nighthawk2174

So I've had a concern for a while that the F18 was loosing to little speed while climbing, especially while zoom climbing. I recently decided to test it comparing DCS to the video below for zooming and the the -200 performance charts for a more steady rate climb. The video shows a ~6g 4.2aoa pull up to 70° starting from the horizontal at ~627kts and ~1280ft agl. As a note, I believe he was in burner at least until my cutoff point at 6300ft, sun hides speed an altitude numbers after this point, due to the relatively low alpha and how consistent it was through the pull up. Time to 6300ft - Average of 3 runs Video|DCS 100% fuel|DCS 25% fuel ~9.5sec|~7sec|~6sec| Speed at 6300ft - Average of 3 runs Video|DCS 100% fuel|DCS 25% fuel 451kts|553kts|575kts| Military Power time to climb. 35,000lbs maintain 350kts to 30,000ft then maintain mach. Average of 2 runs. -200|DCS 5,000 - 15|17sec 10,000 - 35|38sec 20,000 - 105|89sec 30,000 - 195|170sec 40,000 - 290|287sec Maybe I'm completely off base and did something wrong in testing but hopefully ED will take a look at the rate at which the F18 climbs, especially in AB, and how much speed it looses in a zoom climb.

Due to the novelty of the meteors motor there are a few academic papers out there discussion in great detail the most plausible operation of the motor. From these we will probably get the most accurate sim of the motor without access to actual test data. CFD exists for the other aerodynamic properties and should give a reasonable accurate representation for our needs. The C7 and D, from my knowledge, lack even these professional estimates. With there being so little data on the D its ironically probably harder to make a rendition of then the meteor.

So something i've been wondering about, especially in TWS, is it possible that while the missile is still fast that the correlation circuits used to build and update tracks would not be able to correlate the missiles as the same target? As the second observation of the same target would be far enough away from the first to just be classified as a possible new target? I've not heard of A/A missiles being detected as being something that is a common issue for radars. It makes more sense for an AESA due to its absurd scan rate and much better detection capabilities but for an older mech scan i'm not so sure.

Its not about position but relative radial velocity. If its not below the doppler filter limit your not in the notch.

exactly

I don't know his hand isn't anywhere near the switch for that though and we don't see the camera move up or down either.

I mean we also don't know what their fuel state really was and it can be a big difference between near full and near empty. Same thing for atmospheric conditions as well.

What does this switch do and is it modeled?

It has to wait as it needs to pass over the target multiple times in order to build the track file, I still don't see how this would result in RWS having a better ability to break out targets then TWS. TWS operates by combining these multiple observations into a track file over time. I have not found anything that states that the actual waveform or processing of each individual return is any different from RWS just that multiple observations over time are combined into one track file. This is why LTWS on the hornet can be a thing, it doesn't update as quick but it can give you bandit heading information without needing to pass over the target every few seconds.

Probably related.

Yes I understand if there are four targets all within a certain range of each other the radar, without special modes, will be unable to resolve them as individual targets. However what i've noticed is that it does break them out (although RWS is for some odd reason much better which is part of the OP's post I'm just adding an additional issue with this) it drops the original track and starts tracking the new target. Even though it should just go ohh there's a new target here and create a new track. Then it for no good reason looses this new target (X through the contact) and you get a new new false target moving at Mach 10 in a complete different direction (Which TWS auto will track on). Then all the targets just vanish and you don't see anything for a while. For TWS there will be an initial detection phase where it acts the same way as RWS. You get the additional info from passes after initial detection. This is why TWS needs to try and get a sweep on the target every few seconds to work properly. This initial detection phase (from which tracks are built) should not be any worse at splitting targets then RWS, from my understanding its not much different if at all.

Yeah with TWS it also seems that when it does break them out something funky happens where the new contact is re-designated as the old one. Resulting in the loss of the track of the first target. Which is odd as it should just designate the new target as a new target, doesn't make much sense that it drops the old track. It then seems to get confused, you loose the new track, and you get a bunch of false contacts, often with one shooting off into space with a ludicrous velocity. Resulting in the loss of all tracks and missiles missing.

And your proof of their F14/AIM-54 FM being pure arcade?

I doubt that, they have said multiple times their going to do their best to make it as realistic as possible. And considering how good they did with the AIM-54 I think it'll be as close as were going to get for a long time.

+1

Any updates? This should be a simple lua fix.

Something interesting from that video is how loud the flaps moving are, at least that 's what I think that sound is. Maybe something else to consider @btd https://youtu.be/yeij-YX9MdY?t=693

I know there are some very detailed studies out there from various groups about the most probable inner workings of the meteor. Its as close as were going to get to the actual stats for at least 40 years.

I mean its kind of one sided irl anyway (even at times in the past), it was just recently that over half of the Russian fleet was the flanker B. And the 77-1 only started being acquired, having only just got a contract in the late 2010's, and is still in low numbers and even then performance wise it can't compete with the C7/D/Meteor. And even with the modern PESA's their predicted detection range against the F22/F35 (and their predicted RCS values with RAM) puts their detection range on such targets below 40NMI. A bit higher if the 35/22 is not facing the flanker within a 30-40 deg cone to its front where its stealth is maximized. Getting something like the su30 would bring a much better radar and a glass cockpit but it would still have the 27ER's, a rather poor TGP, and a very limited selection of precision munitions compared to western jets.

I agree its a cool jet and the timeframe for the F16 getting finished is probably not this year so I'd just get the jeff for now as its at least essentially complete. It has all the cool toys such as anti-ship/MITL and a bunch of glide weapons.

Yes for the blk50 but the CCIP upgrades which includes stuff like IFF and the sniper pod started being integrated in 2001. Early 2000's was the lot-20 production years. TBF DCS is supposed to be set around 2008, the same time as the Georgian war. They weren't came around the same time the 9x did. We have latter production version and versions that were upgraded with new electronics. They are really not the same aircraft as their original production models. Maybe but by the time they showed up in numbers, especially when the 27ER's showed up in numbers, AMRAAM was in service. Really its only advantage would be the archer but it has limitations and the 9M is not a bad missile.

Especially considering how high gain most TR's are if your not in the main lobe, especially at any kind of long range, it should be like you said below the threshold for being tripped.

@Chizhyou guys have document that indicates it doesn't loft? I asked around and a friend of mine in the USAF did indicate that the adder version we have in game probably doesn't loft. Just wanted to also know if you have a document that supports this.

agreed

It has been used a few more times than that against some drones and the SU24 shot down by the turks was with a 9x.