Ultra

Wow, that was a fast change! Thanks a lot, I think it is an appropriate temporary addition. :thumbup:

Hey Maverick, Obviously the Mirage is only partially combat capable right now (no IFF, no Manual Radar Movement) so it's not imperative until it's more completed, but if the Magic II missiles stay in their current abissmal state, this mod may be worth allowing in your integrity check: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157862 Also here is the thread illustrating the Magic's problems if you haven't seen. Watch the video in post #192 to see the problem in action. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156901&page=7

It's funny, in-game the Magic and Sidewinder look like totally different missiles even though it is often said they are very similar in real life.

I know it's not linear, the change just seemed extreme.

3rd missile launch, why does the Magic decelerate so quickly from M2.44 to M0.6 and then the deceleration becomes gradual from M0.6 to ~M0.5 even though it looks like it hasn't started falling yet?

That's why I'm saying someone should make some graphs! There's a lot of talk, and talk is cheap. :D

Yes, there is resistance to change the game performance, but I think if we come up with enough evidence it won't be able to be ignored. Forum users have gotten quite large game parameters changed before. It's not like it never happens, this subject is just one of the most difficult. I think people would really appreciate graphed data about chaff effectiveness. I think it may be enough for change, IF something is shown to be very suspicious. If you do collect this data, remember both the aggressor and target aircraft need to be human controlled.

Ok, that's something. The only thing is I think to make that into a case for change we need numbers like how many chaff bundles it takes to spoof those missile XX% of the time. That will show quantitatively what's going on in-game.

The discussion about current game tactics isn't really the point. Finding a possible flaw in the ER modeling is. (Of course) What I think someone needs to do is test 'chaff effectiveness per bundle' and 'reacquiring time' of the ER versus those of the regular R and/or AIM-7. I think that data might show the problem we're looking for. (I would try to do it, but I'll bet some of you guys would do a better job. Also I've been having problems with TacView lately ;))

Well I hope there's enough user recorded data in this thread to satisfy the ED Team. It seems like there is. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156875

Well... yes, but I think that is going to be worked on. Right now the 530D seems to fly a little like a brick. I hope this won't be a problem for too long.

The Mirage 2000 we have is really an 80's plane. The way I see it, going against 90's or even late 90's armed F-15s and SU-27s is just punishing yourself. It's fun to try and succeed against all odds and kudos to you if you're good at it, but we should really be practicing against realistically armed opponents using AIM-7s and R-27Rs.:)

I understand what you're saying SD. On a different note, what I'd like to see next is a test of Hit Percentage of ER vs. Bundles of Chaff Released. I think the next aspect to look at is if the radar/seeker performs correctly in 'reacquiring' the target. I would expect any radar missile to be trashed when the sky is flooded with chaff, but what happens in game when just one or two bundles are released? How soon will the radar/seeker calculator begin to ignore these decoys? I don't know what the expected reacquisition times are for real radars on targets, after some chaff is released.....

I agree, it seems the base guidance is fine. Good to know. Lost radar lock due to chaff is not modeled. The chaff resistance, or lack of, is based on a probability calculator. I think it's just that the calculator is wrong somehow. Either by taking into account incorrect game data (such as chaff that is too far away from the target to realistically have an effect, like you mentioned), or by having the chaff resistance too low due to not enough real world data about each plane's CCM abilities. Or I could be wrong and the CCM probabilities are approximately correct.... :)

Did you give the targets an offset or was it all head on? I think one of the big problems is lack of knowledge and data about how effective CCM is for all the different planes' radars. But I'm sure his has been said many times before.

What's the hit rate of the ER against a target within parameters, not going defensive and not deploying chaff, but taking an offset? (Look up situation) It should be very very high, shouldn't it?

There are acknowledged problems that are being worked on. Here is Zeus's post:

+1 to this. I too have no idea how to use this specifically for the Mirage. I also don't know how it affects your adversaries. I only know the FC3 implementation, which is simple.

Thanks for the response Zeus.

The Mirage is only available for the 1.5 Beta right now. There should be an update to make it compatible for 2.0 on the 26th. So tomorrow or today depending on when you're reading this. Edit: whoops, it seems the update is already out. It should work for you now.

Wow, the Harrier GR7/GR9, very impressive. This is very interesting as they will become some of the more modern dedicated attack aircraft we have PFM/ASM of, in addition to the A-10C of course. They will compliment the Warthog well!

Don't forget we are getting the Viggen. Alhough I'd still like an SU-24.

http://www.maddog-simulations.com/ Check us out. We're a very casual DCS club, but many of our members are very experienced.

Thanks for the update! The Stuka, wow, very exciting! It's such an iconic plane. Hope you guys have a great holiday and that everything goes smoothly in the new year. :)

^The F-14 is already on the way! :) (And so is the Corsair! Unless you mean the A-7 Corsair II)