Brisse

@Blade I was not talking about the 530D. I was talking about the AIM-7M. That's where you made a mistake. You assume that the AIM-7M is a glider after the peak, but it isn't. The rocket motor second stage is active during the deceleration, out to about 15 seconds after launch. You marked that part of the graph "aero drag" so you obviously misinterpreted the results :) The 530D on the other hand is purely a glider after the peak, because it's second stage burns fast enough to accelerate the missile. It becomes a glider after the peak at about 10 seconds after launch.

Nah, I did the same testing on the Super 530D and it's nowhere near as bad. The Magic 2 has the aerodynamics of a parachute. See the Super 530D thread for the tests I did on that. Summary: I could get kills out to 37km and the missile would reach Mach 4.5 which is in line with the sources I checked. Note: You have to be at a very high altitude and launch speed to achieve that.

Sedenion and blade: I have to point out that you are making an error in the comparison with the AIM-7M. The part where it says "aero drag" is in fact the second stage of the rocket motor. It's designed to sustain the missiles speed for a longer period. The AIM-7M only becomes a true glider after about 15 seconds. Also, if you go up to very high altitude and launch the Super 530D at high speed, it will do Mach 4.5 in DCS, just like you say it should.

Whoa. What's with the hostility? Did I say something wrong? First you remind me of the trivial nature of video games, which I am fully aware of, then you go into rant mode as if your life depended on it. Trying be be sarcastic? :) Would it really hurt you so much on a personal level if the ED store described their products current state properly? I really wouldn't mind a big red sign that says "EARLY ACCESS, BETA, INCOMPLETE, MISSING FEATURES" on unfinished modules, even though I will personally keep buying them and being active as an open beta tester, giving feedback back to the developers. I will gladly do that, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Ultimately, I think it would benefit ED and their partners to be a bit more clear with these open beta releases. People buying them without knowing what they are getting into might get the wrong impressions and be turned away by a lack of quality. I have seen plenty of those on other forums (such as BMS Forums), writing about their negative DCS experiences.

You answered your own question. It's EFM and ASM.

Sure, you can buy the FC3 Su-27 separately. http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/su-27_dcs_world/

You will need the latest version of DCSW but the update system is temporarily not working right now. If you haven't started the sim in a while you might be outdated.

So, does anyone have a scientific explanation for the high drag of the R.550 Magic 2? Or perhaps I should ask the opposite? Does anyone have a scientific explanation that proves the current modelling is wrong?

I can't find a definitive answer because I'm not sure the sources are reliable, but from what little I have found, none of these missiles has any sustain burn capability. R.550 Magic 2 should burn 2.2 seconds and then it's just a glider. I think R-73 works the same way, but can't find a good source with a definitive answer. For my testing, I simply fly at a certain altitude, at a certain speed and launch the missiles straight ahead without any targets, so they are not turning. This should remove as many factors as possible and I just look at how it's gliding characteristics are which depends purely on drag.

Think of the radar beam sort of like a flash-light. The further away from the emitter you get, the wider the beam becomes. If you are at BVR ranges, the beam will be wide enough to illuminate both the target and the chaff. The seeker in the missile will see noise from the chaff, and must be able to distinguish the target from the chaff to successfully intercept the target.

And yet, it is almost identical to the R-73 which I showed in a previous post, so we do have a missile that we can compare it with. Control surfaces are a bit different, but not all that much really. The thrust vector control of the R-73 is irrelevant in my drag testing because the missiles are not turning. How do you explain then, that 5 seconds after engine flame-out, the R-73 has 58% of of it's velocity left to work with, while the R.550 Magic 2 only has 43% left? That is a huge difference, and I see no logical explanation for it. Edit: Just if your curious, I calculated the same thing for AIM-9M and R-60M, but keep in mind they are not the same shape so not directly comparable. As expected, the AIM-9M does pretty well with it's slim shape. AIM-9M: 67% R-60M: 63%

I agree, the Super 530D is underwhelming, but I think that's the way it's going to be. It's reflecting what we know about it's real life performance. The Magic 2 on the other hand is wrong I think. Pretty sure they messed up the drag curve on that one. It's shape is similar to an R-73, and yet it seems to have waaaay more drag in DCS at the moment. That's for another thread though. This one is for Super 530D :)

Well, I haven't really done any serious comparisons although that would be interesting. One thing I can say is that the AIM-7M retains speed much better after the rocket burns out. It does have a slimmer profile though. The Super 530D has 60mm more to it's diameter compared to AIM-7M. Edit: Did the same thing with the AIM-7M. Same conditions as before except I was in an F-15C which doesn't really matter. I managed to score a kill at just under 50km (27nm) which is actually the "wikipedia-range" for the AIM-7M :) Some things I noted: Slower acceleration and top speed. Burns about 15 seconds which means it's travelled a lot further than the Super 530D when it's rocket burns out (even though it's top speed is less), and after that it glides pretty good, not loosing speed as fast as the Super 530D.

Known issue. The M-2000C is currently missing from core DCS mods. Pretty sure they will have fixed it before next patch. Should be a simple fix. They were probably just a bit stressed out at the release and simply forgot to put those files there.

Did some testing with the Super 530D against a Tu-142 flying head on at Mach 0.6 at 10 000m ASL. I was in the M-2000C at same altitude. I tested at different speeds, increasing the launch speed every time to try and stretch out as much range as possible from the missile. At Mach 1.9-2.0 I could launch at around 37km (21nm) and hit my target. The missiles top speed would then be about Mach 3.7, but it would slow down so much before impact that the launch platform flying at Mach 2 would overtake the missile before it hit it's target. I had to almost look backwards to see the impact :) I have seen some sources state 37km and Mach 3.7 so according to that it seems to be working good in the sim. The only thing I noticed was some sources say "propulsion time 8 sec" while the one in DCS seem to burn for 10 sec. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/super_530D.htm Edit: Some sources also state Mach 4.5 as top speed. I was able to achieve that by going all the way up to the M-2000's service ceiling at 18 000m and launching at Mach 1.94 which was pretty much as fast as possible. Seems they did a pretty good job on this Super 530D after all. I know there's been some criticism and that it's low altitude performance is disappointing, but perhaps that is how it's supposed to be. I haven't found any evidence to prove them wrong.

Haha, I see what you did there :)

No, I think it's the drag. Look at the slope of the curve falling after the peak. The slope has nothing to do with the rocket burn and everything to do with drag. The rocket motor only affects things during acceleration, which means the upward slope before the peak and the amplitude of the peak (top speed).

I think many of us have multiple installs. Personally I have uninstalled 1.2.16 and have 1.5.2 open beta and 2.0 open alpha. Sometime during spring it will all be merged back into one version.

The AIM-9M is indeed skinnier (longer and narrower) but look at the R-73. R-73: Weight: 105kg Diameter: 165mm Length: 2.93m Length/diameter ratio: 17,8 R.550 Magic 2: Weight: 89kg Diameter: 157mm Length: 2.72m Length/diameter ratio: 17,3 As you can see, these two missiles has very similar body shape. The R-73 is just slightly larger but retains the similar shape. It would only make sense then that they have similar drag, but ingame the R.550 Magic 2 is much much draggier.

But how do you explain the insanely high rate of deceleration compared to other missiles then? You might not notice if you are in a dogfight with the target right in front of you, but it has a huge impact on the range of the missile. I don't really care if range is X or Y, but I do care when I see something not following the laws of physics. When thrust and drag is correct, the range will end up being realistic. I don't want to give range a number because it's going to be different in every encounter.

No, they merged it with this thread.

The thing is, it seems to have much higher drag than the rest too. Look at the chart I made earlier in the thread and the rate at which speed falls after it reaches it's peak. The R.550 Magic 2 drops much faster than the others. The other's (AIM-9M, R-60M, R-73) are actually very similar to each other when looking at the deceleration rate.

Yes, I remember reading somewhere here on the forums that Zeus was experimenting with the sounds but it wasn't done yet. I expect big changes to sound before final release :)

That's not the point of the thread. The point is that the R.550 Magic 2 looses energy twice as fast as other short range IR missiles for no apparent reason. Of course that affects it's effective range, but that's only a symptom of the real problem.

Some numbers to back it up wouldn't hurt, even though it seems pretty obvious something is off.