IASGATG

Only Cd. I've never mentioned Fd. And because we have two pages of posts over 1 typo that I made that's making a huge horrible mess.

That's actually a typo. It should be the other way around, we can forget the whole point. Transonic > Super Sonic > Sub Sonic. Will correct now. I misunderstood your grammar before. I thought you were questioning why it went back down again after the transonic. You happy for an admin to delete the posts regarding this so we can tidy it up?

We just need a Cd curve for sea level that can then be used as the game knows what the A is, what the V will be and what the rho will be based off of altitude. What's the conversation we're having here? I don't understand the point of it..

You're right, I should make it clear, it's Cd on the y axis. The graphs were made in about ten minutes so I was being pretty simple with my graph production, my apologies.

Depending on Cd and area, yes. I know the difference between Drag Force and Drag Co-efficient. You have to remember though that super sonic drag is different than sub sonic drag due to the transient super sonic shockwave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd_with_mach_number.png

Okay, normally I'm sarcastic as ****. Now I'll drop some real talk on this conversation. We ready to pull some g? Hold it, hold it, hold it, PULLLLLL! ***EDIT: y AXIS ON ALL GRAPHS IS Cd*** This is the AIM-9M Cd curve in the game. It has something close to what we'd expect to see from a missile as it goes up through Mach. This curve matches very closely to AIM-9L performance charts and can be considered relatively realistic. The biggest problem with this curve is Cd should be more draggy at Super Sonic that Sub Sonic in almost all conditions. Common sense says this shouldn't be the case. (I wont go further.) http://i.imgur.com/hGC6VLh.png This is the AIM-120B curve in the game. Again you'll notice that the Cd at sub sonic is greater than super sonic. You see how it picks up in Cd as the speed decreases through the Mach slightly faster. The other thing is the trans-sonic spike being significantly greater than the AIM-9 as well as the Super Sonic being lower. (I wont go further.) http://i.imgur.com/ugRewk5.png This is the curve for the R27-ER in the game. Granted, the missile is much larger than anything else shot by players. However you'll notice that the super sonic drag is much lower than the sub sonic drag which makes no sense at all. You can see how fast that super sonic drag rises into the trans-sonic peek, as soon as she gets to around Mach 2 she decelerates like she has a parachute, this shouldn't really be the case. Finally, the missile being in size and with it's fore-fins being so large, the trans-spike should be larger than the AIM-120. This is seen in the subsonic region but not the trans-sonic region. http://i.imgur.com/9WJh8TU.png This is an AIM-9L variant Cd curve. The variants were modifications made to simulated a scaled down AIM-120A. Data generated from Flyout performance charts. This curve is what we'd expect to see. A higher Super Sonic than Sub Sonic drag. A much smoother climb up to a much more reasonable trans-sonic spike. Note the massive difference in the trans-sonic Cd in this curve to any of the previous curves. http://i.imgur.com/SO8C2fc.png IF I AM WRONG ANYWHERE PLEASE CRITIQUE AND I'M HAPPY TO EDIT AS REQUIRED.

It's a very specific arena you're talking about. There are six variables that instantly come to mind that have to be accounted for. It's like saying "How come my race car didn't go around the track in 4 minutes?" "Well, because you have flat tyres." My words aren't meant to be offensive, merely to express that the vagueness of your question makes it impossible to decipher anything. More information is needed to make an assessment.

Fixing the kinematics is easier than fixing the navigation, especially for stuff like lofting. Don't get me wrong, going from pure to anything isn't that difficult, but going to something that doesn't wreck energy and plays smart is hard work to code.

.... No. Because your words are vague and meaningless.

MVS=okie=, in a nutshell: Specifically: Cd curve is wrong Cl curve is wrong Motor Spec is wrong Generally: Guidance ECCM

So which aircraft flight model is it using?

By the silence I assume nobody knows or there isn't a way.

Is it possible to self destruct them to launch another, if so, how? Thanks

February prototypes? A Valentine's treat?

Just as a passing thought then, as an aerospace engineer, would it surprise you that the AMRAAM in the game has a (Significantly) positive Cl at 0 AoA? (Yes, altitude and about 4 other factors play a role, we're talking idealised)

God damn I want to Fox 3 12 times.

To clarify this whole mess, my point has and had nothing to do with pilot skill. It was entirely to do with missile characteristics. As a result Pk is not a factor. Pk is an abstract built around the physics. I'm only interested in the physics, not your abstract, not your skill, not your emotion.

Well established fact that a 640x320 pixel JPG was imported into CFD xtreme edition and ran for fifteen minutes to generate a 1DOF Cd curve.

Apart from the fact that the type of fuel is publicly known, so the Isp is publicly known. Also the amount of fuel is publicly known, so you can generate a thrust profile of the missile. The shape of the missile is publicly known along with the shell casing material. From this you can generate a CAD model. This can then be run through a CFD to generate a Cd curve. And from this you can work out a relatively accurate approximation of the missile. Apart from all of that yeah, there is no information on the AMRAAM. P.S. Frostie, that PM offer still stands. :)

Sorry, just so we're clear, are we talking about in game or the actual C-5?

I was being flippant, quick maths: 10nmi shot at 500kts target. Missile can do 10nmi in ~ 18s Target has moved approx 2.5nmi Pythag comes into play a = 10, b = 2.5, c ~ 10.3 So the missile makes the intercept in about 18-20s still travelling M2.75+

'cept for the bit where C-5 doesn't really care about chaff and has the ability to pull harder and tighter than any other MRM's due to its size. But yes, I understand what you're saying. Apart from the 10nmi shot on the 9-line, mostly because it'll travel that 10nmi in about 8s and will hit that intercept line at about M3.5 But I mean yeah.. apart from those things I agree. I don't mean to be sarcastic. There is a shit ton of mistakes that people make all the time that gets them wrecked because they don't understand what is going on and why what is happening is happening. A lot of the problems/frustrations in BVR is tracking more than anything else. Missiles losing lock for no reason. The ability do to do a beamed split-S and half way through the invert the ER loses lock is frustrating. The ability for the AMRAAM to fly straight and level at a target and fly completely over the top of it because it never acquired lock is frustrating. Changing the flight characteristics of the missile to make them fit in line is relatively easy and straight forward. Make the AMRAAM loft like it's supposed to and making SAR's pursue like they're supposed to is a lot more tricky (from a third-party point of view, not from a maths point of view.)

Frostie, if by "have to be clever" you mean casually put the missile on your 2/10 for ten miles and then 3/9 for the last ten whilst gaining/losing altitude then I'd agree. It does require great mental fortitude.

Are there any public MP servers running this yet?

Strange. I have the export working fine for my A-10C. When I fly the Eagle and I hit Right Ctrl+Ent. The right MFD gives me the joy axis graph, but I don't get the radar screen on the left MFD. How did I herp the derp?