Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics

[Grondoval]

Hi,

a couple of weeks ago I made a thread and asked how to improve the hit-probability of A2A-Missiles. Thanks to the feedback I got I found out that even though I launched my missiles at 75% of maximum range, I was still to far out most of the time. Now with 50 % range I´ve cut down my missile demand drastically. But even after that measure I wasnt quiet happy with my kill-ratios (ive had some cases were I launched 8 AMRAAMS against a single F-16 at 25 NM - all misses, and it dodged 2 AIM-9 after that before finally beeing hit by the third).

After doing some research on the hit mechanics I found out that the agility-modifier of my targets cut down the pH dramatically. This is fully understandable with an agile jet like the F-16 and, dont misunderstand me, I accept this totally [:)]. Even though I cant relate to real life experience, I know out of simulations like DCS and BMS that you could dodge several missiles in a row and survive.

But what if you could not see the incoming missile? This would severly hinder your ability to defend yourself. What if you didnt even know, a missile was inbound before it impacted your aircraft (like a MANPAD shot at you on final approach before landing by some militia). So my suggestion is: the game cuts down the agility-bonus in the hit-roll when the defender does not know about the incoming missile.

This suggestion is directly related to another matter: the detection of inbound missiles by the trusty MK1-Eyeball. I did some extensive testing lately because I wanted to test the efficiency of MAWS. The testing setup is visible on the picture I embedded in this post. I found out that the MK1-Eyeball outperforms every RWR and MAWS system outside of flying in complete blindless (thick cloud layer). 9 times out of 10 it detected the SA-7 or SA-13 coming from behind at nighttime, enabling the EF-2000 to go in defence. The MAWS suffered from acute unemployment [:)]. So my other suggestion is: limit the efficiency of the MK1-Eyeball detecting inbound missiles (especially from 6 o´clock).

These are only suggestions I brainstormed over the last couple of days. I understand there are more pressing features to be fixed and implemented, but I hope I could give some feedback [:)]

[thewood1]

Global Security stated that an SA-18 (somewhat top-of-the-line MANPAD) has only a 35% chance of hitting an F-16 with rudimentary countermeasures. It falls to 20% or so with an advanced countermeasure suite. I believe advanced includes launch detection, but not sure.

So adding in that its an SA-13 vs a 4.5 gen EF2000, I would expect pretty dismal performance.

[thewood1]

btw, if you want to simulate less reaction time, lower the proficiency on the target aircraft. That bascially increases the time to process information.

[ComDev]

We're planning a new rocket propulsion model that will reduce the weapon's signature after motor burnout [8D]

[Zaslon]

35%, why not 31.23%? Global Security told us how they obtained 35%? Only a number means nothing. Always a number like this, a probability need an explanation about how they obtained the number.

So adding in that its an SA-13 vs a 4.5 gen EF2000

4.5 gen? We are crazy? [:D] A new fighter desgined from scratch, with an entire new philosophy of design and doctrine. Designed entirely with CAD and a fighter which use the top of technology is a 4.5 gen? Why? because Lockheed told us that only his fighters are 5 gen? [:-] A 4.5 gen can be a Su-35 or a MiG-35 for example. Fighters designed between 70s and 80s modernized with new electronics are an evolution from the 4th generation. Mixing equipment from 5th generation with airframes and other systems from the older gen....4.5 gen have sense in this examples....but a EF-2000, a Gripen or a Rafale are 5th generation too.

Lockheed propaganda is strong, but we have common sense.

[wild_Willie2]

5th gen fighters are generally defined as having all aspect stealth (besides the LPI EASA radar, advace electronics etz. etz.) and and that is something that the EF-2000, Gripen and the Rafale simply do not have.
They incorporate some stealth features into their design but not as much as the F22 and the F35 and that is why we define them as being 4.5 gen instead of 5 gen.

Definitions are always up for discussion, but changing the name does not change the reality of the issue and that is that the F35 and F22 are more advanced than either the EF-2000, Gripen or the Rafale and are thus rated higher on the generation scale.

[Zaslon]

Interesting Willie.

You repeated the Lockheed propaganda. Think a bit about his classification. Put his 5th gen in the context. From 1st gen, 2nd gen...to 5th gen...The 5th gen looks strange, different....More restrictive. Restrictions which doesn't exist in others generations. The MiG-29 and the F-16 are very different betweean each other...and represent the same generation.

Yeap, each person, company... can have his clasification. But I don't understand why the 5th generation haven't the same criterion that the 1st, 2nd...generations. A F-15A was more advanced that the Su-27s for example, when the Su-27 received is IOC, but both are 4th generation. Why the 5th gen is different? A F-4C was more advanced than the MiG-23M....And both were 3th generation...

Lockeed propaganda. [;)]

Each person can use different classifications. You can have your own classification if you established your own criteria. But it's a requisite for all that each classification should be consistent. And, of course, Lockheed classification is not consistent when you see his 5th gen and the other generations.

[thewood1]

Lockheed has a lot more credibility than you do to define 4.5. I am using Command's general definition of 4.5.

And what the hell does CAD design have to do with anything. CAD and CAM has been used in aerospace since the 60's.

[thewood1]

btw, the Global Security numbers were from a 3rd party study and are only a reference to start from.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon
Each person can use different classifications. You can have your own classification if you established your own criteria. But it's a requisite for all that each classification should be consistent. And, of course, Lockheed classification is not consistent when you see his 5th gen and the other generations.

How is including LO features in the 5th generation inconsistent? Each generation forward has represented a fundamental change in how air combat was thought about, and LO certainly does that.

[Zaslon]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Lockheed has a lot more credibility than you do to define 4.5. I am using Command's general definition of 4.5.

And what the hell does CAD design have to do with anything. CAD and CAM has been used in aerospace since the 60's.

btw, the Global Security numbers were from a 3rd party study and are only a reference to start from.

Interesting. This is not a question of faith. Maybe for you, technology is a magical thing, a kind of sorcery. But we are talking about more simple things. Fighter classifications which, of course, it doesn't need faith, or credibility. We only need think.

If you wanna start to think about this topic, you can read some propaganda from another defense contractor like this. (pdf)

About CAD ...you aren't an engineer, I am right? CAD was massively introduced in the 90s. No CAD are available in the 60s. CAD was invented at the end of this decade (60s). I said "Designed entirely with CAD ". Any engineer can understand all the advantages of a entirely designed CAD project in comparison to other projects non designed entirely with CAD.

The point about the global security number is, a lonely number means nothing. For example, in engineering project you design things, calculate and obtain results, but you always should explain how you obtained the number. For this reason, when you use professional software, the software isn't a black box. In the help, the developers explain what is the theoretical model used, so the engineer can evaluate if the result is good or bad.

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: Zaslon
Each person can use different classifications. You can have your own classification if you established your own criteria. But it's a requisite for all that each classification should be consistent. And, of course, Lockheed classification is not consistent when you see his 5th gen and the other generations.

How is including LO features in the 5th generation inconsistent? Each generation forward has represented a fundamental change in how air combat was thought about, and LO certainly does that.

Well. Can you share with us the rest of the generations?

[mikeCK]

So you seem to be very upset because "Command" - using the best information available" hasn't made your favorite plane as good as an F-22. That's what the current info shows. If you aren't stealth and you don't have the capability of true digital information sharing, then you aren't a new generation. No one is saying that the f-22 and f-35 are better than every other plane at everything...just that the technology they possess is a generational leap. Simply using older technology more efficiently is not. I get your point inasmuch as Lockheed is the company that kind of developed the "generation" concept, but there is no denying that the F-22/f-35 possess generational leaps in tech and capabilities no other aircraft have...at least none that are operational

[ExNusquam]

Well. Can you share with us the rest of the generations?

I would argue the following as an amalgamation of many author's writings:

1: Early jet fighters, possibly with swept wings, Guns as primary armament. Tactics similar to WWII fighters, but performance increases make propeller drive fighters almost irrelevant.

2: Early supersonic fighters, IR guided missiles, early radar. Begin pushing engagements further out.

3: Introduction of BVR missiles. Aircraft like the F-4, MiG-23, etc. While early BVR weapons/tactics were not very successful, you'd be hard pressed to argue they weren't revolutionary.

4: Advanced radars with LD/SD, increased agility through use of Fly-By-Wire/Stability Augmentation, increased crew awareness through computer usage.

5: Low-Observable features, cockpit data fusion.

Clearly, all of these "generations" are large groups of aircraft, in which there will be significant differences in combat performance. The first generation includes both the P-80 and the MiG-15, but the MiG was vastly more advanced. Similarly, if you compared an F-15A with something like a Eurofighter, there's almost no competition. However, while the Eurofighter represents a huge leap in combat performance, the tactics used have not changed at the fundamental level. Low-Observable aircraft represent a significant problem for the BVR tactics that dominated the 4th generation.

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

Interesting Willie.

You repeated the Lockheed propaganda. Think a bit about his classification. Put his 5th gen in the context. From 1st gen, 2nd gen...to 5th gen...The 5th gen looks strange, different....More restrictive. Restrictions which doesn't exist in others generations. The MiG-29 and the F-16 are very different betweean each other...and represent the same generation.

Yeap, each person, company... can have his clasification. But I don't understand why the 5th generation haven't the same criterion that the 1st, 2nd...generations. A F-15A was more advanced that the Su-27s for example, when the Su-27 received is IOC, but both are 4th generation. Why the 5th gen is different? A F-4C was more advanced than the MiG-23M....And both were 3th generation...

Lockeed propaganda. [;)]

Each person can use different classifications. You can have your own classification if you established your own criteria. But it's a requisite for all that each classification should be consistent. And, of course, Lockheed classification is not consistent when you see his 5th gen and the other generations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

Here's the perspective of a hornet, super hornet(as a Top Gun instructor), viper, F-22 and F-35 pilot. He also did a tour as a FAC in Iraq. It's probably one of the best interviews I've seen explaining what is 5th gen - and why it's a big deal.

[thewood1]

First off don't so condescending. I am an engineer going on thirty years in the industry...I have used Catia, Cadam, AutoCad, ProEngineer, SolidWorks, etc. and just about any PCB design tool you can imagine.

But that part shows you have no social graces and an inability to communicate effectively. DO NOT lecture me on CAD/CAM unless you want to be embarrassed.

[mikmykWS]

We don't classify stuff based on industry propaganda. This accusation is so far out in left field Zaslon would be over the Green Monster, across Lansdowne Street and sitting in The Cask and Flagon. We rely mostly on Ragnar and Dimitris models which are products of years of experience, research, good testing and listening to people with all kinds of opinions and expertise.

Mike

[Zaslon]

Thank you very much ExNusquam. It's an interesting classification. I agree in most generations. Supercruise and super-agility should be another parameters in the 5th gen. Also IMO a classification like this, should be more flexible with the parameters in order to deal better with very different aircrafts (I am thinking about Soviet/USA aircrafts, very different technology so maybe some Soviet aircrafts can't be classified in his gen due to the rigid parameters).

ORIGINAL: Cheechako
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

Here's the perspective of a hornet, super hornet(as a Top Gun instructor), viper, F-22 and F-35 pilot. He also did a tour as a FAC in Iraq. It's probably one of the best interviews I've seen explaining what is 5th gen - and why it's a big deal.

Interesting video. I'll watch it. Thanks Cheechako.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

First off don't so condescending. I am an engineer going on thirty years in the industry...I have used Catia, Cadam, AutoCad, ProEngineer, SolidWorks, etc. and just about any PCB design tool you can imagine.

But that part shows you have no social graces and an inability to communicate effectively. DO NOT lecture me on CAD/CAM unless you want to be embarrassed.

You wrote about credibility. None of us have credibility and gladly we don't need credibility if we write arguments, reasons and explanations, our writings speaks about us. For example, I am a terrible english writer [:D]. You can be an engineer so if you are, act like an engineer. A entirely designed aircraft in CAD is a great advantage, If you are a engineer you know that. A lonely number means nothing, If you are a engineer you know that. And also, 100% is a myth [:D]

Mike, I never talked about WarfareSims. Rafale and EF have 5th gen agility for example in the DB3000. I think that this is correct. If I find that a weapon, aircraft... have missing info I will post in the DB thread in the same way that I did in the past, with data and/or pictures.

I am talking about the lockheed's classification which many people use today (they forgot the super-agility which was dropped by Lockheed when the F-35 enter in the field).

Maybe, I miss a series of articles in the WarfareSims page about the mechanics which run the Sim. Should be a good promotional stuff, the potential buyer will understand the complexities under the "carpet". But it's only an idea. [;)]

[ckfinite]

I am talking about the lockheed's classification which many people use today (they forgot the super-agility which was dropped by Lockheed when the F-35 enter in the field).

Super maneuverability is not a game-changing feature the way LO is. It's been present since the 3rd generation in various forms, and has been especially prevalent in Russian 4th generation designs. Why? Because the Russians don't have the ability to keep up with the West in terms of electronics or stealth coatings, as demonstrated with their eternal AESA trouble and PAK-FA maladies, and need to sell it for all they've got. It's only really useful in the low-speed endgame, when you have a single chance and then you're dead. Agility is not a deciding factor in determining which generation an aircraft fits into.

The idea behind the 5th generation moniker is that it denotes aircraft that incorporate the more modern network based sensor model, as well as stealth. This looks to be a very good distinction going forwards, too. Look at the difference between the Eurofighter, the Gripen, and the Rafale, and what's coming next. We have the ATD-X, the PAK-FA, the J-20 and J-31, K-X, and a lot besides. These aircraft are fundamentally different than the eurocanards because they have stealth functionality and systems designed around that stealth capability. VLO capability is a good distinction, because it draws a clear and easy to distinguish line between these generations. Lockheed may have made the term up, but these future aircraft projects are demonstrating that their criterion has a lot of merit as a distinguishing feature.

[DrRansom]

First, good news on the reduced visibility after motor burn-out

I have a question about the missile modeling, do you model:
A. Proper intercept trajectories, e.g. Proportional Navigation or Ballistic Fly-out to increase range, a la S-400 / SM-6?
B. Decreased maneuverability at high altitudes and increased drag at low altitudes?

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

Thank you very much ExNusquam. It's an interesting classification. I agree in most generations. Supercruise and super-agility should be another parameters in the 5th gen. Also IMO a classification like this, should be more flexible with the parameters in order to deal better with very different aircrafts (I am thinking about Soviet/USA aircrafts, very different technology so maybe some Soviet aircrafts can't be classified in his gen due to the rigid parameters).

ORIGINAL: Cheechako
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

Here's the perspective of a hornet, super hornet(as a Top Gun instructor), viper, F-22 and F-35 pilot. He also did a tour as a FAC in Iraq. It's probably one of the best interviews I've seen explaining what is 5th gen - and why it's a big deal.

Interesting video. I'll watch it. Thanks Cheechako.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

First off don't so condescending. I am an engineer going on thirty years in the industry...I have used Catia, Cadam, AutoCad, ProEngineer, SolidWorks, etc. and just about any PCB design tool you can imagine.

But that part shows you have no social graces and an inability to communicate effectively. DO NOT lecture me on CAD/CAM unless you want to be embarrassed.

You wrote about credibility. None of us have credibility and gladly we don't need credibility if we write arguments, reasons and explanations, our writings speaks about us. For example, I am a terrible english writer [:D]. You can be an engineer so if you are, act like an engineer. A entirely designed aircraft in CAD is a great advantage, If you are a engineer you know that. A lonely number means nothing, If you are a engineer you know that. And also, 100% is a myth [:D]

Mike, I never talked about WarfareSims. Rafale and EF have 5th gen agility for example in the DB3000. I think that this is correct. If I find that a weapon, aircraft... have missing info I will post in the DB thread in the same way that I did in the past, with data and/or pictures.

I am talking about the lockheed's classification which many people use today (they forgot the super-agility which was dropped by Lockheed when the F-35 enter in the field).

Maybe, I miss a series of articles in the WarfareSims page about the mechanics which run the Sim. Should be a good promotional stuff, the potential buyer will understand the complexities under the "carpet". But it's only an idea. [;)]

If you have an issue with a specific platform addressing in the DB strings with examples is the best approach. All this other stuff about CAD, engineering degrees and propaganda is just not helpful. Most posters do understand these issues and at the end of the day we make design decisions so helping us do that is more valuable rather than unproductive forum arguments.

Anyways Writing an article on this is a good idea. We're very busy developing the game and hope to have more time for that kind of stuff in the future.

Thanks!

Mike