Jump to content

BlackPixxel

Members
  • Posts

    860
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About BlackPixxel

  • Birthday 01/01/1996

Personal Information

  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pretty certain for the 77-1 in that video. The target is to the right (target 3 in 3d space, the one with the diagonal cross), so the missile goes to the right and UP for the loft. Without loft that indicated launch range of up to 90 km on the HUD would be impossible against a typical target.
  2. From changelog: Weapons. AMRAAM's were too easy to notch when performing a notching maneuver inside of pitbull range - solved. Improved range gate modeling for missiles with active radar sensors. Does this also affect the R-77 (also an active radar sensor missile)? Does the "range gate modeling" include the ambiguous range + doppler meassurements, which will still make it hard to track notching targets in ground clutter and not allow the target to be magically seperated from the ground by range? How can the missile itself be notched outside of pitbull range? How tight is the velocity gate now? I also think that many complaints about Aim-120 being to easy to notch come from the fact that most jets in DCS have perfect RWR without any angular error. So defeating a missile is just a matter of putting the RWR missile icon on the 3/9 line, works every time due to ultra precise RWR.
  3. The Shkval slew has this very annoying bug when using analog axis: When during the slew the direction of travel is changed by more than 90°, one of the directions of travel will be set to zero. Here is an example: I hold the analog stick to the right and the Shkval moves right. I move the analog stick in the bottom right corner and the Shkval moves diagonally downwards and to the right. Now I move the stick so that it is only downwards, and the Shkval stops moving. I keep holding the stick all the way down and additionally deflect it left and right, and the Skval only moves left and right. It does NOT move downward and left/right as it should in that particular case. Note that I do NOT center my stick, for the bug to appear it is important that the analog stick is moved along its maximum deflection. This bug is very annoying, especially when trying to track moving targets, as the Shkval will suddenly stop moving even though you are deflecting the analog stick. Attached is also a Trackfile where I just move the analog stick around, and the Shkval does not correctly follow the movement because of the bug that this post is about. I hope that my inputs can be read from that trackfile. Shkval_slew.trk Thank you!
  4. Those new R-27ER models that came with yesterdays patch are a very nice surprise! I really like the added detail. But I am not sure about the texture. They are rather dark and dirty. It looks like it got recovered from a burning weapons depot. R-73 are also quite dark. In real world images the missiles are usually rather clean and in a very bright white.
  5. You have to compare speed at certain times, or time for certain speeds. Not just overlaying the graphs.
  6. Here are the tracks for F-15C and SU-27 f15_high.trk f15_low.trk high_temp.trk low_temp.trk
  7. I have made a comparison of the acceleration at 8.4 °C vs 40 °c in a level flight at 12 km altitude some days ago. 8.4 °C: 40 °C: As you can see, the acceleration is just stretched a bit in time as it gets warmer. But the top speed stays the same. Meanwhile the Su-27 shows massive differences: 8.4 °C: 40 °C: Su-27 at warm temperatures accelerates alot slower and reaches a much slower top speed (look how the warm curve begins to show the approach of a max value with a bend, while the cold curve is growing linear at the same time.) One of them is wrong (or both are wrong). ED needs to take a look at those FM's again.
  8. Only against the AI super chaff (which somehow is much more effective than player chaff in DCS). I have yet to see an Aim-120 or Aim-54 go for chaff in probably the last year of multiplayer flying, but I recently saw an Aim-120 go for chaff against AI. I could not believe my eyes!
  9. Instead of spending your time on fairy tales you should look at actual data, such as the CFD done by Heatbur or the NASA simulations. The DCS missile is now much closer to them than before. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf Does't look like Mk47 is reaching anywhere near Mach 5 from a Mach 1.2 launch at 45k ft, does it? For Mach 5.0, you have to launch it from Mach 2.0 at very high altitudes: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html Mk60 would of course reach Mach 5.0 under slightly less extreme launch parameters. Aim-54 is still a decent weapon in DCS, I got killed by a 95 km shot launched from 7600 m at Mach 0.65 yesterday. But don't expect it to be the super missile at lower altitudes that you saw in DCS before.
  10. The motor is not that huge in relation to the missile. Yes, the missile has a litte higher fuel per missile weight ratio than other missiles, but it also has to fight so much more drag down low.
  11. I think you are the only one who knows the missile maths, so we cannot contribute to that, only read You mean at higher altitude the rocket motors have more impulse than at lower altitudes? I wonder if that is simulated in DCS.
  12. The constant thrust in the two stages is just a simplification. So instead of having a complex curve, divide it into two sections and take the average values of those sections. According to this table, the impulse per weight of the R-27ER should be 94. So if you say that in DCS it carries to much fuel, does the its fuel mass have to be reduced while increasing the average ISP to keep that value at 94?
  13. Boost: 2.5 s with 5600 kg and 22.86 kg/s Sustain: 5.5 s with 3500 kg and 14.8 kg/s Ratio of boost to sustain thrust is a bit less than I would expect. The other simulated chart in the R-27 SAM proposal also suggests a higher boost/sustain ratio:
  14. Here is the motor configuration of the R-33 in DCS, it is close to what you read from the graphs: Boost: 4 s, 37280 N, 15.4 kg/s Sustain: 16 s, 13950 N, 5.9 kg/s So it has 156 kg of rocket fuel. In DCS the missile weighs 520 kg. What do you mean with fuel doesn't burn that way? That the fuel burn is constant in each stage (simplification of the game) or something else? Regarding the R-27E motor: Yes, the end result will not change, but it is just about getting a realistic value for the missile that is in line with the official data, and not taking some third party data and saying that the real manual is wrong. What does affect the R-27E in DCS is that because of using the third party data, the boost/sustain ratio got weakened alot, so now the missile lost its initial acceleration, meaning that at closer ranges it now takes longer for it to hit. Meanwhile the manual gives a much stronger value for the boost, and also the PDF about the proposal of using the R-27 as a surface to air missile shows a much larger boost/sustain ratio than we have right now in DCS.
  15. Here is the same with the R-33ED in DCS, launched at 10 km from 500 m/s: After 60 s it has travelled about 45 km and is down to a speed of 434 m/s. The top speed it reaches is 1065 m/s. Quite a bit weaker than your estimation.
×
×
  • Create New...