Jump to content

Mad_Shell

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mad_Shell

  1. Do you have any citation about it? I remember them saying it was planned when they have time, and that was already years ago. It seems it's just a wishlist item, and I doubt the work has even begun on it.
  2. In the Apache cockpit, I hear absolutely no sound coming from the outside. Even a big explosion less than 50 meters away is totally silent. I've only tested in the pilot seat and MT version (latest OB).
  3. ED already does that. The PN coefficient increases as the target is closer, to better deal with target maneuvers. In the example you provide in video, the missile is already close to the target (less than 3 miles) and in terminal phase, so the PN coefficient is 4 (research suggests the best coeff is between 3 and 5 for intercepting maneuvering targets, so that's plausible). Basically all the articles modelling air to air missiles use such simple PN/APN guidance for terminal phase, because that's the closest to optimal trajectory. Another reason is that it requires the missile to take into account very few variables. Other methods that use more variables induce a longer computing time, and a larger delay in the missile maneuvering. So, maybe irl the AMRAAM uses some law to deal with diving targets, but it's just as plausible that optimal trajectory and reduced control delay were prefered and simple PN/APN is used irl, like in DCS.
  4. No, what I mean is that it seems that in the terminal phase of the missile flight, only simple PN/APN is used, because they deal better with target's high g maneuvers. If you introduce a bias in the vertical acceleration, or decrease the PN coefficient in the vertical plane in the terminal phase, the missile will follow a not optimal trajectory. It will force the missile to pull more g to hit a highly maneuvrable target. It really wouldn't surprise me that the AMRAAM behaviour in your video is correct/realistic.
  5. Things that imo would help a lot new players: - access to the DCS and module manuals in game (make it an easily accessible and visible option! Like a big "manuals" option in the main game menu). If this is hard/long to implement, in the meantime AT LEAST clearly indicate in the game where the manuals can be found! So, so many new players don't even know the manuals do exist! - tips explaining all the graphics/gameplay options when hovering the mouse above them. Currently about half of the tips don't work/exist. - when joining a multiplayer server, a map for choosing a slot would be way easier than the current list system to understand the current tactical situation, especially for new players that don't know the locations by heart. Things not specific to new players, but that would help a lot the game to be more engaging and improve new player retention as a consequence: - a collaboration with the guy making the DCS web mission editor to make it an official DCS tool, because that is simply a game changer, providing great flexibility to easily and casually design missions even when away from the gaming PC. - the DTC is sorely needed (yeah you're working on it, I know lol). I saw some time ago that the average DCS session lasts about 20 or 30 minutes. The average DCS player has little time to play (work, family... life you know). So when you have to spend half your playtime to manually set up all your aircraft systems, this becomes frustrating. Imagine the new player, with little time... is a game requiring button clicking for half your playtime before taking off engaging in the long run? I know it's a sim, and button clicking is a large part of that, but no need to make it worse than needed.
  6. The research I could find on the topic mention that a bias can be introduced to keep the trajectory high, or that different coefficients can be used for vertical and horizontal trajectories, but at close range (like in your video), it seems standard PN or APN are used because they deal better with target's high g maneuvers
  7. Mmmhhh, in this case, could it be related to this problem affecting many AI units and their guided ammunitions?
  8. I'm away from DCS for a few weeks so I can't do testing. But I believe the problem is not that the missile can guide itself, by itself, on the target, but rather it seems to be that the attacker is able to guide the missile no matter its aspect. Even if he's facing away from the target. Which should be impossible with a SARH missile.
  9. No, rainbows appear when the sun is in your back.
  10. Yeah still no answer from ED on that most important bug/missing feature... that should be quite high priority given the importance of pre flaring in close range.
  11. Sorry, but when in a Rift S I can instantly see a fighter at more than 30 miles because there is a big fat dot appearing, something is wrong. Irl spotting a jet at this distance is insanely hard, borderline impossible if you don't know where to look. Meanwhile people at 4K have difficulties spotting anything at more than a few miles. Knowing that ED is satisfied with that is unbelievable to me.
  12. I don't understand that... there are obvious flaws with current ED implementation, and a guy makes a mod which, even if not perfect, improves things a lot, and ED is like "we don't plan to change anything". Just... why? It's minimal development time, and would improve one of the most important aspect of air combat for WW2 and early cold war!
  13. you're playing with words here... Even if the underlying model and equations haven't changed, when you modify parameters such as center of mass position, rotor gyroscopic moment, rotor dampening coefficient, main rotor stiffness, and more, you are effectively changing how the aircraft reacts to inputs.
  14. Mmmmh, according to quaggles website quite a few parameters in the fligt model have been changed (https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/commit/cf37c477acf7370f0247867a1d7b71e7ba9609c7#diff-61004a5997f6aa0641f2e2225af9ea2c0d86d70f556ac5b672ebef28c3220bffR855) Even the center of mass of the aircraft has been shifted.
  15. good to know the bug only affects a few IR missiles and no radar missile! Do you plan to modify the default value of 0.5 for some of those missiles? The Mistral in particular has a reputation for having good counter-countermeasure, but currently it almost always go for the flares.
  16. You probably have your reasons, but wouldn't the "good coding practice" be to keep the code as clean as possible and remove the now useless parameters? Yes it should be carefully tuned, but I think the way the AI is flying really prevents it to effectively use the missile in many cases with such a low Fi_start value. Well, the document I attached in my second message in the thread mentions that the missile is put in rotation by the booster. BUT... after watching a few videos in slow motion the missile doesn't seem to spin after the booster ignition... and I agree with you that the 2 pairs of canards suggest a non rotating missile.
  17. I agree with you, since day 1 of the new BVR AI I've criticized this behaviour, and a few others. - the AI always cranks and dive after firing its missile(s). But cranking AND diving only makes sense if the enemy is very high threat, and you suspect your'e close to the MAR of the enemy plane. Watching AIs F-18 firing Aim-120C from 30 miles and diving, while they're against a Mig-21 is ridiculous. They give up altitude and offensive potential for nothing. - the AI will ALWAYS go straight at the enemy until they fire their own missile. That means, we can see planes like Mig-21, Mirage F1, F5... happily go in a straight line to be slaughtered 100% of the time by superior planes and missiles. Against superior planes, they SHOULD either try to run away, or try to get closer by cranking, going cold then hot again, notching and hugging the ground... whatever it takes to try to preemptively trash enemy missiles and break radar lock to try to get closer and in range of their own missiles. - the AI defensive maneuvers against active Fox-3 are kind of pathetic. They always try dive and notch, dropping chaff, never pulling more than like 3 or 4 Gs. If the AI estimates that the incoming missile is high energy, then it is acceptable behaviour (no hope to kinematically defeat the missile). But if the AI estimates that the missile is low energy, just going in a notch and praying it works is a really bad decision... the AI should maneuver hard instead.
  18. @Маэстро After a bit of testing, I found some problems with the new ED's version of the missile, so here are my suggestions: - X_back = 0 seems strange, since it should be the location of the exhaust along the X axis, and 0 should be the center of the missile. I propose X_back = -0.90, the value used for the nozzle_position parameter in the "march" section) - sigma = {10, 10, 10} is too high, and leads to about 15% of shots missing a static Ka-50 not launching any flares. Since MBDA advertises a 93-97% hit rate during exercises on moving targets smaller than a Ka-50, I propose sigma = {3, 3, 3}, which according to my testing should give very close results to MBDA's claims. - Fi_start is too small. I know it's realistic, but the AI Gazelles don't manage to use the missile on any target with some angular velocity because the "cone of fire" is too small. Based on my testing, Fi_start = 10° gives good results without making it a high boresight missile for the AI. - work_time = 0.2 is too long. On the real life videos, we can see the booster impulse is very, very short, and I propose to keep work_time = 0.048 like in Polychop's file. - ccm_k0 doesn't have any effect (see https://forum.dcs.world/topic/321195-possible-massive-bug-affecting-many-ir-missiles-and-possibly-radar-missiles-too/#comment-5171557), giving the missile a very, very poor resistance to flares (while IRL it is reputed as having very good counter-countermeasure). If ccm_k0 works again one day, I propose a value of ccm_k0 = 0.3 (a bit worse than AIM_9X, but better than the MagicII, which is older and of which the seeker was used to design the Mistral seeker). - we have cx_coeff = { 0.6, 1.6, 0.68, 0.55, 1.85 } in ED's file, and cx_coeff = { 0.65, 1.7, 1.6, 0.45, 0.01 } in Polychop's file. I really don't know which one is closer to reality, but given the importance of this parameter, sorting it out seems important. Maybe @Polychop Simulations and @Маэстро can give us some insight on how they calculated those parameters for this missile? - the ED's version doesn't spin on itself (it does IRL). The Polychop's version spins, I guess because it uses scheme="schemes/missiles/self_homing_spin_missile.sch", while ED uses scheme = "schemes/missiles/mistral_missile.sch" @btd this one is for you: as said above in Polychop's message, when the ED Mistral file is used, there is a delay of about 2 seconds between the missile launch and the sound of the missile launch playing (and no, I wasn't looking from 700 meters away lol). I attach the AA_missiles.lua modified with all the changes I suggest, excepting the "scheme" parameter (when I put scheme="self_homing_spin_missile" in ED's version, DCS crashes as soon as the missile is fired). The cx_coeff parameter is still the ED one too. AA_missiles.lua
  19. @Flappie @Маэстро I tag you both because that's possibly a very important one. While doing testing on the Mistral missile, I found out, as I have suspected for some time) that the ccm_k0 parameter has absolutely no effect. For those not aware, lower ccm_k0 means better resistance to countermeasures (flares or chaff, since both IR and radar missiles use this parameter). Even setting ccm_k0 to a value very close to 0, the missile almost always goes for flares. So I go check the Igla and FIM92C (stinger) files, and the ccm_k0 is not even present! The conclusion is that the ccm_k0 parameter is not used anymore for IR missiles using the new seeker modelling. That leaves the seeker field of view as the only parameter effecting the resistance to countermeasures. Since ED chooses realistic FOV for their missiles (between 2° and 4°), that means that those missiles are modelled as if they haven't ANY algorythm to reject flares. Which is of course not realistic at all, and gives all those missiles a terrible resistance to flares. I don't know if the radar missiles are also affected, but I think it would be worth to check for those too, especially the ones using the new radar seeker modelling.
  20. +1, would be a great option, especially to create more realistic saturating attacks!
  21. I asked the Gazelle developper about it, and here is his answer: "Hey there, In the current version, the gazelle still uses our own Mistral. This has to do with the fact that the ED mistral has had a sound issue that was only resolved last week. We plan to switch to the ED missiles in an upcoming update." And here is a pic of the upcoming updated launcher tubes he attached to his message:
  22. Weight is definitely in the equation for terminal velocity of an object. As said above in the thread, terminal velocity is achieved when air resistance is equal to the force of gravity applied to the object (this force is also called... weight). And the weight is propotrionnal to the mass of the object (9.81 * mass, to be exact). That explains why 2 objects having the exact same shape, but different masses, will have different terminal velocities. To come back to the bombs, they generally have a high density and a better aerodynamic shape than bullets, being more elongated, so it really wouldn't surprise me if their terminal velocity is supersonic.
  23. I believe it's normal behaviour, if you pull fast on the collective, it'll increase the G-load on the rotor system, inducing a stronger cone effect (blades angling up) and creating a transient high rpm effect for a few seconds because of conservation of momentum. After a few seconds, the increased G-load, demanding more power from the engines to keep the rotor spinning, takes over and the rotor rpm will deacrease again (to the initial 101% value, or lower if you're asking too much from your engines because you carry a heavy payload)
  24. I'll provide tracks later. If you want to test it on your side, you just need to put 2 AI against each other at long range.
×
×
  • Create New...