[RESOLVED] S400 40N6 Powered All the Way

[bsq]

Reported many times. The 40N6 missile will accelerate to 140000 ft (loft) then dive on the target, still under full power never losing ANY velocity once it gets to its Vmax of 3750 knots. It can go past its max range (230 seen vice 216) still at full power until it disapears.

Compare this to all the complaints about lofted AAMs not WAD, this one is so far off its become a finger of god - again.

1267.1 DB3K v495 save attached. This is not right and may effect more than just the 40N6 (there have been reports of it affecting 5V55, 48N6 as well).

[Dimitris]

This is WAD.

Not all AAW missiles use the new boost-coast model; some missiles which are considered ABM-optimized deliberately retain the "powered all the way" assumption. This assumption is generally true for such missiles (other examples: SM-3, 9M82), as they tend to be highly overmuscled for their ABM priority.

Try to defeat that missile by other means

[Gizzmoe]

This is WAD.

[...]

Try to defeat that missile by other means

I love you guys, so with all due respect, are you fucking kidding us??? Please change that, it should soooo not be WAD.....

[thewood1]

This is WAD.

[...]

Try to defeat that missile by other means

I love you guys, so with all due respect, are you fucking kidding us??? Please change that, it should soooo not be WAD.....

Yeah, I'm sure that expert advice will work.

[Gizzmoe]

Yeah, I'm sure that expert advice will work.

Looool, yeah, my response wasn't indeed finely detailed and helpful

Dimitris wrote"Not all AAW missiles use the new boost-coast model; some missiles which are considered ABM-optimized deliberately retain the "powered all the way" assumption.". Yes, fair enough, but the end result in-game sucks. What is your opinion?

[thewood1]

The devs know more about than I do and I suspect most people on this board. I have yet to see anything different.

Its one thing to bring some sources and logical debate. Its another to reply the way you did. Unhelpful and not contributing.

btw, there was a fairly long thread that came about before you showed up complaining about AAM burnout time with some logical arguments about why they were too short. Then sources suddenly showed up showing the CMO burnout times were pretty close to calculated reality and real life tests. Just shows that unless you bring some real sources, I think the devs get the benefit of the doubt on these types of threads.

Do they make mistakes? Of course, but they take sources seriously. I highly suspect that no one on this board has seen a single real-life firing of this type of missile.

[Gizzmoe]

The devs know more about than I do and I suspect most people on this board. I have yet to see anything different.

I ask again, from your observations and tests of the behaviour of the 40N6, do you think it works as it should in 126x.x? Do you think the "Powered fully all the way to max range" is ok"?

[thewood1]

I have no issue with it. I don't know what it should do in real life. Any ABM missile in CMO has to have a level of abstraction that I can live with.

btw, I have played with this missile, but have used the SM-3 and -6 in most of my testing of ABM because those are the ones that were having issues before. But I'll also remind you that its not whether the 40N6 has issues or not. Its you response to the devs that was just unhelpful and relatively rude that I'm replying to.

Do you think that type of response that supplied no info at all and basically pissed all over the devs will help?

[thewood1]

Tested the large theater SAM systems...Patriot in several configs, and S-400s, and a couple S-300. They all behave consistently the same. Rapid accell to max speed, max climb to altitude, powered dive for the rest of its run, self destructs once below the altitude of its target and out of fuel. Is it right? I don't know. But its not behavior specific to the 40N6.

[Gizzmoe]

Tested the large theater SAM systems...Patriot in several configs, and S-400s, and a couple S-300. They all behave consistently the same. Rapid accell to max speed, max climb to altitude, powered dive for the rest of its run, self destructs once below the altitude of its target and out of fuel. Is it right? I don't know. But its not behavior specific to the 40N6.

The missiles you mention don't behave the same, the PAC-1/2/3 and S-300 for example use the new boost-coast model, the 40N6 and others don't.

[bsq]

Its easy

1. I'll edit them out of the canisters with LUA OR
2. I'll stop them firing at anything thats not a BM via WRA

Simples....

Taken with the 'spit missiles in all directions' (physical imposibility as has been admitted and not yet fixed) then these become fingers of god against aerodynamic targets - which they are not.

The only place you'll find 40N6 in this case is in the C ring or St Petersburg. where ABMs should reside. The rest will just be 21's with 48N6 (all flavours) and 9M96 all flavours.

Sorry if that sounds curt. But I have been asking for some of this since 2013, especially the need to provide midcourse guidance with the FCR, thus limiting the spit missiles everywhere. This coupled with the speed, coupled with the fires too many missiles at too many targets is frustrating.

[Gizzmoe]

Taken with the 'spit missiles in all directions' (physical imposibility as has been admitted and not yet fixed) then these become fingers of god against aerodynamic targets - which they are not.

To visualize what you are talking about, here is a scen with a S-400 vs. 20+ Iskanders all around the missile site, the S-400 and its twelve TEL handle the situation beautifully. I kinda doubt it would work out that well irl...

[thewood1]

"The missiles you mention don't behave the same, the PAC-1/2/3 and S-300 for example use the new boost-coast model, the 40N6 and others don't"

I didn't notice any coasting in later model Patriot missiles.

[Gizzmoe]

I didn't notice any coasting in later model Patriot missiles.

Can you please post a save that shows that behaviour?

[Dimitris]

Taken with the 'spit missiles in all directions' (physical imposibility as has been admitted and not yet fixed) then these become fingers of god against aerodynamic targets - which they are not.

To visualize what you are talking about, here is a scen with a S-400 vs. 20+ Iskanders all around the missile site, the S-400 and its twelve TEL handle the situation beautifully. I kinda doubt it would work out that well irl...

You are referring to a different issue (datalinks not limited to sensor arcs in cases where IRL they are thus constrained), for which I last provided an update here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6#p5014496

[Gizzmoe]

You are referring to a different issue (datalinks not limited to sensor arcs in cases where IRL they are thus constrained), for which I last provided an update here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6#p5014496

Oh, good, thanks

[thewood1]

Its the PAC-2 that has powered all the way flight. Prior to PAC-3, the Patriot had a very specific rocket engine assigned in the db. With PAC-3, it looks like it got a generic motor. All the PAC-2s power to destruct. All the PAC-3s boost and coast.

In the scenario, you'll have to remove the PAC-3 mounts to test. The B-52 will enter range after a few minutes.

[Gizzmoe]

Its the PAC-2 that has powered all the way flight.

Yes, the PAC-2 GEM+ in your save is indeed powered all the way, they don't have Boost-Coast. That is not good.

[thewood1]

Well, at least we have proven, once again, that its not some kind of bias.

[Gizzmoe]

Well, at least we have proven, once again, that its not some kind of bias.

Hurray. Those who think that the devs are biased are total jerks, so who cares...