Automatic evasion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

nukkxx5058 -> Automatic evasion (2/7/2022 9:10:20 PM)

Hi, the manual says this about auto-evasion:

quote:

Automatic Evasion: The game has several pre-programmed
evasions routines that the AI will undertake if it detects it is
under attack. This RoE gives you the ability to turn this behavior
of and off. In some cases, turning it to NO is useful if having
aircraft pressing their attacks is desired


But do we know more about the "several pre-programmed evasion routines" ? What exactly they are and in what case they apply, so that we can decide whether to turn it off or not ?

Thank you



BDukes -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/7/2022 9:59:59 PM)

This stuff probably appears in an update post or .pdf at some point. Gave it a few searching but gave up. Gave Pat Gatcombs vids a look. Found nothing obvious but but I bet he's got something somewhere.

I think dragging and beaming are the two current AI routines. Evasion is helpful but can frustrate me during certain strike mission or ASW cases. Nothing make Hulk smash more than fight UI! My personal preference is to turn it off at the side level and on at mission level for missions that definitely should. The streamers seem to do this a lot as well.

Mike



nukkxx5058 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/7/2022 10:18:59 PM)

Thank you for this comment.

But with auto-evasion off, aren't the aircrafts just like sitting ducks ?
I was wondering if one evasion routine could be to make the planes fly at minimum altitude ? I once planned a strike on a fleet and ordered to fly @10.000 ft to launch walleyes but when the missiles didn't launch, I realized that the aircrafts were actually flying at 100 ft ASL ...
Auto evasion was on.

So from now I might decide to turn auto-evasion off in most cases ... [&:]



thewood1 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/7/2022 10:22:31 PM)

I would suggest just trying it in editor mode and see what happens. If you turn on TacView, you might gain a little visual insight.



BDukes -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/7/2022 10:34:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx5058

Thank you for this comment.

But with auto-evasion off, aren't the aircrafts just like sitting ducks ?
I was wondering if one evasion routine could be to make the planes fly at minimum altitude ? I once planned a strike on a fleet and ordered to fly @10.000 ft to launch walleyes but when the missiles didn't launch, I realized that the aircrafts were actually flying at 100 ft ASL ...
Auto evasion was on.

So from now I might decide to turn auto-evasion off in most cases ... [&:]


No, but it is definitely situational. I tend to look at the SAM types to see what their chances are and the aircrafts capabilities. Sometimes its entirely about going a mile or two into the bubble to release. I think weighing the risks versus consequences is a very fun part of the game. SA-2 I'm going. SA-20 I'm definitely going defensive.[8D]

Mike





nukkxx5058 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/7/2022 11:16:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would suggest just trying it in editor mode and see what happens. If you turn on TacView, you might gain a little visual insight.

Good suggestion. 3D might tell more about auto evasion routines.



KungPao -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/8/2022 2:38:20 PM)

I believe the so called “several pre-programmed evasion routines” address different evasion behavior on different platforms.

1, A/C will dive and notch to break FCR lock if it is SARH missile or get out of ARH missile’s radar search cone. This evasion maneuver is very likely to be success when facing Cold war era A/C at long range with poor radar performance, shooting SARH missiles. It also works for modern era ARH missiles evasion, but the chance of success is relatively low. Assuming the A/C failed to shake off the missiles, the evasion maneuver still works to improve A/C’s survivability. Dive to low altitude will max the agility benefit in final Weapon PoH calculation, High-deflection impact provide a better PoH advantage compare to a hit at front section or hit at tail. Also, if A/C damage option is enabled, hit at tail will shut down engines, hit at front may cause casualty to the pilot, both could cause an immediately loss of the A/C, a High-deflection impact could restrict damage to non-lethal section, in the end, your A/C might be able to RTB at slow speed after one AIM-120 hit.

2, Surface vessel will take a perpendicular course with detected ASM, change to flank speed, trying to get out of ASM’s search cone (unfortunately this rarely works), and in this case they can use almost every weapon on the ship to engage the vampires.

3, Sub will take, how to say, a STUPID evasion course. It will be running away from Torp at flank speed. OK, it’s not that stupid in some case, works well against SET-65. But it won’t work well against anything that has more than 10nm range. There should be a difference between evading torpedoes that are heading towards you and torpedoes that are locked on to you. CMO just simplify the evasion tactics to running away. Thinking a train on the tracks, run from the train straight away down the track will end badly. A simple step off the tracks could avoid all the dangerous. For this reason, if I play any scenario focused on Sub, I turn off auto evasion and manually setup evasion course




Gunner98 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/8/2022 2:48:21 PM)

As BDukes and KungPao say - this is situational.

The player needs to make an assessment of enemy and friendly capabilities and decide.

If you are playing Soviet with AA-10 SARA Alamo's vs Aim-7 Sparrows, you have a range advantage but when the Sparrows start flying the last thing you want is to have your AC notch and lose track. Conversely if the scenario is a few years later and you're fighting AIM-120s - you need to notch and burn out as fast as you can... while someone else throws an IR missile at the blue jets.



CV60 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/8/2022 3:52:08 PM)

For what its worth, I happened to catch an example of notching by 2 F-16As in an engagement with 6 MiG-23Ps, using Tacview yesterday. The video can be downloaded here, for those who are interested: https://we.tl/t-xubLplw8nD

The engagement begins with a surprise attack the the Flogger Gs, with both sides at 36,000 feet. (okay, actually it wasnt' a surprise. I just wasn't paying attention to this area of the map....[:)]) The F-16 dive below the Floggers to approximately 1500 feet and notch the Flogger's HIGH LARK 2 radar (which is a good tactic, as the HIGH LARK2 wasn't a very good LD/SD radar. They break the lock of the AA-7 Apex C, and get into a turning engagement with one of the Flogger's (who loses), while the other Flogger heads for the barn. (which was a good decision for him). After splashing the 1st Flogger, the F-16s begin to climb and ere- engaged by a second element of 2 Floggers. Again, the F-16s descend and notch, and and break the AA-7 Apex C lock. These Floggers go home. A third element of Floggers come in and descend to 3000 feet to engage. One looses the subsequent turning engagement and is hit by an AIM-9L. For those who want the log, here is an unedited version of the engagement, so you can see what is happening with the weapons calculations:



KungPao -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/8/2022 8:29:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
Conversely if the scenario is a few years later and you're fighting AIM-120s - you need to notch and burn out as fast as you can... while someone else throws an IR missile at the blue jets.


Aye! +1

quote:


If you are playing Soviet with AA-10 SARA Alamo's vs Aim-7 Sparrows, you have a range advantage but when the Sparrows start flying the last thing you want is to have your AC notch and lose track.

I agree on this but there are some exception
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4905150&mpage=1&key=�
Overall AA-10 has upper hand with its "Datalink mid course" properties. So in theory Sov player don't have to disable auto evasion under normal condition. But if American side play the card in a different way then the Sov player must adapt to the changes
First I have to say the best way to win a SARH duel is to coordinate an air battle with fighters coming from multiple directions simultaneously. But let's assume this is not an option, both sides have to take a head on pitch fight. In a PBEM game ("the bear and the eagle" come to my mind) when the American side player change the doctrine to no auto evasion, Sov side player absolutely have to turn off auto evasion, otherwise Sov could suffer a humiliate defeat.







KungPao -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/8/2022 8:38:37 PM)

Adding more salt into this "turn auto evasion off and winning a BVR duel" thing
I remember someone complained that in this game the height and speed don't translate into an air battle advantage.
So here is a gamey move. Turn off the auto evasion, set attack altitude to 100ft. when the enemy's missile hits you will still have full agility benefits in the final PoH calculation. it is possible that you can even get Sea skimmer modifier benefit if the battle happens over water.



KLAB -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 8:59:53 AM)

Yep. Me too. Micro manage but Evasion off, follow in at loiter if both sides are SARH.
Bekaa valley zero losses bar 3 UAV for 80+ enemy, auto evasion off.
Prior attempts with evasion on I got wasted.
SAM baiting wise, auto evasion off means you can avoid descending into Shilka SA-9/7 altitude and just turn and burn out of SA-6/2/3 envelope.
Dont know if it is viable for big scenarios and you will have issues with SARH versus ARH.
I've requested a minimum altitude setting for evasion setting in the doctrine for the reason that evasion drove aircraft down into the envelope of SHORADS.



LargeDiameterBomb -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 4:30:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KungPao

Adding more salt into this "turn auto evasion off and winning a BVR duel" thing
I remember someone complained that in this game the height and speed don't translate into an air battle advantage.
So here is a gamey move. Turn off the auto evasion, set attack altitude to 100ft. when the enemy's missile hits you will still have full agility benefits in the final PoH calculation. it is possible that you can even get Sea skimmer modifier benefit if the battle happens over water.

Emphasis added


You are absolutely right about this and this is one of the things I wish the developers would fix most.

The reason for going fast and high in a BVR fight is that

First, going fast means you have good kinetic energy and that translates into the BVR missile you fire achieveing a higher kinetic energy, ie speed, since the missile can obviously reach a higher speed if it starts to accelerate from 950 knots instead of 300 knots. Then the missile will have higher kinetic energy - ie it will be in a higher energy state - when it's engine burns out after a few seconds and it can then glide fly longer and/or reach the target with a higher energy state that allows more intensive high-G manouevering in the terminal stage of the interception which equals a higher Pk, ie a larger chance of a kill.

Second, going high means A) that the missile has more situational energy (I hope that's the english term, it's what it's called in my native language) that can be turned into kinetic energy by diving and B) that the missile can travel though the much thinner air that exists over about roughly 20000 k feet if the missile flies straigh at it's target or C) if the missile is of a modern type that clims into the thinner part of the atmosphere a missile fired from 45 k ft will obviously have to climb much less than amissile fired from 3000 feet and hence the missile ddoes not need to use as much energy for the climb to get into the really thin air of the upper part of the atmosphere. In other words, the missle does not need to use as much of the quite small amount of it's energy that is stored in it's propellant in the rocket engine to climb into the thinner parts of the atmosphere since the missile starts out higher and thus it also achieves a higher energy state on engine burn out.

Please note I do not mean to assume that you don't know this, I am only explaining it for those who might wonder what you're comment is about.

I haven't checked this out for a very long while, I did it last a while after CMO was released, but what I found then was that a modern climbing missile (An AIM-120C-7) fired from about 200 ft above sea level did only achieve 3 % less range than a missile fired from 36000 ft.

In reality the difference should be 50 % or most probably much more.

To boot, if you stay low in CMO your radar, even it it has no look down/shoot down abilty you will get a good fix on any high flying target while your opponent aircraft, if not eqipped with a modern advanced radar with LD/SD-ability will have large problems getting a weapons quality track on your aircraft that is flying at minimum level over the sea.

The only negative thing with going low is that you spend more fuel so it's not good to set up a CAP with a 100 ft station altitude, but if you like to cheat you have everything to win by going down low when hostile fighers are inbound and you have BVR missiles.


This effect screws up the dynamics in a BVR fight since an aircraft that just had to dive down low, just above surface level to avoid a missile and manages to avoid that missile, can now return fire againt your aircraft at the same distance that you can fire at him even if your aircraft stayed high at 36 k ft,
and with equally capable radars from about the late 70s (Very early look down/shoot down) he will now likely be able to easily get a weapons quality track on you with his radar and can launch immedately against you, while your radar will probably struggle to get a weapons quality track on him because of clutter so your aircraft has to fly towards him just to be able to fire a missile.
And both missiles, assuming they have the same range and speed, will have the same chance to kill the opponent, all else equal - in fact you are in a worse position at 36 k feet since you might not be able to get down really low when his missile comes near you while he will most certainly be able to do so since he will probably only be at at most at half or a third of your your altitude when both your missiles enter the 10 nm radius when aircraft start to dive for evasion.


I so wish the devs would deal with this :-(


But they really struggle to make the game better so eventually we will get there.



thewood1 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 4:45:42 PM)

Don't forget that the game covers almost 70 years of combat across a hundred different forces. AAW tactics change over time and between countries. I think many of the posters are way over-simplifying how this gets designed, let alone executed.



Dimitris -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 5:28:02 PM)

I recently explained the way the current system works in CMO, WRT (atmospheric) missile kinematics: https://www.reddit.com/r/CMANO/comments/r57tw5/comment/hmmsg5x/

The pro edition has a much better system, and that is going to be migrated to CMO in the future.



CV60 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 6:46:22 PM)

Dimitris-Thank you for the post. I, for one, am eagerly looking forward to this particular migration. [:)]



LargeDiameterBomb -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 7:05:20 PM)

That is great news! What you are describing in your post you linked to is what I have dreamt about! That makes me so glad to hear. And learning about the new DEFCON setting two hours ago makes this feel like this is christmas when I was a child. You guys are on a roll right now.

As I wrote in my first post I knew you guys would get around to fixing it eventually. You always do. But it's great to hear it is coming relatively soon.

The progression of the game has been outstanding and I could never have imagined when I first bought the game in 2013-2014 or something like that and instantly was hooked - having no experience with any game with the slightest resemblance to CMANO (Harpoon, I guess that would be) - the amazing progression that you guys would make over the next years.
Also, I am genuinely impressed that you have been able to do this for so little extra money.


To throw a wild idea out there, honestly I think maybe you guys could release an "Enthusiast's Edition" with say a 100 USD first payment and a 10-25 USD fee a month that would then be something between the standard CMO and the PE and get some more revenue for your company for your pleasure and for development of the game - that I assume you are committed to over time anyways - and make those of us who really enjoy the game happy.

I know I would be willing to pay up to maybe 50 USD a month - or up to perhaps 2000 USD one time - for something like that, but I am probably an outlier since this is the game that I play 90+ % of the time I spend playing computer games.


Anyway, thanks for the great news!



KLAB -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/9/2022 7:55:15 PM)

Excellent development, much appreciated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

I recently explained the way the current system works in CMO, WRT (atmospheric) missile kinematics: https://www.reddit.com/r/CMANO/comments/r57tw5/comment/hmmsg5x/

The pro edition has a much better system, and that is going to be migrated to CMO in the future.




Sardaukar -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/10/2022 2:54:09 AM)

One thing that used to annoy me was the "spiral of death" aka plane breaking from SAM TOWARDS SAM site again and again with successive missiles. Thus increasing vulnerability and chance to get shot down gradually all the time.

Not sure if that has been changed lately.



maverick3320 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/13/2022 5:22:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that used to annoy me was the "spiral of death" aka plane breaking from SAM TOWARDS SAM site again and again with successive missiles. Thus increasing vulnerability and chance to get shot down gradually all the time.

Not sure if that has been changed lately.


This is still a thing. Usually I manually turn off auto evade at this point and burn away at min altitude and hope for the best.



DWReese -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/13/2022 6:25:18 PM)

Auto Evasion (aka The Spiral of Death)-----10 miles out and fleeing from the SAMs. Missile fired, begin the spiral. Missile missed. Now 9 miles away. New missile coming. Begin the spiral again. Missile missed again. Now 8 miles out. New missile coming. Begin the spiral again. Missile missed again. Now 7 miles out. New missile. Begin the spiral again. Missile got me. The Spiral of Death is still alive. (Please fix me!)



BDukes -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/13/2022 6:36:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Auto Evasion (aka The Spiral of Death)-----10 miles out and fleeing from the SAMs. Missile fired, begin the spiral. Missile missed. Now 9 miles away. New missile coming. Begin the spiral again. Missile missed again. Now 8 miles out. New missile coming. Begin the spiral again. Missile missed again. Now 7 miles out. New missile. Begin the spiral again. Missile got me. The Spiral of Death is still alive. (Please fix me!)


For me its more about that I can't recover from it easily in the UI. Haven't quite gotten to a level with my meditation practice so start speaking in tongues and mashing keyboard when this happens instead of hitting pause undoing what has been done. [8D]

Mike



DWReese -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/13/2022 7:20:43 PM)

Mike,

I do believe that, under the present circumstances, turning toward the opposite direction, diving down as low as possible, and going to afterburner is the best way to automatically evade the enemy missiles. The Spiral of Death is not so much fun to watch.




tiag -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/14/2022 12:45:29 PM)

Automatic evasion is pure "gaming" thing that CMO/CMANO decided to implement to overcome several abstractions.
For example, regarding to SAMs but also missiles exchange in general, the use of jamming via ECM pod (Defensive jamming like ALQ-119 etc, not from Growlers, Prowlers etc) is only calculated when the missile hits you. This is an abstraction of the model. Fair enough from the initial modelling point of view. HOWEVER:
In reality, jamming pods are used to jam/block/deceive the tracking/lock, avoiding this way potentially the shot. But in CMO, I wil go defensive, because the shot was fired which puts me again under defensive when another shot is fired. And so on...
Another typical example is the outcome of BVR combat with SARH missiles combined with automatic evasion. In reality, the acft with the strongest/correct JAM signal would not allow the enemy to fire at him. In CMO, that does not happen, the acft with the longest range missile fires first, and you will get defensive by the auto evasion, loosing your lock. Outcomes in CMO and real tactics are completely orthogonal in that sense. I sincerelly doubt that this abstraction was really evaluated vs real world less coarse modells.

The real problem is the abstraction of ECM pods together with "gaming" auto evasion leads to complete non-real outcomes.



thewood1 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/14/2022 12:52:22 PM)

I tend to agree with the above that the issue seems to be a mix of detailed simulation with broad abstraction. This is something I have worried about ever since things like trying to account for pilot visibility details in each aircraft. Whenever you start to bring in very detailed factors into an abstracted outcome, you get these weird looking results that might not match expectation when are detailed certain parameters and abstracting other. I'm worried we are past that balance of only looking at the high influence factors that significantly impact outcomes and abstracting factors that don't have that much influence. Its leading down a spiral that can't be resolved in a game that is focusing on broader issues. You end up literally building an equivalent of DCS in a game that can't support that scale.



tiag -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/14/2022 1:03:27 PM)

Agree with you too.
The problem is indeed more general. What CMO faces is a well known problem in multi-resolution combat simulations: How one make modelling with different resolution interact. If my airplane "flies" in a 3D space, then it maneuvers as the real one or is it abstracted? In CMO, sometimes it abstracts, sometimes it maneuvers (=auto evasion). If my ECM pod jams, when it JAMs? At impact or before? If my A-10 is abstracted flying fully loaded at 36000ft (!), should I abstract the maximum altitude of SAMs or keep it real? IN CMO, the maximum altitude of a SAM is real, but acft can fly completely abstracted (even outside of the real flight envelope). The list goes on.
Modelling requires often abstraction in physics, chemistry, biology as well as in combat modelling, but one always need to check how these abstractions influence the result.




slimatwar -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/14/2022 6:04:27 PM)

Another issue is that when a SAM is in the air every aircraft goes to defensive mode even if it is 100% certain that the missile isn't going towards the unit.



Dimitris -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/14/2022 7:48:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slimatwar
Another issue is that when a SAM is in the air every aircraft goes to defensive mode even if it is 100% certain that the missile isn't going towards the unit.


That's by design; if you ask a pilot he'll tell you that until positively proven otherwise, every missile in the air is coming right for him. Trying to be "clever" in such a case is a great way to get killed.

An easy way to break the cohesion of an enemy airgroup is to throw a missile at it, even unguided. Everyone will scatter until it becomes clear who the missile is tracking.

(There is a built-in check to determine if the missile looks like it is veering off the direction of the plane).



thewood1 -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/14/2022 8:39:25 PM)

"Combat Mission is kind of like a Van Gogh painting. If you look closely it’s just a bunch of dots that don’t make sense, and they don’t look very aesthetically pleasing but once you zoom out you start to see a cohesive picture. Once you accept the jank, it only gets better."

Coincidently, a comment on the Combat Mission forums today that I thought was cool. You can substitute CMO for Combat mission.

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/140240-weird-stuff-in-cm-why-is-cm-great/?do=findComment&comment=1901995




Dimitris -> RE: Automatic evasion (2/15/2022 8:16:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiag
Automatic evasion is pure "gaming" thing that CMO/CMANO decided to implement to overcome several abstractions.

So real-life pilots do not manouver to avoid incoming missiles? I bet that's news to the pilots I've spoken with, at the very least.

quote:


For example, regarding to SAMs but also missiles exchange in general, the use of jamming via ECM pod (Defensive jamming like ALQ-119 etc, not from Growlers, Prowlers etc) is only calculated when the missile hits you. This is an abstraction of the model. Fair enough from the initial modelling point of view.

This is an accurate representation of how defensive ECM (deception jamming) works in the endgame phase of a missile engagement: The battle to avoid being seen and being shot at has been lost, so now the purpose is to confuse the seeker on the incoming weapon (or the remote sensor providing guidance to it) as to the precise location and movement of the defender. This involves a whole range of techniques from simple range/azimuth gate pull-off all the way to things like cross-eye jamming (an anti-AMRAAM-specific method), DRFM-driven false targets and more advanced tricks.

quote:


HOWEVER:
In reality, jamming pods are used to jam/block/deceive the tracking/lock, avoiding this way potentially the shot.

This is noise jamming, and Command handles it as an OECM function. And it is simulated, too. Many of the "why can I not launch Sparrows" questions we've had in this forum boiled down to "an enemy jammer, either onboard the target itself or at a nearby escort, was flooding my radar with static". And we also added a similar restriction even for AMRAAM-class weapons (must obtain a valid FC-grade detection prior to launch, either by radar or with another FC-grade sensor, e.g. modern IRST).

The R-27R/ER (radar variants of the AA-10) was designed with a mid-course datalink explicitly to avoid this problem. To a lesser extend this drove the design of the initial (non-Aegis) versions of the SM-2: Not needing a pre-fire lock meant that ships could shoot at incoming AV-MF formations (or cruise missiles) even in the face of ultra-powerful noise jamming from dedicated Badger-H/Js. The re-emergence of IRSTs in the West is also partially for the same reason (the other part is their counter-VLO utility).

quote:


But in CMO, I wil go defensive, because the shot was fired which puts me again under defensive when another shot is fired. And so on...

So, welcome to the shoes of the Serbian fighter pilots who faced NATO fighters over Serbia & Kosovo in 1999. You are _precisely_ describing the NATO playbook: Chuck AMRAAMs by the boatload at them, even at non-optimum range, to continously force them in the defensive and not give them a counter-shot opportunity at all (the harsh memories of the Luftwaffe MiG-29 trials were still fresh, and they prudently loathed the prospect of a WVR merge). One of the Serbian pilots dodged at least 3 AMRAAMs before he "ran out of speed, altitude, and ideas". That's life.

quote:


Another typical example is the outcome of BVR combat with SARH missiles combined with automatic evasion. In reality, the acft with the strongest/correct JAM signal would not allow the enemy to fire at him.

See above. Noise jamming preventing launch is very much a thing.

quote:


In CMO, that does not happen, the acft with the longest range missile fires first, and you will get defensive by the auto evasion, loosing your lock.

Nope. I suspect you underestimate the magnitude of the pre-fire checklist. As the saying goes, it is long and distinguished.

quote:


Outcomes in CMO and real tactics are completely orthogonal in that sense. I sincerelly doubt that this abstraction was really evaluated vs real world less coarse modells.

Nope.

quote:


The real problem is the abstraction of ECM pods together with "gaming" auto evasion leads to complete non-real outcomes.

And nope.

Peace [:)]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875