Increase the drag on missiles during high G/AoA turns

[little quartz]

After extensive testing I have come to the conclusion that missiles in NO have extremely unrealistic energy retention / low drag when compared to IRL physics.

Some time ago I was overjoyed that I could "Drag" missiles out and defeat them.
Which simply means I could do something to make them slow down until they fell out of the sky.

But after undergoing extensive controlled testing vs S1 and RAM45 batteries, I can conclude that my inital observations were incorrect.
My initial wins against these missiles were not attributed to slowing through drag, but to slowing through GRAVITY.

This is opposite of reality, where drag under high Gs, and low altitude/high air pressure can slow down 2-20 times more than gravity can.

So I suggest that missiles receive enough drag that someone weaving in 135 degree arcs at 9Gs, on the deck, can consistently escape a missile from 3/4ths to 1/4th their max range depending on the missile and how much drag the devs give it.
(For RAM45 that would mean a consistent win when fired at anywhere between ~11km and ~4km depending on dev decision for drag implementation)

This makes it so notching and flaring are the "starting", "easy to learn" techniques, but weaving and using last moment gravity assists to defeat missiles are the "hard to master" techniques. Adding nuance, playstyle variation, and skill expression to the game.

--Initial test conditions:
-Player: Revoker - winchester(no munitions), 25% fuel, 30,000ft(10km) alt, Mach 1.
-Enemy: Shard RAM45 VLS.
--Timeline of engagement:
-Shard fires at 8.1mi(15km)
-Player performs 9G pull away from launcher and climbs at 45 degrees.
-Missile tries to climb, but loses 10m/s/s in velocity due to gravity.
-Missile is left behind and self destructs when around 3mi(4.8km) from player.

Subsequent tests:
-Player: Revoker - winchester(no munitions), 25% fuel, 300ft(100m) alt, speeds varied in several tests from 250kts(~500kmh), to Mach 1.3.
--Timeline of engagements:
-Shard fires at 8.1mi(15km)
-Player performs 9G pull away from launcher
Then several attempts test different actions:
-Player alternates 9G turns left-right, keeping missile between 04 and 8 o clock.
-Player alternates 9G turns up-down, either from +60 to -60 and +45 to -45.
-Player sustains 6G corkscrew keeping missile at either 4 or 5 o clock.
-Player runs from missile at max speed until missile is 4/3/2/1nmi away, then break turns at 9G upwards to gravity assist.

ALL varied attempts result in missile connecting and resulting in a kill vs the Revoker.

Ideally Weaving laterally would reduce the NEZ to about half of what it is when flying straight.
Gravity turns (9G turn into the vertical) at the last moment would reduce that by an aditional 20-25%.

So an S3 would have a NEZ of about ~4km, with a max (enemy weaving) range of about 7.5-8km (straight running max range remains 15km)
Same with a RAM45 if given an identical drag profile. (as opposed to straight running range of 15km)

Most importantly, the mighty Scythe would have a NEZ smaller than 30km, simply because you can weave for longer the further the missile is fired from. So it would end up having a NEZ of ~10-15km, which coincides with the weaving NEZ of the real AIM-120C AMRAAM. (which also has 120km max "straight-running" range IRL)

If everything is done right (and enemy makes any mistake when lofting the missile), a real AIM-120C can be defeated through weaving and break turning when fired from as little as 4-6km.

A simplified formula would be:
--AIM120C has a max straight-running range of 120km assuming max altitude (10km+) and max speed (Mach2+) at launch
-Low altitude / high air pressure + lack of 45-60 degree upwards lofting when firing (low altitude needs 60, medium altitude needs 45 usually) halves that: 60km range
-Slow launch speed (Mach 1) halves range: 30km
-Enemy 9G turns and runs halves that: 15km
-Enemy 9G turns, Weaves at 9Gs in the vertical, and then does one last break turn upwards and away from the missile halves the range one last time: 7.5km
-Any firing error (not leading the target properly, pointing downwards when firing, etc.) reduces the range further: 4-6km

If the above formula would also work for the missiles in the game, we'd not only have accurate to real life physics, but also more engaging gameplay with higher skill expression.

[rugged kindle]

Strongly agree. Even aside from the realism concerns I think this would make for more engaging gameplay emphasizing positioning and energy management.

[little quartz]

As an extra bonus, I've quickly mapped the RAM45 performance in realistic terms.

The RAM45 is based on the real 9M338 missile of the TOR SAM.

The 9M338 has a max straight-running range of 12-15km in ideal circumstances (we'll stick to 15km).
-Slow speed at launch doesn't apply seeing that it's a SAM.
-Low altitude only reduces range to 3/4, as low altitude launch was considered in the initial max range number: 11-12km
-Enemy 9G turns and runs : ~5-6km
-Enemy 9G turns, Weaves at 9Gs in the vertical, and then does one last break turn upwards and away from the missile: ~2-3km

So if the enemy does EVERYTHING right, the 9M338 would have a NEZ of only ~2-3km, while its minimum range is 1.5-2km.

So if it fires at any range beyond 2-3km, an enemy could escape it if they set themselves up with a perfect, high speed, low closure rate, wild-weasel approach, and they do everything perfectly.

[quasi delta]

Hi Draken, thanks for the detailed feedback, that was an interesting read 🙂
We are discussing this internally and will revert later.
Thanks 🙂

[zinc hare]

Cool to know devs read and consider these forum posts

[shy oar]

horray

[fervent briar]

Whether the energy retention with the applied steering is accurate I can't say (Mitch knows more about these things than I do) but it is definitely worth noting that the missiles don't try to maintain an exact intercept course like they might in other games. They limit the amount of lead at distance specifically as a defence against these techniques being used against them.

[wild yoke]

Otherwise you could very easily lead em into the geound from quite high up

[little quartz]

If I recall correctly, most modern missiles in existence use a guidance law known as augmented proportional navigation.

I will now be talking about things I've had to study a long time ago, so I may miss a thing or two, but the overall idea should still be correct.

In summary, augmented proportional navigation is made out of three stages of flight.

-Within the early boosting phase, The missile aligns to the Target in lead pursuit, then begins a lofting phase if it has excess speed, and is still within the altitude ceiling. This is half of the "augmented" part of proportional navigation.
-Then it transitions to standard proportional navigation which tries to keep the enemy at the exact same bearing at all times, doing minor bearing-goal adjustments whenever the track is of high enough quality.
-So the missile knows where it needs to go, now it just needs a way to turn towards that direction.
-That is where the control law comes in.
Which under most circumstances is simply a set of interdependent PIDs.
-The issue appears when you realize that PIDs suffer from "correction lag" and "overcorrection" due to the Integral.
And that datalink and radar emissions all have noise and a small amount of signal corruption.
-This means that the missile never really knows with utmost precision where the target is, and tends to micro-correct all the time, A phenomenon which is exaggerated when the enemy is maneuvering.
-Pure proportional navigation can only be tricked into hitting the ground if they were already fired from beneath you. (IR missiles in NO currently)
-While augmented proportional navigation is completely impossible to trick this way, as it will first loft in lead pursuit until it is above you, so you would hit the ground, before it would.
-The last phase of flight is within the terminal phase, usually halfway through Pitbull.
The missile will revert to lead pursuit, abandoning its original goal of staying at a specific bearing relative to the Target.

[little quartz]

-Modern missiles are susceptible to weaving because the missile cannot predict what the pilot will do, it can only work with what it sees currently.
-If a missile would be built to counter weaving, it would most likely fly within lag pursuit for a significant portion of its loft.
-But that would open it up to other, even more potent energy management tactics, which are even easier to pull off and far less stressful on the enemy's airframe and energy state.
-Goal drift and large terminal separation are the bane of lag pursuit missiles.
Because such a missile would ignore repetitive weaving motions, but the micro jitters caused by the signal and control law remain, and bleed energy just the same.
If even the micro jitters are filtered out, the enemy's ability to just turn in very wide arcs to force separation and cause the missile to fly an unreasonably long course, force the missiles to bleed far more energy.
-All this while landing them with a terminal phase which presents a significant amount of separation to the enemy.
Meaning that not only is the missile slow and barely capable of maneuvering after a ridiculously long lag-pursuit arc to the enemy, but it also has a far bigger turn to complete now.

-TL;DR
Despite being susceptible to weaving, Augmented proportional navigation is the most effective guidance law in existence.

Ai models might be better than guidance laws, but if we don't have that in real life, we cannot replicate it in Nuclear Option.

So indeed, whatever the current guidance and control laws of the missiles in NO are (the camera tools in the game don't let me test that very easily, I'd need freecam padlocking and telescope levels of zoom) they do not lose nearly enough speed while traveling to their target.

[lusty hazel]

[little quartz]

😂😂 😂
"Oi waz en eiroshpheis enjiniia."
"Oi wez meikin automeitid dronz."
"Bekeim dron flyr for cinima uen dronz startid bein boom dronz, me no laiky boom."

[little quartz]

Now that I think about it, this change would also help by adding some more IR-missile counterplay options.

After 0.29, IRs became extremely easy to flare off, even if fired from below 2km. But remain almost impossible to outrun.

So buffing IR seekers by a bit, but making them more vulnerable to speedkilling, would also promote energy and position management in WVR fights.

[sour owl]

it would also provide a much more consistent ability to evade an ir after you're out of flares

[cloud star]

Bumping this thread, actually was about to post the same suggestion. Allowing energy based offensive and defensive missile strategies would have a major positive impact on gameplay. For example, you could learn how to properly lead and loft missiles, or use actual BVR strats like cranking and pumping

[sour owl]

Who up cranking and pumping

[cloud star]

Cranking and pumping till I notch

[little quartz]

Any fresh Opinions on this matter?

[spark phoenix]

Pretty much everyone seems to like the idea.

Question is if Mitch likes the idea.

[frigid kayak]

AAM's don't inherently know that terrain exists.
Secondly micro corrections might just get averaged out to something relatively smooth. A lofted tracjetory might not even attempt anything beyond coarse corrections until terminal.

[outer moth]

Average means delay
The smoother the average the higher the delay
The integral part of the PropNav is already a sophisticated average so

Just instead of an average of position its an average of target angle change^n
Where n equal the spicyness of the polynomial

[outer moth]

Also what draken meant and said: the missile doesnt need to know about terrain. Due to the inherent nature of APN the missile will never end up below the plane

[brazen hemlock]

I suggested this months ago. Because I am used to play dcs and bms and I got only excuses on why it shouldn't be done. Current missiles physics are not realistic and makes the game less enjoyable.

[hard ingot]

I would like to have a chance to evade air to air missiles when i'm out of flares and not a guaranteed death when there are no mountains around

[little quartz]

In all honesty, We should get multiple types of weapons that are suited for different ranges and have different levels of maneuverability.

We already have the S3 and S1. ( Even though I wish the S-1 was available on more aircraft.)

I would like to see the Scythe remain a medium-range radar-guided missile(5-10km vs weaving), while a much longer-ranged missile, similar to the AIM-174, would take the place of a long-range but far less maneuverable threat. (20-30km vs weaving, with pronounced minimum range)

Seeing that the real-life AIM-174 is actually the naval SM-2 mounted on an aircraft, I would not be surprised if our long-range option would be a Stratolance with an active-radar-homing seeker.

[hard ingot]

I yearn for a s1 3/4 pack on a compass

But that aside, kinematic evasion has a much stronger "cool" factor, evading a missile through clever maneuvers feels better than cutting throttle and dumping a bunch of flares

[feral barn]

Yes , no denser air extra drag and basically unrealisticically low levels of drag. On the other hand absolute powerhouses like the revoker and ifrit take aloot to break the sound barrier even half empty , such jets meeting or exceeding f22 trust ratios should want to go supersonic even at 80% dry power when talking about the revoker with a power profile more similar to a j20 or su57. It's basically impossible to outrun a missile or bleed its energy

[spark phoenix]

The Wiki seems to list the max range on the Scythe as 120 Km.

[hearty forge]

lower speeds is proabably balacning due to how small the map is

hopefully it gets updated with the release of the new map

[little quartz]

The real AMRAAM is also rated at about 120km max range.
But those are ideal , lab conditions.

It will rarely do anything beyond half of that, and in BMS(the most realistic sim when it comes to its scope) the AMRAAM can be commonly energy defeated from as little as 6-12km depending on circumstances and enemy involved. (usually 6km if the shot was offbore. 12km if perfectly led and lofted.

So no, Scythe having a very high pK (probability of kill) vs maneuvering targets at 120km is neither realistic, nor fun.
Heck even things like Meteor and AIM-174 would struggle at half that range.

• Meteor is said to have a NEZ (NoEscape Zone) of ~60km (and if it follows AMRAAM logic of NEZ being 1/10-20th of stated max range, then its NEZ is actually 10-20km, from 200km max range)
• And AIM-174 would have a NEZ of around 20-40km, from 400km max range.

[spark phoenix]

Also worth mentioning that the Stratolance is both longer ranged and more manoeuvreable than the Scythe.

Personally, I think that ranges are fine per se, at least for now.

Maybe when we get much larger map sizes it'd be worth revisiting longer ranged munitions, but with even the upcoming map I can easily see longer ranged missiles being cancerously annoying due to effectively being shot off across the map.

[brazen hemlock]

That is one of the reasons why this game can be very unrealistic and hurts the gameplay. Missiles should behave in a much more realistic way. Also some sam systems have 1 second reaction time and fire missiles at me even if I have been flying low and never detected me. But they just fire immediately like they can id me and shot in 1 second

[still mortar]

Meteor would have a decently bigger nez through continous thrust from its ramjet.
but otherwise ye

[little quartz]

I just remembered that the Meteor engine can be throttled. In that case, indeed, it would likely have at least 50% higher NEZ by running at a slower speed (less drag) and accelerating to full capacity only close to the enemy.

[little quartz]

The effective range of missiles is determined by two factors: countermeasure resistance and potential energy. In our game, countermeasure resistance is so low that missiles can be defeated if fired above 2.5km for the S3 and 5km for the Scythe, given a cautious flight speed of 600km/h. However, their low drag forces players to constantly defend and use countermeasures even across the map.

If you run out of flares or jammers, and the enemy spaces their Scythes 10km apart, firing four or five of them, you're going to die. The S3 will pursue you up to 30-45km away, and the Scythe can strike from over 240km away. The current (and probably only) largest map doesn't offer much cover, as it is oceanic.

A Medusa with a Radome and 2 Ifrits can eliminate six enemies across the map with 10km Scythe spacing.

The low countermeasure resistance of missiles is commonly attributed to DIRCM and powerful AESA jammers.

A proposed solution is to make missiles more susceptible to jammers and flares at shorter ranges as desperate last attempts, while allowing players to outrun them at longer ranges due to realistic drag.

This is justified by aircraft having higher emission capabilities than missiles. Unlike ground-based SAMs, where jammers weaken as they approach the target(inverse square law), missiles become more blinded by the radiation as they get closer.

[feral barn]

I'm just getting into BMS. So the overall things are really more realistic than dcs for the bms f16 compared to the dcs f16 model , also for missiles and munitions? Like 10-20% more realistic, about the same for AA missiles , or drastically more realistic for BMS in both the AA , aircraft ordnance and the F16 model?

[little quartz]

If I were to give a rough approximation, I would say that the aircraft flight models are only around 10-20% better.
A small-ish improvement.
But that never really mattered for how fun a sim actually is, as long as it forces you to make the same decisions, such as choosing a one/two circle in a dogfight, or how early you turn away from a missile.

BMS shines by doing absolutely everything else, by 80-100% better.

The AI is almost human-level intelligent. Great for Sp or Coop.

The dynamic campaign is something which needs to be experienced to be believed, and hasn't yet been replicated in any other simulator.

The game has actual air traffic controllers and AWACS using proper procedures.

DataLink is implemented as realistically as it is declassified.

Infrared missiles have many variables to whether they are fooled by flares or not. (Range, altitude, clouds, atmospheric haze, fog, wind, aspect, even background illumination.)

Radar missiles are modeled as realistically as they are declassified.

And most onboard systems of both the F-16 and the F-15C, which are the highest quality aircraft currently are almost completely bug-free and work as close as possible to their real-life counterparts.

[feral barn]

Thank you , I'm also having a blast , dcs can get very borring and tedious....

[hard ingot]

keep preaching

[little quartz]

As much as the sim community tends to get caught up on realism, ironically, that is not the most important aspect of a sim.

No simulator will ever be completely realistic. They are all emulators, which want you to make similar decisions to those which real people would make in those situations. As a result, it is best to capitalize on the decision-making and more or less emulating the experience rather than the systems individually.

As someone who actually flew light civilian aircraft in the past, I can tell you that no simulator will ever be completely realistic simply due to the limitations of experiencing things through a screen.

So capitalize on the experience, not on the invisible airframe charts numbers.

And that is what BMS does best. For "free".

[feral barn]

That's true , however as aircraft and systems behaviour , the more realistic something is the better for me. It's the same thing as a person with chronic vestibulary aparatus problems driving a car , extremely common by the way , he will have a different experience, sensing etc... Doesn't mean that you gotta give him a toyota corrola.

[little quartz]

I totally agree with you. I think the best way is to find a balance between pouring resources into trying to make the most realistic system and cutting corners where possible in order to better develop a game while maintaining the same decision-making structure.

And I think that Strike Fighters 2 and Nuclear Option are really good examples of such an approach.

Not the most realistic, but definitely forcing the same decision-making structure.

BMS is indeed within the league of the sims which try to be as realistic as possible even at the cost of content.

[feral barn]

Well said.

[spark phoenix]

Strike Fighters 2; now there's a name I haven't heard before.

Haven't seen it on Steam either.

Also, I guess VTOL VR falls into the same category?

[little quartz]

Yes, I think it does. I've never played it, but from the videos I've seen its not going for full realism.

Also check out Echelon Wind Warriors, the spiritual predecessor of Nuclear Option. And I mean VERY spiritual, they only share big-picture features, like some UI elements , being physics based, PALA vs BDF was "other planet" vs Earth iirc, and having part-based aircraft.

[spark phoenix]

Just how far back in the past are we going here?

Oh wow; over 2 decades old.

Damn that's old, and I feel old

[little quartz]

Yeah, I don't expect anyone to get Echelon. It's old, and VERY hard to find in working order.

It's also only fun when playing its version of escalation vs AI.
And it gets repetitive after around 10 matches.

But to this day, sniping (one-shotting) someone with the Advanced Cannon remains one of the most satisfying things in gaming.

[slim crescent]

bump

[little quartz]

As far as I recall, Mitch has confirmed on one of the streams that they will rework missile aerodynamics.

In my opinion this and missile seeker/countermeasure relationships are what they should focus on in the next major update.

We have plenty of content to have fun with, but A2A missile combat just doesn't have enough variables to it to feel truly nuanced.

And with time it started weighing on me.
(I find myself playing less and less)

.30 gave me the beautiful x10 IRM Chicane. (The perfect AShM defence platform)

But the Vortex, Ignus, and the remaining content just didn't really matter that much to me. (Other than the music, which is absolute fire)

Don't misundertand, I adore the devs for the amount of work and passion they put into the game, but I could have kept playing Escalation only for the next YEAR without complaining, if we would have had well rounded, nuanced combat both in A2A and A2G.

And if we get proper aerodynamics (and by extension, missile ranges) and a new, larger BVR missile(to compensate for Scythe being an S/MRM), we'll take a massive leap in the right direction.

Again I don't want to say that the devs did anything wrong with .30, just that the combat loop issue is best addressed in .31(aero) and .32(sensors/seekers) rather than leaving things as they are for longer, when the extra content will only make rebalancing more tedious.

[still mortar]

Not much to say just couple random things about that

1. The compass can take 6 S3 and 8 irsm at the same time and is even better at cruise missile defense in most scenarios (ig you could quick rearm in the chicane)
2. I think most of the new content has its place and is fun to interact with alread, will be great with future updates.
   3.Totally agree the missile combat loop gets stale, you can use terrain to evade both missile types and flares/notching and jammer for the respective missile types and thats about it, that a 5ish km range scythe is near impossible to evade in most planes is a bit unoptimal for balancing maybe.
   Otherwise yeah Id love if you were able to evade missiles better with energy as most people do, more counterplay and options are good.
   The game is still in a state where the balancing will be shifted alot to find the optimal one so I think its fair to expect some form of missile aero changes.

[hard ingot]

Most of my air engagements go like this currently:

• Accelerate to max speed
• Cut throttle
• Start preflaring at 8km
• Shoot an S3 from 2km
• Win (while hugging the ground for the whole "fight")
  And it's the same every time, only on rare occasions do people pre-flare as well and we actually merge
  If air combat wasn't so reliant on flares then it would be several times more fun, as suddenly people would start flying at altitude, indirectly buffing scythes

[stray viper]

def backing this idea. Emphasizing kinematic defeat over sensor defeat makes combat, particularly BVR, much more lively. Rather than just turning into the notch or going abeam and dumping flares now you have to make snap decisions on your energy state, topography, distance, etc and bring them all together to get that missile off of you. It also means you have to be smarter about how you defend so that you can get an opportunity to retaliate

[zinc hare]

I know it’s already sort of a thing, but if flares would “blind” the missile for a short period, it would make flare+ manuever more useful. Same with jamming. If I jam and pull 9G, I should have a pretty good chance of surviving.

Dodging missiles with manuever is really satisfying and fun in other games (VVR, War thunder), I’d love to see it have its place in NO

[stray viper]

so basically you want IR missiles to use tracking interruption for IRCCM: i.e, they cut the seeker feed for a moment and fly off of INS

[spark phoenix]

I'll add just one caveat to this.

I think that the 'blinding' should go down in effectiveness with range; to the point that it doesn't work below somrthing like 3 Km IMO.

[zinc hare]

If that were true, how would you flare and manoeuvre? The point is to flare at the last possible second, and in the brief moment of the missile going dumb, change direction to dodge the missile.