Jump to content

nighthawk2174

Members
  • Posts

    1482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nighthawk2174

  1. One of the problems with missiles right now it seems that they will pull beyond their seeker gimble limit causing an immediate break lock, that happened a few times in the testing vid above. Additionally split S wise I know that the AIM-7F/M had anti-split S logic. What this exactly this entails is not publicly available but it's not hard to to predict what it does as there's really only one logical possibility. It's almost certainly as simple as an acceleration damper that is enabled so the missile doesn't over pull but stays above the target. Maybe not relevant for the 54A but the 54C i'd be shocked if there wasn't something similar. Maybe something to consider looking into guidance wise ontop of the missile pulling in the the loft instead of following a low G ballistic trajectory.
  2. Yup which is really the big issue here, to really know for sure were going to need an actual motor thrustvtime graph. Until we get one though the fleeman numbers are the best we got. I don't disagree with your conclusion though GG I'm also of the opinion it may be a little slow.
  3. Ohh never seen that manual before thanks for a link! Has there been any changes in regards to the proxy fuzes may be worth asking about. To see if it’s build or track related.
  4. Yeah i did the math that would line up as a possibility. It’d help if we had more info, boost sustain motors are highly variable in how they can be set up.
  5. Well maybe something has been improved internally but we'll have to see the results the next patch. But as of the current patch i'm still seeing missiles in SP pass within fuzing range and not detonate.
  6. I don't have tracks of any of these as I often delete them due to them taking up my limited SDD space but I'm sure you could find tracks/get some quickly: Just a few dedicated threads but its been disscused in a lot of different threads from the latest AMRAAM bug threads back to the original IASTAG CFD thread.
  7. Hmm interesting the max G pull away bug seems to be back in some of the shots. This was a bug seen sometime early last year where a missile if notched, even for a microsecond, will make a hard if not max g pull away from the target. Eating chaff that is well behind the target and at 0 airspeed is apparently also still a thing that's rather disappointing as that was a MAJOR issue since I started playing in 2013. But it seemed to have somewhat go away starting in 2021. Also one of the missiles just didn't reacquire which was strange thought had been somewhat fixed although maybe its not anymore? Lots of different bugs that either i've reported or have seen being represented here.
  8. I've done so in the past and so have others in past threads its just not worth the time. I'm just going to wait for you guys to fix it. I just hope it won't take years.
  9. This unfortunately isn't my experience they seem equally faulty in both SP and MP not that you guys can do anything about it. ED has to fix this.
  10. A big part of this problem was extremely poor maintenance and loaders. The reliability of the missiles climbed dramatically in the navy after programs to train crews were implemented. Ontop of all of that you had pilots who had no to very little knowledge about the limitations of the missiles. I think something like 60-80% of misses were due to out of parameter shots. With most of the rest being maintenance related. The sparrow did have the issue you mentioned which was caused by mutual interference if you had two F4's supporting missiles within extremely close range to each other. However this stopped being a problem in the navy when they dropped the super rigid right on your leads wingtip formations developed by the likes of bode and started using more modern tactics and started flying with greater separations between jets. I thought that the 7E had superior kinematic performance, not to mention a better guidance law with TPN.
  11. The thrust values aren't exactly the same as the AIM-7 SMC their a bit lower thrust and not quite as long burning. Honestly imho I think most of the updated missiles motors in the game are under-performing a little. I wish we had a thrust vs time chart to verify but we don't.
  12. I wouldn't exactly say that, AIM-7F/M use APN while the R24/R27 still use raw PN. They also outrange both missiles as well. Even the AIM-7D uses TPN.
  13. OK hopefully they actually do look into rebuilding how lookdown works as it is not realistic at all for the radars being discussed here. They have the data to show this too, you guys were given test data on detection ranges for the original version of the APG-63, pre MISP (still waiting on your guys to fix its detection range too....). And that data shows no appreciable difference in look up or look down detection range. Could it be less, sure if your radar is particularly bad in certain aspects. Or in HPRF against cold targets in some situations. I have a strong suspicion this current implementation is based on the stated MIG-29 detection ranges where according to the manual it sees a noticeable decrease in lookdown range. But that radar shouldn't be the basis here has it is rather quite infamous for having a lot of issues.
  14. I don't think this paper is applicable here 1) the aoa sensor is on the wing in this paper its not on the MIG-21, additionally its on the wingtip. As far as I understand it the effects of upwash are reduced away from the wingtip vorticies. 2) the speeds here are far less then in a mig-21 sub 100kts for half the test. 3) the wing is much thicker then the MIG-21's increasing the effects of the discrepancy. 4) The difference was minor up to 9deg aoa, which is very close to stall conditions. Some of the test used here in DCS were at 5deg aoa with the sensor reading 10deg aoa... 5) How do we know that the aoa sensor wasn't calibrated for airframe effects? We know that the sensor being used was only installed much latter and initially only the probe aoa sensor was used. 6)The difference in game is always 50%, in the paper it grows from nothing to 25% max at/near stall. In game if it were a 25% difference that'd be a sensor reading of 33deg for a true aoa of ~25deg. Which is much higher then it is now.
  15. Not to mention that if your whole aoa timeframe is compressed by a factor of two small changes in aoa become much harder. Making the jet harder to fly in general.
  16. I think the OP is right though delta's stall near 30deg that is their typical critical angle of attack. Its one of the features of this wing design. However in game this is not the case, the aoa where you stall out is half of what is typical for delta's which is a major discrepancy. The ingame value listed in F2 is angle of attack and its showing a value half that of the guage. And as said by the devs the AOA being used by the FM is this value. I doubt that the indicator is actually off by 100% irl, this would be extremely weird. Delta's just by their inherent design have higher stall angles then conventional wings. The gauge even shows this with the red stall region being near 30deg. In game our wing is entering the stall regime at the same point as conventional wings. Would there be some small errors sure, but it has an aoa sensor well away from any disturbance. I think you are correct in being suspicious. Aerodynamics for naval aviators is a amazing place to start. It has some of the best-better explanations of aerodynamic concepts i've seen. It is freely available on the internet. I don't think that's the case that the OP is making in the slightest, I think he's right about this. Plus small disturbances near the airframe CANNOT explain a value double the actual AOA value.
  17. This doesn't make sense, yes across the lower surface you will have a point where CP=0 (infact depending on the wing shape multiple points may exist). But I see no way to derive the angle of attack from the position of these points. Yes although the range of this effect is rather quite limited. I have no clue what your talking about. The downwash will just reduce your total effective lift requiring a small increase in aoa to compensate. The effect is a local effect impacting the area near the wingtip, hence the effect drops off with higher aspect ratio wings, or with wings that include a small twist into the wing.
  18. Chaff is not a mirror radar energy will still make it through what you get is the same effect as a noise jammer it just reduces detection range. For modern systems though the amount of chaff needed to achieve usable results against PD radars is immense.
  19. I can't believe this is still an issues. I'd stopped following it years ago...
  20. I have no clue what your blabbering about... ??????? wut Not quite... and this is downwash angle and only matters for the surfaces behind the main wing. No, if the airfoil is non symmetric you get lift even at 0deg AOA: Assuming the wing isn't canted on the aircraft maybe. lol wut No, lets assume here wings camber is in line with the nose angle, that would mean that the flight path vector is 5deg below the horizon which by definition means you cannot be in level flight. By definition the velocity vector is the direction your flying, and is equivalent to the angle of the oncoming flow. I fail to see how this at all relevant here. I suggest you re-read the OP it really seems like you didn't actually read it.
  21. Maybe, something else to consider would be battery tech would have improved somewhat since the original design in the early to mid 70's. IMHO a small increase in flight time from the B to C is more then likely, i'm not talking 30+ but at least 10-20sec more is extremely probable. I agree with your findings 100% I really need to get a track that works. The one I had was 30min long and after a short time the track diverged from what happened pretty radically.
×
×
  • Create New...