pr1malr8ge

INS requires three things, a computer, accelerameters, and a gyroscope. It works off "dead reckoning" If it knows an exact starting point it can keep track of where its at. How ever it is not perfect and can err will loose accuracy over time. This is due to gyroscopic precession. Case in point back in the early days of the clinton administration a passenger flight's INS degradation caused it to fly over Russian territory and was consequently shot down. at any rate this led to GPS being aloud in the public sector. Now with "ring laser gyroscopes" the amount of degradation over time is reduces significantly but it also has "last I checked" a much more costly acquisition cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system as far as target info. It is fed to the missile before launch. It's given a point in space of where the target is along with where it should be in x amount of time and then it is fed the hosts current point in space through its ins/gps system for its computer to plot a guidance then off the rail it goes.

Ok, Rage. I havent looked into the METEOR missile system. how ever what is with you and DATALINK. you seems to always quote "important reason" as if you're privied to information that no one else can either know or possibly you think is beyond most people's ability to understand. This statement is exactly why I argue with you. I'm not trying to degrade you but it just makes you come across like a complete arrogant jerk. Not sure if you have ever "programmed" LOGIC like this but it's not a "SIMPLE" change in the code. I've searched the "luas" for seeker/guidance logic. Maybe I missed it but I haven't been able to locate that. Same thing with flight model performance. The only Missile change ability that can be made from what I have found was in the missile.lua and that only lets you change thrust, detonation proximity, and 'seeker" types for each missile. There is some other options in missile.lua but it seems to be over ridden by the flight model it self. i.e. Max G time to auto destruction. How ever changing these values does not affect the missile in game as far as I can tell but I haven't fully worked on it either. The only thing affected so far is thrust. After reading Skats missile mod it might work for the drag but not sure maybe scat can futher comment on this. Probably would have been better to have worded that " I think you're mistaking" He may not be, or he might be. I will still tend to agree with GG on this over Alfa's reasoning.

Yes I'm sure thats what he was refering to.. See more on topic below on your second post regarding this thats quoted Sorry but I have not heard of any A2A missile system that talks back not saying they are not out there but It seems a bit pointless. While I can understand what you see in how I wordered that. How ever I did not mean it rides the beam as soon as it is off the rail. I have searched for the last hour trying to find any referance to an internal INS system in any a2a missile platform and have yet to find any can you please point me to some references or source of this?. While the missiles do have accelerometers [this can be quite small since PIZIO's are Solidstate based] the gyroscopic portion of these are not. They also require a substantial time "calibrating" even when using a Ring laser. as I stated the missile is fed with "initial" INS information from the host platform and it must compute its location with just accelerometers and time. Lacking the gyro side it is can easily be off even with mid course guidance updates for its target[once launched the host aircraft Does not GUIDE the missile it only tells the missile what the target is doing and the missile computes a new flight path with that data]. If the missile is off as I said by a few inches it can be off by 1000+ft at impact, hence the need for the SARH seeker head. I suspect this is probably why a lot of missiles don't have higher K/Ratios. end point is this is a "GAME" and programers have constraints and non military budgets to work with. You're mistaking M-link for two way communication between aircraft[data link]. It is not the same Datalink that is transmitted by the high power transmitter mounted to the nose of the aircraft for missile systems. I suspect that Mlink would have a much FURTHER reach then a omni directional datalink used for S/A between planes such as that if the radar can see an aircraft to launch at then it's missile can be supported for as long as the missile can travel.

As Sinus has stated CoffCorpse is one of the lead programmers for the f15c in DCS. While I agree they are monitoring, what I'm stating if that you are going into other threads and plastering links to this one.. I think it would be a bit more productive to just msg Coff then to keep insisting people check out this thread. I never stated you did not have any real world experience. Sinus, I know I posted in his thread. Why should I respond in another thread he has linked to this one?

Yes you're right about the speed change, I was just merely stating your speeds were based on stationary chaff clouds. While I see your complaint [same things with the aim7 gobbling chaff clouds] There is a point where it is just not feasible to simulate chaff due to complexity of programming, entities in the server, and available computing power. Tharos was referring to someone elses post about being beyond DL's range. which the missile will be out of potential energy before that happens. Also DL in missiles [and correct me if I'm wrong] is a "oneway" receive communication. The missile DOES not respond back with I'm here etc etc. The data link is meant for wide angle corrections and does not guide the missile to the impact zone. It only feeds it with generalized direction changes of the target and the seeker is does the rest via a beam guide. So if there is enough "reflected" energy from the chaff cloud that the seeker only sees that it will guide to that regardless of datalink. While I could be wrong about the above, I don't think missiles are installed with any type of actual inertial/gps systems for it to determine where it is in space due to cost, size and complexity restraints. so with that if launched it only has it's original position and its calculated position in space. This does not mean it is actually at where it thinks it is. a few inches off where it thinks it is when a Data link course update is computed could result in a 1000+ft at it's intended intercept point.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you rage. I just want to point out one flaw with this equation. your math is based on the chaff being "stationary" which would mean upon release it would need to be ejected at 900km/h. In reality the chaff will be ejected with maybe a 100khm rate or less. Thus for a short period of time it will be moving 800km/h behind and spreading in size and slowing down.

For the most part yes, the airbrake is not much of a contributing factor during aero-braking. How ever it will work to a small degree vs not having it out. Regardless it wont "HURT" anything having it extended unless you need to do a "extreamly late" touch N go and you forget you have it deployed

Ok, not sure how proficient you are with the su27 but if you can evade Aim120's then you should be able to evade Sarh missiles with the same maneuver. The key is that with SAHR launches you will get a "launch" tone but you will not get a "M" on your RWR. You also do not get a "distance cue" like on the Russian SPO with AHR missiles[aim120]. Best advice that I can give you with the f15 is DO NOT GO HEAD ON with threats. Until you know what to do and how long missile flight times are. Once you figure out missile flight times and you can use the stop watch function you then can do head on fighting and know when to "jink". Until then you should crank your target until you're ready to fire. then pull into your target fire and crank back. This will keep his missile traveling the longest distance possible to you. If you know you've been fired on after you fire your active homing missile wait for pitbull then immediately put him to your 3 or 9 o'clock position dive and chaff. Hopefully he will get hit while trying to support his missile and you will notch him. you can also go into masking in terrain or pull up hard then back down when you think his missile is "close" to you.. Another technique when you know missile flight times is to actually turn into the missile. you should be between 360-440kts [go throttle idle if against an ET] then pull Hard & chaff/flare right before it hits. [The reason this works is due to physics. Once you pull into the missile it will "relax" its steering. Then when you pull it will not have enough time to react and will over shoot so long as you're timing is right] Doing this requires an absolute knowledge of flight times or atleast visual on the missile. I can do it easily when launched at by ET's due to the massive smoke trail.

Ok, so. Just to clearify something. in the f15c; NWS cannot be disengaged unless weight is off the nose gear. [i.E. in FLIGHT] Second, I'm thinking SpeedBird's constant barrage of this thread in everyone else's threads who slightly have any mention of possible rudder dialog is getting a bit on the annoying side. SpeedBird, I think you should just Directly just pm Coffcorpse and see what he truly has to say about it.

Since we are on an old thread.. I do want to state that the Strike Eagle was tethered allowing full power+AB run up before release[explosive bolts severing tether] to allow maximum acceleration from start [breaks off]. I would not doubt that this will reduce TTC by 1-3 seconds over a normal take off.

F15c should not be landed full internals and weapons. How ever it CAN be done but requires more speed to reduce sink rate. The heavier you are, the less sink rate the gear [not in game in real life] can handle the faster your approach speed is and also the longer the stopping distance required. Unless in absolute dire circumstances the F15c has a nifty way to reduce weight by DUMPING fuel. Two ways to be exact. AfterBurner and fuel dump and or combined is a GREAT way to do this. Set your fuel bug to 3500lbs and activate fuel dump and AB and once you hit bingo fuel the dump is automaticly stoped. By the way, someone mentioned doing AeroBraking for 3-5 seconds. This is NOT the correct way to do that.. Aerobraking is useful from touchdown speed to 100kts how ever long this takes. once you've slowed to 100kts drop the nose and start applying brakes. Only time you would want to drop the nose sooner is if you have to apply full brakes so as not to jack hammer the nose gear into the ground.

land at groom lake in NTTR no brakes no aerobraking needed. you might even need power to make it to the other end.

On a side note, the strike eagle was considerably lighter then a combat ready aircraft. No redundancies minimal fuel all non essential equipment removed. On top of that, the jet was tethered to allow maximum thrust before explosive bolts severed the tether allowing the jet to take off as fast as possible.

not sure vissualy on your end but it's been that way since the upgrade from SFM to PFM

nope, it's been that way since the FM was released. This is also how the real bird is.

Here is the f15e full flight manual, I've seen the one for the f15a but can't find it.. http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/mcdonnelldouglas/f-15eagle/to-1f-15e-1-flight-manual-f-15e-aircraft.html#download

Here ya go

Ok, not to sound like an arse, but I couldn't stop Laughing at the video. Sorry but I think the GODS said YOU NO FLY TODAY! All things aside, I've never experienced the BOOOOM on join, how ever I have seen the hanger doors not open in 104th.

According to the -1 @sea-level 15*c 360kts the fuel burn on 40,000lBGW 0 drag index [clean airframe] should be 7548lbph Currently the sim is 9100 lbph Not sure if Setting temp in mission planner at 15*c will result in airtemp at 4,000ft to 7*c but if it does the same test reviled a fuel burn of 8800lbph when it should be 6694 So the sim is off, a clean airframe in the sim is giving the rough results of a drag index of 60 according to -1.. how ever its nominal truly and Nothing like what the OP is claiming.. Personally I still think he's thinking Mill Power should result in 12,000lbph fuel burn for both engines combined when @mill power it's roughly 12,000lbph for each engine. Resulting in 24,000lbph total burn giving him his rough 35mins of flight time.

Havent payed attention, how ever by looking at that picture, you're seeing the panel and hud reflection on the canopy glass and not the ground.

Not sure what you're saying, but I just ran a test.. With engine fuel flow set to 6000lb per side, 12,000lb per hour total fuel burn, I'm going through 1,000lbs of fuel per 5 minutes in the game. Giving me 65ish minutes of flight time. Did this test with a stop watch at 3,000ft elevation over the water.. Throttles set at 87.80% Not sure what you're thinking.. But if you have throttles set at mill power that low then yes you're going to burn more fuel faster. at around 24,000lbs per hour. or 12k per engine per hour. so ~30ish minutes. only thing I can come up with is you're looking at the fuel flow of one engine thinking its both.

Not conning m8. That was not you. When you say "SMOKE" you mean contrail or actual exhaust smoke? Because if someone is up at 50,000 they will be in full afterburn therefor should not be smoking from exhaust. Yes that is correct but when you're 50+nm away from where you stopped conning don't think that was the issue.

Not Sure, I think his 180* turn was due to him knowing where I was at. He claimed that i "FLEW" past him and that was when he saw me.. Tacview shows otherwise. He turned 180* nose down[which should have him almost inverted blocking any view of me] then pulled directly up into me while firing at close to just off horizon. Which is why his first missile missed. and also why I know he knew where I was at before he started his turn.

The separation is fine if he turned nose up, he turned nose down and then pulled right up into me and fired. He knew exactly where I was before he turned. Sweeps might be right with the "VISUAL" setting on LARGE. Looks like if people are going to abuse it, then I shall also. Nothing like seeing a football field sized sprite 30nm away I supose.