Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
I just tested in MP. I made two video record. I set 0.99 chaff chance for AIM-120. Effect was 100% the same as in single player. Within some sec me and the other player used the 60 chaff but the lock did not was broken.
-
Some test were done wit BVRAAM. I set 0.99 chaff chance.
Sometimes the chaff worked but mostly did not. It seemed me during the test if the launch AC used its radar in TWS or RWS mode and bugged the target after the missile lock was broken - just for a fraction of a second or a second - somehow the missile relocked again the target and become immue to chaff.
If the launcher turned off its radar launched the missile in BORE mode while radar was turned off sometimes chaff worked, but not every time.
AIM-120 never lost the lock.
I will test with AI AIM-54, MICA and Meteor either, but the results so far are conclusive to me, ARHs mostly do not work as should do.
-
With AMRAAM’s comment about high-altitude problems, it seems the 120 needs to be seriously looked at.
Why even bother with real-world tactics when the sim doesn’t model it properly?
-
It seemed me during the test if the launch AC used its radar in TWS or RWS mode and bugged the target after the missile lock was broken - just for a fraction of a second or a second - somehow the missile relocked again the target and become immue to chaff.
The issue is 100% visible and reproducible against MICA EM and AIM-54. At ~10 nm radar goes active, I drop some chaff ‘M’ disappears but at about ~6-7 nm relock me, but the missile and in this phase is immune to chaff. Missiles which go active at smaller distance - R-77 (AA-12) - you cannot brake the radar lock.
-
OK had a closer look…
Radar data chaff chance is multiplied with a factor which is dependent on missile to target range.
| RNG [nm]
| 0.00
| 1.97
| 3.95
| 7.90
| 19.75
|
| Factor
| 0.00
| 0.00
| 0.75
| 0.75
| 0.00
|Means chaffs are most efficient between 4 and 8 nm, if missile is closer or farther from target chaff chance does decrease.
This is same for all types if missiles and seekers.Cheers
Biker -
I know, but what I say 7.9 nm is more or less exacty the distance where AIM-54 goes active again after I have defeated and immune to chaff regardless I drop dozens or all 60 between 4-8 nm distance.
Should I recored video about all type of ARHs…? Believe me, ARH does not work as in older Falcon. When I tested with same values in FF4 or FF5 missiles were defeated. In BMS4 they are not. Even with original modeling values - which means about 0.05 chaff chance - in FF4/FF5 if you set very small time gap between releases and use them in ground clutter and instanteniously afther ‘M’ appeared on RWR the defeat was possible. In BMS4 with 0.99 is impossible except the one case what I described.
-
Should I make comparison videos with older Falcon versions? What do you wish?
-
I know it’s slightly off-topic, but I’d like to know why the 120 isn’t modeled better, period.
Having zero difference in performance from 25,000 ft and up is bogus. Considering the AIM-120 is the primary AAM for BLUFOR in the sim, it is unacceptable to have such a deficiency.
Firing from M1.2, 38k feet at a head-on target from 13 miles and having it turn and run away and beat the 120 is nonsense.
-
Why do you think that in RL AIM-120 have bigger kinematic range…? Baby, this is the reality against targets which can collapse your DLZ…
-
Because we have real feedback about that.
-
In this case try the FM what you can find in suggestion thread…
-
Will check soon, thanks. I will give you feedback asap.
-
Sorry mate but I’m unable to find it. I find the AIM-9, 7 and 54, but no luck for the -120. At the same times, do you have a changelog of it?
-
He had backed up with data the thrust model previously. The rest of FM tweaks is done by him.
-
Just test it right now, and it’s worse. I’ve take the new .dat for the AIM120B and keep the old for the C. Then in flight, you can switch between both to look direcly the result. The new one have much less range than the default one. Even at 36.000 ft. We are sooo under the reality now. For example, with the new one, I drop 1 Nm less in the MPRF range with the default one. When the old one give M13, the new one give M12.
-
I installed FF4 and tested ARHs. It worked as had to do except a minor issue. Even in FF4 ARHs able to relock you if you do not change your direction after you have defeated once them and there is a big time gap between the defeat and the terminal phase of missile (Distance is less then 4 nm). Even at very small distance - because of the range modifier - I was able to defeat with half a dozen or dozen chaff the ARHs. At max. distance when missile goes active 1-2 chaff were enough for break the lock.
I can make videos if you wish, the difference is 100% visible. The ARH is buggy in BMS4, it has showstopper bugs.
-
molni can u defeat aim-120 with ECM, chaging the aim-120 ECM 1.1 value to something 0.1 ? (more vulnerable to ECM)
-
I did not tested.
-
I installed FF4 and tested ARHs. It worked as had to do except a minor issue. Even in FF4 ARHs able to relock you if you do not change your direction after you have defeated once them and there is a big time gap between the defeat and the terminal phase of missile (Distance is less then 4 nm). Even at very small distance - because of the range modifier - I was able to defeat with half a dozen or dozen chaff the ARHs. At max. distance when missile goes active 1-2 chaff were enough for break the lock.
I can make videos if you wish, the difference is 100% visible. The ARH is buggy in BMS4, it has showstopper bugs.
Did you read Amraam’s post? :
Just test it right now, and it’s worse. I’ve take the new .dat for the AIM120B and keep the old for the C. Then in flight, you can switch between both to look direcly the result. The new one have much less range than the default one. Even at 36.000 ft. We are sooo under the reality now. For example, with the new one, I drop 1 Nm less in the MPRF range with the default one. When the old one give M13, the new one give M12.
The ARH is buggy in BMS4, it has showstopper bugs.
Molni … this is NOT a showstopper at all.
A showstopper is not such issue.
-
Molni is concerned about a spefic detail (righteously), but keep in mind gents, that dodging ARHs is not really difficult. Sometimes even easy.
With “better” working chaffs it might become too easy ??? (question).
Keep the bigger pictures in your heads, meaning one MUST test-fight the global tactical implications after making such partial logical or theoretical changes.