cauldron

I have a question. Why does the gun piper (with the radar lock on the target) follow the gun snake? The gun snake is real time paths of bullets if fired, but the radar enabled piper should be predictive, much like that of the F-15's and Su-27/29's - but its not it follows the snake and becomes in essence a glorified range marker on the snake than a predictive mechanic. Is this a bug? or does the M2000 CQB radar gun mode non-predictive and is working as intended? cheers.

If the drawings are correct then, you can make some basic assumptions between them: The nose cone for the 530D is a better shape than the 530F, The fins are smaller. - in particular a better shaped nose + smaller less draggy fins = better kinematics alone due to less drag, let alone the other items you all speak of. I'll leave the rocket etc, to others who have better info.

Zeus, We clearly all want the best sim possible. The community has put a lot of passion and work into their involvement. That said impatience happens, we'll deal with it :cry: But it does give ED an opportunity to rally the sim community around DCS, it all depends on how they react. I do wish this opportunity to address the Matra missiles and missiles in general leads to a bigger DCS following. There is no greater community than the sim crowd, and DCS has such amazing potential. But the potential needs to be realized. P.S. i have been enjoying flying the M2000 greatly. Thanks razbam for making it. :pilotfly:

They are not so good either during the burn. The drag chute is open the moment the missile is launched and the 550 flies ballistic for a second or two before it follows the seeker. Its just that within the burn time is the only time they can successfully intercept a target.:joystick:

We need to keep this thread alive, much important data has been gathered at much effort by the community in an effort to simulate the Mirages Missiles as best as possible. It is time for the community, our community to keep this thread going "without Chaos"

In my play experience - whether its labeled simple or not, the R550 & R530 outright kill on a single hit...problem is they really never get a chance to hit. Sedenion, can you do a similar compilation for the R530D? cheers :music_whistling:

i noticed in my own play thru that the R550 in PVP dogfights behaves the same as your last test [5:15 mark], the R550 flies ballistic for about 1 sec before guiding to the seeker's target, the AIM9 seems to start its turn asap. - Also the missile[R550] should be able to do a 50g turn, i've only seen it do 30g max in dcs. i have a tacview up in the other thread concerning the R550. Basically fire on boresight just outside of guns range, only chance the missile has to hit.

Wow.... the thread is about the R550 dysfunctionality in DCS, its NOT an argument over CAS or IAS or even how to conduct an intercept. Can we stay on topic, thanks. Or please open a new thread about data needed to intercept.

thank you

Guys, this is an important thread.... take the Cock Waving somewhere else please. Jojo please stop bickering, GG please let it go... getting into a fight in the thread derails it, which neither of you want.

the drag-energy problem. Seeker i feel im not qualified to comment on.

You know, i still had my lingering doubts about the missiles, but this for me, puts the nail on the coffin. Something is fundamentally going on that is wrong.

That all depends on how the atmosphere has been modeled, and the supersonic and subsonic Cd. But drag is not linear by an means.

I agree, but of note was the lack or reaction for the first 3 seconds of flight, it just flew straight, then decided to try to track. But more importantly ... That's it? no comment over the performance of the R550 launch at 2:26 or the AIM9 at 2:51 mark? I am surprised you have no comment on those.

A video feed from a tacview PvP between Mig29-M2000 & F15. Clearly demonstrates that something is seriously amiss. Not only does there seem to be a drag chute deployed after rocket burnout but during as well. The R550 reacts very slowly to off boresight and can do 30g max. [ame] [/ame] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quick summary of vid: a good one to see as 6 iR missiles were fired in total from R60's AIM9 and R550. Game: Tacview ACMI - Universal Flight Analysis Tool 1st missile: R550 launch @ 1:25 M2000 vs Mig29 probably outside launch envelope but clearly shows a lack of maneuver at launch slowly gaining up to a fixed 30g turn to miss. Definitely not much off boresight as R550-ll should have. 2nd missile launch: 1:36 series of 3xR60's in sequence. the second hits - but its a near proximity hit, not damaging the F15 severely, but note that the R60 has more energy conserved in its flight as the R550. 3rd missile launch: 2:26 R550 launched @ 1.2NM range [7200feet range] @ initial speed of M.94 vs target similar speed in an approx 3g turn. Note how after the missile rocket stops burning it literally deploys a drag chute and slows down. Missile is clearly trying to track but has no energy after about only 1.2 to 1.5NM of travel, still .5NM behind its target being overcome by the launching plane! 4th missile launch: 2:51 AIM9 fired by teammate in F15 whom should have known better at M2000 in the slot behind the Mig29, but its curious to note that it is launch in similar parameters - but distance is approx 2NM vs 1.2NM for the R550 - to the previous R550 - to bad its directed to the teamate, but note the energy gain during burn (the aim suffers little drag during burn and in coast phase remains with high energy to intercept the M2000. Near hit by proximity causing minor damage only. 5th missile launch: 3:47 AIM9 from F15 to MiG29 at approx 1.5NM range high angle off/head on shot connects only by proximity and does no damage. 4:20 series of gun engagements which culminate in the MiG29 lost right side tail surfaces and R-engine with fire. 6th Missile launch: 5:10 AIM9 from F15 to MiG29 at 1NM distance with target slowed to .4M non maneuvering... Kill shot. 7th Missile launch: 5:45 from second M2000 at <1nm range. Only successful R550 hit on already burning wreck of MiG29

Now if only we could find some HUD images for the 530D :thumbup:

This corroborates the comments made by the HAF Mirage pilot -[posted by corleone: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1872&sid=037af91cc9223b6e46d0c887048191b4&start=60#wrapper ] that on the initial turn in to the F-16 the M2000 needed to make the Magic shot, and that in this case the Magic was in his opinion far superior to the AIM9. so maybe the is a case for better off angle and close range but a bit trade off in the longer range department. Though it no way excuses the current iteration of the missile. Posted this mainly for missile maneuverability reasons.... was a bit behind on the thread :)

Do you know what happens when you roll to 90deg or past 90deg? Specify if fc3 craft or M2000 thanks ;)

Eagle Dynamics apparently is.:(

lets try not to get hot under the collar... we need this to be a debate, not a fight. thanks.

Burn time alone JoJo is not a parameter you can use to make an Raero comparison. You need the Dv as rockets even with the same amount propellant can have different specific impulses, its more a how faster you want the missile to go because drag in atmosphere of a burning rocket changes depending on altitude and speed. Not to mention nozzle efficiencies are fixed per each rocket, no variables nozzles that i am aware of [correct me if i am wrong] I think ED's reliance on DLZ charts as Kinematic limitations has been clearly and logically argued as erroneous with respect to kinematics (even on the Rear aspect only case) yet they refuse to allow the overwhelming and INDEPENDENT sources which all point to the same (they are not all the same but close enough for proving the rear aspect DLZ cases wrong!) conclusion: That the DCS missiles are kinematically underperforming. I believe with the launch of the M2000c module it has come to the point of absurdly obvious that the 530D in DCS has become a far WVR missile or very short range BVR missile. 1. In game it has zero chance of a look down shoot down of a target flying at or near its published ability to shoot down, and 2. i'll eat my own sock if anyone can show a viable tacview of the 530D intercepting a MACH3 level non maneuvering target at 80k feet at any range even vertical [approx 5NM if launched from 50k feet]. The Point is: The missile, given a DLZ basis apparently, simply can't do its mission - which is proof enough for me that something is wrong. My conclusion from that is that the underlying basis for Kinematics cannot be based a from a real life apposing force DLZ chart can't be forced anymore toward the ridiculous... Also why does the 530D have a AIM54 cross-sectional drag profile? is this a fudge factor to make it match to some unknown parameter? ...just look at how the west totally underestimated the R73 until germany unified, then the "oh shit" moment and everyone got helmet mounted high off boresight capability asap. I wish ED would open up to even investigating thoroughly all the presented data and without pride goes over it. If DCS is EDs baby then they should, instead of posted prideful reactions. IMO I don't see much change coming, its not a SIM anymore in my eyes its just another game that looks really really good. To personally see real world F-16 pilot have explicatives to say about this raises a red flag for me, personally. I can't wait for the MOD to be completed, hopefully a server will soon advertise its use of the MOD and i am sure the sim'ers will come to that server, and it will be a place for the newcomers to graduate to after getting their teeth into dcs. One can hope....

Lets have a thread about the Radar Only: All goes as long as its about the Radar. I have some questions, since lines and azimuth are working as well as range scale/cut off, and I already know antenna steering is not working; so this leads me to several questions: 1. Is the Antenna scan lines & azimuth respective to the Mirage's attitude or the Horizon? What happens when you roll the plane? What about beyond 90 degrees? 2. In 2.0 i tested TWS/PID mode and found it lost a PID-track at +/- 30deg elevation and were within 10deg azimuth respect to the nose of the plane approx. is this normal? 3. Also, I have noted that the radar seems to detect in RWS mode objects excellently at long range, but targets within 10NM straight in front seem to not be lockable to PID nor PIC modes. But if you switch to CQB modes it locks them up nicely... these are non maneuvering Ai test planes i set up. Anyone have an idea?

So...is it just me, or is it not insignificant that the background on leatherneck website is a P-38? :music_whistling:

Thank you.

Well, i am suspect that the current numbers are based of wikipedia... we can do better right?