Math breakdown: Anime homing missiles(blog.littlepolygon.com)
blog.littlepolygon.com
Math breakdown: Anime homing missiles
https://blog.littlepolygon.com/posts/missile/
130 comments
The UK Starstreak anti-aircraft missile has 3 submunition darts to improve hit probability. There is nothing wrong with the idea per se, you can design around backfire. The Metal Storm gun has multiple munitions stacked in the same tube.
I figure the problem is more that it’s hard to scale down missiles to the point the plume would make economic sense.
I figure the problem is more that it’s hard to scale down missiles to the point the plume would make economic sense.
One well-guided missile can be infinitely more effective than 1000 poorly-guided missiles.
Unless you are seeking a penetration aid against defenses, I don't see much point. There are far cheaper ways to deliver mass on target if you simply want to spam the enemy.
Unless you are seeking a penetration aid against defenses, I don't see much point. There are far cheaper ways to deliver mass on target if you simply want to spam the enemy.
> One well-guided missile can be infinitely more effective than 1000 poorly-guided missiles.
Only true if it can target a high value unit or concentration of units which value exceed the missile cost.
Anti-air is a different scenario than artillery. Startreak targets are fast evading and employ countermeasures that attempt to trick the missiles target acquisition. I'm out of my depth but I believe the justification for the 3 missiles was improving the odds of hitting the target as that add redundancy and kind of triple the resolution of the targeting systems where a single missile with better electronics might be less effective and more costly.
Only true if it can target a high value unit or concentration of units which value exceed the missile cost.
Anti-air is a different scenario than artillery. Startreak targets are fast evading and employ countermeasures that attempt to trick the missiles target acquisition. I'm out of my depth but I believe the justification for the 3 missiles was improving the odds of hitting the target as that add redundancy and kind of triple the resolution of the targeting systems where a single missile with better electronics might be less effective and more costly.
The question I have is: can you scale down the well-guided missile? I thought guidance is mostly an issue of fast chips and well designed software. But perhaps you need big missiles if you want them to fly fast and have a lot of range.
Talking about anti-air of course. Lots of small missiles aren’t going to be effective against hardened ground targets.
Talking about anti-air of course. Lots of small missiles aren’t going to be effective against hardened ground targets.
Sensors matter a lot for guidance. In order to build an effective radar guided missile it needs a fairly large array. So in practice the minimum missile diameter ends up being something around 7 inches. Long range surface to air missiles have to be much wider than that.
Data links also make a big difference. So the missile needs another fairly large antenna to receive guidance cues from other platforms.
Data links also make a big difference. So the missile needs another fairly large antenna to receive guidance cues from other platforms.
But perhaps you need big missiles if you want them to
fly fast and have a lot of range.
See my other answer, though - air to air missiles ARE generally (always) proximity fuzed. They don't need to precisely impact the target, they just need to get close.
More then that, air-to-air missiles generally are designed to blow a load of metal shrapnel through whatever they "hit": so there's a problem where if you're fleeing from a missile and it explodes behind you, even though it "missed" the payload can still hit the plane it was chasing if the plane doesn't change trajectory.
Depends on what you're defending against. Drones are effective because they're cheap so they can be sent in large numbers to overwhelm air defense even if each individual drone is an easy target.
The type of cheap drones that can be sent in large numbers lack the range to attack ships unless they're really close.
“Cheap drone” doesn't need to be off the shelf quadcopter drone, fixed-wings custom drones like the Iranian Shahed 126 are still dirt cheap compared to typical anti-ship missiles.
Those lack the sensors needed to detect and track a moving ship. Good sensors are expensive, and consume a lot of power.
But you don't need one sensor per drone, but one per swarm with the same target (and any kind of data link between members of the swarm). And by the time the swarm is within reach of the protection weapons of the target, it's probably close enough for the fairly basic sensors onboard of every drone to be able to work on its own if the target drone is destroyed (for instance: GNSS up to the last know position of the ship, and then just computer vision at close-range).
A ship isn't exactly a small target. You could probably track it just fine with a satellite and update the target GPS coordinate of the drones manually. An aircraft carrier only moves at 55 km/h maximum.
That's basically how most Anti-ship missile work: you give them GPS coordinate for the rough location and then the missile uses an active radar homing system for terminal guidance. (You want the missile to keep quiet as long as possible anyway, to avoid being detected and reducing the time the crew has to react to the threat).
Apparently, the oceans do a lot of radar scattering that makes it harder to spot ships from the guidance systems of missiles. Not sure what the state of the art is nowadays though.
Nope. Ships are very small targets in very large oceans. Have you ever even been on a boat out of sight from land?
Reconnaissance satellites will be the first casualties in any future high-end conflict. Modern militaries have to plan around the expectation that their space-based platforms will be unavailable or severely degraded.
Radar ocean reconnaissance satellites can detect ships under any weather conditions but they are are large, heavy, expensive, and can provide only intermittent coverage. Smaller satellites with optical or IR sensors can potentially provide more coverage but are less effective at night or with clouds.
Reconnaissance satellites will be the first casualties in any future high-end conflict. Modern militaries have to plan around the expectation that their space-based platforms will be unavailable or severely degraded.
Radar ocean reconnaissance satellites can detect ships under any weather conditions but they are are large, heavy, expensive, and can provide only intermittent coverage. Smaller satellites with optical or IR sensors can potentially provide more coverage but are less effective at night or with clouds.
Apparently China is already tracking U.S. aircraft carriers via satellite: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3177079/chin...
And sure, you need to wait for a clear day, but that doesn't seem like too big an obstacle. Also, while space-based platforms will be targets, it's unclear how effective counter measures are. Identifying targets is challenging and deploying replacements is worth the cost if you can eliminate a large portion of an adversary's naval power.
And sure, you need to wait for a clear day, but that doesn't seem like too big an obstacle. Also, while space-based platforms will be targets, it's unclear how effective counter measures are. Identifying targets is challenging and deploying replacements is worth the cost if you can eliminate a large portion of an adversary's naval power.
This is nothing new. The USSR was tracking US aircraft carriers via satellite since the 1960's. China is only now catching up.
Carriers are certainly vulnerable to an extent, but detecting one with a satellite is only one step in the kill chain. Carrier strike groups already carry some limited anti-satellite weapons that can hit targets in LEO. There is an active arms race underway by the superpowers to boost those capabilities, and also (as you stated) to develop a prompt launch capability to replace satellite attrition losses within hours rather than scheduling launches years in advance.
Carriers are certainly vulnerable to an extent, but detecting one with a satellite is only one step in the kill chain. Carrier strike groups already carry some limited anti-satellite weapons that can hit targets in LEO. There is an active arms race underway by the superpowers to boost those capabilities, and also (as you stated) to develop a prompt launch capability to replace satellite attrition losses within hours rather than scheduling launches years in advance.
So far. There are many ways to make longrange, fuel efficient flying things.
What are those ways? Do they also allow for large sensors and warheads?
Submunitions think ICBM or cluster bombs. There’s a tradeoff, because smarts means less room for the deadly bits.
Some kind of smart bomblets could be very effective vs traditional military bases which use sandbag walls to limit how effective traditional munitions are. Smarter drones could be more useful when trying to clear a forest.
Anti ship missiles on the other hand need large warheads to be effective. But launching multiple is preferred due to CIWS/point defense weapon systems.
Some kind of smart bomblets could be very effective vs traditional military bases which use sandbag walls to limit how effective traditional munitions are. Smarter drones could be more useful when trying to clear a forest.
Anti ship missiles on the other hand need large warheads to be effective. But launching multiple is preferred due to CIWS/point defense weapon systems.
Smart submunitions launched from drones have been a thing for decades.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/bat-submuniti...
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/bat-submuniti...
Yea, though BAT is designed for armored vehicles not personal.
Military UAV’s are also huge. I assume when people are thinking drones they are downscaling to the 1-10kg range not full sized aircraft with a 50 foot wingspan.
Military UAV’s are also huge. I assume when people are thinking drones they are downscaling to the 1-10kg range not full sized aircraft with a 50 foot wingspan.
Just being the overconfident random internet person with ideas:
launch 100 vehicles, slow flying, potentially with gliding capabilities, converging from all directions onto a target at the same time, ditching main wings and piston engine at the last minute, firing a rocket to gain speed, and overwhelm air defence by sheer numbers. Combine low-flying attack profiles with "dive-bomb from above". Large sensors can be mitigated with mesh-networking between vehicles and sensor fusion, maybe different kinds of sensors on different vehicles. Slow-flying means they can carry heavier warheads thanks to more lift and less drag.
If slowly circling at high altitude, you also tie up resources keeping track of them.
Quantity is its own quality, and all that...
this is all without even bringing "AI" into the mix, but if you could, you can give them "goals" instead of targets.
launch 100 vehicles, slow flying, potentially with gliding capabilities, converging from all directions onto a target at the same time, ditching main wings and piston engine at the last minute, firing a rocket to gain speed, and overwhelm air defence by sheer numbers. Combine low-flying attack profiles with "dive-bomb from above". Large sensors can be mitigated with mesh-networking between vehicles and sensor fusion, maybe different kinds of sensors on different vehicles. Slow-flying means they can carry heavier warheads thanks to more lift and less drag.
If slowly circling at high altitude, you also tie up resources keeping track of them.
Quantity is its own quality, and all that...
this is all without even bringing "AI" into the mix, but if you could, you can give them "goals" instead of targets.
It is possible in principle to build a loitering cruise missile with those features. It will not be small or cheap, at least not if you want something with the range and endurance to seek out and attack a ship on the open ocean in any weather conditions. Add up the cost and weight for all of those components you listed.
As a point of comparison, the latest Block IV Tomahawk missiles already do most of what you described. They cost about $2M each and weigh about 1.5 tons. Only the largest warships can potentially carry 100 such missiles.
Russia has used small, cheap cruise missiles like the Iranian Shahed-136 drones with some limited success against Ukraine. In a naval conflict such drones could have some value as harassment weapons against surface vessels operating in the littorals. But those drones are useless against moving ships over the horizon.
As a point of comparison, the latest Block IV Tomahawk missiles already do most of what you described. They cost about $2M each and weigh about 1.5 tons. Only the largest warships can potentially carry 100 such missiles.
Russia has used small, cheap cruise missiles like the Iranian Shahed-136 drones with some limited success against Ukraine. In a naval conflict such drones could have some value as harassment weapons against surface vessels operating in the littorals. But those drones are useless against moving ships over the horizon.
Those Shahed drones are too small. I'm just thinking from first principles, if an ultralight plane has a range of 500km and has a 100kg pilot in it which could be subbed for a warhead, you could do an awful lot of damage with hundreds of such things in the air.
Your numbers are way off. Ultralight airplanes don't have ranges anywhere near 500km, nor do they have the payload capacity to carry the necessary sensors and associated electrical generator. Ultralights are also barely faster than surface warships, and are too flimsy to operate in severe weather. Seriously, you guys need to quit watching silly scifi cartoons and do some actual math.
The Sadler Vampire was/is 100 kg something dry, 250 kg loaded and a range of 500km. How much power do you need for sensors anyway? Even with 100 kg for fuel, that's a lot of weight left for warhead and electronics. That's for a straight conversion of a COTS design. I'm sure corners can be cut for something which will only run for a few hours and never fly again.
But sure, I'll go back to my cartoons again. /s
But sure, I'll go back to my cartoons again. /s
Just take a bigger drone truck to get them there.
happy Protoss Carrier noises
happy Protoss Carrier noises
I’m absolutely in favor of a massive airship spewing hundreds of drones :)
For many air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles, we cheat and improve the hit probability another way: proximity fuses.
Example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
They detonate near the target rather than impacting it directly. This greatly improves the chance of success. Jets are fragile, so this is almost always sufficient to take them out of commission.
Example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
They detonate near the target rather than impacting it directly. This greatly improves the chance of success. Jets are fragile, so this is almost always sufficient to take them out of commission.
It makes far more sense to do something like that in space instead of in the atmosphere. You could spread the missiles out a little before ignition. But you would also need some kind of swarm logic and tracking to make sure they don't bump into each other.
Ostensibly the Generation 2 Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb munitions will do something like this - i.e. they're capable of independently acquiring targets, and then de-conflict the target acquisitions to ensure they don't all track on the same one.
Basically the idea being that you fire a whole lot of them at the enemy trench somewhere over there, and on terminal approach they independently assign themselves to specific interesting looking targets.
Basically the idea being that you fire a whole lot of them at the enemy trench somewhere over there, and on terminal approach they independently assign themselves to specific interesting looking targets.
Sort of like the CBU-97, it's mission profile is ridiculously insane. First 10 sub munitions are ejected out. A parachute slows the downward movement of the sub munition carrier. A rocket then spins it up to a high speed where it starts flinging shaped charge skeet at vehicles in range. these skeet then detonate once they detect they are above the vehicle.
My reaction was the same as when I first learned about how jpl was going to get the curiosity rover down to the surface of mars with a rocket crane. "There is no way something that complicated would actually work."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon
My reaction was the same as when I first learned about how jpl was going to get the curiosity rover down to the surface of mars with a rocket crane. "There is no way something that complicated would actually work."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon
Must’ve been a fun job training them what a valid target is :/
Probably pretty easy. Anything that's not flat terrain, kinda irregular in shape, and a fixed distance from another target, e.g. 3 meters or something, to ensure a reasonable spread.
After seeing videos of n-copters dropping grenades on soldiers in the Ukraine-Russia war, I do think there is evidence of a move to small and cheap technology.
> That said, I've seen videos of ships firing missiles in relatively quick succession. Just not like the Itano Circus, however.
Saturation attack is indeed a tactic used. The idea is to time your attack for missiles to arrive on your target at the same time independantly of when they are launched and of their trajectories.
Also, a missile hit for anti-missile defense probably doesn't look like what you expect. There is no need to reach the incoming missile spot on. The goal is to explode in its vicinity preferably slightly in front of it. Incoming missiles are fast enough that impacting either debris or the explosion shockwave will disable them if they are close in a radius which is not that small.
Saturation attack is indeed a tactic used. The idea is to time your attack for missiles to arrive on your target at the same time independantly of when they are launched and of their trajectories.
Also, a missile hit for anti-missile defense probably doesn't look like what you expect. There is no need to reach the incoming missile spot on. The goal is to explode in its vicinity preferably slightly in front of it. Incoming missiles are fast enough that impacting either debris or the explosion shockwave will disable them if they are close in a radius which is not that small.
It's not a bad idea. It's just a practical reality of their interaction with each other that causes a problem that's hard to workaround.
The challenge with "lots of smaller missiles" is really range, I think. You want to hit the target from as far away as possible. That takes fuel, which puts limits on how small you can go.
The longest-range version of the AIM-120 has a range of 160km, and missiles under development promise even longer ranges than that, so that kind of tells you what they prioritize.
One tangential thing to understand is that air to air missiles are proximity fuzed. They don't need to precisely impact their target, they just need to get close.
The longest-range version of the AIM-120 has a range of 160km, and missiles under development promise even longer ranges than that, so that kind of tells you what they prioritize.
One tangential thing to understand is that air to air missiles are proximity fuzed. They don't need to precisely impact their target, they just need to get close.
I think this is mostly because longer range sounds like a great thing when you don’t have hundreds of missiles to defend against.
It’d be nice if there was a similar defense against saturation bombing.
It’d be nice if there was a similar defense against saturation bombing.
I think this is mostly because longer range
sounds like a great thing when you don’t have
hundreds of missiles to defend against.
If you take human pilots out of the equation, obviously this changes things (your aircraft can be cheaper and you worry less about losing one) but not entirely. You still have to figure out how to deliver the missiles without getting shot down and while remote piloting is cool, it's still subject to jamming and such.
Minus the cool swirly anime effects, pilots certainly do have the option of firing multiple missiles at a given target. Fire one missile from beyond visual range, wait, and then fire another one. This is very common in DCS, which is obviously not reality but is a pretty decent simulation according to a lot of actual pilots. Not sure what actual fighter pilot doctrine is there and if that's a real world practice as well.
I was thinking more about Ukraine, not an anime style missile swarm :)
You need defensive missiles that are significantly cheaper and easier to produce to stop your larger adversary from raining death down everywhere.
It’s nice if you have a missile that you can use to intercept any incoming dumb missile anywhere in 300km, but not if your missiles cost 1M and theirs cost 100k.
You need defensive missiles that are significantly cheaper and easier to produce to stop your larger adversary from raining death down everywhere.
It’s nice if you have a missile that you can use to intercept any incoming dumb missile anywhere in 300km, but not if your missiles cost 1M and theirs cost 100k.
[deleted]
Doesn’t a howitzer shoot multiple middles at once? (Or are they shot in quick succession?)
Quick succession. Due to the projectiles taking a while to arrive on target (especially for high-arcing trajectories) this gives you the effect of multiple projectiles arriving simultaneously on target: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#Multiple_round_simul...
It also places some demands on fire control and loading to achieve the high fire rate; I'm not sure manually-loaded howitzers are capable of that in general (e.g. the German PzH 2000 automates everything from loading shells and propellant to firing).
It also places some demands on fire control and loading to achieve the high fire rate; I'm not sure manually-loaded howitzers are capable of that in general (e.g. the German PzH 2000 automates everything from loading shells and propellant to firing).
Thank you for calling it by it’s proper name and not “Anime Homing Missiles”
The MX sort of did that on the reentry side.
The term for this is Itano Circus, made famous in Macross
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgwORRFIiuE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgwORRFIiuE
that's not the "term", that's "as seen in X anime"
bastardizing technical "terms" irritates me
bastardizing technical "terms" irritates me
Itano circus is not an in-universe term, it’s named after an artist Ichiro Itano who is associated with it.
You don't say: a painting using cubism style is a "Picasso"
The author that popularized it doesn't get attribution de-facto for every paintings that uses cubism
Slightly rotating your missile propulsion system with an auto-targeting system doesn't make it "Itano"
You don't say "Mr Smith's way of braking" because you saw him drift
There is something about the weeb culture that's very corrosive about culture in general
That's very concerning for this generation of technicians
https://llvm.moe/
The author that popularized it doesn't get attribution de-facto for every paintings that uses cubism
Slightly rotating your missile propulsion system with an auto-targeting system doesn't make it "Itano"
You don't say "Mr Smith's way of braking" because you saw him drift
There is something about the weeb culture that's very corrosive about culture in general
That's very concerning for this generation of technicians
https://llvm.moe/
These terms come from Sakuga scene where artist attribution and appreciation are a big part of it. See also "Yutapon Cubes", for example.
Also we absolutely do identify art styles after their creators if the style is distinct enough, but doesn't necessarily establish a new branch, e.g. Escher, Warhol, Wes Anderson.
Also we absolutely do identify art styles after their creators if the style is distinct enough, but doesn't necessarily establish a new branch, e.g. Escher, Warhol, Wes Anderson.
There is something about the weeb culture
that's very corrosive about culture in general
That's very concerning for this generation of
technicians
TIL it’s called eponym[1]. Diesel engines, pasteurized milk, Petri dish, even mentors, … I can tell you it’s much less common in ideographic languages, as the definition can be encoded into spelling by choice of ideographs, if that is what you would appreciate :)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym
Just because you see something in "weeb culture" doesn't mean it's unique to "weeb culture". Naming things after people happens everywhere, even in programming, booleans, bezier curves, Turing machines, etc.
I've also heard it called Roboteching, from the samish reference:
Warning info hazard tvtropes :p
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Roboteching
Warning info hazard tvtropes :p
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Roboteching
It seems like "roboteching" refers more to the sudden synchronised turning of the missiles towards the target, and "Itano Circus" / "Macross Missile Massacre" is the general term for near-simultaneous missile spam. Definitely very aesthetically pleasing. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacrossMissileMa...
Itano Circus is about the entire choreography of the entire fighting sequence, more than the missiles but combined with unrealistically agile robot actions and dynamic camera placing/movement.
And here's 20 minutes of Itano Circus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzXfVgYCxWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzXfVgYCxWI
Cheers. Now I have to think of a way to model that kind of thing shooting out of a Stormsurge:
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/KV128_Stormsurge?file=K...
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/KV128_Stormsurge?file=K...
To be fair, some of the "circus" aspect could be explained by noise in the tracker, rather than noise in the launch direction or trajectory tracking (as TFA proposes). Mostly I say this because the directions tend to diverge more as they get closer to a highly dynamic target.
These are sometimes worth frame advancing for easter eggs. DYRL in particular had a sequence where mid-circus (IIRC) a Kirin beer can goes one way, and a Budweiser can goes in the opposite direction.
[Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wckZcVFLU24
[Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wckZcVFLU24
4:54 anime girl as missile nose art
5:40 not kirin, but "ハタイコ" (hataiko?)
5:41 defo budweiser (also from the Valkyrie?)
I think I should be watching more Macross
I have to believe Itano Circus was inspired by Saturn rocket fireworks, at least that what I though as a kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_7nY19kXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_7nY19kXw
A well-animated Circus is always a treat.
I love these gamedev articles on specific solutions for making gameplay feel good. It has a freedom and artistic drive that I miss in other technical writing.
And if the article left you with an itch for a space mecha game with missile barrages, here's a suggestion: Strike Suit Zero[1], or its arcade version, Strike Suit Infinity[2].
It's cheap, short, with memorable gameplay and a lovely soundtrack[3].
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/209540/Strike_Suit_Zero/
[2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/234160/Strike_Suit_Infini...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eDWgwucK5w
And if the article left you with an itch for a space mecha game with missile barrages, here's a suggestion: Strike Suit Zero[1], or its arcade version, Strike Suit Infinity[2].
It's cheap, short, with memorable gameplay and a lovely soundtrack[3].
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/209540/Strike_Suit_Zero/
[2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/234160/Strike_Suit_Infini...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eDWgwucK5w
Probably why I am not a game dev but when the author mentioned and discarded the iterative solution in favor of the closed form solution. I immediately thought how cool it would would be to have some sort of deep involved simulation that would in the end create the same effect.
One reason a missile might spiral like that is in order to have a simplified seeker head and control assembly, you only seed to seek and control on one axis and you spin the whole missile to scan over two dimensions. the missile will always overshoot a little but correct once it rotates around the other way. while this makes for a far simpler seeker and control setup it wastes a lot of energy so you need a bigger engine for the equivalent range if you had a two dimensional seeker/control missile.
Another reason is to make the anti-missile solution much harder. It still wastes a lot of energy.
One reason a missile might spiral like that is in order to have a simplified seeker head and control assembly, you only seed to seek and control on one axis and you spin the whole missile to scan over two dimensions. the missile will always overshoot a little but correct once it rotates around the other way. while this makes for a far simpler seeker and control setup it wastes a lot of energy so you need a bigger engine for the equivalent range if you had a two dimensional seeker/control missile.
Another reason is to make the anti-missile solution much harder. It still wastes a lot of energy.
Deep involved simulation you say?
Check out Nebulous: Fleet Command https://youtu.be/Oe-71-3khyA specifically 1min in they show off the missile seeker customization and sprint phase programming. The game is like if you combined The Expanse with Homeworld.
In general I've found the devlogs interesting—same YouTube channel I linked above.
Check out Nebulous: Fleet Command https://youtu.be/Oe-71-3khyA specifically 1min in they show off the missile seeker customization and sprint phase programming. The game is like if you combined The Expanse with Homeworld.
In general I've found the devlogs interesting—same YouTube channel I linked above.
In the same vein is the game "From the Depths". It is just this side of unplayable due to it's systems and simulations. several times now I have started a campaign, enthusiastically go through the tutorials and immediately go combat ineffective when I forget how to assemble a functioning internal combustion engine power train.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTNESwAzs4
Note that that trailer absolutely fails to convey the mysteries found in trying to design a functioning missile system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTNESwAzs4
Note that that trailer absolutely fails to convey the mysteries found in trying to design a functioning missile system.
[deleted]
honestly everything Microprose and Hooded Horse is instabuy for me.
well, almost instabuy.
I like using PID controllers for this kind of thing. They make it easy to get "authentic" looking behavior. By tuning the params you can adjust to behave anywhere from smooth like silk to wild overcorrections.
They look really lively, I'll post a video on twitter or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
They look really lively, I'll post a video on twitter or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
I just read [this](http://brettbeauregard.com/blog/2011/04/improving-the-beginn...) yesterday. It details the effort that went into making the Arduino PID library more robust compared to the "beginners PID".
As a controls engineer, this is still the best one-stop shop I’ve found for making PIDs a lot more usable & robust. There’s a few things I’d add but this covers the major bases.
So ... what would you add? :-)
Yeah but now you made tuning the PID parameters your day job =(
If you like machine learning, you can simulate the game in suitable test scenarios and evolve high-performance missile controllers. Like in real life at the firing range, without engineers.
Of course, bad controllers that can be exploited by the player to make missiles miss are usually fun, as are slight variations of PID parameters in the same missile salvo, to disperse them organically.
Of course, bad controllers that can be exploited by the player to make missiles miss are usually fun, as are slight variations of PID parameters in the same missile salvo, to disperse them organically.
If tuning to taste gets old, just use an infinite series of PID controllers to tune your PID parameters.
And that's how an XKCD comic gets born.
I wrote about those ages ago, when I was working on the game ABZU
https://www.tumblr.com/giantsquidology-blog/144615245984/flu...
https://www.tumblr.com/giantsquidology-blog/144615245984/flu...
Heh, great article! One of those engineering efforts where you're trying to get to the point where the user doesn't notice any of the fancy math, just that the controls always seem to Do the Right Thing.
> Many people are intimidated by math, but keep in mind that you don’t need to understand everything to use it.
This is key. And then if you're like me, you might after all become interested in actually understanding, and something new opens up.
This is key. And then if you're like me, you might after all become interested in actually understanding, and something new opens up.
There is a whole area called ‘pursuit theory’ about how to guide a missile to a target that produces very interesting curves.
It's going to be even more wild in space when missiles can glide.
Children of a Dead Earth allowed some simulations around this concept.
Children of a Dead Earth allowed some simulations around this concept.
Missiles already glide. Most air-to-air missiles fire for only a little bit right after they're fired, then spend the rest of the flight coasting. Long range missiles propel themselves on a lofted trajectory to preserve energy, falling on their targets from above. In general, missiles can burn energy very quickly by making high-G turns, but can't recover energy, while aircraft are the opposite, being unable to maneuver as quickly as missiles but being able to constantly add energy. Some missile evasion tactics exploit this asymmetry. But of course, for every countertactic there is a counter-countertactic. The new innovation in missiles is dual pulse missiles, which have two rocket motors so that after firing, coasting, and approaching the target, the second pulse can fire and give the missile more energy to defeat countermaneuvering. The MBDA Meteor is an example of a missile with a dual pulse motor, except that instead of having two motors, it just has one which can be turned on and off.
Can I just say, only being a portion of the way through the article, you are a natural teacher/communicator.
You have a very kind, knowledgeable, and effective way of explaining.
I'd like to point out how much I appreciate how you introduce technical specifics and elaborate concisely enough that those who know and those who don't can share an article without feeling talked past or down to.
One persons opinion. With your communication style a high bar I've been pursuing for some time, I just want to share a sincere appreciation for it!
You have a very kind, knowledgeable, and effective way of explaining.
I'd like to point out how much I appreciate how you introduce technical specifics and elaborate concisely enough that those who know and those who don't can share an article without feeling talked past or down to.
One persons opinion. With your communication style a high bar I've been pursuing for some time, I just want to share a sincere appreciation for it!
[deleted]
What a fun article! If it were, I would probably have tried two simpler tweaks:
1. Instead of bothering to compute tangent frame sweeping along the path, just use a fixed frame that's tangent to a line drawn from the start to the end point. (And then pick a random fixed rotation angle.)
2. Just use value noise instead of simplex noise. Or, hell, just stack a couple of sine waves with randomly chosen phase and frequency.
1. Instead of bothering to compute tangent frame sweeping along the path, just use a fixed frame that's tangent to a line drawn from the start to the end point. (And then pick a random fixed rotation angle.)
2. Just use value noise instead of simplex noise. Or, hell, just stack a couple of sine waves with randomly chosen phase and frequency.
It definitely looks neat.
I don’t really see the point of doing this for one target per missile (other than aesthetics which is a perfectly valid reason!)
But, if multiple were heading at a single target, I guess they’d be harder to dodge? Multiple trajectories and all that.
I don’t really see the point of doing this for one target per missile (other than aesthetics which is a perfectly valid reason!)
But, if multiple were heading at a single target, I guess they’d be harder to dodge? Multiple trajectories and all that.
I always assumed having missiles behave like this would have some neat advantages (harder to shoot down, harder to predict the intended target, harder to automatically trace back to the launcher, etc.) and that the only reason real missiles didn't typically do it was the complexity of making sure they didn't hit each other or something else sitting outside of the shortest path.
It seems like it could be done, e.g. pre-program all of the missiles with randomized paths that didn't intersect, and sweep the entire potential flight path area with radar or similar and exclude volumes with obstructions. That really is an awful lot of complexity that could make things go wrong, though.
It seems like it could be done, e.g. pre-program all of the missiles with randomized paths that didn't intersect, and sweep the entire potential flight path area with radar or similar and exclude volumes with obstructions. That really is an awful lot of complexity that could make things go wrong, though.
The real-life reason for this wild spiraling behavior would be that the launch tube isn’t pointed directly at the target and the missile overcorrects. That’s actually how the sidewinder missile got its name.
This kind of mid-flight course change is a characteristic of real missiles in other cases , though:
* almost anytime a submarine or ship launches, the missile goes straight up for a little bit to clear the ship before sharply turning
* if you shoot a guided missile straight up unguided to clear terrain (eg a hill) before turning on guidance you’ll see this
* cruise missiles in the gulf wars famously did this by following the street grid - even turning at street light
* if you launch a torpedo in a random direction then activate guidance later it can disguise where you are, since the torpedo is coming from a different direction
This kind of mid-flight course change is a characteristic of real missiles in other cases , though:
* almost anytime a submarine or ship launches, the missile goes straight up for a little bit to clear the ship before sharply turning
* if you shoot a guided missile straight up unguided to clear terrain (eg a hill) before turning on guidance you’ll see this
* cruise missiles in the gulf wars famously did this by following the street grid - even turning at street light
* if you launch a torpedo in a random direction then activate guidance later it can disguise where you are, since the torpedo is coming from a different direction
The Russian Onyx missiles also have an interesting-looking initial phase of the launch [1]
[1] https://youtu.be/2-22myhg_nE?t=9
[1] https://youtu.be/2-22myhg_nE?t=9
Apparently HIMARS rockets do it too to avoid counter-battery fire. In videos from Ukraine you can see them launch at one angle then change direction after clearing a good distance from the launcher.
Ohohoh. The craziest reason for the missile to go a little conky has got to be the energy management steering maneuver in THAAD (dunno if other missiles do it as well) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...
Another was Sprint. Turning towards the target before it gets too fast. Limiting the stress on the airframe and energy required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://youtu.be/YZZV464z9g8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://youtu.be/YZZV464z9g8
Good points! I was 100% thinking of this from the point of view of a video game, without stating it, haha.
I always assumed the Sidewinder missile was named based on the snake's ability to sense prey by thermal radiation.
It was a bit of both, really (and the snaking path was only present in early versions of the missile).
Sorry to mislead!
Sorry to mislead!
> cruise missiles in the gulf wars famously did this by following the street grid - even turning at street light
That's fascinating! Do you have more info on this?
That's fascinating! Do you have more info on this?
I think they behave a bit too wild in the first stage of flight.
I think I'd create separate launch animation that smoothly morphs into this flight animation.
I think I'd create separate launch animation that smoothly morphs into this flight animation.
Not just dodge, but it would be harder to counter them all with flak or Close In Weapon Systems (CIWS) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
I've been a fan of macross for a long time but the mecha games always suck. The main problem is that the movement isn't as fluid as the anime.
I've only seen one good game capture the essence of the animes while being a fair and good game. It's an old game called virtual on. It's a fast paced mecha game with rocket boosted dashing along lines of commitment. That line of commitment means that when you dash with your mecha it forces the mecha into a single permanent dash in a single direction for about 3 seconds. This restriction actually makes you feel like you're pulling off incredible dodges of anime homing missiles. The graphics are old but it's the only game I've ever seen pull off the same feeling as an anime.
See video:
https://youtu.be/SoUGqhPQFI0?t=279
It's old, but for it's time it was incredible. Also the controls involve dual joysticks at the arcade to really get the feeling that you're controlling a vehicle.
I've only seen one good game capture the essence of the animes while being a fair and good game. It's an old game called virtual on. It's a fast paced mecha game with rocket boosted dashing along lines of commitment. That line of commitment means that when you dash with your mecha it forces the mecha into a single permanent dash in a single direction for about 3 seconds. This restriction actually makes you feel like you're pulling off incredible dodges of anime homing missiles. The graphics are old but it's the only game I've ever seen pull off the same feeling as an anime.
See video:
https://youtu.be/SoUGqhPQFI0?t=279
It's old, but for it's time it was incredible. Also the controls involve dual joysticks at the arcade to really get the feeling that you're controlling a vehicle.
What kind of glitches would you experience in this context without rotation minimizing frames? If the missiles are a non-symmetrical shape, I would guess that you could see some "snapping" in its rotation, but if the missile is something like a centered sphere, my intuition is that the snapping wouldn't be perceptible.
This video should probably have an epilepsy warning based on those strobe-light explosions. I adore the strobe-lights and they make me nostalgic as hell for early-'90s 3D games like SNES Starfox and Lightspeed/Hyperspeed, but the technique was retired for good reasons.
As for the effect itself, I wonder if it would make sense to try this with a boid algorithm so they move as a "flock". Most attempts at anime=missiles I've seen either just look too chaotic or the missiles while initially launched at wide angles gradually consolidate into a tightly-packed blob.
As for the effect itself, I wonder if it would make sense to try this with a boid algorithm so they move as a "flock". Most attempts at anime=missiles I've seen either just look too chaotic or the missiles while initially launched at wide angles gradually consolidate into a tightly-packed blob.
Cool design! I would love for some folks who are into this stuff to try their hands at this missile defence programming game https://openprocessing.org/sketch/745415 (click the </> button at the top)
Really cool! I always wanted to see a shooter that made use of the Itano Circus style. I always imagined it would be fun and stylish to fly around dodging missiles like that. Is there a shooter out there that does that?
Older games, but "Omega Boost" and "Zone of the Enders" 1 and 2 are great examples of trying to realize this style.
Nier Automata has schmup sections but they are scattered around mainly 2D/3D fighting action game with a very long version at the end of the game. The player shoots more missiles like that versus the computer using them, it's more effective for the player to bat the missiles away with the mech sword versus avoiding the enemy missiles.
Better off using the integration method and if they miss they miss.
Or maybe you're not. But impossible to doge homing missiles doesn't feel very game like or realistic and works only against static targets.
Or maybe you're not. But impossible to doge homing missiles doesn't feel very game like or realistic and works only against static targets.
Dear Mechwarrior developers: Pay this man all the moneys and put it into the game!
Agreed, Itano Circus SRM-6 should be standard.
So I'm a mechslut. Today I bought Mechwarrior 5, installed it played for an hour and uninstalled it out of boredom and disgust. When inspired, Mech games can be SO COOL but I think it's just too easy to go with the cheap arcade mode and plain physics.
So I'm a mechslut. Today I bought Mechwarrior 5, installed it played for an hour and uninstalled it out of boredom and disgust. When inspired, Mech games can be SO COOL but I think it's just too easy to go with the cheap arcade mode and plain physics.
The problem with MW games is the following:
1) They were not built for simulation. The TT rules are good for just that.
2) The companies coding then haven't been great at it.
3) Pirhana games has terrible leadership and coding skills.
Honestly MW5 had a ton of potential, but eclipsed by terrible coding. Like the spawn effects are bad, and they had to do spawns because they couldn't figure out how to disable scripts for inactive units, or how to make things efficient, or whatever. Basically yeah.
Also I'm thinking LRM-20s with that effect. Cheff's kiss.
1) They were not built for simulation. The TT rules are good for just that.
2) The companies coding then haven't been great at it.
3) Pirhana games has terrible leadership and coding skills.
Honestly MW5 had a ton of potential, but eclipsed by terrible coding. Like the spawn effects are bad, and they had to do spawns because they couldn't figure out how to disable scripts for inactive units, or how to make things efficient, or whatever. Basically yeah.
Also I'm thinking LRM-20s with that effect. Cheff's kiss.
Mechwarrior 5 is kind of meh without mods. I played with the following:
VonBiome for more battlefields, YetAnotherMechLab, YetAnotherMechlabMechs, YetAnotherWeapon and YetAnotherWeaponClan for mechlab and additional weapons. XenoAI MissionYAML and CoyotesMission to improve mission variety and difficulty.
VonBiome for more battlefields, YetAnotherMechLab, YetAnotherMechlabMechs, YetAnotherWeapon and YetAnotherWeaponClan for mechlab and additional weapons. XenoAI MissionYAML and CoyotesMission to improve mission variety and difficulty.
Great article! I didn't know about Rotation Minimizing Frames or the double reflection method.
I've run up against the issue of unexpected twisting of splines at work more than once.
I've run up against the issue of unexpected twisting of splines at work more than once.
They're also known as Frenet frames, or Bishop frames, if you're going to dig into them in the future.
Thanks for the tip.
I thought I recognized your handle! You wrote the "A Primer on Bézier Curves" article. Thanks for providing that amazing resource, it's been invaluable during my learning process.
I thought I recognized your handle! You wrote the "A Primer on Bézier Curves" article. Thanks for providing that amazing resource, it's been invaluable during my learning process.
I did indeed, always nice to hear folks enjoyed it!
Frenet frames are simply any orthonormal frame. A rotation-minimizing frame is a frame that has minimal twist from some previous frame.
What they are, and what people call things, are two different things though. Ran into lots of folks calling them Frenet frames while looking this up myself several years ago.
[deleted]
Very interesting read. Regarding the example animation, is that lifted directly from chapter 1 mission 4 of Robotech Battlecry or is an astonishingly good recreation?
The end result does look very cool
I’m curious what plotting tool the author used to create those slick illustrations.
Reminds me of playing Panzer Dragoon Orta on the original Xbox.
I always wanted a modern Omega Boost
They told me that the backfire from the exhaust of one missile might ignite the one behind it if we did stuff like that. That said, I've seen videos of ships firing missiles in relatively quick succession. Just not like the Itano Circus, however.