Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
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.
-
-
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),……
I think this is plausible on high aspect shot. The 120 is less agile at the beginning of it flight when it is the heaviest because of unburned fuel. iirc the 120 is twice the weight compared to the winder. And at <10nm the defending pilot should be able to see the launch.
In other words, the real thing is pretty darn lousy, so why is BMS still massively over-modelled?
It’s not over modeled imo. I can defend homplate against 6 ace Mig-29/AA-12 (4 escort) on an OCA with one F-16. However, missiles pk should not be improved without improving the AI’s ability to dodge
-
The 120 is less agile at the beginning of it flight when it is the heaviest because of unburned fuel.
Really? I mean….REALLY?
:facepalm:
The 120 is less agile when it is OUT OF FUEL and thus OUT OF THRUST.
-
However, missiles pk should not be improved without improving the AI’s ability to dodge
it’s not about improving the PK of the 120 it’s about reducing the PK
the AI is already capable of dealing with a reduced PK of the 120,
as the 120 is now, it’s child’s play to defeat it at 14 miles and up. i don’t bother with chaff as it never works, i try terrein masking and bouncing the missile between the 3-9 line, count a certain amount of numbers in your head from missile warning on the RWR and you know when you can climb and turn into the missile without it ever hitting you.
defeating it closer than 12 miles is getting considerably harder, most of the time if you’re below 400 kn and within 12 miles the PK of the slammer is incredibly high, the only chance you have of defeating it is by some good flying and starting out fast to begin with, otherwise you are toast.
the thing is though, when i read (on wiki for example) that the missile is far less reliable than it is in BMS, i start thinking, if it was as (un)reliable in BMS as it was in real life, i could defeat the missile in other ways thus i don’t have to turn cold on the target, i could put him on gimbals, do some aerobatics pop some chaff and continue attacking the bandit that was smart enough to turn cold on me expecting a missile in the air, or stupid enough to come straight at me and i can kill it and run.
-
Still not understand why reduced the PK of the missile.
-
-
as far as i understand it from reading this thread it’s because it doesnt match what it’s real life counter part does.
as mentioned earlier, in real life the PK of this missile is around 40% and it also is hardly ever used BVR because the pk drops so low you might as well throw pop corn at the other jet.
in BMS the missile is far more lethal than it should be compared to it’s real life counter-part -
try this than, quite close to the real thing…
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?8230-Suggestion-for-database-data-supply/page51
“look @ the last post of the page”Specifications
Primary Function Air-to-air tactical missile
Contractor Hughes Aircraft Co. and Raytheon Co.
Power Plant High performance
Length 143.9 inches (366 centimeters)
Launch Weight 335 pounds (150.75 kilograms)
Diameter 7 inches (17.78 centimeters)
Wingspan 20.7 inches (52.58 centimeters)
Range 20+ miles (17.38+ nautical miles)
Speed Supersonic
Guidance System Active radar terminal/inertial midcourse
Warhead Blast fragmentation
Unit Cost $386,000QT
-
Really? I mean….REALLY?
:facepalm:
The 120 is less agile when it is OUT OF FUEL and thus OUT OF THRUST.
You have not notice that your F-16 is more agile when it is low on fuel?
-
oh someone close this thread….
-
Guys, public information is one thing. Some real pilot have feedback about the missile, and the return is completly different. AIM-120 is too weak in BMS for him.