Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    33366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by GGTharos

  1. You know that you're told not to launch if there are within x degrees of the seeker's FoV, which is IRL doctrine. The first missile always missing and second 90% hit is indeed strange and should be looked into, but everything else you said does not reflect reality.
  2. The seeker framerate is out there somewhere (I forget the document now) and it is on the order of 100FPS with full multi-target processing...probably before the upgrade. There's no point in talking about the seeker, it could have easily been a power failure, a fin failure, out of parameter shot or really anything else.
  3. How much should it miss under these circumstances? 95%? 90%? The pilot does a thing for a reason.
  4. IRL flaring before the missile is launched will typically have the pilot inhibit the launch because it is expected that the missile will go for a flare instead. Flaring after the missile is launched is less effective since the missile has additional ways of discriminating the target. So there's certainly 'poor performance' just not in the way you describe it - the second missile should be as vulnerable as the first if there are decoys in the FoV (or the sun) rather than having a 'good hit ratio'. If flares before launch make you not want to shoot the missile because you'll waste it, then this is 'correct performance'.
  5. No, the Su did not user flares. The missile likely suffered a fin failure or some other issue (possible launch out of parameters, though seems unlikely) that caused it to fail to steer. The 9X has been demonstrated to be next to immune to flares IRL. In other words if it's launched at you within parameters, hope for a very rare failure or eject.
  6. In fact demonstrated in clutter/treetop IRL, but good luck finding the video now. Besides the size, a target like this is 'easy'.
  7. Were you having dreams of dogfighting at 400-600kts with flaps down?
  8. The guidance channel (specific radio signal/waveform assigned to THAT missile to lock onto) is alive until the track is deleted on the mothership. So you can 'relock' as much as you like as long as the target is in the seeker's FoV and the track has not timed out. There is always a track of some sort, it's not just a TWS thing. Not sure what's been done to the game mechanics right now, but here's the thing: Like with sparrow, the radar will assign an MCU/Guidance channel to the missile. That is available until the track times out for whatever reason. This isn't really represented in DCS, it's more along the likes of 'the radar will attempt to regain lock for x seconds' which last I checked was still 4 seconds. If contact is actually dropped, locking again should not be possible at all since as far as the radar is concerned, you're locking a 'new' trarget and not guiding a missile at that time (that is, the MCU/Guidance channel is no longer present in the signal). The next missile would be assigned the next guidance channel, so you shouldn't really be able to 're-lock' by launching another missile. In DCS, the ability to re-lock might be on a timer and certainly (and appropriately) require the target to the in the missile seeker's FoV. FC3 doesn't have any radio simulation so there's no channels etc.
  9. No, it's not even close. This is a different type of problem. It isn't impossible at all. ANd before you even get into 'efficiency vs missiles', it just needs to be represented correctly in a big picture/operational way to begin with. The only thing you have now is a stop-gap which I certainly hope ED will attempt to replace with a very robust a realistic system. Effectiveness vs. enemy hardware is for the mission maker; give him some switches/sliders and he can make things as fair or unfair as desired for a given scenario.
  10. HoJ is simply not represented correctly, and neither are the jammers. There's no 'over/under' performing here, it's just incorrect in concept and operation.
  11. Looks like you got a lot of replies. So it has to do with what the jammer is programmed to do, and why it is programmed that way. For the why you could consider a couple of things: Self-defensive jammers have limited resources and would be picky about what they'll jam, likely they wouldn't jam anything that isn't attacking them. Of course, there's a large variety of jammers with different capabilities so this isn't true for everything. In any case, just consider the DCS SPJ as a made up jammer, the behavior has some realistic components and some not so realistic. But regarding actual IRL fighting, you could probably expect dedicated ECM assets to be used against enemy surveillance, which is something that isn't available in DCS.
  12. Yes. If you're in a weapons employment zone of your enemy (those WEZ's can be very dynamic) assume a weapon is being employed against you.
  13. Thanks for this, it's better than what we have now and with a little enhancement it could be much better.
  14. The law simply becomes a tool to persecute anyone they deem worthy of persecuting. The reasons are largely irrelevant and don't need to be rational.
  15. ^^^^ Correct. They (the Russian government) are not a rational actor and ED is acting accordingly.
  16. The old processor on those radars cannot handle ECM while being in TWS so yes, it is correct.
  17. Because there's no filter, you said it. My partial ideal, to begin with: Give a BRAASIT for the given contact if seen for the first time or beyond a certain range: Bearing Range Altitude Aspect Speed Identification (type of aircraft if known, making this realistic would require some work but the AWACS can be assumed to know the type) Track (ie. bandit's heading in degrees) When the contact gets closer, BRAA will suffice Bonus stuff: Multiple frequencies for awacs, assigning controllers to various flights and responsibility zones Responsibility zones Tunable and automatic recognition of bandit entry into an AOR - ie. a 3 minute vector. If the far end of the vector remains in the AOR for some amount of time, announce the bandit. This immediately takes of reaction time for high vs low speed bandits as well, though it can be improved. AWACS and other HVAA should have a default 'run away' behavior that can be tuned - ie. run to nearest fighters or SAM, as long as it is away from the bandits. As well they could shut down the radar and drop into the notch. Aircraft in DCS have TWS tracks - give them to the AWACS also so they don't have to constantly 'pop up' a new target if someone is popping in and out of radar contact before the track expires. Make AWACS capable of classifying that some aircraft are in a group without having to resort to 'knowing' that they're in the same editor group - ie. learn to actually declare real groups. Make AWACS capable of classifying things like CAPs by matching the track pattern to 'what looks like' a CAP, including knowledge of the aircraft type.
  18. It isn't schizophrenia (paranoia at worst) and I'm not convinced that you're qualified to judge people's fears for their safety in a situation that you aren't experiencing.
  19. Seems like you want to minimize the severity of over-g ... you're in a heavyweight aircraft and over-g is easy to accomplish. The amount of time at over-g needed to bend the airframe depends on the severity of the over-g, and that in turn depends on weight and speed (the aircraft is more vulnerable in the transonic region). This sort of event would not lead to just 'replacing the wing', the entire fuselage would have been bent so you're writing off the aircraft after landing. The wings are just the most visible problem.
  20. Yes we can, because they're on the same level. This myth that FC3 FMs are somehow worse needs to die - FC3 FMs were brought well up to snuff years ago.
  21. If that's how you want to phrase it, I like to study the flying part, so I don't miss FF too much. Still want it, but not necessary as long as there's enough systems and a great FM.
  22. Initially start with what you said - determine the choice of one or two circle based on the merge parameters, then fly your best one/two circle. You're right, the plan 'does not survive' if the other aircraft decides to change things - then you also change things based on what that other aircraft is doing. All of this is fluid and dynamic. So I guess you might say you need lots of plans and you have to change which one you're using depending on how the situation develops. The thing about having those already thought out and practiced is that you'll be able to know what to do and how to do it at the drop of a hat, and if you're faster at recognition/execution than the other guy, you can put him in a place where he can no longer counter you. Sure, he can go in whatever direction but the end result will always be you in the control zone. Outside the turn circle you're flying a collision course, with the goal to enter the bandit's turn circle. You can adjust the details of this geometry base don what exactly you want to achieve - simplest thing, collision with your target ie. get there as soon as you can. As you can imagine this is basically a triangle sort of problem (the case where he's always head on is trivial). From there you can decide to have offset so you can turn directly onto his 6 without overshooting it (try intercepting a tanker) and whatever other scenario you can imagine. Inside the turn circle it's nearly the same but you're manipulating where in the circle you are and where you're going to do by manipulating speed, distance and aspect from the target. You do this by using lead/pure/lag pursuit with your nose OR lift vector, and of course throttle and g.
  23. Google and the search on this forum are at your fingertips. This is at least half a decade if not more old subject for me, so I won't be repeating that homework
  24. The plan wins BFM, period. You have to have a completely inferior machine to lose if your planning (and execution) is superior or you could be very unlucky. I don't know how much this will help you, but here goes: All maneuvering is done in relation to the bandit - meaning, you need to know his distance, speed, aspect, altitude. The maneuvers descriptions usually don't help because they usually don't describe things in this context, and in the vast majority of cases this context is everything that matters. So having said that we now have: Outside of the turn circle (you and your opponent are further than a turn circle away - not misaligned turn circles, but outside) all geometry is intercept geometry where you seek to enter the other guy's turn circle with advantage - this could be completely severe such as a stern conversion (you drop on his six right away) or getting a significant lead turn. Once inside the turn circle, you seek to enter his control zone and stay there (of course he will be doing the same). You need to be able to judge relative speed (is he slower or faster than me?), aspect and distance from you by sight. You then maneuver to position the bandit in a specific place in relation to your visual cues within your cockpit, ie. your lift vector (Straight up) offset from your canopy rail or HUD or other elements, depending on which part of the fight you're in. You're always trying to manipulate aspect speed and distance to your advantage, so basically you're really manipulating the turn circle and you need to understand how to recognize what he is doing to it as well. Energy fighting adds another dimension to this (I think a typical way to think of energy fighting is zooming vertically, but that's just not it) but it is much harder, so stick with horizontal/out of plane maneuvering that isn't too severe. Read the resources that are out there, they will usually give you good guidance.
×
×
  • Create New...