nighthawk2174
-
Posts
1514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by nighthawk2174
-
-
On 5/9/2022 at 11:20 PM, Skyracer said:
From i understand that in real life is that chaff irl works by reflecting away the radar beams. And that will create a shadow/blind spot for the radar. However i tested this in dcs it does not seem to work that way. My preferred method in dcs is the following
1. LOS
2. Drain the missile from its energy
3. Notch it
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.
-
I can't believe this is still an issues. I'd stopped following it years ago...
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:
Those screenshots of you two in external views can't be exactly "right" either. Real AoA isn't the angle between wing chord and a horizontal line, or even the free flow incoming, you can fly descending with that attitude shown, still be flying, and AoA wouldn't be what you think you're visually seeing as is obvious. That's why a external pic showing whatever isn't actual AoA whatsoever.
I have no clue what your blabbering about...
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:AoA is meant to be the difference between a high pressure spot below leading edge (which is not just the wing foremost spot), and the incoming airflow which is not either just the free air current,
??????? wut
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:but the corrected flow angle because a wing moving through a dense fluid pushes air downwards even before it reaches the wing. Because of that, actual AoA can be either lower or higher than what you visually think you're seeing.
Not quite... and this is downwash angle and only matters for the surfaces behind the main wing.
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:Now, the delta wing as you know in fact needs AoA to fly, without any AoA there is no lift at all
No, if the airfoil is non symmetric you get lift even at 0deg AOA:
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:(you could run the whole Groom Lake 7Km runway and still the plane wouldn't take off without AoA no matter how fast and wheelless you get),
Assuming the wing isn't canted on the aircraft maybe.
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:which is true for almost any wing profile but specially true in delta wings,
lol wut
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:so it makes perfect sense I can get a variometer showing 0 (next time BTW show also airspeed in the screenshot), KPP showing 5º nose attitude which is not AoA, while actual AoA reading (measured with a couple of small pieces on the nose to get them out of wing or any disturbing influence) can be 10º and those 10º are the ones making you fly. But, in the F2 screenshot view shows AoA to be 4.9º which is what your KPP nose attitude reads (so not that bad), and as per devs explanation it wouldn't match AoAmeter and that's normal.
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.
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:By the way, even in the Hornet screenshots there are inconsistencies, the HUD showing 10ºAoA but your velocity vector isn't 100% over the horizon, following your logic that means actual AoA should read 10'somethingº but it doesn't? No, it means velocity vector isn't the free flow either so it's no exact reference to eyeball an AoA. If AoA actually matches at some point nose high attitude in the Hornet it's because it's designed like that, meaning nothing to the MiG-21.
By definition the velocity vector is the direction your flying, and is equivalent to the angle of the oncoming flow.
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:Also, bear in mind anyway a Hornet isn't delta wing either, you should try to compare at least with something comparable, another delta wing plane at the least (M2000 is the only available in DCS, I believe), even though different wings with different profiles and designs aren't exactly comparable either, but at least it would be closer to start with.
I fail to see how this at all relevant here.
7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:Edit: Funnily enough OP title says "critical AoA" which is a whole different thing either
.
I suggest you re-read the OP it really seems like you didn't actually read it.
-
-
8 minutes ago, Маэстро said:
Smaller size make sense-more room for battery, efficency improvement of circuits I suppose not so signinficant. Moreover, main power consumers is transmitter and fin servos.
BTW, control section was shortened too. Less room for servo battaries?
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.
16 minutes ago, vtaf_archer said:Its the same "as in they are still too easy" ≠ its the exact same "as in nothing changed"
I appreciate the work been going on lately and its obvious that some of the problems have been improved. However, there are still problems as I've posted another track, and some others also did. Is it better? yeah, it's not going completely trash after simple turns. Is it good as it was before (early to mid 2021)? definitely not imo.
Again, I and many others appreciate the last update as it made 120s somewhat better in certain scenarios. But, they are still too easy to evade, especially at low altitude and even in extremely close ranges. I will post more tracks later on, have my final exams going on atm and can't get on it much. Meantime, please watch the .trk and the video I've posted yesterday.
Thanks again for the work has been going on.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.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Маэстро said:
We will revise power supply lifetime for C version. But it not possible just to increase battery lifetime IRL. There are several limitations: available room, allowable mass excess(impact on ballistics), reasonable lifetime also limited by overall control system/INS accuracy.
The C did received a brand new electronics package that was much smaller. I'd be surprised if it wasn't also more power efficient as well.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, vtaf_archer said:
OB 2.7.14.23966 (18.05 Latest Patch)
- Weapons. AIM-120. Fixed tracking issues due to wrong reference range gate choice when target locked.
1st test, going to do some more later today but don't have much time atm. Close range low alt shots, can be seen in the vid and the .trk
sum: I think its still the same
2.trkAgreed @NineLineI'll get a track when I can but from what i've been seeing the missile is still really easy to notch, I tested with a few dozen shots and was pretty easy to notch almost all of them. There were a few that made it through, however the majority didn't. The difference this patch is it seems that if you support the missile it will at least reacquire now, most of the time, sometimes it just doesn't and I have no clue why.
22 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:Then be patient while we look at the tracks. There is more tweaks to come, for now the range gate issue has been adjusted.
Has there been any progress on proximity fuzes? Also can the team re-examine the random aiming errors thing as far as I'm aware one of the many major advantages of monopulse is scintillation is essentially not a factor for it. There is a video which I don't have time to find now of an amraam hitting a tiny target drone at low alt, as in a direct shack while in look down.
-
1 hour ago, NineLine said:
This is correct as is based on OFP.
What tape are you guys modeling?
-
On 5/7/2022 at 6:06 PM, KlarSnow said:
Doppler and pulse doppler radars do not have issues seeing through chaff, it does not block or interfere or reduce detection ranges with tracking or search modes. It may show up as a false target, briefly (depending on wind and how quickly it blooms) but it does not screen or block anything to a doppler or Pulse doppler radar.
From the openly available "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals" book.
Something though that should be mentioned is in the beam the targets RCS will also explode. It's often orders of magnitude higher then frontally. Which would reduce the chaff to target signal ratio. But it would mean more time between the chaff becoming a larger target then the aircraft as it takes time for chaff to bloom.
-
On 5/12/2022 at 12:35 AM, MARLAN_ said:
As far as I know DCS will divide an object's aspect into 4 quarters (hot/beam/cold) for the purposes of things like the chaff/flare random% to decoy so I wonder if that's also happening here.
This current behavior doesn't much much sense to me, the aspect of a target should be irrelevant to a radar except for a change in presented geometry and thus likely RCS. Which as far as I am aware, RCS in DCS is static so this wouldn't be the case.
This could potentially also be part of the culprit for why notching in DCS is overtuned, its possible it is taking into account the beam quarter instead of/or in addition to closure.
Anyway, I'm just speculating as to the cause, great find!
RCS is static in DCS
-
On 5/12/2022 at 5:09 AM, BIGNEWY said:
As the topic says it is reported and the team will investigate. When we have news we will share it or a fix / tweak will be added to change logs if ready.
thanks
What exactly did the changes they made to the amraam entail exactly, if you know? And are we sure they all made it in as intended?
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:
As mentioned before the team are happy currently, if new information comes to light we will revisit it.
thanks
Have they said why? The model is not how the radar works.
-
3
-
-
-
On 3/23/2022 at 5:36 PM, BIGNEWY said:
coming soon
Will this unit also come with fixes to the dispersion of the CIWS system and or new round types?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, D4n said:
Wow very interesting, thanks guys! So now the only question remains is whether AIM-120B's proximity fuze would detonate the warhead if it passes very closely to a cloud of chaff.
As far as i'm aware its a doppler based fuze. So it should largely ignore chaff and ground clutter, there will be edge cases where the chaff is still fast enough to trigger the fuze. However for now there are far bigger fish to fry in terms of fixing things.
-
46 minutes ago, D4n said:
Doppler shift shouldn't be detectable though if most radar waves are redirected by the loads of chaff that is "blocking" the LOS to the target, or?
Chaff is not a mirror, its far more appropriate to view it like a cloud. And like a cloud sunlight still gets through, the intensity will be reduced but most certainly not reduced to nothing.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, D4n said:
if the chaff "stopped" ? An old SA2 system has a feature that would not make it explode when it gets very close to chaff, you're saying?
As far as I'm aware modern missiles fuzes use the Doppler shift of the target to filter out clutter. The older fuzes on the SA2 I believe were just simple radio proximity fuzes that went off when a return above a certain threshold was detected. This is part of the reason for their inability to hit low flying targets.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, D4n said:
Shouldn't ED also finally add the realistic logic that as soon as a radar-missile gets super close to chaff, that that finally causes the missile's fuze to explode? I've been waiting for it since years now!
depends on the fuze, if the seeker is IR/laser based it shouldn't do anything. Most modern missiles have a doppler based radio fuze which should prevent this if the chaff has already stopped.. Older systems like the SA2 sure.
-
21 minutes ago, KenobiOrder said:
I know you guys always want tracks but is that reliable? The tracks get corrupted very easily. They almost never replay what actually happened. Been that way for years, at least 8.
Yeah i've had tracks get corrupted and be very off even just minutes into a replay.
-
2
-
-
On 5/3/2022 at 5:26 AM, Beamscanner said:
All the books I have indicate that Chaff becomes mostly ineffective once it decelerates below the radars velocity gate (assuming a True Pulse Doppler radar).
Chaff can be effective against PD when maneuvering as it can momentarily confuse tracking algorithms. And obviously it helps when flying in a doppler notch.
I feel like Fri13 is confusing MTI with True Pulse Doppler. MTI can only tell if something is moving, and cannot selectively filter doppler. Thus, MTI is still very susceptible to chaff. Even modern coherent MTI, such as early warning radars and anything using a Low PRF.
This is why the west have explicitly distinguished MTI from Pulse Doppler. While the USSR tried to conflate the two, because they didn't want to appear too far behind the west.
According to Galinette, when I was discussing this with him iirc, when he was making the new M2K's radar model and testing against chaff just the Doppler gates alone worked 99% of the time, including going into the notch. And its pretty clear from the one example he was able to get of it not filtering out the chaff that even the simplistic countermeasures of radar coasting or RCS edge tracking would have prevented it grabbing onto the chaff momentarily.
-
2
-
-
Thanks for your work on adding video and tracks to this issue archer. Lets hope this thread succeeds where the various ones i've made or have heavily participated in have failed to get any changes.
-
7
-
-
On 4/11/2022 at 3:37 PM, Gypsy 1-1 said:
Yes, but since Serbia purchased 77-1 (RVV-SD) from Russia in previous years, we can add 1 and 1. There is simply no other evidence or photos yet.
Okay, but this is very recent, assuming they end up buying them in useful quantities. The current set of DCS modern jets is focused on 2003-2007. As such, it doesn't fit into the current period. Not to mention the lack of information about the rocket itself.
On 4/28/2022 at 3:28 PM, Gypsy 1-1 said:After some tests I can hardly see a difference. It's still very easy to notch.
If anything its much worse based on my own testing.
-
1
-
-
Must of missed it in the patch notes then? I’ll take a look
-
1
-
-
Yeah and now nearly 3 years...
-
1
-
The critical angle of attack is wrong, and its not because the F2 view shows the pitch angle.
in Flight Dynamics
Posted
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.