LMAO the bug report was closed with “not enough info” what a joke.
I give up.
Hey, sorry another mod closed it. From reviewing your test footage it does appear to bite flares. But with this stuff we need replay files etc so we can review in sensor view.
Reason being is its very difficult to ascertain if the flare was in FOV without being able to see the FOV of the seeker which is much easier to see in sensor view. Gate width IRCCM doesn’t have a flare rejection capacity more over the reduced FOV makes it less likely a flare will enter the FOV of the missile, however if a flare does enter the FOV the missile is unlikely to reacquire the original target.
So simply; if we can’t see the FOV of the seeker we can’t make a judgement on if the flare was in FOV or not.
2 Likes
Its pretty evident that being able to consistently flare them at 1km away in rear aspect should not happen like it is shown in the video. Why can’t the devs themselves take 5 minutes to test it?
Feels like they expect the community to make a PowerPoint presentation of the issue and also provide the exact cause and code fix.
This is their job, not ours. I am not being paid, they are.
They arent lol
The tech mods test it before they send it to devs and they are volunteers
Gunjob isnt either mate.
Of course, these are my local replay files:
replays.zip (4.3 MB)
We first started testing the R-73 and magic 2 in one replay. The second replay is mainly PL-8B testing, with some R-73 testing too.
The total length of replays is probably not more than 30m and features all of the shots in the video. Thank you for looking into it.
3 Likes
Me when I misread
Thanks, I’ll review them this evening :).
2 Likes
I meant the devs, not the moderators, the fact that they rely on the community and moderators to find and help to fix a lot of game issues is ridiculous.
Even if gaijin put a LOT more money into research, they arent beating a discord server worth of autistic guys who find that info as a hobby.
If so, why is this issue not largely talked about? It’s been months since gatewidth missiles have been behaving like non IRCCM missiles. It’s a very apparent issue that affects many nations.
I was wondering why 9M is feels more reliable than Magic II / pl5e / r73 recently. this post explains it well.
May I add to this, that from my experience AIM-9M are kinda unreliable lately as well.
I don’t have any definitive proof of course, but on average, for the last couple moths, they only sometimes actually work.
For example I have a couple screenshots here from a match yesterday. I was flying the Harrier GR7 and fired 3 AIM-9M at a F-104 in rear aspect. The Starfighter was in afterburner, flying straight and just dropped 4-6 flares for each missile and somehow that worked.
Am I crazy for saying that that doesn’t look right.
The screenshots are from the server replay btw
In the end, the Starfighter just run off alive btw.
Maybe Gaijin will fix this next major… or they gonna break it more, who knows.
Suspension tracking IRCCM is easy to defeat from rear and front aspects, but hard from side (and top/bottom).
While gatewidth missiles are (should be) hard to defeat at short range, especially in a rear aspect. But in the past months, they have been performing like a slightly upgraded aim9L and nothing like they used to be.
Previously, they often would require pre-flaring to avoid a good IR lock at short ranges. Although it was possible to flare them even in rear aspects at short ranges with some jets and flare patterns. For example, inverted F-16 pitch with 0%throttle + a few flares then pitch up again.
1 Like
Yeah I’ve been seeing relatively poor performance from gatewidth IRCCM at least when being shot at me. When employing suboptimal flare placement I could decoy Magic 2/R73 etc. at relatively short ranges that very likely would have killed me before the IRCCM got broken. On a side note, there have been some weird instances with seeker shutoff IRCCM that I have also experienced. From what I understand AAM-3/AIM-9M seeker sees flares-> shutoff + guides with IOG-> either reacquires target or loses target (then flies basically straight). In these rare instances the AAM-3 I fired either bit on and changed course for flares or had its IOG after shutoff completely fail (missile guided itself away from targets predicted path).
Funnily enough I’ve been seeing some crazy recent performances from AIM-9Ls doing some funky tracking (through flares) in front/side aspect that has definitely caught me off guard multiple times.
2 Likes
So I had a look and spotted some behaviour from the seeker post launch. It appears to on occasion pulse between NFoV and WFoV. I’ll have a chat with a Dev.
Cheers for the replay files.
3 Likes
Thank you very much for taking a look!
2 Likes
I noticed the same, but be sure to discard those instances where your flares get hidden by your own aircraft in relation to the missile.
For example, a frontal top down aim-9L against an F-16 that fires a single flare downwards has the chance to not even see the flares, especially at shorter ranges. Similar situations could happen if you are doing a horizontal turn pulling towards the missile and flaring below the fuselage.
Yeah that’s true though for most of the times when I caught an unexpected AIM-9L is during notches vs stuff like F/A-18s who throw everything at one plane. Just for laughs here’s a clip of me getting jumpscared by an AIM-9L successfully acquiring me 5km away after missing an F-2A.
IMO, this pretty much shows it is working properly. Yeah the ones at 1:52, and 3:35 both are a bit weird. But in every other shot it acts basically as you’d expect.
In the gameplay, you’re pulling into your flares, which is exactly what you should do. Given the rise time of large caliber flares, and the heat of Su-27 engines on non-AB, they only need a bit more than 0.4s of rise to decoy a flare. If you pull in front of the flare after that time, which you do, its gonna go for it.