dundun92

[Alamo] dundun92 - MiG-29A

yeah that flight path looks pretty far from smooth and lag free

[Alamo] dundun92 - F-15C

AIM-120 midcource guidance is often not being synced between clients, reuslting in the missile position being quite different between the shooter and target. In this example, the AIM-120, shot by Sizzle, on my end as defender had no midcourse updates, lofted to 60kft and quite abruptly "snapped" active at around 10nm, appearing to pass quite far behind me (the RWR indicated this as well). This is also what was shown on the server track/tacview: Meanwhile, on the shooter (Sizzles) end, the AIM-120 appears to guide normally with midcourse, only lofting to around 53kft because of me diving, conserving energy, with no abrupt snap upon active. It passes in the end quite close to me (this is what is shown on sizzle and his wingman's track/tacview): tracks (from me, sizzle, his wingman, and server) and tacviews (just me and sizzle for illustrative purposes) attached server.acmi sizzle_shooter_client.acmi dundun_defender_client.acmi moldy_wingman_client.trk sizzle_shooter_client.trk server.trk dundun_defender_client.trk

D4n is not interested in being reasoned on these topics... he is obsessed with "exploits" and people having any sort of advantage (as evidenced in his thread asking to be able to see whethere a user uses TIR or VR so he can judge if they have an "advantage") so he can blame the supposed "advantages" on him loosing PvP fights. This thread is going to go exactly nowhere and its probably best just to not feed the troll.

you mean 1994? By 2004 AIM-120 had been in widespread usage for quite a while

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.

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

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.

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

[Alamo] TrueMetroMan F-18, reserve. No SC

[Alamo] Darkthorian, F-15C

[Alamo] Sam/[Alamo] Thermos - F-14A Pilot/RIO

[Alamo] dundun92 F-15C [Alamo] Prez F-15C

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?

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.

There actually is, it just hasnt been posted publically here...

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.

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.

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)

as far as i'm aware, yes, though TBF I havent tested it in detail

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.

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!

Another reported issue, just as a reference to add to this thread

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.