Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Ktulu2

  • Birthday 06/07/1997

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, FSX
  • Location
  • Interests
    Flight sims, guitar
  • Website
  1. Wait, do you want a gyroscopic tracking or one that relies on magnetic bearing!? I can see how one would make one in arduino, but I would expect huge drifting issues over time that would imho make it too time-consuming to produce for the result you should expect. That being said, it sounds like a great project and I am almost tempted to make one of my own for fun...but not for using in game. EDIT : If you wanted a magnetic bearing tracking, that would only give you a 1dof heatracking which would be...let's say limited.
  2. Find a wingman and fly as a two-ship.
  3. I feel like the extra fuel is going to be more valuable than another AIM-120 ;)
  4. The stutter is DCS loading the terrain, which is taking some time as it is on a HDD instead of a SSD. It's not because it isn't on the OS drive.
  5. So Sweeper and I were playing on 104th doing some 2 vs Unknown fights. Just as we start egressing, I picked up a dogfight between a friendly and a foe and decided to help him...We must have sorted way too fast as there was a third guy lurking around...Enjoy!
  6. Ohhhhh boy another one of these XD As of now, F-15 is probably the most efficient platform and the most recent model. SA and BVR-wise it outranks everything else. In WVR it lacks off-boresight SRM and might not be as good as the 27 in some circumstances, but is still very efficient.
  7. I don't see how this is a relevant source. A user-made document on a forum, and all the references are either from other forums or outdated GAMEs (Lomac...) [game used as not a simulator] and the paper references are from TOM Clancy and a real book that seems like a general military aviation encyclopedia.
  8. 1-ED is very reticent to update the FC3 planes, so it's highly unlikely that we will see these in the next years. 2-If you are always dying, why do you want better missiles that your enemies can have? Train / read a bit more and you'll be fine, what ever the armament.
  9. Just an educated guess, but the size of the fins is function of the missile's mass. These fins are most likely the minimum the designers thought was possible while maintaining a good maniability. As the Sparrow is heavier than the AMRAAM, putting fins meant for a lighter missile would probably increase it's range a bit, but completely destroy it's maniability.
  10. The fact that many planes are illuminating the target doesn't change anything though. If it did, you and your wingmen would have a big flood mode and you wouldn't be able to sort between targets. Each plane has it's own frequency link with it's missile, and it even changes between missiles on the same platform IIRC. 2cd video, maybe it's because I can't see too well and mess with the TacView, but it seems like he notches to up to the flankers shooting very short range shots, I don't see what's crazy too much. The first one is funny as hell though, I'll give you that much haha.
  11. In that case, might want to look on what servers/missions you are playing and decide to have realistic experiences, the level of realism of the game won't change anything if you rush yourself into furballs at every occasions you get.
  12. So I had some time to waste and tried to see how the thread was still alive, so 2 things : 1) Why do you guys think this is wrong? Anything aside from guts? 2) I made a nice little graph showing the max altitude the missile should be expected to reach if there was no atmosphere at the moment the engine was out (so WITH acceleration drag) considering variable G. Of course, these will be a couple tens of thousand meters off, but should get the point across. (of course, this is based on what I posted above) H[1]=Launch altitude, H[2]=Max altitude, all in meters.
  13. Why do you want to post screen shots? As I've shown you can expect that kind of altitude from a missile that can reach mach 4 in an horizontal launch at 8000m.
  14. Upgraded version : if we consider the mass M, the mass of the missile without the engine, we get : 1/2*m*[1331^2-411^2]=9.81*m*h thus h=81684m Thus max height 88000m... This is legit, as the energy needed to accelerate and make the engine climb would be lost as it was burned! EDIT : This however, is with an approximation of drag, as I said, FOR THE ACCELERATION ONLY, I forgot to say that earlier, sorry, taking the rest of the drag into account takes MUCH more calculus, and while I could do it, i'm entering my finals...so yeah...
  • Create New...