ArkRoyal
Members-
Posts
56 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
-
1.) Your point exactly? At this point the aircraft is dead. Getting a cue from the aircraft computer to tell the pilot he can either take his chances with counter measures or eject is alot better than crossing your fingers when your dead and dont even know it. 2)Once again....so? A data link could easily keep the planes in contact is nearly every situation. Add in a system like the F-35's DASS, and your even better off (which can also IFF). Not to mention IFF here isnt the point. The pilot would have control over the system, so he could choose to disengage it if he saw a collision coming. If he didnt see it coming, we'd still be getting a collision missile defense system or not. 3) I was never implying you had that information in first place. Only that you know you have been launched on. Once you have been fired on, the computer could take into account the launch platforms kinematics and determine what it is and is not possible for the missile to do. Missile type could either be selected by the pilot or computer depending on how you want to rig it. Ideally, it would be designed to allow the pilot to choose the threat after feeding possible threats to the pilot. IE: hostile platform was Su-27SM, range/speed/aspect etc was blank blank blank, pilot chooses threat from possible missile selection of enemy plane, computer offers defeat options based on pilot selection and other factors. Essentially, the computer shows the pilot profiles the the enemy missile simply couldnt fly based on the launch conditions. Pilot selects one based on his intentions (for example, does he want to go completely defensive or not.) In fact, such data could inform the pilot when he absolutely needs to go full defensive, by showing him the point of no return. And that is going off my original assumption that no further information is received on the missiles status. Some modern sensors my very well be able to track the missile at certain ranges. Not that my ideas matter, because the system already exists. And appears to function almost exactly I envisioned myself, ". By identifying the opponent's platform based on emitter identity or suspected target type, based on systems that are in the inventory of the enemy, the potential weapons load of the opponent is determined, as well as their effective range and tactical ability. [36] These libraries are for the Euro Fighter operators freely programmable and the current threat level can be adjusted at any time. [32] When flying with high g-loads information is sent from the Flight Control System (FCS) to the ESM to take into account the bending of the wings in the position determination of the targets. The ESM appreciates the distance to the destination, based on the signal amplitude. The DF accuracy is higher with less than 1 ° as the CAPTOR radar. [32] [37] Due to its high angular accuracy, the system can also be used for geolocation of emitters and fire control. [38] [13] [39] [40] [Ah. 1] The positioning of air targets is challenging since they move in an unknown distance to an unknown price and unknown speed. In order to solve the problem two Kalman filter for a recursive Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) is used, which the antenna positions Interferometriemessungen for angle determination, the Pulse Descriptor Word (PDW), mission data, real-time constraints and track data used by other sensors distance, speed and heading of the target output. . If the angle change is too low, for example, because the transmitter is at a great distance or in front of the aircraft, there are two ways: [36] [Ah. 2] The wingmen send over the data link angle measurements and the PDW. This data is angular, signal-to-noise ratio, SEI (Specific emitter ID of the threat / target radar) over time correlates. The own machine and the wingmen can so determine the target position, because the distance between the own aircraft is known (triangulation.) [36] [41] do not have this option available, accesses the second option: The DAC calculates whether through the emitter there is sufficient information in order to give the pilot a maneuver instruction on the HUD. If this is the case, there are two standard maneuvers are available: the 2-turn two 90 ° curves with a straight line to be flown in between, so that the direction of flight after the maneuver with the foregoing is the same. The second maneuver is sinusoid, in principle, the emitter is served here in a zigzag. The overlays in the HUD are like while dodging missiles; an arrow indicates the direction and g-force to, in addition to the price and the duration of the maneuver are displayed. [36] [Ah. 2] In the event that no antenna in vertical tail exists (see below), there is a second patent by BAE Systems, which can calculate the target positions in three dimensions with azimuth measurements maneuvers overlays and data links. The data processing is more complex here with 12 Kalman Filter as angular measurements, the PDW and other things must also be correlated internally in a database. The Interacting Multiple Model differs here, whether the target air maneuvers or maintains its course. Otherwise, the data processing is identical to that described above. The maximum range of the method is specified with 120 nm (216 km). [42] [Ah. 2] Due to the principle this is only possible in the front hemisphere, since the right rear pod contains the towing jammers. In the rear hemisphere is only a rough indication of the angle (6-18 GHz or 32-38 GHz) or sector (0.1-6 GHz) as the bottom left, top right, etc. possible. Electronic Warfare [Edit]"
-
Whoa whoa whoa. Who said anything about doing this in DCS? This isnt in the game section of the forum for a reason.... Second, all of those things you mention could easily be accounted for. 1) computer could warning the pilot before a high G maneuver is sustained. It could also of course be programed to fly withing human limits, just like it is programed to fly within the aircraft limits.... 2) It can use its sensors to defect friendly planes, even data links could be used for this....There is no reason whatsoever a machine could not detects its own wingman. If you install this system in a plane without the requisite sensors to make it work, thats just like installing a AMRAAM in a plane without a radar. 3) If for some reason you installed this on a plane without sufficient sensor fusion or data links to understand its own surroundings, I mentioned that such a system could be either pilot directed and pilot initiated. For example, the ai could just plot courses and the pilot fly them himself. Or if the pilot perceives a problem at any point in the auto verstion...he just takes back control.
-
Ok so it doesn't exist. I hadn't heard of anything like it either. But I dont see any reason why would couldnt or wouldnt. Not perfect maybe, but quite a bit more precise than any human reasoning could produce. Particularly in situations where it might be almost impossible for a human pilot to determine the right course of action due to the number of kinematic solutions being very low. As for being perfect, I also cannot see why not. Presume for the sake of argument that you have at least on missile where you have all the data for it. Physics is absolute, not subjective. It doesn't ever change, and is always the same. If you know the missiles capabilities, and the target planes abilities, then I see no reason that a computer couldn't determine all possible routes of escape right up to the physical limit. Weather would play a role, but this could be input as well, or compensated for by adding in a safety of minus 10 percent or so. This could also be dont for any other unpredictable factors. Essentially, at that point missile defeat is binary. Either there is a available flight profile to live or there is not. This of course bring up another subject as well, what happens when we start using AI for jets completely? The 6th gen jet is supposed to be optionally manned. At some point, you will be able to make a jet that requires no human pilot. It seems to me that at that point air combat both WVR and BVR would become a routine binary exercise. If both AI aircraft know with a reasonable level of accuracy what the characteristics of the other are, then BFM becomes merely a physics experiment. With a human pilot, mistakes get made, estimates of energy and aspect wrong etc. A properly programs AI wouldn't have this issue. For the sake of argument, I am presuming the computers were programmed properly for BFM etc. When two planes merge, (or even well before this really) they would be able to see based on the attributes of the opponent plane all possible BFM solutions. Choose what works. Then one plane wins. Every single time. Perhaps even the other plane realizes it cant win and just runs. Or perhaps it realizes it cant run either. Perhaps nations run sims to find this out before the war even starts and dont even waste their time and just surrender....
-
So just doing some reading on weapons/playing DCS or BMS got me to thinking about missile defense in general and something that should have been obvious earlier sprang to mind. Perhaps they do and Ive never seen anything on it, but why dont jets of the modern age have a missile defeat auto pilot? To be clear, this would be something you could turn on or off when you wanted to. When a pilot tries to defeat a BVR missile, he is basically doing some well trained guesswork to defeat said missile. Being show down either comes from entering the missiles no-escape zone on accident or making a bad guess about how to defeat a incoming threat in any other geometry. So essentially, human error. It seems to me like a computer could plot a missile defeat course with essentially nearly 100% chance of success. It has been said on here before that even inside of NEZ or RTR a missile can still be defeated kinetically but that doing so is extremely difficult because the number of successful defeat options is extremely low and hard to fly. Wouldn't a computer be able thread the needle even then? Even if there was only one tiny little loophole to escape, a computer could find it and fly it. Seems like it would work like this: 1) aircraft sensors ID thread, or aicraft is programs for theatre threats, or pilot uses info to input this manually when fired on. 2) When pilot wants to activate the computer autopilot for BVR. OR it could function as a component of his HSD or hud, simply showing him a flight path he could fly. Perhaps it could show options for both offensive or pure defense routs based on what the pilot wanted to do. IE: it could show the pilot what his options were. How fare he could commit etc. Even once committed what defensive options would succeed. Lastly, for any missiles a nation did not have data for, it seems to me that "close enough" estimates could be programmed into said device, since this would still be more information than the human pilot would have. So has anyone heard of anything like this?
-
Just a sidenote here: a R-27ER does not have a longer range than the AIM-120C. It doesnt even outrange the AIM-120A. This is a misnomer caused by impressions given to people from FC2 and cursory readings of max missile ranges given on most websites. In reality, the ranges given for missiles on most web pages are not for equivalent altiitude/speed at launch. IIRC, the 70nm often quoted for a ER is for a mach 2.5 launch from 50k against a equivalent target. This is not necessarily the case for a slammer, although data like that for that missile is still classified, even for the A. What we do know is that the A model was required to have more range than Sparrow. We also have data on the AIM-7F, which you can get from archive of SAC. Launched at a much lower height and much lower speed, RMAX for the aim7F was 53nm. Doing some interpolation for different launch conditions, you arrive at the fact that that AIM7-F/M and R-27ER were roughly equivalent. The aim-120A was superior to the ER and the 7M....and were now 3 generations of aim120 later..... Long story short, a missile from the late 80s to be anywhere near the ballpark of a missile from the mid 2000s.
-
[CLOSED] Climb rate appears to be to high, even for 109k
ArkRoyal replied to KenobiOrder's topic in Bugs and Problems
Your measure average climb rate if I'm reading your posts right. The problem with the flight model is climb rate at specific altitudes. Around sea level to 7000ft, to be precise. To do a climb test, maintain a constant speed of 300kmh IAS up to 7k. Use tacview or the in-game vario-meter to check the climb rate at different points. -
But I DO need to answer. :lol: My post was very relevant, for reasons I spelled out above. You apparently didn't read it, in the future please try to keep up with the conversation :D Oh and there is no need for inflammation. If you are getting inflamed, you might want to work on that. The current 109 IS too slow. I don't disagree with that. The issue here is that once again we are being fed the same old nonsense. Every time a flight model is disputed with historical documentation, "problems" are found in that documentation. And like I said before, those "problems" have no evidence to support their insinuation outside of the fact that the ED flight model doesn't agree with them.
-
[CLOSED] Climb rate appears to be to high, even for 109k
ArkRoyal replied to KenobiOrder's topic in Bugs and Problems
In game right now the 109 climbs at about 25m/s (5000ft/min) at max fuel and ammo etc. It should be around 22.5m/s (4400fpm). It has been this way for a long time. When it was first released, it climbed at around 6000ft/min. What I think is interesting here is that we somehow have a 109k that is too slow, but climbs to fast. -
You've got me all wrong. By all means continue your argument about 109 speed. Me pointing out their is bias on both sides is highly relevant to any legitimate debate. Its always important to know if all the players are on the level. :music_whistling: What you don't see here is that I'm trying to help you out. Albeit, I cannot in good conscience do that by pretending the wrong party here was never without its own foibles. This is the common ED tactic. Whenever concrete evidence is given to refute the present nature of a flight model, ED makes insinuations as to the accuracy of the documentation given. There is never any explicit evidence of this other than the FM not agreeing with the data. So you see, I'm helping us all out by pointing out that this same method is being used against both sides of the aisle. But to be fair, in good conscience, I simply must point out that this particular side of the aisle has sided with the aforementioned tactic when convenient. :megalol: But by all means....continue your arguments to fix the 109.
-
My good man, but I was on topic. I am merely commenting on the spirit of the discourse in this thread. :D
-
Oh I must say this is all rather entertaining. For those of you on the sidelines, or not familiar with the history of complaints for the DCS WW2 Aircraft, you might find what I'm about to say interesting. For those of you who are in the know, teeheehee. Alright people, what we have here is a classic case of the shoe being on the other foot. What is truly captivating here is watching the three primary axis fanboys on these forums doing their darnedest to prove the 109K is wrong through documentation. Interesting approach, considering that in every thread where documentation was used to claim axis aircraft were over-performing, they used every trick in the book to obfuscate the issue and claim the documents were wrong in one way or another. Now that Yo-Yo has castrated one of their own planes, they seek to prove him wrong with the historical documentation. :music_whistling: But I gotta hand it to Yo-Yo. I certainly dont agree with this approach, but at least he is being consistent with his usual explanation for a FM problem when it doesn't agree with government data. As per usual, the government data is flawed in some manner. The only evidence of this error being that ED's flight model doesn't agree with the historical data (which of course means its the historical data that is wrong, not the FM. :music_whistling:) There is never any explicit evidence of such documentation errors on the various governments parts: it is merely presumed that the governments in question were at fault in some convenient manner, and ED's math is never wrong.
-
Your point on this issue is largely moot. If in fact you actually conducted your level speed run correctly, we still don't really have a problem here. At least not relatively speaking. Your tested speed of 354mph about 5mph slower than the in game P-51s stop SL speed about about 360mph. This isnt bad considering that a P-51D (w/wing racks) could do 375mph to your K4's 370mph:music_whistling: You should rejoice that at least one aspect of the reletive 109/51 flight model is correct :megalol: By they way, I'm sure you just forgot to mention it :megalol:, but those same German graphs show that the current in game bf109 is massively over climbing! As of the latest patch the 109 at max internal fuel is still climbing at about 5000 feet per minute! Also known as 600 feet per minute faster than it should be! I am sure you were just about to either start a new climb thread or post your consternation at this error is one of the existing ones!
-
POLL: BRING BACK SFM MISSILES UNTIL AFM GETS APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE
ArkRoyal replied to ArkRoyal's topic in DCS Core Wish List
GGTharos basically said what I would have said regarding my data and where it comes from. However Ill add a few things. There is tons of data on the internet, and other places, on how these missiles should perform. I quite frankly do not have time to look it up for you right now, as this would be pages and pages of stuff. This subject has been talked to death on here, and the consensus BY FAR is that the missiles are majorly wrong in terms of their performance. I dont have time to dredge up dozens of threads for you. Look it up yourself. Im not here to convince you really. This thread was for people who already understand the nature of this issue and already know the data. -
POLL: BRING BACK SFM MISSILES UNTIL AFM GETS APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE
ArkRoyal replied to ArkRoyal's topic in DCS Core Wish List
I do not see it as a step backwards. The the method of the SFM missiles was wrong, but their general capability was more realistic, if not exactly realistic. Sometimes you get a better end result by cheating. The AFM missiles are completely----in terms of their combat abilities----rubbish as they are currently. With your point on updates---ok sure, like I said in improved AFM system is ideal. I agree with you. Question is, if ED could do that.....where has that been in the last 3 years? Also if I understand your point here, you seem to be implying cheating withing the AFM. Making a missile even more agile to compensate for bad guidance or aerodynamics does not seem very different to me than just doing the SFM. But I digress, this is just a difference in suggested method to get the same results. To me using the SFM would be faster. I dont see any-----effective-----gains in realism. Keep in mind that I'm thinking of realisim in terms of missile effectiveness for given parameters and ranges etc. Sure, they are more sophisticated that the SFM, but that doesnt make for more "realism" in a battlefield sense. Its not unlike a post GGTharos made recently concerning the way chaff is modeled. You could attempt to make it more sophisticated, but much like the missile AFM, your end result may not actually be more realistic. To your last point: I dont know how effective you think the AFM is right now, but a good pilot can dodge the current missiles from nearly any aspect or range. Even at the typical kill range of 6-8nm. When people shoot at me I defeat nearly all missiles, the only ones I get hit by ususally are ones I didn't see coming, or I got overwhelmed from several sides. -
POLL: BRING BACK SFM MISSILES UNTIL AFM GETS APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE
ArkRoyal replied to ArkRoyal's topic in DCS Core Wish List
You have missed my point. The AFM---in terms of phyics----seems fine. The missile parameters, as you said are one of the factors making them bad. The OTHER factor (and I am not the only person to have said this) is the PN only guidance. Even if you get the DCS missiles mod the missiles are still very very ineffective. This is because they have very out-moded guidance for the targets they are trying to hit. So in summary once again: AFM missiles need AFM guidance. Doing one without the other is, as this game should be making clear to everyone who has played online or otherwise, a very bad idea.