Tested in PVP as I can’t guarantee those parameters VS AI
If you’re answer is yes, don’t waste your time but please tell me, so we can adapt our tactics
If it’s no, then there is a bug because I tested this a lot of time and it’s 100%.Thanks again for your time
-
@Mikyjax said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
@Mav-jp Hello! Thanks for looking into this. I have no idea about previous version as I don’t remember, I just discovered it in this version.
The question is not related to previous version to me, it’s just:Is it normal for you that I can’t lock a jamming contact until 10 NM when I am in this precise configuration :
- Head-on
- Same altitute
- I have no Jammer
- Contact is in XMT 3 Pgm 4 Music on
- Tested in PVP as I can’t guarantee those parameters VS AI
If you’re answer is yes, don’t waste your time but please tell me, so we can adapt our tactics
If it’s no, then there is a bug because I tested this a lot of time and it’s 100%.Thanks again for your time
i dont know what "normal " means
but in this configuration, there should be no change compare with previous Falcon BMS iterations .
If we dont get a similar result, then i will consider it “not normal”. This is what i will check
-
So thank you very much and my apologies.
-
@Mikyjax said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
@Mav-jp Hello! Thanks for looking into this. I have no idea about previous version as I don’t remember, I just discovered it in this version.
The question is not related to previous version to me, it’s just:Is it normal for you that I can’t lock a jamming contact until 10 NM when I am in this precise configuration :
- Head-on
- Same altitute
- I have no Jammer
- Contact is in XMT 3 Pgm 4 Music on
- Tested in PVP as I can’t guarantee those parameters VS AI
If you’re answer is yes, don’t waste your time but please tell me, so we can adapt our tactics
If it’s no, then there is a bug because I tested this a lot of time and it’s 100%.Thanks again for your time
are you testing in DGF Module or TE ?