nighthawk2174

Good to see that this detail has been modeled in DCS. It is significantly more detailed than the older missiles.

Understood what are ED's current estimations? As i'm curious as the SMC sustain is more potent and the values referenced in Fleeman match SMC. Yeah ultimately it's only small differences (of note the two blue lines have the same total impulse) were talking about here now for the Boost-Sustain motors like the AIM-7/120B. There are far bigger issues with the missiles then this. Which speaking of the 120B did you have a chance to examine my reddit post regarding my thoughts on its boost thrust? Yeah correct me if i'm wrong but it still is a range of values such as 220s-250s for the type of fuel used iirc.

Any chance you could ask why we can't see the missile files anymore? I'd love to be able to use the missile mod to buff up sams a bit again.

So I went and ran my own sim of this in matlab using the drag curves I gave too you and used the thrust from SMC with the assumptions that A) Boost and Sustain propellant masses were flipped B) Used 3.5sec duration for the boost instead of 4.5sec. Sref was .0325 and motor and off drag was considered. Our results are similar but it seems your sustain thrust is lower than what is in the SMC document. However I have this document that lists the burn time as 4.5/11 sec, maybe its source is the SMC, maybe not. IMO the difference were seeing between the estimates and in game is not drag but motor related. It could be that the boost is actually 4.5 sec but either the propellant mass or thrust is wrong. This possibility of error in any of the motor variables unfortunately opens up a lot of variation of stats that could be right. For the sake of argument lets say only the motor times (4.5/11), boost thrust, and total fuel mass is correct but the thrust and fuel mass is wrong for the second stage then it could look like (if the ISP values stay the same): TLDR Essentially to sum up the difference were seeing between estimate and AIM-7 is almost certainly thrust related. It's kind of unfortunate the one document with these stats has so many errors as depending on what's right or wrong could lead to very different performing missiles. Its a rather unenviable position as we can't exactly know for sure right now what's 100% correct. There are so many variables impacted by just one number being wrong that it can wildly impact the outcome.

Concerning the chart this is my observation on the main bold axis there are tick marks every 5NMi in the 6 cell region there are the appropriate amount of cells before the 5Nmi tick mark (2) but after that there seems to have been one extra one added. As such it seems the error is most likely that the 10NMi tick and axis mark were just placed one box too far. But it seems that the first tick mark (and hence DLZ) may be correct.

Rog it matches with what I gave too you a few weeks ago. iirc he also had a thrustvtime curve in the book as well are these the values used for the AIM-7 motor? Also is there a difference between the F/M they had different nose cones due to the different seekers. Also your thoughts on: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/kwxcfx/concerns_about_the_aim120b_motor_data_in_dcs/

So i've been messing around with the radar and have noticed that the track memory never reacquires a target. Essentially what i'm noticing is the target goes into the notch for the briefest of moments then comes out. Making it so that he's detected in the next sweep yet it creates a new contact instead of realizing that it's the same contact. Now it makes sense if the contact accelerates rapidly and can move quite far from where he was last seen and it takes multiple seeps to reacquire (more than 2 or 3) that it won't reacquire. But in the example i'll provide below were talking about a target that hasn't even moved more than 1km from where he was last seen and is heading in a similar direction. I just don't see why it shouldn't be able to say hey this target is close to where this contact was last seen, heading in a similar direction, and is within the predicted displacement range. Is this an actual limitation can the computer just not recorelate tracks to contacts just seems unlikely to me. Also something else that is concerning is that the moment a bandit hits the blind speed you will lose track and not reacquire, even if you are only in the blind speed for fractions of a second. Example track: TWS_BUGS.trk -Target loss at ~7:46:29 in game time target entered notch some time in between the last position update 4 seconds before and the above time. Target is required at in second sweep at ~07:46:37.

What are the current AIM-7 motor statistics?

Rog so in the 21%'ish range for the AIM7 and probably not to different for the 120?

Understood by how much is it reduced?

Something i've been thinking about; you choose the new thrust values based on the document you showed us earlier correct? Did they take this into account (i'd be surprised if they didn't)? As such IRL the motor is a bit weaker but the drag reduction makes up for it to match what we have now. As such the ER/ET are now matching what they probably are irl but other missiles are not (such as the AIM-7 where we got the motor data from the SMC document) where they probably boost to a somewhat higher speed irl but not in game right now due to this not being simulated. Something to consider imho.

Is motor on/motor off drag difference modeled?

OK i'll just go through and reupload them all thanks for letting me know

Their all loading for me

So there's a bunch of presets and for those who don't have the time to go through all of them or don't want to here's a quick low effort guide. I'm personally a fan of Scattered4, Broken2/3/6, Overcast4 ,and Overcast and Rain2. Note: Small gaps = gaps too small even for a very high G BFM fight medium gaps = Just big enough for a high G BFM fight large gaps = Large enough for even a gentle turn very large gaps = Could be double digit NMi in size Light Scattered: High Scattered Scattered Broken Overcast Overcast and Rain

Yeah before hand it was overperforming, those are the kind of detection ranges the F15's radar should be getting. Although tbf an issue with this is that many aircrafts RCS values are too low. So if that is ever fixed it'll mitigate this somewhat against larger RCS targets like the F15/SU27/F14/MIG29, 12-15m^2/16-20m^2/12-15m^2/20-25m^2 range respectively instead of the 5'ish(or lower) they are now.

interesting I just updated as per normal guess it didn't remove them for me? Edit: yeah they just weren't removed for me and a few of them got scrambled for some reason. So ignore my last post.

It's still in my database/weapons folder odd

@ChizhThe 27ER/ET got new motor values but for the boost stage its current values are 54945N (~12,350lbs) of thrust for 2 seconds with a mass flow rate of 13.83. This yields an ISP value of ~404s, which is well above the theoretical maximum limit of the modern smokeless propellant of the C5 which should peak out around the 255s-265s range. While older generations of missiles, such as the AIM-7, are in the 230s-245s range. A value of 23.83kg/s would make a lot more sense, as such is it a typo?

I've heard that as well but we'd need to ask @Chizh if that's the case or not.

Yeah agreed its quite odd. The difference in thrust between the boost and sustain is not large unlike the other boost sustain missiles we have some knowledge about AIM-7 for example.

Just a normal landing as per the manual for 32k lbs, 15C, 29.92 for the pressure, no wind, no airbrake, no control surface deflection, full braking, anti-skid on.

Thanks for linking this chart I was already really dubious about RCS values in DCS as being not accurate i've been debating making a post on it:

Man that sustain is exceptionally powerful, what new mass values are also being used per stage? At the old mass values the ISP's would make no sense.

It does seem like it but the temperature variation can make it vary by that much for example: This is the AIM-7D motor and there is as much as a 23% difference in burn time between 150F and -20F.