DCS FIGHTER PILOT

I know i'm not the only one to witness this so I know i'm not nuts. Also I have a video! This guy should have been deader than a doornail.

I have spoken to many fighter pilots who say that they can take 9 g’s no problem. Yet in DCS, pilots start to black out around 7. Is this something ED will get to in the future?

In the last several days, I have flown several sorties on the 104th and have shot around 20-24 Aim-120C's. Out of those fired, ONLY ONE managed a kill and it was at a target at 50000 ft from 10 miles away. So that's a kill rate of oh.... a little over 4%. I'm not questioning realism as much as I am the false advertising done by ED saying that this was even deadlier than before. Don't let yourself be fooled, it is not. There were instances where the guidance in the end went haywire and missed the target when it should not have but 90% of the time, the missile ran out of energy. BRING BACK THE PHOENIX!

Is it just me or is the P-51 one of the slowest warbirds in the sim right now? I was always under the impression that the mustang was one of the fastest planes of the war. Is this because the other warbirds are later models?

So here is my final take on all of this, please feel free to agree/disagree. The new Aim-120b/c in the new open beta is worse than before in terms of deceleration/drag in the 2000-1100 knot range. Apparently that slight increase in zero lift drag in that region caused it. Verification on this claim would be appreciated. Also going back to the comment on drag racing, up until terminal guidance, where the missile has to start to maneuver to intercept it’s target, it is indeed a “drag race.” For long range shots, this dominates far more than half of the missiles flight. During terminal guidance phase though, the massive decrease in induced drag allows for, 1: sidewinder like shots at close range, though I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this as it’s usually suicide to get into a WVR fight these days, and 2: far better energy management during high g turns, usually just before impact with the target. It’s just too bad that the missile is usually so slow at this point, a jet airliner could probably outrun it. Regardless, this is how it is now and I’m sure ED is right. If you want to get a kill with this new AMRAAM, you should even shoot closer than you did before, around 10 nm at or above 20000ft and at or over Mach 1. Even under these conditions though, when shooting against an experienced sim pilot, (like myself) the probability of kill will still be quite low. Best bet to get a kill AND to get home alive, is to try and sneak a shot off at longer ranges but again, against veteran pilots, this is rather difficult. In conclusion, it is no secret that I would have loved to have seen the deceleration far less drastic than it is now in the speed region mentioned above. To me, this is the crippling factor in its performance. You see, I was brought up on sims like Falcon 4 Allied force and BMS, where AMRAAMS can whack you even when you turn around 20nm away before impact! As such, these are how my BVR tactics developed. However it is not about what I want, it is about what is realistic and what is not and seeing how much work ED has put into this, I’m sure their closer than anyone else to getting it right. I suppose on the bright side, it far more difficult to get killed in a modern air combat scenario than previously thought right?!

It would be great if someone else could share a tac view or YouTube video on the open beta. You are seeing better ranges correct than in the stable correct? UPDATE: Been running more tests. Strait level Aim-120C shot, mach 1.05, 30000 ft. Open Beta Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds Missile Travels 24.3 nm. 59.1 seconds to decelerate from 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 78 seconds--->24.3nm 59.23 seconds-----> 2000-600 knots. Stable Version Results: Run 1: After 78 seconds missile travels 25.18nm. 55.2 seconds----> 2000-600 knots. Run 2: 25.7nm after 78 seconds, 57.46 seconds------->2000-600 knots. Something just does not seem right here folks. It would seem my AMRAAMS are not as advertised. Side Note. Agm-88 has less of a decceleration than the AMRAAM.

Has anyone else noticed the massive deceleration, that is actually greater than before, in the 2200-1100 knot range? It’s almost as if it’s flying through water even at 40k. A missile can have the best guidance and chaff/notch resistance in the world, but if it does not have enough energy to hit the target than what is the point? Here is are two videos showing the differences between the open beta and stable version AMRAAMS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3WCgOyc2T8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTbMXoT0BI Now, I do indeed see that ED found a higher zero lift drag in that region of speed, but it is by a small amount it seems. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276513 The lift induced drag on the next graph seems to have been nearly cut in half at certain CL values. I would think that this would have a much greater effect seeing as how a lift force is almost always present for a flying body correct? Perhaps this is not the correct way to think about it and forgive me if it is not as I am relatively new to aerodynamics. Also from what I am interpreting from Chizh’s post, the new AMRAAM should have better range not worse. Here is a direct quote ”Based on our internal testing, we have found that it provides a profound lethality in the AIM-120 in both range and tracking”. Again, from what I am seeing, this is definitely not the case for range. In conclusion, I do believe ED in their CFD analysis. How could one argue that based on all the work they did? But the fact that the AMRAAM is even worse now than before in terms of deceleration and range and after looking at the data and comments, I am led to think that perhaps the new aerodynamic values did not come through the update. If not then I suppose the AMRAAM is just a bad missile.

After looking at nighthawks cfd charts, And correct me if I’m wrong, but it does indeed seem as if the ED CFD and IASTAG CFD parallel each other almost perfectly. So drag does not seem to be the issue. The biggest handicap right now is indeed the burn time. If the ED AMRAAM where to burn as IASTAG estimated then it would follow the IASTAG drag curve nearly perfectly correct?

After doing a bunch of tests, I have found that it is even more difficult to get a kill than before seeing as how the missile looses its speed just too damm fast. So, the Aim-120b/c are really that bad in real life? I mean who am I to say ED is wrong? It’s also been verified by tons of community members so I guess that is that. One thing that is still quite troubling is that the SD-10 is still leagues ahead, even more so now, of the AMRAAM. Is this accurate?

From what I can see it’s even worse now than before when it comes to speed. My update must have been corrupted because I see absolutely no difference in deceleration between OB and stable AMRAAMS.

Well two possibilities exist from what everyone is saying, One, either I am nuts or two, my update was somehow corrupted. I just ran two tests, one in the stable version and one in the new open beta. There is absolutely no question that the missile in the open beta hit its target about 200 knots slower than in the stable version. Just by eyeballing both missiles during flight, the drag seems to be identical but seeing as how 200 knots of top speed was lost in the new amraam, the OB missile appears inferior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3WCgOyc2T8 STABLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTbMXoT0BI Open Beta AMRAAM SHOT OB.trk AMRAAM TEST STABLE.trk

As some of you know, ED released their new Aim-120 model today. What do you guys think of it? I have only tried it once but it seems as if it is even slower than before. Another 200 knots of max speed was lost.

RWS, Hi/Med PRF, 6 bar elevation and 140 degree azimuth scan. Bugged an F-16 at 85nm today too. As I said I actually really like this and hope it stays this way.

No AWACS present. Personally I like the long detection ranges, just wondering if it is representative of the real hornets radar that’s all.

Why not both? You can change to the one you want in the menu.

I don't ever seem to recall being able to see a fighter sized target on the Hornets radar from 90 miles out. Is this a bug or an update to the F-18 radar? The target I could see was a Su-27 at 30000ft hot on me at mach 1. My altitude and speed were the same.

Will the F-16 ever get custom RWR sounds for each type of contact or is that not representative of the real RWR?

It looks like the last update has nerfed the SD-10 quite a bit. Top speed has been reduced by about 300-400 knots when shot under "ideal conditions," and drag seems to have increased. I'm not going to lie, the SD-10 before the update did seem a bit overpowered. I mean, a top speed of 2700-2900 knots for a MRM is probably a bit too much in my humble opinion. My biggest concern though is why was none of this mentioned in the changelogs? Who is trying to be sneaky here?

In the recent update it appears as if the SD-10 got a nerf, and probably a much needed one. It seems as if the drag has been increased and the top speed of the missile when fired at over mach 1 at 30000 ft is now around 2400-2500 knots instead of a whopping 2700-2800. BUT MOST OF ALL, WHY WAS THIS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CHANGELOGS? Is someone trying to hide something? Why are these things never mentioned? It makes it very hard to follow what is going on in the development process.

Would you say you are optimistic about their CFD work Nighthawk? It looks like they have indeed put a great deal of work into it so I would say that I am optimistic .

Tracks and Tac View Show everything no need for detailed explanation on the differences, which is still night and day. And before anyone criticizes for making comparisons, if the two missiles are in the same sim, then comparisons must absolutely be made. Its rather silly to say otherwise. Now I get that the Sd-10 would probably enjoy a higher top speed than the AMRAAM since it burns longer but wouldn't it suffer from more drag? I would certainly think so seeing as how it has those rather large guiding fins when compared to the 120c. Now if I recall, nighthawks CFD said that Deka's SD-10 modeling was pretty much spot on when it came to the aerodynamic coefficients and that the ED AMRAAM is still a bit draggy. Is this correct nighthawk? Again I am asking this because it seems like no one knows if the current Aim-120 is the finished product or if more work on the drag model will be done. Based on these tracks I would certainly hope a bit more work is planned. Also in the future, would it be possible to include Aim-120's with different motors? This would greatly add to the dynamics of BVR. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/my-drive SD-10 VS Aim-120C 1.trk SD-10 VS Aim-120C 2.trk AIm-120C Ideal Shot.trk Sd-10 Ideal Shot.trk

I have been working on creating custom sounds for the RWR in the A-10C and F-16 for DCS WORLD but cannot figure out a way to assign a custom sound to aircrafts like, the Jf-17 or Heatblur F-14. I am using the RAE mod as a springboard but am running into trouble as you can see below. How do I assign a custom RWR sound to these 3rd party aircraft?

Again, Elaborate PLEASE. Just because in your mind that it is overpowered does not mean that it is busted. In fact at the moment it is still "underpowered," since its mid course guidance is all screwed up. The Truth of the matter is that it was an extremely deadly missile. Historically, enemy aircraft would simply avoid fights with the tomcat all together. Now if it is truly going through mountains in the sim, then that is a different story.

Elaborate please

Yes I know that, but what I don’t know is what changes have taken place since then other than the lofting. I have seen nothing new in the changelogs about drag changes and when I emailed ED asking about it they said they still had some work to do. They also said had a new virtual wind tunnel that would be used to remodel all the all the missiles. It does indeed loft now, which is great, but from what nighthawk is saying, a bit more work needs to be done.