When keepin' it real goes wrong 2014 edition [Falcon BMS]
-
Yep, Molni apparently modified heavily seeker performance. Its his belief that F4 heatseekers are way too good. I personnally disagree, in ideal conditions, it should behave very good. Whats missing in the code is degraded performance from the weather and general atmospheric conditions.
So in this mod, be aware that you have AIM-9B instead of AIM9M
-
Yep, Molni apparently modified heavily seeker performance. Its his belief that F4 heatseekers are way too good. I personnally disagree, in ideal conditions, it should behave very good. Whats missing in the code is degraded performance from the weather and general atmospheric conditions.
So in this mod, be aware that you have AIM-9B instead of AIM9M
I havent really had any problems with them using his mod. Certainly not like what this video shows. The only concerns Ive had with them (in the mod) is that if they flare then the missile is definitely not going to track them - and Im not so sure that that would be considered a bug rather than a feature.
-
@fluffer I have the same issue. I wasn’t in Korea 80 theater but standard KTO and I only have a vanilla install. Good tone, uncaged, no FCR track, and good cooling, but the missile just went straight ahead with no guidance. It’s just the 9m version that does it. 9x works like a charm(as always[emoji5]) anybody else with this issue?
-
1 hour.
I have to correct myself:
It’s 1.5 hrs.Coolant discharge is modelled for 9M and 9X.
But not for 9P.Source: Tested by myself in a TE.
-
See this post Dee-Jay. This is a clean vanilla install.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?19991-AIM-9-sound-problem&p=288852&viewfull=1#post288852Yep… And I confirm. No problem on your vid. This is the stock tone of AIM9P.
On Fluffer’s vid, tone and some other sounds are not stock one.
-
arghhh another mod …… sure that Target 12 o’Clock you are in his six, < 1 mile, perfect conditions, seeker should fail LOOOL
-
Yep… And I confirm. No problem on your vid. This is the stock tone of AIM9P.
On Fluffer’s vid, tone and some other sounds are not stock one.
Okay, that’s good to know they are stock sounds. I was expecting growling, hence my suggestion it was FUBAR. Thanks for clarifying…
-
You’re welcome Malc.
-
-
that’s a lot of missile rail negative(-)incidence modeled.
-
Fluffer, would be kind to point where to have a look (time) … no time to watch 10 min of ACMI!
OK … got it at 09:00
Seems to have A LOT of angle for an AIM9P (almost 90° on the 2nd shot!)! Remember, 9P it is a rear aspect and not as agile as the 9X.
Could you give a try and show an ACMI on a TE in a perfect seatdy position. (Target not manoeuvering)
-
I’m not sure if the 80’s campaign’s AIM-9M is modeled as the AIM-9P but if that were the case it would explain a lot. I’ll throw up a quick TE utilizing the same exact plane and target in an intercept and will post the video of the results.
-
I’m not sure if the 80’s campaign’s AIM-9M is modeled as the AIM-9P but if that were the case it would explain a lot. I’ll throw up a quick TE utilizing the same exact plane and target in an intercept and will post the video of the results.
Huh. Considered double checking you have the right SIM data files?
-
Affirm, I just tested all the above missiles. AIM-9P and M with no issues at all. They all tracked at stable and turned aspects within rOPT to rMIN.