Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
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. -
@A.S:
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.I saw a video of someone dodging the 120 with little effort. He was beating them kinetically but it didn’t seem correct as thats a method for beating the older generation SAMs. I tried to reproduce those methods and it worked with heavy chaff at the final turn into the missile, just didn’t seem right almost like it was an exploit. I thought the newer ARH missiles were to fast and manuverable for such a move. Keep in mind at one point he was within visual range of the firing craft.
But agreed. more effective chaff might make it too easy
-
More effective chaff than completely ineffective, would somehow make the sim worse?
AMRAAM has already stated that BMS modeling of the 120 is already bogus. Saying that the edits done for Molni’s theater makes it worse does not make BMS’ modeling miraculously accurate.
-
I do not care how hard is dodge or not the AIM-120, this is not the topic this tread. The topic that chaff code of concerning ARHs are buggy and not workings. Maybe the guidance values cause that easy to dodge the AIM-120 and do not forget the over modeled RWR which gives you 100% accurate information when you should turn… So dodging remains easy (?) as long as the imporvements of RWR won’t come, and will come.
BTW I rather say not easy because if the missile has enough energy and your are not close to 450-500 CAS you do not have a chance even it head aspect, from tail aspect you have 0 chance to defeat kinematically advanced missiles. From my aspect it is a vital question to fix ARH code. As long as ARH code is buggy from my aspect is pointless to play in AMRAAM era and use AIM-54 on F-14s.
And what if somebody wish to model a SAM or naval SAM which has combined guidence, MCG + ARH missile? Their speed can be M4-6 where kinematic defeat is quite hard. For a functional sim which models tactical situations you need working ARH code. Anywawy, chaff chance as so low for ARHs even if code work you cannot detect the difference. I could discover only with tweaks the very serious errors…
-
do not forget the over modeled RWR which gives you 100% accurate information when you should turn…
+1 (ATM)
-
I do not care how hard is dodge or not the AIM-120, this is not the topic this tread.
However, if they are going to look at the AMRAAM at all, it should be fixed completely. I’ve got no issues whatsoever with your desire to fix the chaff issue.
-
I do not care how hard is dodge or not the AIM-120
I COMPLETLY believe you saying this sentence Molni, and this is the same reason why i am sceptical with your data-edits.
What i mean by that is, that each elementry critical change having impact on the fight-dynamics must be considered with their global implications (how much will that change the BVR gameplay - you still dont care?).In other words… first one has to understand the dynamics, mathematics and variables of a correct simulated combat environment BEFORE elements of the same definitions are changed, influencing the global picture consequently.
It is one thing to think as a “modder” who discovers anomalies in files, another to think as combat “scientiest” who investigates into realistic combat conditions and variables.I believe you totally that you found something abnormal and unlogic but i have two additional questions:
-
if you change the numbers for chaffs…how much does it change the BVR combat-simulation and to what extend it variates from realistic trainings perspectives which were the goal in the first place. Where is the sweet-spot of the chaff values (worth thinking about it) - assuming they got it working in the first place.
-
I havent personally digged into it due to lack of time, but how much resources can be provided here telling us how much chaff-resistance actually modern real ARHs have or how much “sensitivity” they have towards such countermeasures.? I think this is where we should start…anything else is just “logic” speculation.
Dont get me wrong Molni… i am not trying to argue with you here… instead i am trying to have a progressive
conversation. I do not ignore your database analytic skills nor the fact, that you pointed out flaws, but you ignore
very fundamental principles i pointed out with statements like that.
So at the end of the day… i only can be thankfull and appreciate, that you pointed out “flaws” and can also be happy about the fact, that the BMS-Devs themself with more educated eyes on that subject are responsible for changes and not individual modders who “dont care about the fight-dynamics”, but try to improve it. -
-
Well in this case Molni is talking not in general for the missile… but for a specific aspect of the missile. Regardless of the FM of the missile. This one is a very tricky one.
The code change that Molni refers to can be easily found since the FF code is free for all now. Taking a look at it I believe will tell the coders what exactly is he talking about.
Now testing this includes and the FM cause u have to “fight” the missiles FM capabilities besides it’s radar capabilities. And that makes the isolation of the case impossible I would say, in any way beyond my limited comprehension.So if I fully understood it the addition Molni suggests is that at certain parameters chaffs might work as supposed to, and give u a slight open window to brake the missiles lock and avoid it.
On the other hand BMS guys have data and reference and testimonials on which they are based on… In many cases I’m sure they just can’t say more details so we have to take it as is. And we r glad about it…Also we all understand and know that there can’t be a golden rule easily be applied on this subject cause this is not a simple 1+1=2 math kind of thing…
Now about the “easily” avoided 120’s and that u have to be in a certain range to be lethal and etc well For many years I have seen many cases… Many said that there where patterns that if u follow u r on the safe zone 100%.
I believe the solution might be somewhere in the middle. If Molni’s suggestions is believed to make it way easy to avoid then there could be something like a random situation applied to the behavior, that way u will never know what to expect… something like the random failures.
-
Hey Molni,
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.
no need to do any further testing or recording comparison vids…
Cheers
Biker -
I COMPLETLY believe you saying this sentence Molni, and this is the same reason why i am sceptical with your data-edits.
What i mean by that is, that each elementry critical change having impact on the fight-dynamics must be considered with their global implications (how much will that change the BVR gameplay - you still dont care?).Yes, I care. This is why I’m testing what is working in BMS4 and what is not. If a complete element of the modeling is buggy how can you say that I’m not caring on global level…? This means if anybody ever will model any ARH weapon it never can be perfect as level what BMS4 can support in theory. (Assuming working ARH code.)
In other words… first one has to understand the dynamics, mathematics and variables of a correct simulated combat environment BEFORE elements of the same definitions are changed, influencing the global picture consequently.
It is one thing to think as a “modder” who discovers anomalies in files, another to think as combat “scientiest” who investigates into realistic combat conditions and variables.For testing you can get good result if you change only one factor or variable. If you wish to change the kinematic range you examine the drag and thrust characteristics independently then can comes the combined effect of different tweks. This is what I did with Russian SAMs. Regardless I set accurate weight, total impulse, thrust char. etc, their kinematics were not “100%” accurate which means something is not so good in aerod data.
For finding the error in ARH code I changed only one variable, the chaff chance, nothing else. I did not make such a turns which could cause kinematic defeat, therefore it is 100% obvious that what happened or what not, epecially when I compared with FF4 which had a functional ARH code.
I believe you totally that you found something abnormal and unlogic but i have two additional questions:
- if you change the numbers for chaffs…how much does it change the BVR combat-simulation and to what extend it variates from realistic trainings perspectives which were the goal in the first place. Where is the sweet-spot of the chaff values (worth thinking about it) - assuming they got it working in the first place.
Are you asking here what chaff chance value I wish to use?
- I havent personally digged into it due to lack of time, but how much resources can be provided here telling us how much chaff-resistance actually modern real ARHs have or how much “sensitivity” they have towards such countermeasures.? I think this is where we should start…anything else is just “logic” speculation.
IMHO in Falcon all weapon modeling value carries the aspect who set them ages ago. Most of weapons used in such a low qty. that only a very few data available abot the cicumstances how they were used and what were the counteractions of the target.
Regardless of subjetive aspect there can be done some basic observations. For ex. if in RL about dozen or half dozen flares defeated not only once AIM-9M from rear aspect it is cannot be acceptable that in Falcon 100+ flares have 0 effect. This is nonsense.
Dont get me wrong Molni… i am not trying to argue with you here… instead i am trying to have a progressive
conversation. I do not ignore your database analytic skills nor the fact, that you pointed out flaws, but you ignore
very fundamental principles i pointed out with statements like that.Roger.
So at the end of the day… i only can be thankfull and appreciate, that you pointed out “flaws” and can also be happy about the fact, that the BMS-Devs themself with more educated eyes on that subject are responsible for changes and not individual modders who “dont care about the fight-dynamics”, but try to improve it.
The don’t care about FM concerned on the specific examined issue. It is 100% unimportant factor for chaff code that how good or how bad the FM for any missile. This is true vica versa. Which throug an exact examle, the quality of for ex. my SA-2 FM tweak is 100% unimportant how accurate the radar modeling of SA-2. Of course the combination of all the modeling components gives the ture value of a weapon system.
-
The code change that Molni refers to can be easily found since the FF code is free for all now.
Which version? I tested in FF4 the ARHs, because I knew that it is fucntional. I do not know what knows FF5.x or FF6 because I have no idea why, but last time when I tried to install FF5.5. I was not able to do it. I got a very strange error massage.
-
no need to do any further testing or recording comparison vids…
This can mean many things to me:
1. You can see the problem, will examine and fix.
2. You can see the problem, but the Team does not plan to fix.
3. You cannon’t see the problem, ARH code won’t be checked.Which is true?
-
Missile wiki’s claim that modern missile seeker are able to reject chap and flares. It’s not a dump beam rider.
2nd, some of the BMS ARH missiles I’ve seen in acmi looks like the data link is bad(single player anyway). When the seeker goes active the angle-off is too high making it easy to dodge. Is there a way to check if the FCC is sending bad collision coarse (lead pursuit) or the datalink is absent after the ARH missile leaves the rail.
-
Hey Molni,
This can mean many things to me:
1. You can see the problem, will examine and fix.
2. You can see the problem, but the Team does not plan to fix.
3. You cannon’t see the problem, ARH code won’t be checked.Which is true?
thanks for your testing and reporting, but don’t expect me to give a labor report…
Cheers
Biker