In Soviet GCI systems, the pilots didn't even fire the missile. The ground controller did. The pilot was basically there to land and take off.

thewood1 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:29 pm In Soviet GCI systems, the pilots didn't even fire the missile. The ground controller did. The pilot was basically there to land and take off.

Wow. Did not know that.

Thanks

Mike

It was pretty much the case with the Su-15. I think the Yak-28 also. The autopilot was connected to the GC radar and officer. The Mig-21 had a little more autonomy in the GCI role, but the autopilot took its vectoring directly from the GCI link. In fact, the US F-106 had a similar capability also. The development of the computer needed to manage the real-time link is part of the reason for its delay, IIRC.

Charming in to say this was an excellent discussion. Wrote down multiple ideas to crib.

A lot of good ideas in the topic.

What I think the best direction would be is to randomize WRA for each AI unit (or tie it to proficiency).

One thing is sure though. After a few dozen of tests in the editor I am not entirely statisfied with the 75% default range the devs determined for the AI. The Pl-12 missile for example is basically useless now as NATO fighters will evade it every time as the missile peters out too fast. I fear this might be the case for less advanced missiles too.

I will give the Chains of War campaign another go and see how the dynamics have changed in a prolonged campaign.

SchDerGrosse wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 11:56 am A lot of good ideas in the topic.

What I think the best direction would be is to randomize WRA for each AI unit (or tie it to proficiency).

One thing is sure though. After a few dozen of tests in the editor I am not entirely statisfied with the 75% default range the devs determined for the AI. The Pl-12 missile for example is basically useless now as NATO fighters will evade it every time as the missile peters out too fast. I fear this might be the case for less advanced missiles too.

I will give the Chains of War campaign another go and see how the dynamics have changed in a prolonged campaign.

You can rebuild the scenarios to your preferred side default WRA as well. Its in the rebuild scenario dialog.
Mike

DWReese wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:29 pm IMO, and from my experience, 75% misses too much, and wastes missiles.

50% is obviously better, but still not that great.

I suppose that it also depends on the specific a/c involved, weapons used, and situation.

Yes and no.
The effectiveness of missile engagements varies depending on a multitude of factors, including missile type, launch platform, altitude, and BVR tactics.

In optimal conditions—where you possess advanced very long-range missiles (such as AIM-260 JATM, PL-15, and Meteor) you can achieve success at 75%max or even 100%max. This scenario relies on outclassing your opponents with significantly longer ranges, with both parties positioned at high altitudes.
If keep the same conditions but change the missile to long range (AIM-120D), then effective range reduce to 50%-60%max.
Changing missiles to AIM-120C, AA-12, PL-12 will reduce the effective range to 33-40%.
In situations where neither side holds a substantial range advantage and both parties opt to fire their missiles at the same threshold, then fire at 25%max is the range you won’t see most missiles wasted in the thin air.

This phoneme is partially caused by A/C’s defensive posture in CMO. Right now the incoming missile can be detected by radar at very long distance, but the A/C will not begin defensive maneuver until missile is closer than 15nm distance.

That should explain why 75%max or even the 100%max works for some of the very long range missiles. Because the targeted aircraft closing the distance by using afterburners, inadvertently commencing defensive maneuvers when the missile is already dangerously close, leaving minimal time for evasion. The result is that these very long-range missiles tend to possess unspent fuel upon impact.
Shorter range missiles have low effective range, that is because this 15nm defensive maneuver range consists of large proportion of the total missile range.

This is assumed the engagement happens at high altitude, and both sides taking a crank posture. Changing the BVR logic to drag immediately will increase the complexity of the system.
I have a sandbox scenario with a pair of F-15EX armed with AIM-260 taking a pair of F/A-18E (AIM-120D) headon. Both fired at 50% max. F-15EX suffered a humiliated defeat because F/A-18E executed a “Drag immediately” maneuver, the AIM-260 ran out of energy in the wake of the fleeing F/A-18E while the F-15EX kept cranking until it is too late to begin evasion.