Iron_physik

May 20, 2023

11 hours ago, Hobel said:

Very cool!

but here you have not posted it first

yes, I ported it over from the WT forums after their continuing disrespect towards the forum community.

May 19, 2023

Hello all!

The AIM-7 Sparrow (Airbourne Interception Missile) is a radar guided air to air missile, it used alongside the famous AIM-9 sidewinder and also infuenced aerial combat quite alot.

it was the forefront of todays BVR combat.

In the begining and a brief explaination of how the AIM-7 works

unlike the AIM-9 sidewinder, the AIM-7 uses radiowaves to guide to its target, im going to explain how its done:

Spoiler

first introduction:

The seeker of the AIM-7 works on radio frequency, but it doesnt send out its own radar rays, it only can receive them, the radar waves to guide the missile come from the carrier airplane.

this is called Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH)

How SARH works on the AIM-7 (past AIM-7C)

Target illumination for the missile is provided by injecting Continious wave energy into the Airbourne intercept radar antenna of the launching aircraft.

The missile uses a Semiactive target seeker. This seeker has 2 antennas, one pointing forward the other backward.

The front antenna receives the signal reflected from the illuminated target and the rear antenna receives the radar signal from the carrier airplane.

AIM-7 front section

A comparison of both signals will result in a doppler frequency which is used to filter out bad radar contacts from the target

to be seen as target by the missile, you need to overcome the speedgate of the seeker, thus the missile only looks for moving contacts with a large doppler shift between reflected signal, and original radar beam.

the nose antenna uses a conical scan pattern (GIF below) to find its target

Conscan means that the antenna rotates around its own axis and with that the missile then knows where the target is in front of it.

all contacts of the Frontal seeker are then compared to the signal from the rear antenna, if it has a high enough doppler shift the missile tracks it and with its autopilot it tries to fly itself to the target using the 4 frontal wings

when the missile then gets within 25ft of the target it will detonate thanks to its radio proximity fuze.

This however also means that you cant select what target the missile goes for with your radar lock, in reality the missile flies towards the best radar contact inside the illumination cone of the main radar.

DCS does not model this!

The Sparrow Evolution and Performance

Thanks to MacedonianSukhoi for the image.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7A - Sparrow I

The history of the Sparrow missile dates back to 1947, when the U.S. Navy contracted Sperry to develop a beam-riding guidance system for a standard 12.7 cm (5 in) HVAR (High Velocity Aerial Rocket). The original designation for this missile project was KAS-1, but this was changed to AAM-2 in September 1947 and to AAM-N-2 in early 1948. The 5" diameter soon proved to be too small, so Douglas developed a new airframe of 20.3 cm (8 in) diameter. The first unpowered flight tests of XAAM-N-2 prototypes occurred in 1948. Development was difficult, however, and the first successful air-to-air interception was only done in December 1952.

The AAM-N-2 Sparrow I entered service in 1956 with F3H-2M Demon and F7U-3M Cutlass fighters. Because of the inherent disadvantages of beam-riding guidance, like poor low-level performance, only 2000 Sparrow I missiles were produced, and it was withdrawn from service after only a few years. Another drawback of the AAM-N-2 was that the guidance beam was slaved to an optical sight in the aircraft, which necessitated visual identification of the target, making the Sparrow I a short-range VFR missile only.

Performance AIM-7A

Length: 3.74 m (147.3 in)
Finspan: 0.94 m (37 in)
Diameter: 20.3cm (8 in)
Weight: 143 kg (315 lb)
Speed: Mach 2.5
Propulsion: Aerojet 1.8KS7800 solid rocket
- Thrust: 7100lbs (3220kg) for 2.04sec
Guidance duration: N/A
Warhead: 20 kg (45 lb) EX25 Mod.0 warhead with 4.2kg (9.25lbs) of H.6
- Detonation distance: 7.6m (25ft)
Guidance type: Beam Riding
Maneuvering capability: N/A
Max Launch velocity: Mach 1.3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7B - Sparrow II

Because of the above noted principal problems of the AAM-N-2, new guidance methods were searched almost from the beginning. As early as 1950, Douglas studied the possibility of equipping the Sparrow with a active radar-homing seeker.

By 1955 Douglas proposed going ahead with development, intending it to be the primary weapon for the F5D Skylancer interceptor. It was later selected, with some controversy, to be the primary weapon for the Canadian Avro Arrow supersonic interceptor, along with the new Astra fire-control system. For Canadian use and as a second source for US missiles, Canadair was selected to build the missiles in Quebec.

The small size of the missile forebody and the K-band AN/APQ-64-radar limited performance, and it was never able to work in testing. After considerable development and test firings in the U.S. and Canada, Douglas abandoned development in 1956. Canadair continued development until the Arrow was cancelled in 1959.

Performance AIM-7B

Length: 3.65 m (144 in)
Finspan: 1.02 m (40 in)
Diameter: 20.3cm (8 in)
Weight: 190 kg (420 lb)
Speed: Mach 2,67
Propulsion: Aerojet 1.8KS7800 solid rocket
- Thrust: 8000lbs (3628kg) for 1.84sec
Guidance duration: N/A
Warhead: 20 kg (45 lb)
- Detonation distance: 7.6m (25ft)
Guidance type: Active Radar Homing (ARH)
(active) Seeker range: 12km (6NM)
Aerodynamic Range (50kft alt): 28km
Maneuvering capability: 20g
Max Launch velocity: Mach 1.3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7C - Sparrow III

After the failure of the Sparrow II program other ways of guidance where considered. The development of the modern sparrow started in 1955 by raytheon.

The Sparrow III and all subsequent versions of Sparrow used semi-active radar homing.

After tests with YAAM-N-6 R&D missiles, production of the tactical AAM-N-6 began in January 1958, and it entered service in August 1958. The missile had an Aerojet solid-fueled rocket motor, and a 30 kg (65 lb) MK 38 continuous-rod warhead.

Performance AIM-7C

Length: 3.66 m (144 in)
Finspan: 1.02 m (40 in)
Diameter: 20.3cm (8 in)
Weight: 172 kg (380 lb)
Speed: Mach 4
Propulsion: Aerojet 1.8KS7800 solid rocket
- Thrust: 7100lbs (3220kg) for 2.04sec
Guidance duration: 75 sec
Warhead: 30 kg (65 lb) MK 38 continuous rod with 9kg (20lbs) of PBXN-4
- Detonation distance: 7.6m (25ft)
Guidance type: Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH)
Seeker range (200W radar output): 12 km (6.5 NM)
Aerodynamic Range (40kft alt): 18 km (10 NM)
Maneuvering capability: 16g
Max Launch velocity: Mach 1.3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7D Sparrow III

The AAM-N-6a (AIM-7D) was similar to the -6, but used a new Thiokol liquid-fuel rocket engine for improved performance. It also included changes to the guidance electronics to make it effective at higher closing speeds. The -6a was also selected to arm the Air Force's F-110A Spectre (F-4 Phantom) fighters in 1962, known to them as the AIM-101. It entered production in 1959, with 7500 being built.

Performance AIM-7D

Length: 3.66 m (144 in)
Finspan: 1.02 m (40 in)
Diameter: 20.3 cm (8 in)
Weight: 197 kg (435 lb)
Speed: Mach 4
Propulsion: Thiokol MK 6 MOD 3 (LR44-RM-2) liquid-propellant rocket motor
- Thrust: N/A
Guidance duration: 75 sec
Warhead: 30 kg (65 lb) MK 38 continuous rod with 9kg (20lbs) of PBXN-4
- Detonation distance: 7.6m (25ft)
Guidance type: Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH)
Seeker range (200W radar output): 15 km (8.3 NM)
Aerodynamic Range (40kft alt): 44 km (24 NM)
Maneuvering capability: 15g
Max Launch velocity: Mach 2.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7E Sparrow III

In 1963, production switched to the AIM-7E version. It used a new propulsion system, a solid-fueled rocket by Rocketdyne (either a MK 38 or later a MK 52). The new motor again significantly increased range and performance of the missile. Effective range of course depended greatly on firing parameters like launch speed and relative velocity of the target. In head-on attacks under optimal conditions, it could be as high as 35 km (20 nm), while in stern attacks, maximum effective range was more around 5.5 km (3 nm).

About 7500 AIM-7D and 25000 AIM-7E missiles were built, and the Sparrow was used heavily in Vietnam by the USAF and the U.S. Navy. The first combat kill was scored on 7 June 1965, when USN F-4B Phantoms shot down 2 MiG-17s. However, the initial combat results were very disappointing. The potentially long range of the AIM-7 could not be used, because unreliable IFF capabilities of the time effectively required visual identification of all targets. Coupled with the high minimum range of the missile of 1500 m (5000 ft) and poor performance against manoeuvering and/or low-flying targets, this led to a kill probability of less than 10%. Therefore, the improved AIM-7E-2 was introduced in 1969 as a "dogfight missile". It had a shorter minimum range, clipped wings for higher manoeuverability, and improved autopilot and fuzing. The AIM-7E-3 had further improved fuzing and higher reliability, and the AIM-7E-4 was specially adapted for use with high-power fighter radars (like the F-14's AN/AWG-9). Despite all problems, more than 50 aircraft were shot down by Sparrow missiles during the Vietnam air war.

Performance AIM-7E

Length: 3.66 m (144 in)
Finspan: 1.02 m (40 in)
Diameter: 20.3cm (8 in)
Weight: 197 kg (435 lb)
Speed: Mach 4
Propulsion: Rocketdyne MK 38/MK 52 solid rocket
- Thrust: 7600lbs (3447kg) for 2.9 seconds
Guidance duration: 75 sec
Warhead: 30 kg (65 lb) MK 38 continuous rod with 9kg (20lbs) of PBXN-4
- Detonation distance: 9.1m (30ft)
Guidance type: Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH)
Seeker range (200W radar output): 25 km (13.5 NM)
Aerodynamic Range (40kft alt): 50 km (27 NM)
Maneuvering capability: 25g
Max Launch velocity: Mach 2.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7F Sparrow

In January 1972, Raytheon began development of the vastly improved AIM-7F. It featured a new dual-thrust (boost/sustain) rocket motor (usually a Hercules MK 58, but sometimes an Aerojet MK 65), which greatly increased the missile's range. The AIM-7F also had a completely new solid-state electronic guidance and control system (GCS), designated AN/DSQ-35, which was also compatible with modern pulse-doppler radars. Continued improvement of the GCS resulted in versions from AN/DSQ-35A through -35H (used in the AIM-7F-11). The smaller GCS permitted the use of a larger 39 kg (86 lb) MK 71 warhead in the new WAU-10/B warhead section.

Production began in 1975, and continued through 1981. With the AIM-7F, the official name of the missile was changed from Sparrow III to plain Sparrow.

Performance AIM-7F

Length: 3.66 m (144 in)
Finspan: 1.02 m (40 in)
Diameter: 20.3cm (8 in)
Weight: 231 kg (510 lb)
Speed: Mach 2.9
Propulsion: Hercules MK 58 dual-thrust solid rocket
- Thrust: Boost 5750lbs (2608kg) for 4,5 seconds
- Sustain 1018lbs (461kg) for 11 seconds
Guidance duration: 75sec
Warhead: 39 kg (86 lb) MK 71 continuous rod
- Detonation distance: 12.2m (40ft)
Guidance type: Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH)
Seeker range (200W radar output): 40 km (22 NM)
Aerodynamic Range (40kft alt): 98km (53 NM)
Maneuvering capability: 25g
Max Launch velocity: Mach 2.5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7G Sparrow

The AIM-7G was a version with a new seeker, developed for the USAF around 1970 for use by the F-111D aircraft. A few YAIM-7G prototype missiles were built, but this version did not enter production.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIM-7M / P / R Sparrow

The next version of the AIM-7 was the AIM-7M, whose main new feature was the new inverse monopulse seeker for look-down/shoot-down capability in a new WGU-6/B (later WGU-23/B) guidance section. There is no evidence of any Sparrow variants officially designated -7J/K/L (although the designation AIM-7J is sometimes associated with the AIM-7E license-built in Japan). Source [2] says that the suffix "M" was deliberately chosen to mean "monopulse", suggesting that suffixes J/K/L were indeed skipped. The monopulse seeker improves missile performance in low-altitude and ECM environments. Other new features of the AIM-7M are a digital computer (with software in EEPROM modules reprogrammable on the ground), an autopilot, and an active fuze. The autopilot enables the AIM-7M to fly optimized trajectories, with target illumination necessary only for mid-course and terminal guidance. The AIM-7M also has a new WDU-27/B blast-fragmentation warhead in a WAU-17/B warhead section. The first firing of a YAIM-7M occured in 1980, and the AIM-7M entered production in 1982.

The AIM-7P is similar in most ways to the M versions, and was primarily an upgrade program for existing M-series missiles. The main changes were to the software, improving low-level performance. A follow-on Block II upgrade added a new rear receiver allowing the missile to receive mid-course correction from the launching aircraft. Plans initially called for all M versions to be upgraded, but currently P's are being issued as required to replace M's lost or removed from the inventory.

The final version of the missile was to have been the AIM-7R, which added an infrared homing seeker to an otherwise unchanged AIM-7P Block II. A general wind-down of the budget led to it being cancelled in 1997.

Performance AIM-7M / P

Length: 3.66 m (144 in)
Finspan: 1.02 m (40 in)
Diameter: 20.3cm (8 in)
Weight: 231 kg (510 lb)
Speed: Mach 4
Propulsion: Hercules MK 58 dual-thrust solid rocket
- Thrust: Boost 5750lbs (2608kg) for 4,5 seconds
- Sustain 1018lbs (461kg) for 11 seconds
Guidance duration: 75sec
Warhead: 39 kg (86 lb) MK 71 continuous rod
- Detonation distance: 12.2m (40ft)
Guidance type: Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH)
Seeker range (200W radar output): 40 km (22 NM)
Aerodynamic Range (40kft alt): 98km (53 NM)
Maneuvering capability: 30g
Max Launch velocity: Mach 2.5

Sources:

Text based (and some performance):

Performance sources:

May 19, 2023

I updated the thread due to drama on the WT forums where they deleted custom avatars and signatures

I no longer can use that place anymore, because I severly struggle with using it now...

anyway, luckily the DCS forum exists

August 2, 2021

On 7/23/2021 at 10:17 AM, FIS-Donny said:

this picture gives us some insight of what A-7E model we could see

the furthest up most panel came after Airframe Change 390, (Note the X, Y, Z vs the Off, PWR, STBY switch in the low left corner)

the only panel that I find more interesting would be the panel above it, that I sadly have yet to see screenshots off
if we have the HARM panel (after AFC 421) there I would be VERY happy.

EDIT:

We do have the right model

and even go up to AFC 429:

August 2, 2021

On 4/15/2021 at 8:37 PM, willkinton247 said:

I looked at the Gulf War Air Power Survey, and according to it the USN did not shoot any Mavericks during Desert Storm. Only the USMC and USAF did, the Marines employing them on Harriers.

That being said, the Navy's Mavericks at that point seem to have been more focused on a anti-ship role, per the E and F's larger warheads. At the same time, the A-7 seems to have been aimed at two major target sets: SEAD/DEAD (Using AGM-88s, Rockeyes, and GP bombs) and the occasional high priority target that required large amounts of precision (using Walleye). They were also employed as general strikers alongside A-6s, although the A-6 was generally the precision bomber as it could carry LGBs and other smart weapons. GWAPS Vol 3 also makes the point that the A-7 could not carry LGBs (Pg 139).

Apparently, according to the GWAPS volume 5, A-7s and A-6s actually employed the AGM-86E SLAM for the first time in combat during the Desert Storm, which is interesting. I wonder if we'll get the ability to launch that too.

the SLAMs where not launched by A-7, but by A-6

the role of the A-7 was to carry the datalink pod and guide the SLAM in their terminal phase after it was launched by A-6E.

July 24, 2021

On 7/23/2021 at 1:14 AM, kseremak said:

Did Intruder have digital panel? I always thought it was an epitome of analog switches steam gauge cockpit like Phantom or Tomcat...

yes, with the WCSI upgrade the A-6 got 1 digital panel to control Harpoons

the ability of that panel was enhanced with the SWIP

here a photo of a A-6E SWIPs missile panel where 1 HARPOON is loaded:

after selecting that harpoon the symbology change:

as you see its not a MFD like on modern jets, its a really basic computer interface with the screen being literally just 5 lines from a digital clock XD

here the description of that panel from the flight manual:

Spoiler

the panel is needed to deliver weapons like the maverick, walleye, harpoon, SLAM or HARM

specially note that this panel enables the A-6E SWIP to make use of the HARM SP pullback (shoot at radar emiters behind the plane)

July 24, 2021

I agree, this would make finding the weapon you like alot easier

July 9, 2021

46 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

HOTAS keybind to kick the computer drum or riot!

yes pls, make a A-6A XD

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

It can't be easy to model the infamous DIANE "reliability" and quirks, I imagine. At least the A-6E got rid of it...

All the A-6 had the DIANE, just the A model used this analogue drum to do calculations while the E got a digital computer

DIANE is just the acronym of the DIgital Attack + Navigation Equiptment that the A-6 uses.

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thank you!

Yes, documentation, but also feasibility. As in terms, is it worth and possible to model this or that system fully and realistically in DCS. Although I don't see much of an issue with the A6 variants, but when it comes to development, sometimes something seemingly "simple" can turn out to be almost impossible to make, etc etc.. These are things that are very hard to predict in advance and we just need to see once we approach the items.

that makes sense.

considering that the A-6 and the F-14 are very similar in Avionics I am sure you can handle its systems development!

the only part that would be more out of the ordinary and more complex would be the digital missile panel that the A-6E had after WCSI to make use of Harpoons and other more modern weapons, here you do kind of need acces to the tacmans of the WCSI and SWIP for proper explaination.

July 9, 2021

15 hours ago, IronMike said:

We still have not decided this yet. Sorry to further disappoint on this subject, as you know us, it will not be a question of "want" but rather "can".

so it all depends on documentation, gotcha!

lets hope the FOIA's then result in a positive outcome for tactical manuals.

also, you all are welcome in our community:

https://discord.gg/qfWkQ8mjym

July 7, 2021

Some people said the EA-6 seems to slow, so I decided to check manuals for its proper top speed:

Source:

Spoiler

Empty its top speed is about 530kn, while loaded it goes down to just above 500kn

in DCS its max possible empty speed is 451kn according to the mission editor and 378kn when its in a test flight

thats 80 - 150kn to slow.

June 27, 2021

1 hour ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

Are you sure about the first flight of the A-6E? I knew it took off the first time in february 1970

oh dang, you are right

75 then was the year of the first TRAM and 79 was ther TRAM/DRS

CAINS came 71

June 27, 2021

14 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Out of curiosity do you know the time period of each of these different models?

Base A-6E first flew in ~~1975~~ 1970 (some where even in SEA, but flew no combat missions out of fear that the ostblock gets acces to the Solid state computers of it)

CAINS then came later in about late 1970-71

TRAM first flight was about 1974

TRAM/DRS came in 1979

WCSI came about in 1985-86

SWIP came about late 1988

June 27, 2021

5 hours ago, Riojano said:

if i remember well, TRAM is what they are doing

last time I asked (about 3-4 months ago) they said no model was decided.

the BuNo of the screenshots is from a SWIP, the 3D model of it also fits a early SWIP model with metal wings.

so it can be either TRAM, WCSI or SWIP

differences are following

WCSI (Weapon Computer System Integration) where TRAMs with a digital weapon panel added, this panel allowed the WCSI to fire Harpoons and SLAMs
SWIP (System Weapons Improvement Program) where WCSI birds that got a software update and different pylons, they could now also AGM-65, AGM-88 and AGM-62. On top of that they could use the AAW-13 Datalink pod to self guide SLAMs and Walleyes without having to rely on a A-7E with a DL pod.

Heatblur so far has not stated what exact model they planned, they just said "A-6E" but not what submodel it will be.

June 24, 2021

@IronMike earlier this year you said that you guys are not sure about what A-6E submodel you want to create.

where you able to narrow down choices (so TRAM, WCSI or SWIP)?

also, are you aware of the awesome work in the A-6 intruder community discord?

Such as custom kneeboards for the game later, the FOI requests for Tacmans or the research on actual combat loads?

June 8, 2021

1 hour ago, draconus said:

What others?

he props means the A-7 and F-8 modules

May 25, 2021

any updates?

May 17, 2021

On 5/4/2021 at 3:40 PM, Cobra847 said:

The short answer to this is that we want to - but until we know more, we can't commit just yet.

It's possible we might do some kind of "pseudo" implementation; where it's really an A-6 except in exterior shape alone, as a stop-gap.

We'll keep you in the loop!

On 5/6/2021 at 3:06 PM, MBot said:

Considering that the A-6E with a buddy pod has virtually the same fuel offloading capabilities as the KA-6D, wouldn't it just make most sense to provide this? In fact, even the KA-6D frequently carried the buddy pod. I appreciate the AI KA-6D, because this was historically part of the air wing and stood out visually with its high-viz markings. But from a playable capabilities point of view, it offers nothing over a regular playable A-6E.

I assume the biggest issue with human tankers (dedicated or buddy) is that it requires implementation by ED first, including AI programming for AI receiving aircraft.

I agree

that may be the best course of action to have a buddy pod implemented first for the Base A-6 and then later make a flyable KA-6D if there is enough interest after that.

because apart from nuclear bombs the KA-6D is unarmed

so Recource wise that would be a smarter course of action to have the combat plane also do tanking, so more people are pleased.

Here a A-6E SWIP that both carries a buddy tank + 2x AGM-65 Maverick:

doing some research it apears that tankers sometimes carry training weapons, and also life weapons to still get some practice in while on tanker duty

obviously only in peacetime.

this loadout could also be something that could work in a war enviroment where the tankers also do patrol duties against small naval surface targets when no tanking is required.

April 22, 2021

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

I'll tell you the exact proper approach...

Set up a mission that allows one aircraft to fly across the nose of another with specific angular velocity. It will take more than one mission setup with different angular velocities. Math will be required. Vector math specifically... It's pretty simple... look it up. When you exceed the angular velocity the missile seeker can track... listen for tone change. If the tone changes with less angular velocity than expected based on your PDF info... Create a trk and submit. If the tone changes at more velocity than expected based on your PDF info... Create a trk file and submit. If the tone changes at pretty close to the expected angular velocity... Move on to your next issue.

the way proportional navigation functions makes this test not work

also it only would work for missiles that have SEAM, not all Sidewinders do though.

and the cage rates of SEAM vs in flight operations are different, so you need to test the missile while it is flying

April 22, 2021

1 minute ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Hmmm I mean that's what they say but even in SP I've had stuff like SA2's pass within feet of my jet many a time and nothing so i'm not so sure anymore. Maybe the code is there but if its working (especially working as it should) i'm not so sure.

3 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

OT but they do have them and they work. Both SP and MP. The poor netcode though makes it look like its broken in MP

and thats a perfect prime example on why just relying on ingame data is so flawed
sure, it SHOULD be modeled, But does it work? nope, it does not.

1 minute ago, dundun92 said:

So if you notch a missile at the last second, even if it flies within the kill distance it wont go off.

oh well, thats not how Prox fuzes work AT ALL

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Iron...

Please try to work within the new deal bruh...

I get it makes things "harder" to both see what's wrong and make suggestions but if it's the new deal it's the new deal.

I'm just sitting here reading the thread thinking you likely have good input (or more correctly your PDF collection does... why not just hand that whole thing over??? Hmmm... I'll bet there's an answer for that... explained perfectly earlier in the thread...)

I did, gave it to someone from ED some days ago, all 16gb of my collection via my google drive

5 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

but you're only willing to share if ED plays your game and makes it easy for you to compare this or that number so YOU can tell them which number is wrong.

not just me, everyone is then able to check the files for errors

im at the point that im pretty unwilling to create reports after ED tried to bend us over.

6 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Oh I know... GAU-8...

But it's fixed friend :).

you have no idea how long that took, do you?

several months of debating and a shitstorm over at reddit + the forums and then ED finally silently fixing it after the pressure of the community (including A-10 crewmen) was to high

ED simply did not admit to the mistake and gave the same excuses as they do now.

8 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

There are ways to see the values. There are ways to measure the values. Even the seeker speed ones.

oh?

tell me all about it

How do you measure the track speed in a body thats moving in all 6DOF without powerfull simulation software?

10 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Apparently ED has a good explanation for why they can't allow you to do that any more.

but they dont

lots of people dont belive ED one bit when they say "cheaters"

11 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Maybe you trust them and they trust you???

lol

11 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

"just like im famous for in other Flight sim communities, where I single handetly"

original thread from 2019:

To this day people still constantly ping me about the AIM-9 on that forum, on discord and elsewhere

thats not being "unknown" or "a nobody"

13 minutes ago, NineLine said:

If you cant tell its wrong playing the game, then why do you need to look at the code?

to check if the values are wrong?

isnt DCS the game that advertises highly accurate combat?

to that accurately modeled weapons also belong, and when you cant check if the weapons are accurate then how are you supposed to know that they are?

I dont want to trust on that when I know that devs put "???" into their code on a easily findable value of a rocket.

so I want to make sure that all AIM-9 models use the proper track speeds for the seeker, because the proper speeds are very important to combat ocilation of the missile body, and enemy targets suddenly changing direction.

when the track values are wrong then the missile either tracks to good (they are harder to dodge than they should be) or it does not track the target well enough and flying a sudden Split S makes the missile lose track of you the moment you change direction.

that can be observed over in WT (you mentioned it by name, I can now too), when you create a custom SP mission where the G load and of the missile is super high, but the track rate is low the missile often just loses its target and misses, however do the reverse and the missile likely still hits that target, because it keeps better track.

and thats within the actual track rate values of AIM-9 models

from AIM-9G to AIM-9H you have a 8°/s track rate increase, thats nearly doubled

the AIM-9H was over vietnam a ALOT more reliable dog fighting missile because of that (and smaller other factors)

April 22, 2021

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Luckily we have professionals working on the game

???

is that from one of your "professionals"?

thats such a simple thing.

or the total lack of proximity fuzes of missiles

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

if you think there is an issue, then use one of the methods discussed to look at the values... not sure what you want anymore?

holy handgrenate of antioch

I want that YOU tell me the exact proper approach to get the exact values for seeker track rate by just playing DCS and without performing a memory dump to get the code thats then unformated and without comments, good luck trying to make sense from this

also: performing the steps to datamine is not trivial, you make it out to be "so easy"

"just datamine bro" is a weak argument

8 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

to some extent yes; however, many issues may not be immediately obvious unless you do detailed/in depth testing that ideally could have been avoided by just seeing that the value is off.

exactly what I have been saying

specially when some values (track rate) are impossible to measure by looking at game values, even with tacview enabled!

April 22, 2021

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

it will not function correctly in the sim. Right?

yeah you are confused

tell me, how do you tell the difference between 12°/s track rate and 11°/s in a game that does not simulate the seeker movement in the 3D model?

thats the difference between the AIM-9E and B

or 20°/s and 25°/s

difference between 9H and 9L

you cant without checking the code, its impossible to measure this value by just playing, because there is to many variables

April 22, 2021

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

So War Thunder is your source? What are your source documents? You keep dancing around that,

for early AIM-9 alone:

and then also the tacman of the F-8 crusader and the F-4 phantom

for later AIM-9 a bunch of USAF documents, and some reports on the AIM-9L and M

am to lazy to list them all, but you props got the point
on AIM-9 docs alone I have about 600mb to 1gb of PDF files to chose from to make detailed reports.

Quote

where is your bug thread on this?

Hidden, out of fear for cheaters

April 22, 2021

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That's not a good start.

lol you mean like you hiding the data?

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

If you could see our data, how do you know its wrong if you dont know how they work?

im talking about the performance of the missile compared to the IRL counterpart

Im very well aware of the function of the AIM-9 sidewinder family, as I am someone who wrote a lenghty article about them backed up by tons of primary sources

im also one of the main contributors on getting sidewinder performance right within "that thunderous arcade flight sim" because these devs actually manage to list the values used on the weapons and with some leg work by looking through the files you can find even more data to write incredibly detailed reports on all that stuff, like:

Motor burn time + thrust
Seeker angles
Seeker track speed
seeker FOV
SEAM (yes or no?)
Speed
maneuvering performance
mass
size
warhead
range
lock ranges
priximity fuze trigger ranges (lol, if ED actually manages to model prox fuzes)

all these values are now hidden in DCS

and most of them cant just be figured out at by "just playing the game"

that needs the files, and the comments to fully know what each value in the code does, because the way it is written takes time to fully get behind (unlike the competition)

April 22, 2021

7 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Do you have proof on how they should work? If so, please see my guide on how to make a proper bug report in my signature, thanks.

I have but I wont show you them, because I am affraid of cheaters

Probably you should Look at real missiles and see you can find data? Or use one of the methods to view the PDFs that I have on my harddrive? As I said, many people report issues without referencing the real docs.

mh, weird, thats sounds awfully familiar doesnt it?

April 22, 2021

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

That is not currently planned.

Otherwise you will need to trust our process and added testing. Or report bugs how other do. People were able to report issues with Spitfire guns without seeing the files for this. You can raise concerns when things don't act as expected. At the end of the day, you will need to adjust to these changes as we all do.

ah, yes

so here my report:

fix the darn sidewinder missile of the B, H, J, L, M, and P models

I cant tell you whats wrong about them but they are wrong in pretty much every aspect from memory the last time I had a chance to check the files

so fix them!

Sign In

Iron_physik

Posts

Joined

Last visited

Content Type

Profiles

Forums

Events

Posts posted by Iron_physik

The AIM-7 Sparrow Missile - Technology, History and Performance

The AIM-7 Sparrow Missile - Technology, History and Performance

The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile - Technology, History and Performance

DCS: A-7E Corsair II by FlyingIron Simulations

DCS: A-7E Corsair II by FlyingIron Simulations

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

Re-organise the Loadout Lists

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

VSN Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

Heatblur Update - Supersize Me & Public Roadmap

Forrestal Update?

A-1H Skyraider

Ka-6 as a flyable aircraft?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?

Explosive weight vs explosive power in TNT math error in warheads.lua (2.5.6) carried over into 2.7?