Foka1

What operating system you running it on?

I suspected photoshopped image here... What are you trying to achieve by that?

Если кто-то хочет вместо базара заняться делом (другим базаром :D ) и сделать озвучку для русской версии тренировочных миссий для модуля МиГ-19, пишите мне в личку.

Слишком ты буквально ищешь :) http://www.tpub.com/ase2/17.htm

[Vodka]LazzySeal KA-50

[Vodka]LazzySeal Axis FW190

At a glance though looks like your first test showing us that R-3S is overperforming a bit in DCS on higher altitudes:

Thanks for putting that together, I hope I will read it soon. I'm happy book I found about R-3S helped. I didn't see same material for R-13M though but it can be kinda added somehow above R-3S performance.

[Vodka]LazzySeal Su-33

[Vodka]Rainbowgeorge

I found one more MiG-21 pilot, he said he can make it at that day. Trying to push his ass to register.

Well I guess it could be useful if you will upload one tacview from 2016 and one from 2018, where those missiles are being launched, preferrably at the same altitudes in both tacviews, from 16 and 18. At least just for some reference.

I dunno about 2016, but in 2017 February I spotted fundamental flaw in seekers and asked Leatherneck to fix them. That is why R-60M back then become a copy of ED missile. Bug tracker not holding that old report but I have my email: I didn't need good docs back then, cuz all these missiles were behaving exactly same and easy test were showing that. I also was less educated in these maters back then. Some recent events for past year made me to read up a lot more material on that subject and "clash" with devs and see their point. That is why now I have more solid plan for tests and reports, based on my previous experience of trials and errors and I move slowly. I know AIM-9B performance looks too much compared to R-3S for you but just don't rush it, we will deal with GAR-8 later, although if we will find document on GAR-8 which will be same that I found for R-3S that will be even better. I just didn't search for it yet. For R-3S document I will post my understanding of charts on page 12 and 13 (I will also ask some friends to help with understanding chart on page 13). I hope you did download it cuz it will be our reference point for R-3S tests. So from description of charts it will be more easier to understand which tests we need to setup. PS About Mortirose tests I still don't see that they are actually from 2016, both filenames are 2018. We need a legend for that chart. There are two color of graphics for R-3S for instance, so that mean one is from 2016 and one is from 2018?

Maybe some drawing like block scheme will help at this point?

That is why I went higher.. As I said I assumed max velocity posted as MACH 2.5 can be achieved only at max altitude which for R-13M is stated as 15000. and indeed at 15000 MACH 2.45 achieved from platform speed of Mach 0.7. I'm talking about R-13M only now. I guess I didn't say it but why we should care about how it was before 2016 or after? We just need to check how it is now and if it is good within known data. Look at the file names on picture you just reposted from Mortirose post, both files named as from 2018. How you know they are from pre and post 2016? Not that it dismisses my initial thought that we should care about how missile performs at the moment. What in my new tests is wrong? lead me here please, and have patience with me poor head. I'm just trying to check your claim that missile doesn't reach Mach 2.5, I did first test you said my platform speed was too high, now I did second test and now what is wrong when I have Mach 0.7 platform speed? I know from the start that max speed will be different on different altitudes, but I'm just trying to build logical line: step by step. To force ED or M3 to change something we need solid ground, if we will just have that something changed after 2016, how we can prove that it didn't change to the more accurate state? Also don't forget we need to test data from R-3S document. And I kinda don't want to do it alone, would be nice if you will spend some time and show tests as well.. We need to check charts on page 12 and 13. I think charts are available on free tacview branch.. check it. If we will have R-3S data as zeroing point we can assume some numbers from there within some error margin.

Sorry that was R-13M1 which is heavier that R-13M. Here is R-13M reaching Mach 2.45

I'm also getting tired that we are walking around same thing here. You state missiles doesn't reach their velocities, but you know only one velocity stated in different websites. This is as MACH 2.5. But you can't simply have same speed everywhere. One number means one set of conditions in which missile reach that speed. I'm also tired that we still walk around this test I did at 1000 KPH, OK here is picture of my test, where I'm going MACH 0.67 Where I used maximum R-13M operational altitude of 15000 meters where it logically should reach its maximum speed. We have Mach 2.42 as top M number for R-13 there in DCS

You didn't read my post above?

Also as example for tests.. on page 11 you can find this line: "Истребители, вооруженные ракетами Р-3С, должны иметь скорость полёта в диапазоне 900-2000 км/ч на высотах до 20 км." My translation: Fighters, who carry R-3S, should have speed in the range 900-2200 KPH on altitudes up to 20 KM. That is giving us idea about how they did testing.. and from which tests numbers are coming from.. Use google translate as well, I specifically write it down in russian so it would be convenient for you to just copy paste it.

"This is exactly the problem with your test, do you not understand? You place the speed of the missile at 2.5M, but you're going at Mach 1" this is not what I mean.. substract my speed and make it like Mortirose Mach 0.7, missile still will be faster than stated in russian sources 550 meters per second. Problem here is that none of sources says in which conditions this speed is achieved, it is just number 550 meters per second or how you claim your web sources say 2.5 M, but without conditions provided for that speed we can debate forever. Although 550 m/s is looking more achievable at low altitudes.. "Given how faithfully the guidance system of the R-3S was copied from the AIM-9B, it is probable that the DWP-80A is a direct copy of the Thiokol Mk.17" the word probable here is not enough because I think we can find specs for this russian engine, will you be able to find good doc on AIM-9B engine? Cuz at this point it is consuming somewhat of my free time I can't search for everything at this point, or can but it will be slow. "Every site I can find on this motor, including the ones I posted earlier, claims excess of Mach 2." we would need more parameters for good comparison, you keep using easy ways.. I never debated that R-3S was reverse engineered. What I want to do is to go step by step and not mix things. I want to start from credible source and study one missile at a time. Sory I don't agree that whatever website by Federation of American Scientists is there has more credibility than russian study level university document about RUSSIAN missile R-3S (reverse engineered or not). Hiromachi found it right. For me search gives it as first result in Google. After checking R-3S and how accurate it is you can use it as ground for comparison. And it is actually really good find and I thought you will be more happy that we have it now. pages 12 and 13 in it would be interesting for you to test in DCS. What I said about R-13M was based on charts about maximum missile ranges for hitting targets with different range or altitudes distances and speeds. By that chart check available for what is max operational distance on which you can hit non maneuver target. It wasn't stating what speed missile itself should have. And frankly DCS can have limitations for simulating exactly same speed, devs can face choice actually to model max speed or to model actual maximum "kill" ranges from documents. I understood already that you don't believe me having R-13M data, there is no need in further toxic remarks. I won't post it until I will be sure that forum rules allow it and that person who provided it to me is ok with that. If its not good enough explanation for you, I don't have a better one. So deal with it. And frankly your claim that websites are credible not really that much better. Especially wikipedia. So from this point please let's move with R-3S only for now, do some work with charts in document I found, and it will be ground for comparison. "EDIT: I see you linked Л.Н.Белов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. ". Okay, that's a good start, and I found This page I can't read this, however. Can you find where said relevant information would be in this document?" Yes that is book I mean, and I won't agree that whatever american source you have is more credible for R-3S. Sorry I would agree if you would talk about AIM-9B. The russian doc you found is not about missile at all, you can see it by charts and pics in that doc actually. Hiromachi linked the correct book. Just please understand that I want to look at one missile at the time, until I know good solid info about it. I don't care if book I found will support modeling in DCS or not. I just think that comparing two variables is not really constructive, at least when we have information for one of them which needs to be studied.

Спасибо, что подтвердил мои опасения. "АЛЛО, дистанция "пустить забыть" у всех ракет ~одинакова" это не так, дистанция эта обуславливается разными факторами, как она блин может быть одинаковой у всех ракет если у разных ракет стоят разные блин активные головки. Я вообще-то говорил о NEZ дистанции в основном. "В остальном опять ловлю за руку на вранье." И что там показано? Максимальная дистанция при пуске в не маневрирующую цель с большой высоты? Открой книгу "Российское ракетное оружие 1943-1993 г.г." А.В. Карпенко и посмотри там про характеристики Р-77 на графике и какая там дистанция пуска в ЗПС и ППС на разных высотах, потом сравни с ДКС на практике у 120B эффективная дистанция больше чем у Р-77, обуславливается в основном скоростью кстати. "Давай приводи с пруфами, что там по аналогам С-ки подвезли к концу 90-х" MICA и Р-77 модифицированная. Пруфы? от тебя тут никто пруфов не видел, только слова. Ещё ты проигнорировал мой вопрос "где ты практикуешь онлайн AIM-120C", что является лишним поводом думать, что твоя настоящая цель в этой дискуссии не узнать что-то или поделиться чем-то, а просто троллить и быть ядовитым. Такая цель никогда до конструктива не доводит.

Поскольку форма ответа на опрос открытая, я так вижу, что никто не запрещает проголосовать за что-нибудь типа "не хочу новый, допилите оближите всё старое"..

Теперь картина более ясна. Но это не объясняет требования раскрыть цели опроса (возможно не хватает куска, который как вы говорите потёрли). Ответ же не просто так сделан в открытой форме я думаю... Суть в том что если вы хотите чтобы опрос был таким каким именно вы хотите его видеть, так сделайте его сами здесь же на форуме.. В чём смысл заставлять ЕД делать социологический вопрос так как ВАМ он виден если вы являетесь просто единицей в социуме, который опрашивается? А F-16, кстати, уже был анонсирован несколько раз на разных ресурсах уже как несколько месяцев. Соль проблемы то в чём? В том что ЕД не делает модули, которые вы хотите?

Что именно то написать им надо было? Уже две страницы исписали ответ так и не понятен..

Во первых мультиплеер DCS это от силы 4 сервера: 104th , Blue Flag, DDCS, и сервер аэробатический. Все остальные имеют от силы игроков 5 на них в среднем. Где ты практикуешь AIM-120C? Твоя манера общения больше подходит для двачей если честно.. AIM-120B всё равно лучше чем 77. К тому же AIM-120B маневренней чем 120С. Дистанция 77 не позволяет просто так "пустить и забыть" Нужно дойти до дистанции с которой пуск ещё надо сделать, при этом ты будешь в зоне действия 120B несколько раз уже. Насчёт зарезания оружия это как раз то о чем я говорил про дизайн миссий. Ты говоришь про зарезание но при этом не отмечаешь, что аналогов AIM-120C из того же временного периода в ДКС нет, хотя они есть IRL. Поэтому зарезание происходит по дефолту в ДКС если смотреть в обратную сторону. Всегда можно сделать ситуацию где Ф-18 будет лучше, вопрос только если ты давишь на реализм, тогда учитывай цены ракеты и самолёта и прочие остальные вещи в виде IADS. Либо ты просто строишь миссии в ДКС где Ф-18 будет комфортно.. Тут как бы уже выбор падает на дизайнера миссии. то что вигген например не долетит до цели, практически опровержимо в ДКС. Ты слишком обобщаешь и не приводишь никакие практические данные до сих пор и по моему твоя цель просто потроллить а не провести интересную дискуссию. Манеры с двача очень сильно на это указывают.