Possible active radar missile bug (very serious 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 -
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.
You did not also get the point. The question is not which value should be set, the question is the functionality of ARH code. Whenthe ARH code is not buggy you can consider what values should be used.
-
Molni, just out of curiosity, did you check the following situation? If not, could you? (for explanatory’s sake, I’ll assume you haven’t yet)
You are at 250kts and medium altitude, being a sitting duck. Hostile on your six launches ARH at same altitude, closure speed of >100kts and 10NM. When M becomes active, drop all your chaff, but don’t manoeuvre.
Theoretically, the chaff should then completely block the missile FOV and make you disappear (+ lose lock) in the noise until it passes the chaff cloud. At that point, it should pick you up again, but whether it can still intercept will depend on distance and aspect.
If that seems to be working in the M’s advantage, try the same, but turn away after x seconds (e.g. >5 seconds first, gradually go to immediately turning away)
Theoretically, at some point, you should be able to use the chaff cloud as cover to get out of the FOV, but for that to work, the missile should be close enough to the cloud itself, hence the different timings. (= small object can block large part if close enough, but you don’t know when this will be of course)You could also roll 360degr during chaff release to widen its coverage…
2 cents
-
Molni, just out of curiosity, did you check the following situation? If not, could you? (for explanatory’s sake, I’ll assume you haven’t yet)
You are at 250kts and medium altitude, being a sitting duck. Hostile on your six launches ARH at same altitude, closure speed of >100kts and 10NM. When M becomes active, drop all your chaff, but don’t manoeuvre.
In MP I tested tail aspect cases on different altitudes.
You could also roll 360degr during chaff release to widen its coverage…
Yes, I tried too.
-
You did not also get the point. The question is not which value should be set, the question is the functionality of ARH code. Whenthe ARH code is not buggy you can consider what values should be used.
I’m just saying maybe the code is written that way because in r/l chaff and flares are obsolete.
That’s why the US has spent blood and zillion of $ on the OV-25 and towed decoy systems. (because the seeker can tell if what it see is decelerating or not)
-
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?
I bet on 1 (?) Maybe already fixed knowing Biker
-
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.
well this is another thing… but FF6 code is out there: http://freefalcon.org/index/
-
If the chaff/ARH issue has been fixed, then hopefully you’re now looking at the kinematic properties of the AIM-120 and the lack of 1) realistic range and 2) atmospheric benefits from lower-density air as you climb above 25,000’
-
If the chaff/ARH issue has been fixed, then hopefully you’re now looking at the kinematic properties of the AIM-120 and the lack of 1) realistic range and 2) atmospheric benefits from lower-density air as you climb above 25,000’
The quick fix is very easy, simply change the coefficient multiplier. Only problem that I cannot verify how real the change…
-
Sorry Molni, my remark was directed towards the default behavior in BMS and thus the development team.
AIM-120 modeling is not something that you should have to fix - it should be correct by default in the sim.
IMO, AF had a better modeling of the 120B (and AF had a 120C that behaved differently, as opposed to identically mis-modeled behavior in BMS).
-
How do you reconcile the fact the real missile is not that great, to the point at least two are often fired to try and increase PK, in some cases, three? Not only that, but pilots generally don’t fire them truly BVR because of the very low PK? The most well-known employments of AIM-120 are all fired at ranges less than 10 nm (or WVR), and then multiple missiles were fired to ensure a kill.
In other words, the real thing is pretty darn lousy, so why is BMS still massively over-modelled?
Best regards,
Tango. -
That’s not the thing I heard.
-