Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
true - and it is a big handicap IMHO…some SARH missiles (most of them I guess, even modernized R-23 and R-24 IIRC) have lock after launch capability…so they should be able to re-lock I think - but all of them go balistic 2 sec after launch
these small bugs when summed up makes unrealistically huge difference between SARH and ARH missile efficiency
Yes, there could be a relock value and a timer, self-destruct/lose lock data. the thing with this kind of stuff it is so classified if you model it real well you need a lot of info or your just guessing . But some educated guesses might be ok .
-
See if Sweep rate = this is sweep angle in radian per seconds
Does anything, slow it down .are active very fast ?In DB all or almost all modelig are the same, I canged only the chaff chance to see the difference. The results are 100% clear.
-
So, is there any reason to dump chaff against active missiles in stock BMS ?
What about redflag 4.0? database and chaff resistance modifed ? or not ?
Anyone ??
Thanks.
-
Nothing, the code is borken.
-
Nothing, the code is borken.
Put some real data (120s chaff resistance and scan alghorythms) on the table before you use “borken”
-
@A.S:
Put some real data (120s chaff resistance and scan alghorythms) on the table before you use “borken”
Maybe, least in manufacturer propaganda…
Hard to belive that it’s 100% immune to chaff and jammers and kills always.
-haukka81
-
@A.S:
Put some real data (120s chaff resistance and scan alghorythms) on the table before you use “borken”
What real (?) data you need besides that if you set 1.0 or 0.99 or whatever chaff chance the ARH never, yes, NEVER miss the target if it is withing kinematical range….?
If you set the same chaff sensitivy for SAMs or AC radars all radar guided missiles lost the target after 1 or 2 chaff drop. SAM, SARH missile, whatever, only the ARH is problematic. The test results are 100% obvious and consistent. If you set the same chaff chance for ex in FF4 the ARH lost the target and do not regain unless you fly straight ahead and you are flying slow. The chance for relock is theoratical because during a real missile defeat attempt you fly in a very different way
In BMS4 even the missile lost the target the relock is 100% sure and never lost the target again. Yes, never. I performed about 100+ launches in different combinations with various aspect, speed and alt in AI vs AI, player vs AI and in player vs player cases. Chaff never worked. Yes, never. If I put SARH on AC the hit chance of missile was theoretical only the stupidity of the AI gave a sligth chance. I did not have to use jammer or doing hard turns. I simple dropped chaff and unless the distance was not very, very small - the old distance mulitplier seems to me still used - only dropping chaff was enough.
Sorry, but I’m a bit fed up such a skepticism. I’m too tired and too drunk currently. I’m not a noob in Falcon universe. I said what I said because of many reasons and test results and not because my hobby is not making flame posts…
It is a bit funny that FF Team also did not believed me first time when I found similar major bug in ARH missiles early alpha version of FF5.0. Only problem that test results was so obvious that they had to accept that I was right and fixed the problem. What worked in FF4 did not worked in FF5 alpha in 100% exactly the same cases.
I do not understand instead of asking why do not do the same tests what I did…?
-
@A.S:
Put some real data (120s chaff resistance and scan alghorythms) on the table before you use “borken”
I doubt that anybody have data becase these are top secret…
I’m also bored a bit with “make as real as possible” because the aspect is used in a very selective way. Mostly this aspect is used why is said why is not improved something and why only F-16C is important regardless it is also cannot be made 100% real but somehow quickly gained what anybody do not like holy weapons…
Regardless of this is one of the best simulator it is still a game either. Somehow this is forgotten… You have to consider the fun factor. With current weapon modeling values too many missiles mean to me a showstopper feautre. It is not fun to live in such a universe where even the late '80s missile are holy weapons…
-
Why so angry?
If you (we) want to improve things, than we need a basis to work from first. Just crying out loud, that things are broken will not help fixing it.
So, i recommoned researching (at best as it is possible of course) and construct a better reasoning. From there it can be developed or thought-through further.
What is the worst thing to do, is an opinion based “tweak” (seen in FF, where that leads).The fun-factor surely i don´t forget, but i do also consider the tactical presentation of an simulated environment (if that makes sense).
I don´t think, that you are noob or such, but i can´t take your case serious as it is no case yet (just observations and opinions).
In the words of the NSA director (out of context, but funny): “unless someone comes along, and shows how it can be done better, this is the best we have to work with for now”BTW: The chaffs work beautifully versus the emitter plattform and its already a “joke” to defeat missiles imo (have shown that in a previous post - breaking R-77 from the rails + chaff).
-
I’ve fired on targets within kinematic range and they managed to dodge them, so I don’t understand this 100% kill thing.
-
This post is deleted! -
I’ve fired on targets within kinematic range and they managed to dodge them, so I don’t understand this 100% kill thing.
Human or AI? inside NEZ?
for a human at least, you can dodge the AIM-120 with little effort. when you see the M on your RWR, break for the deck and burn….
-
IMHO:
Even AIM-7s or other semi-active missiles should have some way to hit, now they are quite useless. Why airforces even today use those if it is this easy to break lock?
And i have to say that DCS is failing because they underestimate gameplay side so much, let’s not make Falcon same. :drink:
-
Why so angry?
I’m not angry. I’m disappointed, very disappointed. You posted your latest comment as the previous ~80 did not exist… Since the first post was plenty of time repeat my test and prove that I was wrong. I did not see any evidence that chaff has such an effect on ARHs what should be.
If you (we) want to improve things, than we need a basis to work from first. Just crying out loud, that things are broken will not help fixing it.
I have proven. If you do not believe me repeat the test and show me at least one cases where by using only chaff you can brake the lock as can be done against SAMs and SARH missiles. No turn, no ECM just dropping chaff.
So, i recommoned researching (at best as it is possible of course) and construct a better reasoning.
What can be better than a video? It works in FF4 as has to do and does not work in BMS4. Only problem that I do not find the video. Did I forget to record and upload? In this case I have to install again FF4 and make the test. Only question, is it worth my time…? Some people simply deny the bugs of BMS4. I have no idea why…
BTW: The chaffs work beautifully versus the emitter plattform and its already a “joke” to defeat missiles imo (have shown that in a previous post - breaking R-77 from the rails + chaff).
Against ARH it is a who cares issues that the radar lock of launch platform can be jammed. Yes, becaues of magic accuracy of RWR you can dodge ARHs if the missile KE is enogh low and you are in a good position. But I do not understand how comes this to my observation that ARHs cannot be defeated by chaff even if you set 1 chaff chance value or any…
I simply do not understand why I so hard to believe that I found a bug what was not discovered by anybody.
(Today I also check another major bug about the red vs blue tanks.)
-
@A.S:
Why so angry?
If you (we) want to improve things, than we need a basis to work from first. Just crying out loud, that things are broken will not help fixing it.
Project much?
-
AFAIK chaffs should be dropped in such a manner that they form a curtain between you and the emitter. Just popping them as a flare is not the way to go.
Im not sure to what degree this really is modelled…I do have ACMI tapes of heaters being obiously distracted by flares of aircraft other then they targeted.
Amazingly I have one ACMI where an AIM-9P is targeted on an F-4, pops flares, Aim9 goes for the flare, other F-16 passes the flare and the Aim9 starts to track this F-16 and kills is. (I was the poor guy getting shot)
Netstat was the Wingman fireing the Aim9…I stillAnyway…
If the Chaff is modeled as accurately as the flare. It may be the way/procedure used for dropping it which gives the bad(no) effectiveness of the Chaff. -
AFAIK chaffs should be dropped in such a manner that they form a curtain between you and the emitter. Just popping them as a flare is not the way to go.
Im not sure to what degree this really is modelled…I do have ACMI tapes of heaters being obiously distracted by flares of aircraft other then they targeted.
Amazingly I have one ACMI where an AIM-9P is targeted on an F-4, pops flares, Aim9 goes for the flare, other F-16 passes the flare and the Aim9 starts to track this F-16 and kills is. (I was the poor guy getting shot)
Netstat was the Wingman fireing the Aim9…I stillAnyway…
If the Chaff is modeled as accurately as the flare. It may be the way/procedure used for dropping it which gives the bad(no) effectiveness of the Chaff.what type of radar is onboard the AIM-120?
-
-
A very small one!
doppler? would the chaff’s GS of roughly 0 ms^-1 mean that the chaff would be completely ignored?
-
You tell me?
Are you trying to say that chaffs won’t work anyway. So the whole discussion is void?