4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
-
I don’t get the point of this… it’s not like AMRAAMs are totally broken and worthless.
Going back and staying at 4.35 is a ridiculous idea. There are literally hundreds (maybe in the thousands) of fixes between that version and where we are now. And it’s about to get even larger.
PS, you can’t possibly tweak anything in 4.37 to make the AMRAAM like it was in 4.35…that’s all internal code… at most you could do is mess up the flight model and seeker parameters.
-
Looks like radar (quality of data) has a much larger effect on engagement performance than missile. I have heard that TWS is of a low enough quality to that it is a rule not to use it (outside of needing 3+ or 5+ simultaneous engagement beyond TTS or MTS abilities of course).
I wish I could find the reference but I swear I’ve heard that there is an interpolation of DL updates and seeker info throughout the engagement process. Even when the missile “sees the target” he should still take efforts to blend DL data. Obviously the blend will start DL-heavy and end DL-lite but every DL update is weighed (Kalman filter?). RCS size setting would likely play a role into that blend balance.
Remind me if BMS has RAID. AIM-120 should be able to assign EONs to different missiles to sub-target a cluster which returns as a single track. I know that’s well beyond the already challenging task of a 1 missile, 1 target modeling but it is an interesting notion.
I’m a bit surprised there’s no mention of weighing targets by factors other than geometric location (PRF closure aside). Weighting a contact higher that more closely matches the closure of the DL despite being slightly farther away from the geometrical position seems sensible.
Hopefully for testing purposes there can be a debugging way to specify repeatable “random factors” to at least have a solid representative sample instead of just having to play on the final product and do the statistical analysis, at least before the final draft.
-
Can we please level up the discussion and not have “I heard”, “I know”, …?
Doing this research was heavy enough and I’d like the posts here to be documented and a bit more serious.
Facts vs facts…
-
@mirv - then I’ll stay at 4.35. As mentioned, the 4.35 model behaves far more like I expect an AIM-120 to behave based on differences between RL experience and what I’ve read here. That’s why “I don’t care how it works, I care how it behaves”. BUT…
I have to now question the F-16 as a platform and how that may or may not factor. After all, the Viper is an old platform - 50 years old…I was first introduced to the 120 in the mid 80s, and I know it’s only improved since then.
-
Questioning the Viper as a platform is a weak argument, and not really relevant here since this is a PC simulator. Sure there’s going to be physical limitations with the radar’s size, power, and other attributes, but the Viper’s radar isn’t the same as when the A model was introduced. The radar’s hardware and software have improved over the years with the various blocks and MMC upgrades have improved capability and supported the latest and greatest AMRAAM variants. Now the F-16s are getting SABR…so does that mean they should be questioned as a shooting platform? Hardly, but then again, we were talking about real world vs PC simulator.
What would actually be helpful, is recording ACMIs of what the missiles are doing in 4.35 vs 4.37 and explain what you believe the problem is and maybe what should be done instead. Just saying the 4.35 model is better doesn’t explain anything. The missiles in 4.35 IIRC can do some crazy stuff…
Staying two versions back in a sim just because of how ONE missile performs is also weak–but that’s your decision. You’ll miss out on everything else that’s been worked on. Obviously Mav-jp has spent many, many hours working on the AIM120 acquisition model, found bugs and have fixed them… I doubt he’s 100% done…if you’ve been around him for the last 10+ years like many of us have, he usually circle’s back and finds mistakes he’s made and he fixes them… sometimes on his own, sometimes with the help of others…but he’s determined to do things as “right” as he can and within his reach…
-
I think the discussion drifted away from acquisition to the general changes of the missile performance.
I remember the ranges that we were used to in 4.35. The tactics in BVR were a complete different story compared to now.
Today we (especially my squadron) complain about guidance behavior of the AIM-120C and we learned that this part seems to be mostly untouched since the old Microprose days.
So instead of wining and complaining because we can not apply the tactics of 4.35 any more we should wine and complain about the old guidance code, that’s still in place!
-
@Razor161 said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
I think the discussion drifted away from acquisition to the general changes of the missile performance.
I remember the ranges that we were used to in 4.35. The tactics in BVR were a complete different story compared to now.
Today we (especially my squadron) complain about guidance behavior of the AIM-120C and we learned that this part seems to be mostly untouched since the old Microprose days.
So instead of wining and complaining because we can not apply the tactics of 4.35 any more we should wine and complain about the old guidance code, that’s still in place!
Next update will include some small changes in guidance code that will likely improve the weird behavior observed sometimes
-
Not really an “argument”, more of facing up to the reality of how systems actually work and what their comparative capabilities are. I’ve been working around/with Test Pilots (daily) for nearly 40 years and only have to listen and ask to form my opinions or do my own “research”. Knowing what I know the only logical concussion is differences between platforms.
I’m starting to figure out that I know more former VIper drivers than I may have thought…and every now an then I earn something interesting - like the story of one of “my guys” always getting gigged for “assaulting the limiter” during an exchange he was on…which is pretty much what I started out doing in studying the low-speed handling of the Viper in BMS. Gotta try some of what he found out and see if the flight model will echo the RL airplane - I’ve never been able to make it work, but I’m assured the jet will do what I’d like if I use the right technique.
I’ll stay at 4.35 for a number of reasons…but mostly this model. It’s sort of personal…MMV.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
Not really an “argument”, more of facing up to the reality of how systems actually work and what their comparative capabilities are. I’ve been working around/with Test Pilots (daily) for nearly 40 years and only have to listen and ask to form my opinions or do my own “research”. Knowing what I know the only logical concussion is differences between platforms.
I’m starting to figure out that I know more former VIper drivers than I may have thought…and every now an then I earn something interesting - like the story of one of “my guys” always getting gigged for “assaulting the limiter” during an exchange he was on…which is pretty much what I started out doing in studying the low-speed handling of the Viper in BMS. Gotta try some of what he found out and see if the flight model will echo the RL airplane - I’ve never been able to make it work, but I’m assured the jet will do what I’d like if I use the right technique.
I’ll stay at 4.35 for a number of reasons…but mostly this model. It’s sort of personal…MMV.
I’ll be frank with you, your speech is boring…you’re not happy so justify it physically or mathematically because the BMS people I know come from prestigious engineering schools…and I wouldn’t understand if they could explain things that aren’t true…otherwise if you don’t agree, I’d say go elsewhere if it’s better…
-
Just a note from my side.
It is not an argument that how was modeled in the past ANYTHING if it was wrong and essentially it lacked a real foundation compared to RL. So far the ARHs were totally overmodeled. Now, they are not and they won’t be.
Maybe most ppl. have short memory but for a long, long, long time many IR missiles were also OP in every F4.0 version, they were essentially immune to flares. Now, IR missiles are ANYTHING but immune to flares, just think about old R-73 and AIM-9M and what we have now. Now, even the AIM-9X can be defeated.
This was in the past, AIM-9M.
Now try the same in BMS 4.37. Even the AIM-9X can be defeated, many times only some flares is enough if target is VERY lucky. (For gameplay perspective this is one of the best change what ever happened in the history of F4)