Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
I think molny talked about the fact that he can’t get a missile to miss with dropping chaffs, no matter what numbers he put into the sim. Not if the missile would be affected by chaffs or not IRL or should be in the sim. He just can’t make the missile bad, sort of? And that’s why he says the code does not work?
Cheers
-
This post is deleted! -
naah… many people (me too) just get frustrated because Falcon 4 is always some sort of mix of leftovers … Somethings are better in FF, some in AF, Some in RV, some in bms …list goes on…
There is always somethings broken when some are fixed. BMS fixed flight model, no more fly on rails but game side is bit broken or maybe i should say WIP.
And these threads are long as hell because if some one points bug, there is least 10 fanboy’s to defend …
-
I think molny talked about the fact that he can’t get a missile to miss with dropping chaffs, no matter what numbers he put into the sim. Not if the missile would be affected by chaffs or not IRL or should be in the sim. He just can’t make the missile bad, sort of? And that’s why he says the code does not work?
Cheers
and I just questioned how relevant the numbers were to his test results.
the numbers, mason! what do they mean?
-
In FF4 is the relock exist but you can break the lock again. The relock can happen if only you are so dumb that you do not make turns. Because of the big relative position change and the time for relock the capability is theoretical, missile is not able to perform again.
In BMS4 you cannot break the second lock and mostly not even the first lock. I uninstalled the FF4 but if you wish I reinstall again and I make some videos if you wish…
I am seeing the break of the first lock sometimes now, but it does not allow enough time for a position change to prevent a second lock. (once I had a little more time, got a nice bit of a turn, but it still relocked, and no luck breaking second lock as you say).
I am of course referring to active with ‘M’ in RWR. Not just break off the rails unlock.
It is hard to break the first lock, but is possible. I am agreeing with what you see.
If we developed a good skill to break first lock (as it is) , and had more time to prevent second lock would you be okay with it like that? I know you expressed concern about the AI, so wouldn’t they still be in trouble even if it worked like this?
We don’t want it to be magic chaff, but how could we have it so that it required good human skill to defeat with chaff (with turn, appropriate chaff program, etc) AND give AI a shot at it too?
In other words, could you live with it if only skilled human pilot can do it. Maybe easier to code a fix like that???
-
can we get a link to your demonstration videos?
-
……
I did not record ACMI because it does not show what you can see or RWR. So, what should I record on ACMI with what version to see that chaff does not work against ARH in BMS4…?You know what would be good right about now: ACMI>options>missle lock line
-
can someone tell me what is chaff program settings for molnibalage BMS4-test for the first encounter, the one with chaff chance 0.99
my video player I can’t see it too good.thanks
-
Blimey…haven’t thought about this one in ages (think circa 2009).
Once upon a time, a slammer was subject to a significant vulnerability to chaff decoys if there was some beam aspect to the target in view. Around about the time that the HPRF/MPRF modeling was added, input from knowledgeable real world sources who are in a position to know described that decoy modeling as BS for current inventory slammers. As a result, the code was changed to better reflect the reality of that situation. The factors that affect that beam magnifier effect are and always have been internal to the code, not directly related to the chaff chance in the radar data, although those factors do operate on the chance value for the “dice roll” calculation.
Net upshot?? Yep, slammers are very nearly but not totally immune to chaff.
This is by design, not a bug. Absent hard data to the contrary, there’s no plan to change this.
Nuance… So there is no modeling for block or national variants of the slammers really. As a result, we’re led to believe that in some cases, slammers fired from national variant F-16’s might be a little better at countermeasures avoidance than they should be versus real world inventory expected performance. That’s a criticism that would be hard to defend. It’s also one that would be hard to calibrate since we have no more data/detail on the differences (for obvious reasons) beyond that anecdotal comment. In the same way that support for older viper blocks is being added to future code, we may split out modeling of older missile blocks but as with all things future, no promises.
-
This is by design, not a bug. Absent hard data to the contrary, there’s no plan to change this.
Nuance… So there is no modeling for block or national variants of the slammers really. As a result, we’re led to believe that in some cases, slammers fired from national variant F-16’s might be a little better at countermeasures avoidance than they should be versus real world inventory expected performance. That’s a criticism that would be hard to defend. It’s also one that would be hard to calibrate since we have no more data/detail on the differences (for obvious reasons) beyond that anecdotal comment. In the same way that support for older viper blocks is being added to future code, we may split out modeling of older missile blocks but as with all things future, no promises.
So if I understand this correctly the only ARH behaviour supported, by virtue of hard-coding, is one AIM-120 model?
-
As far as the decoy effectiveness is concerned, and that’s all we’re talking about here remember, there has only ever been one code path for all ARH missiles. That code path reflects best understanding of slammer behavior; it does now, it did before. The difference compared to older versions is that the current one is less susceptible to chaff; this effect is more pronounced the more beam aspect is involved. In the older setup, missile seekers looking at targets near beam aspect would be significantly more susceptible to chaff. Now they aren’t as much.
-
As far as the decoy effectiveness is concerned, and that’s all we’re talking about here remember, there has only ever been one code path for all ARH missiles. That code path reflects best understanding of slammer behavior; it does now, it did before. The difference compared to older versions is that the current one is less susceptible to chaff; this effect is more pronounced the more beam aspect is involved. In the older setup, missile seekers looking at targets near beam aspect would be significantly more susceptible to chaff. Now they aren’t as much.
So can you tell whats best time / tactic to use chaff if ARH missile is coming ?
Beam aspect is bit hard to undestand for my limited english
Thanks
-
So can you tell whats best time / tactic to use chaff if ARH missile is coming ?
Not really In practice, chaff doesn’t work well against slammers so it’s only a last ditch chance anyway so might as well pump some chaff but keep your expectations low.
Beam aspect is bit hard to undestand for my limited english
By target at beam aspect what I mean is looking towards the target from the nose of the missile, if you are looking at the side view of the target then it is at beam aspect…in other words, if the longitudinal center line of the aircraft is at right angles to the longitudinal center line of the missile then the target is at perfect beam aspect.
-
Wow this went even faster than I thought…
18 pages allready, closing fast to 30 and NO ONE tested the AIM54 to compare.Anyone actually read the last 5 pages? :rolleyes::D
Don’t worry guys. By the time we are at 50 pages I’ll be at home.
When we’re at 53 pages I tested it with other missiles than the AIM120. -
Boxer,
do you think that the best range to missle for chance to defeat with beam/chaff is still 4 miles to 8 miles?
-
Mathematically, yes.
-
-
Wow this went even faster than I thought…
18 pages allready, closing fast to 30 and NO ONE tested the AIM54 to compare.I also tested the AIM-54, AIM-120 and R-77. Results were the same.
-
Wow this went even faster than I thought…
18 pages allready, closing fast to 30 and NO ONE tested the AIM54 to compare.Anyone actually read the last 5 pages? :rolleyes::D
Don’t worry guys. By the time we are at 50 pages I’ll be at home.
When we’re at 53 pages I tested it with other missiles than the AIM120.the whole thread is 5 pages…
-
In default forum settings its 19 pages.
@molni
Roger. Then this thread better be closed