nighthawk2174

The in game AIM-7 has a full drag curve as in every .1M value has a unique CD value associated with it. *note this graph is from my missile mod thread and expected is using the rlf drag curve and thrust values from "Standard Missile Characteristics AIM-7F" -From all the info I've ever seen on Russian missiles the current thrust values for all the Russian missiles being discussed (24,27,73,77) are correct as is currently. -A burned-out R27ER weighs only ~473lbslbs(79.3kg) which considering the size of the missile isn't really that much. -It has almost double the current lift because the 27 series hasn't been updated yet -? The target was well above the nose of the launching aircraft (who is even very slightly nose down). The course corrections steering dot was almost off the top of the max error circle... -The real lift coefficients and max aoa absolutely have been measured and tested in wind tunnels/flight tests but we won't see those numbers for decades. -why????? give it time and each missile will get improved, additionally, that would give the Russian missiles more performance than they should have. -Besides this game isn't about being balanced and there will still be missiles with appropriate drag values such as the phoenix and SD10 anyway. -I never said they designed them for this purpose. But I mean it shouldn't really be surprising that the 77 should probably lose speed quicker: It's a bigger missile with a very high transonic drag for its class. So even if the fins produce less drag than the 120b's the other aspects of the missile such as the larger size, slightly different nose cone shape, large central wings, and all the other small bits such as the datalink antenna bar all add up. -Maybe so I never said that at high supersonic speeds the lattices weren't rather low drag as far as fins go. It's just there's more factors than this that add up. -yup agreed -Yes agreed -Well I guess its a matter of how much extra drag the ER produces over the amraam. -An empty amraam weighs around ~238lbs(62.6kg) and as said above an empty 27ER weighs around ~473lbs(79.3kg). Considering these weights I have little doubt that each could get quite slow considering the relative sizes and weights. Well yeah, i never said the current speed of the R77 in-game was correct. I disagree, from a document I have called "Aerodynamic Coefficients Measurement on a model of a Sparrow Aim-7M Missile in the DREV trisonic Wind Tunnel" shows that these values are probably quite a bit higher than .7-.75. DCS currently for the AIM7 uses a value of 1.14 for low Mach numbers. and well... we have IASGATG's work as well The only differences between the Amodel is that the Bmodel "had a new WGU-41/B guidance section. It had software in reprogrammable EPROM modules, a new digital processor and other electronics updates." The above are actual flyout charts as in this is what the missile does. 5V55R: Let's visualize this in terms of drag this is just a quick chart generated by a small matlab program I wrote. I basically just had it calculate the drag for the entirety of a flight for the HARM drag curve I had generated. As you can see at the transonic region there is a notable rise in the slope of the drag curve but it's not for a particularly long time From my understanding, those numbers are max launch ranges, not how far it will actually travel. And as such a drag reduction, lift increase, and lift induced drag decrease, would probably allow the ER to hit in the above conditions. I'm a bit lost by what you're trying to say here. The amraam is a PD seeker and really doesn't care that much about ground clutter. In terms of it losing lock on a maneuvering target if you speaking about this as it is in DCS right now this is due to the seeker no having a MPRF mode currently which would significantly reduce the size of the notch (from my best understanding of the sources I've read somewhere in the range of 30-45kts is probably what it is irl). And yes the range (ins bug) and angle off the boresight they can lock are bugs.

I mean you can look at the code as well and this isn't the case. Keep in mind the drag coefficient isn't the major factor in the drag equation, velocity is as its a squared factor. It is the major determining factor, all the other variables are either constant or don't change drastically (for most shots). As such the CD value will largely just impact the rate the drag force increases or decreases with V. Additionally, the amount of time spent in the region with a really high drag coefficient, M0.9 - 1.4 (on most missiles), is quite often not particularly long. Well, there are several things here. A) All the other missiles are still the old model from when they were reworked back in 2012ish so obviously they would underperform quite a bit compared to the newer amraam (Not that they really should be anyway). The Russian missiles are absolutly still to draggy, as such just give ED time to fix them. Now that they've finally admitied there's a problem with the missiles and are actually working on them... It takes time to run CFD though. B) The R77 is a strange missile, while at high supersonic speeds it should be similar (but still more draggy) to a 120b in drag but as it gets closer and closer to transonic speeds those grid fins will start producing more and more drag than a standard fin model. So I don't exactly know if i'd use it as a missile to say 'amraam slows down to slowly'. Same with the ER as its a much bigger missile than the amraam as well. - Additionally from my own cfd work the R77 is a bit slower than what I have it as. The truth probably lies somewhere in between ED's values and the ones I have: Something I think your forgeting/ignorant about is that the body of a missile adds a huge amount of lift and in particular the nose cone shape can have a dramatic impact on this as well. The below image is from a document called "Performance Improvements with Sidewinder Missile Airframe Variants" you should be able to find it somewhere on the internet if you want to see for yourself. But for now, the basic summation of the paper is that they were testing the basic shape features of the amraam, in particular, the nose. So they put an amraam nose on a 9L/M and significantly reduced the rear fin size. Yet: the Cl and hence the g performance of this modified missile went up! This is in no small part due to the change in the nose cone shape which has a significant impact on drag and lifting performance; far more than one would think it would at that. Something I've noticed over the years is this general rule which really hasn't let me down yet. When dealing with Russian equipment, stated max range numbers tend to be for the most optimal launch conditions. While for US/Chinese equipment it tends to underestimates/more conservative criteria. Just as an example during the Iran-Iraq war a silkworm flew, and hit, a tanker at 120%+ of its previously stated max range. Wel from my info the 9M should have a max alpha around 20°. So, assuming that this higher value is true, if I was a betting man I'd bet a decent sum of money this is due to the fact that all non- AIM120 and AIM7 missiles suffer from more lift induced drag than they should. And that the max alpha values were limited to allow said missiles to have appropriate ranges. Much like how the majority of missiles in the game have had their Cl values (including the R27 and R77) reduced so they don't just kill themselves off the rail.

Yeah pretty much, ECM in DCS is incredibly basic, wouldn't surprise me if the code is from the flanker days back in the early 2000's.

Is it possible just to make it an option in the special options to switch between the old and new settings?

Maybe, but, there's not a whole lot of terrain. And if its the size of the detailed terrain area that's the limiting factor it could be possible. If I had to make a guess, WWII wise, somewhere more towards Oceania would make more sense or somewhere near the south china sea. edit: tbh the south china sea region is not as big as I thought:

All the vulcans are the same values. For now their all based off of the same LUA file: scripts/Database/Weapons/shell_table.lua

Yeah if that's the case I hope this gets looked at soon. Having a slightly faster round (and hopefully less heat effect) would definitely be good for the sabre.

CFD takes time so give them a bit. Until then if your curious what it may look like you can try out: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257696

And this precludes using this solution why?

? my pics they're at full res 2560x1440.

As a tip for your testing which may help out for raw performance is if you set g effects to "none" it removes the blackout effects could help out your testing.

NP, now in the mod I did change the thrust values to match the 'Expected AIM7' performance but made no changes to drag.

ED's AIM-7 is just about spot on with what I have Their Drag matches: almost exactly The main difference is in the thrust which I have no clue where their values come from.

??? No i'm not, stop strawmaning my argument. A) This isn't a theory: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4050741&postcount=41 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4106908&postcount=80 B) me and habu (active duty A10 piolt) are good friends and we are in full agreement that the dispersion values for the guns in-game (gau8 and vulcan) are way too high. C)Its not a code rewrite its changing a few numbers in one lua file... edit: after looking through some F15 manuals found this: (100% circle as far as I can tell)

Yeah, I've looked to see if I can change it but I think it's in some locked file somewhere that I can't edit. For now though it's not too hard to just adjust based on the new performance. Its what I do with the default missile anyway.

In terms of a hud tape (as i've shown earlier in this thread) I use it to get a few details; firing range and the apparant dispersion when those shells hit / and the range whey I see the hits at. This then allows me to compare what I see in the video to DCS.

Well the R27 did come after the R24 and from my understanding had far more advanced digital electronics, which were upgraded latter in a "blk II" style program iirc. Plus the R27 body was more modular and the motor section was latter upgraded quite substantially. When I compare the 24R and the 27R from my mod I get these results:

No, unfortunately, the DLZ's for these jets seem to be hardcoded and I haven't been able to figure out how to change them.

AIM-7's have this capability from the M up for sure. Also kinematics wise I think the 24 and the 27 are very similar. The biggest limitation of the 24 is the 45 second timer on the missile which the 27 bumps up to just under 60sec.

Well that's up to ED and what they do shouldn't have an impact on what a 3rd party dev does.

Cool if you find any issues just report them here and i'll look into fixing them if I can.

Np

For the AIM7? For the R24 I ran two validation tests that you can see in the doc.

It was indicated in the razbam discord that this was the case, now of course if it isn't i'll update the doc.

Not sure what you have so it's hard to say. If you happen to have hud tapes where we see the impacts that'd probably be the best. Not really, yes they're different in size but the forces that cause dispersion are fundamentally the same. And I think this is best shown by the fact they have very similar dispersion values. Around 5mills for the 80% circle for both between 10 and 13 mills for the 100% circle for the two. As far as I'm aware there is one tornado variant with a Vulcan if I'm wrong then please do correct me. Not really, all of these guns have way to much dispersion and in particular, the CIWS which is mounted in such a way to have 1mill or less of dispersion. Yes they have barrel clamps but specific clamps to produce a shotgun like dispersion pattern haven't been used operationally on aircraft. I've really only seen one report on this and it was back from the early 60's as a test. And from these tests it was quite clear to produce specific patterns the clamp/muzzle device had to be shapped in quite a unique way. All the facts that my view is based on is present in this thread.