How Does the AI do it?

This is really getting on my nerves. How does the AI dance around missiles like they do? With V1.1, I found that I have a harder time avoiding missiles than I normally do, but it's become common place for me to fire 3-4 missiles just for a single kill against the AI - which usually happens in multiplayer.

And they do it ridiculously easy - one or two chaffs, and the incoming's spoofed. It's like the AI have some invisible forcefield around them that just turns missiles away if they get too close. This is really killing it for me in Single Player. And it's not like I'm firing from max range or anything - this is the No-Escape Zone (and max missile effectiveness) we're talking about - Jets should be dropping like flies. But I can't even remember when was the last time I killed something from 8 miles head-on at high-altitude.

Welcome to the club. You're not the only who has this problem

Yep. And Seeing the AI react to a 120 shot fired in TWS is pretty weak too. That "pilot" shouldn't know the 120 was launched until it goes active.

Yep I've moaned about this at length ... 120s are easily spoofed by chaff. If you look really carefull you can see the chaff blooms! 1 v 1 againist an excellent Su-33 usually comes down to winders! 1.02 was better IMHO in this respect. Lets hope the patch fixes it ...

Add in that fact that multi-shot TWS doesn't work ... AMRAAMs just go for the nearest target!

Luckily, on-line neither scenario comes up much ... YET!

Well's it's not just the AIM-120 - the AI seems to easily evade all radar AAMs. But I guess it's more apparent in the F-15 because that's where Eagle pilots would like to kill their targets - at BVR. And it's not happening; like someone said, kills at Sidewinder range happens more often than not.

I've found that the AIM 7's have a better PK.

And do you think that's realistic?

The AIM-120 is designed to be superior to the AIM-7 in virtually every respect - which it is, in real life. The LOMAC AIM-120 is nothing more than a 'keep your enemy defensive while I sneak in for a Sidewinder kill' weapon when it comes to AI.

He's just making a statement.

Yes, the AIM-120's Pk is supposed to be about twice that of the AIM-7's Pk, not the other way around. It is unfortunate that this is not modelled.

And do you think that's realistic?

 

The AIM-120 is designed to be superior to the AIM-7 in virtually every respect - which it is, in real life. The LOMAC AIM-120 is nothing more than a 'keep your enemy defensive while I sneak in for a Sidewinder kill' weapon when it comes to AI.

Are you sure about this ??? In F-15C campaign I had no problem engaging with Aim-120C or having kill with it. I still prefer it to the AIM-7M. As for TWS AMRAAMS are heading for designated targets.

I think its just the greatly increased effectiveness of chaff against ARH ... which we've discussed at length and inconclusively before. The thing with the AI is that it releases chaff at the optimum moment ... something human players have trouble doing! I was practising last night v 77s and the result was the same ... very easily spoofed! Really the AI pilot is just showing us the optimum tactic ... just watch and learn! I never use the 7 ... but 1 v 1 against a AI excellent 33 ... it usually dodges 6 120s and ends up in a winder kill.

I'm sure the 120 is significantly better than 7 (it has replaced it afterall and costs ALOT more and uses much better technology and long development time and ... ) - even better than the later models (7M+) which proved themselves (eventually) in GW1. The US has had a very trouble history in AAM development, but I think current systems are top-notch - IMHO. But there are too few declassified facts and hence too many unknowns to model accurately. But there are also a few major bugs in the 15/120 combination - which are very frustrating - some of which seemed to work in 1.02!

Add in that fact that multi-shot TWS doesn't work ... AMRAAMs just go for the nearest target!

It is not truth or you not say all details.

Look for a this track, ok?

ARH-normal.zip

2 Kula66:

It is only your opinion and it is wrong :)

To avoid ARH missile whan labels are turned off you must keep not very high speed, right bearing to the missile (by SPO or TWS), starts fire chaffs from right distance and very dence.

There is a training track about countermeassures tactics in Top Gun section, please look for it.

Also, R-27 have 2-3 time less possibility of success than AIM-120 when target uses dence chaff barrier.

And after all,effectiveness of chaff is strongly consist from aspect angle of the target. If missile is approaching from right from the rear than probability of re-lock to chaff is near 100%. If right from nose - near to 0%. If aspect is near to 20-30% from rear or front - probability of re-lock will be good, up to 8-10 rapidly fired chaffs must breack lock on the target.

SO

Please, whan you tell "ARH effectiveness is **** " than tell also please in which situation (launch range, type of target, aspect during homing and ect.) it is. Thank you.

It is not truth or you not say all details.

Look for a this track, ok?

I respect your view, but from what I've seen a 15 v 4 x Mig 23 type of engagement ... you lock them up in TWS, get to 15-17 miles, fire 1, 2, 3, 4 and the majority of missiles hit the nearest Mig-23 ... I'll try and record a track to demonstrate ...

2 Kula66:

It is only your opinion and it is wrong :)

To avoid ARH missile whan labels are turned off you must keep not very high speed, right bearing to the missile (by SPO or TWS), starts fire chaffs from right distance and very dence.

 

There is a training track about countermeassures tactics in Top Gun section, please look for it.

I may well be wrong - I have no info other than books/observation etc. I can only comment on what I have seen in LO ... as I said in my post, ARH are possible to defeat as a player ... just copy the AI! In some ways ARHs are 'easier' to defeat given that when they go active, you know they are 4-5 miles away ... just wait a few seconds then begin to dodge ... you don't get the same timely warning with SARH - so guaging the right moment to dodge is more difficult.

Han, is there a possibility we could get a diagram for this? Ie. an aircraft in the middle, witht he circle divided into various angles showing % probability of decoying ARH/SARH/IR :)

I respect your view, but from what I've seen a 15 v 4 x Mig 23 type of engagement ... you lock them up in TWS, get to 15-17 miles, fire 1, 2, 3, 4 and the majority of missiles hit the nearest Mig-23 ... I'll try and record a track to demonstrate ...

Only track may solve this. If you'll done it - it'll be great. Also track must be maximum simple.

I may well be wrong - I have no info other than books/observation etc. I can only comment on what I have seen in LO ... as I said in my post, ARH are possible to defeat as a player ... just copy the AI! In some ways ARHs are 'easier' to defeat given that when they go active, you know they are 4-5 miles away ... just wait a few seconds then begin to dodge ... you don't get the same timely warning with SARH - so guaging the right moment to dodge is more difficult.

SARH is less stable agains chaffs.

Han, is there a possibility we could get a diagram for this? Ie. an aircraft in the middle, witht he circle divided into various angles showing % probability of decoying ARH/SARH/IR :)

To sign such probabilities we must have much, very much statistic from LockOn. We have no time for it while, sorry.

Only track may solve this. If you'll done it - it'll be great. Also track must be maximum simple.

Well I've just tired it a few times and haven't been able to reproduce it!! Typical. I think it may be after you fire, the targets beam you (break track) then the 120s go active and reacquire autonomously ... all going after the same/nearest target ... Even if your re-acquire (but not designate in TWS) as you 'un-beam' they have now been cut loose and kill the nearest ... I'll keep trying!! It is definately seems different from 1.02 ... what changed?

Also, R-27 have 2-3 time less possibility of success than AIM-120 when target uses dence chaff barrier.

 

And after all,effectiveness of chaff is strongly consist from aspect angle of the target. If missile is approaching from right from the rear than probability of re-lock to chaff is near 100%. If right from nose - near to 0%. If aspect is near to 20-30% from rear or front - probability of re-lock will be good, up to 8-10 rapidly fired chaffs must breack lock on the target.

 

SO

Please, whan you tell "ARH effectiveness is **** " than tell also please in which situation (launch range, type of target, aspect during homing and ect.) it is. Thank you.

Han, we are NOT saying ARH missiles are *@. That's another topic for another time. If you read my first post, you would see that I said they seem to be fine in MP. However, I'm saying that the AI, even the "Average" AI, seems to be perfect when it comes to dodging player missiles. They just do a little turn, release two, maybe three chaffs, and the missile is decoyed.

Can this be adjusted? The AI seems to be way too good at defeating my missiles, even at 100% Missile Slider. It's mostly an Single Player issue - it's not that fun anymore when all my missiles miss :D

And after all,effectiveness of chaff is strongly consist from aspect angle of the target. If missile is approaching from right from the rear than probability of re-lock to chaff is near 100%. If right from nose - near to 0%. If aspect is near to 20-30% from rear or front - probability of re-lock will be good, up to 8-10 rapidly fired chaffs must breack lock on the target.

Why is this? Right from the nose, why is re-lock 0%? I'm not talking about missile vs. chaff here - just the missile re-locking target. The target is still in the missile's scan-zone, so when the missile realizes the chaff is a decoy (which it will eventually because the chaff cloud dissipates quickly), the target is right in front of the missile. Shouldn't re-lock should be much faster?

Don't know if you haven't re-posted 'cause you got what he meant, but i think by "probability of re-lock to chaff is near 100%." he's saying the probability of the the missile re-locking (switching from a lock on the plane to one on the chaff) is close to 100% from the rear and zero from head on, not commenting on whether or not a lock on the plane will be re-established once the missile "realises" that it is tracking chaff. If he's right then locks lost "nose to nose" are not to do with chaff, but something else, and from the rear may re-find the plane but will almost always be fooled by the next chaff released anyway untill the plane isn't in font of the missile anymore...