Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dundun92

  1. In case its not clear already... D4n is a known troll that has been kicked off servers for alt account abuse, and makes bug reports every time hes shot down, blaming it on broken IRCM, OP missiles, w/e. Hes just interested in finding an excuse for why he got shot down, and blame it on TIR. You will not reason with him.
  2. OK, I definitely misread your statement, but its just as wrong either way. Do you even understand how nozzle exit area works, or are you just speculating based on what feels right? As a TLDR... as you increase nozzle exit area, you expand the exhaust gasses more, which reduces the exhaust pressure. More expansion is good, up to the point where the pressure of the expanded gas is less than ambient air pressure; at that point, your gas is over expanded, and you no longer gain efficiency, AND you risk damaging the nozzle. Exit area will always have an optimum value such where exhaust pressure = ambient pressure. Its not a linear relation because increased exit area affects also exit pressure; the net thrust affect is gonna change a relatively small amount for changes in Ae, depending though on how close/far you are from the optimal value. To say it must be a fudge factor you cant just look at the order of magnitude, youd need to do the math to see what the expected values would be (or be an SME and have a "feel" for it) For the record, im not saying it isnt a fudge factor, but that comparison of numbers certainly wouldnt tell you (perhaps someone more familiar with this stuff would be able to tell if the numbers actually make sense). EDIT: Also, just from looking at the specific results from DSplayer... the fact that this change affects performance more at high altitude much more than low altitude, at the very least would seem to indicate its trying to model the actual affects of exit area, as thats the exact result you would expect. Whether its using an actual formula idk
  3. you insisted that it "must" be a fudge factor because it has a significant effect; im saying IRL it DOES produce a significant change (the value is literally a coeffecient in the thrust formula), so that assertion is misguided.
  4. Exit area is a very specific and important IRL quantity, its not a fudge factor. It affects motor performance. This is the formula for motor thrust, Ae is exit area null
  5. [Alamo] TrueMetroMan F-18, reserve. No SC
  6. [Alamo] Sam/[Alamo] Thermos - F-14A Pilot/RIO
  7. [Alamo] dundun92 F-15C [Alamo] Prez F-15C
  8. So earlier you mentioned that in some "certain conditions" ground clutter can extend past the ambiguous range; what are these "certain conditions". And what conditions would the ground clutter not be spread out enough in range, and thus is not filling every range bin?
  9. That is the way overdone RNG aiming error being illustrated in that tacview; combined with hard maneuvers, you can quite literally "dodge" AMRAAMs rn (particularly at low alt), regardless being in the notch or not. Its just silly.
  10. There actually is, it just hasnt been posted publically here...
  11. It also happens that if you use take numbers at face value, you get an absurd specific impulse of > 300s as I mentioned, which is physically impossible for this kind of motor. As GG said, you either have to cut down sustain time and give the boost some of its propellant, or (what I had mentioned) cut down the boost time. Either fits the data, but both require one of the SMC numbers to be modified for burn time and boost/sustain mass fraction. The total prop mass (135lb) is already known from other reliable sources (yellow book etc), so theres no negotiating with that.
  12. So for the 7F/M, the problem is that there seems to be multiple sources that give different boost times; the SMC/SAC puts it at 4.5s w/ 5700 lbs of thrust. The 1984 weapons file puts it at 5750 lbs thrust for 4s. Theres also this source, im unsure of the origin, but it puts it at 3.5s boost, which I think is the correct one: null The reason the SMC's 4.5 sec burn time seems suspect is that when you do the math on the thrust per the SMC (25.5 kN) and mass flow rate (38 kg of boost fuel, accounting for the flipped boost/sustain prop mass in the SMC), you get an ISP of ~312s for the boost, which is very much out of whack. if you reduce the burn time to 3.5s, the ISP drops to 241s; which is a much more sane value. For reference, ED's sparrow has a 3.7s boost, 38.48kg fuel mass, 25.1 kN thrust, and 247s of ISP, which lines up with the SMC boost motor mass and a reasonable ISP. So at least IMO, the AIM-7 motor is pretty good RN compared to what we know about it IRL.
  13. The motor burn times, and thrusts of all the sparrows in game are correct; there's plenty of IRL documentation on the topic. I think the problem is the speed and altitude you are launching from; 35kft is far from "extreme". Try more like, M2 at 50kft in an F-15 to get a better sense of what kind of reference brochure speeds are using. I would also avoid adding loft into it, as that reduces top speed. Also, the website you listed isnt exactly a "source" by any stretch of the imagination (though the M4 figure for top speed is listed in more reputable sources as well)
  14. as far as i'm aware, yes, though TBF I havent tested it in detail
  15. In DCS, the former happens, if you regain lock the missile exits INS mode and re-gains mid course DL. This is also unrealistic. IRL datalink channels are correlated to the radar track; the radar will not correlate a completely new track to an old one.
  16. How dare you question a board game as a source of accurate info; if the board game using top secret NATOPS sources says the F-16 has a better radar than the F-15, you should believe that over publicly available data and common sense!
  17. Another reported issue, just as a reference to add to this thread
  18. I dont know why we are mentioning balance when the F-16 is affected by this exact same functionality (both low alt detection range and lookdown detection range reduction), and in general the F-16 radar is by far worse than the F-18s rn in both detection range and tracking reliability (combine it with stuff like the F-16 DL ghost contact bug, etc). The low altitude detection ranges for the F-16 are abysmal. Whether this is fully realistic, I dont know, but at least IMO it probably shouldnt; sidelobe clutter wont be in the frequency spectrum of a hot target; its one of the reasons HPRF sees hot targets so far away; they are in a "clutter free" part of the spectrum. But I'm not an RF expert, so maybe I'm wrong here.
  19. I probably should clarify, this is more against human players. Against AI, theres a lot of ways to beat it 1v1 even with worse missiles
  20. The best red BVR missile is the ER. I will grant, being SARH its not an easy missile to use especially vs AMRAAM carriers. But with proper employment and support tactics, the ER really is hands down the best red BVR missile (if we exclude the SD-10 on the JF-17, which is probably the best missile in game rn ). Generally, ER support tactics involve launching at a medium range (e.g, 60km at 12km alt), shooting, and diving at gimbals to the deck; this kind of ER shot will generally force bandits to either turn cold, or drop a lot of altitude (see this video for some details). With some practice vs AI/humans, its not hard to figure out the optimal range to do this at various altitudes (generally, at high alt, its anywhere between 40-80km depending on 120B vs C, and exactly how high the bandit is). While you cannot win a 1v1 joust with these fights, it does allow you to push off threatening bandits. In general, your best "BVR" killshot is a stern aspect shot in the ER NEZ on an unaware bandit (<8km on the deck); the ERs big motor and large NEZ helps alot with this kind of shot. Shooting from front quarter is risky because its easy for an AMRAAM carrier to spot the smoke trail and quickly snap an AMRAAM onto you, which while can be survivable with some smart notching, is a situation you want to avoid. As for the R-77, many people like it as a BVR missile; I personally dont. I usually only take 1. Its a great sub 5-10km WVR pre-merge jousting missile thanks to its maneuverability and ARH capabilities, and in these last-ditch scenarios can mean the difference between trading or notching and surviving. But as an actual BVR missile, its pretty bad (especially at lower altitudes). It is worse than the 120B range wise thanks to its draggy grid fins, and at low altitudes, looses quite a bit of speed in turns. A high alt, it is decent (it would probably be more viable here if ED gave it loft), but the ER simply has way more range than it here, and a properly supported ER is simply much more lethal. As such, its usage as a BVR missile is quite limited IMO, and it is best used as a support missile for close in scenarios. As for the ET: firstly, against certain targets with super low IR cross section (JF-17, F-16), its hardly "BVR" as the track ranges are so insanely low. 2nd, while vs AI and clueless people on airquake it will hit people, most more competent pilots are going to have the SA to judge you have probably fired an ET based on your range (perhaps even spot the smoke trail), and pre-flare to defeat the ET. In sum, its again one of those specialty missiles like the R-77; it has some use cases (e.g, shots vs beaming targets in NEZ where an ER wouldnt track), but its limited at best. Personally, I only carry 1 ET as well. Im sum: do not take 1v1 jousts, you cannot win them unless they screw up badly. If bandits try and sort you, just turn cold, reset the fight into friendlies, and use them for help. Try to find unaware bandits, and get within 8-10km behind them and take a lethal ER shot that will be hard for him to evade. If a bandit is high and you cant just extend, use a properly supported ER shot to push him down and turn him cold.
  21. I can confirm, there is a new slight cockpit shake effect in the Flanker this patch
  22. I linked that one because thats the only one I could find from a quick search; IK at some point both the 220 and 100 performance charts were uploaded by Chizh there; the one I had linked in the deleted post came from the 220 doc
  23. Sign up deadline is pushed to tomorrow at event start
  • Create New...