GGTharos Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 What data? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 not the point of efficiency, but the presentation of natural laws. not the point of the type of missile, but this is true for the R-27ER. @GG data are relevant. For request of data delivery, please contact my squadron! http://www.4c-squad.rs/ “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.” — George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I'll make my point simple: Your data means nothing unless you give it to ED. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59th_LeFty Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 @Ragnarok You are hitting supersonic drones with missiles that have slowed down and reached their subsonic speeds. That would be hardly effective, especially online where even more drag is forced upon a missile tracking an even a little bit warping target. Please add the Terminal V (speed) of the missile in each situation. Has any reached Mach 4 - 4.5? They used to reach those speeds at medium to high altitudes, including AMRAAM. Are you launching at RMax? Same questions here, please Ragnarok :) [sIGPIC]http://www.forum.lockon.ru/signaturepics/sigpic5279_1.gif[/sIGPIC] I could shot down a Kitchen :smartass: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You shouldnt correct one mistake with another, don't add speed due to lag, kill the lag instead. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Speed needs to be added because speed needs to be added. The range against maneuvering targets can only be fixed with a complete revamp of the missile guidance model. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) 1.2.7.23097 Testing More testing with 1.2.7 Missiles generally launched in pairs. LOCK maintained at all times. Almost always a look up situation without ground clutter. Assessing tracking only not energy. 1st volley roughly 35-40km 2nd volley (if first misses) at/under 20km 10 Tracks and Tacviews:- https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gve7s86avq1mbyq/m2DLFkoiqp Track 1 - 2 launches, 1 miss-track Track 2 - 2 launches, 2 miss-track Track 3 - 2 launches, 0 miss-track Track 4 - 4 launches, 2 miss-track Track 5 - 4 launches, 2 miss-track Track 6 - 4 launches, 3 miss-track Track 7 - 4 launches, 1 miss-track Track 8 - 4 launches, 0 miss-track Track 9 - 4 launches, 3 miss-track Track 10 - 4 launches, 2 miss-track 34 launches. 16 miss-track, 18 track well. Lock maintained at all times. Ussually look-up situation without ground clutter. Ptrack .53 Small improvement over previous testing (was previously .42) but still a way to go yet. IMO just tracking when a lock is maintained at all times in a look up situation with no ground clutter should be closer to 80%. Without chaff the tracking is 100% so clearly there is still an over-susceptibility to chaff decoying when it should not work. Chizh mentioned before he would look into improving this as in interim measure before the whole seeker code is re-written. Is this still possible? Thanks. Edited February 8, 2014 by ///Rage [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I did a little bit of testing with the new 1.2.7 update, though it's not on seeker ability. I thought I'd just throw it in. The R-27ER is the dominant missile in terms of range/tracking efficiency/speed. It won easily all head on launches above 20 miles on non maneuvering target. Below 20 nm, it's even with the AIM-120C. The more interesting test I did was against a beaming target flying at constant speed and altitude. It really showed that the ER has an aerodynamic efficiency advantage over the AIM-120's and R-77. *two entries for 120B and 77 because they were not in range when launched. I launched at the same point as 120C and ER, then launched a second missile when they were in range. The 77 initial launch has an impact velocity of 400? because it was barely flying, it might have missed because the second missile overtook it and caused the target to change course. I also saw what looked like weird loft behavior from follow up launches with the active missiles (US and Russian), most evident with the AIM-120C.AIM-120B Beaming test.trkAIM-120C Beaming test.trkR-27ER Beaming test.trkR-77 Beaming test.trk Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Presumably non chaffing targets? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Non-chaffing, he was shooting for range. Regarding the chaff, there is some bug being investigated, that's all I can say. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 While everyone is concentrating on the big sticks I noticed the heat seekers turning performance is still rather poor. Seconds? [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Pilotasso, while I don't disagree, need some way to demonstrate this fact. For example I very strongly insisted that at minimum the AIM-9 must meet whatever official training criteria I could find. So it was adjusted to at least do that much. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Non-chaffing, he was shooting for range. Regarding the chaff, there is some bug being investigated, that's all I can say. Sounds good. Keep us informed. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Regarding the chaff, there is some bug being investigated, that's all I can say. Is it associated with microlag in multiplayer? “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.” — George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 No, and I don't know if it's a bug yet, that's why I'm not saying much. Kuky pointed out something interesting and the devs are looking into it. Microlag can be handled by other means (which incidentally missiles implement anyway) but there are no plans to change guidance right now AFAIK. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Pilotasso, while I don't disagree, need some way to demonstrate this fact. For example I very strongly insisted that at minimum the AIM-9 must meet whatever official training criteria I could find. So it was adjusted to at least do that much. Regretfully I haven't as much time as I used to for my hobbies but I do have Ideas where I would start. First of all I would like to know what are the lift and drag assumptions taken by ED to model missiles. Its is a suspicion I have after observing the sidewinder turn at high speed with over 30 of AOA which IMHO is unexpected behaviour for missiles that maneuverer with the frontal fins and rear stabilizers. (much like a canard system that provides lift to turn instead of down-force) Do missile model include drag by fin actuation? I say this because I imagine fins drag varies with angle of actuation which adds to the body drag. And I imagine the R-73 suffers equally, and with absence of thrust vectoring. Edited February 11, 2014 by Pilotasso [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Thrust vectoring is now modeled. The rest, I don't know the details, but there is a separate lift coefficient for the fins and I suspect AoA + that coefficient are translated into drag. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59th_LeFty Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 R73 does just fine, as I've seen, tested against a parallell flying target 45°offset, missile hit just fine. [sIGPIC]http://www.forum.lockon.ru/signaturepics/sigpic5279_1.gif[/sIGPIC] I could shot down a Kitchen :smartass: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lvazktarm5hl3c/dcs%202014-01-05%2002-06-13-09.mp4 my simple test for ER and R73 in high angle and close distance. I have to express my satisfaction with R-73 and expected behavior heavy ER in high angle. Nice for now! Countermeasure against AIM120C also very good! :thumbup: “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.” — George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostie Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 A key element missing in DCS as far as i'm aware is the transonic effect. F-22's armed with AIM-120Cs probably get more out of their AMRAAMs on average than say an F-15 because a standard launch procedure for an F-22 would probably be at super cruise, maybe M1.3+ @ 50,000ft. With transonic stage already broken through the missile doesn't have to go through this huge speed bump so in turn reaches out further, much further than if launched at say M0.9. This is one reason why the AIM-120D( C-8 ) is regarded as such a longer range missile over the 120C, the launching platform, but probably more so down to a much more advanced and smarter guidance system. Makes you wonder how varied the parameters are for every missile range promoted and documented around the net. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 51st PVO "BISONS" Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Frostie, AIM-120A already has 35nm range at 20000' M0.9 shooter-target parameters, which means it handily out-ranges an R-27ER. Why? It lofts. The D isn't considered 'longer ranged' because of guidance. It has a larger rocket. Same like AIM-120A and B, the DLZs are the same but the performance is considered to be better for the B. How? No one's talking, but I'm sure we can both speculate. Guidance can't change the laws of physics, but it can take advantage of them. The task is now comparing two missiles that use the same technique to get their max range. Bringing up F-22's doesn't mean much: F-15 squadrons routinely train for an M1.6 intercept, and F-22's stuck in a CAP might not have room to go supersonic anyway. If you want to omit questions about platforms, look at what the USN has to say about 120's, if anything. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostie Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Yes but I'm wondering how DCS deals with the effect of transonic drag, when we're fed ranges for missiles how do we know what parameters for the launching aircraft were set. I've heard of 30-40% added to range when launched supersonic over subsonic because of the drag. Is this a very real issue and how is DCS dealing with it? "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 51st PVO "BISONS" Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Just like it ought to. The coefficient of drag is highest when at that speed range. As for the amount of extra range you should get, that I don't know, haven't done the math, and I don't recall mention from texts regarding this. I think it's a combined effect rather than the effect of just the changing Cd. Yes but I'm wondering how DCS deals with the effect of transonic drag, when we're fed ranges for missiles how do we know what parameters for the launching aircraft were set. I've heard of 30-40% added to range when launched supersonic over subsonic because of the drag. Is this a very real issue and how is DCS dealing with it? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I'm not 100 percent sure but I think there is a bug, client does not register that I was fired missiles. He seemed on his computer has no my missile, when I see my missile as it goes into space, does not follow the target. We have both external views, and a client except STT has no missile in the air. I dont know, whether it abundantly eject chaffs so that the server load, and fails to transmit specific information? “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.” — George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 It definitely sounds like some sort of network connection issue. The only times I have seen an invisible missile is: a) A bug existed where 'infinite missiles' were finite for the client, so the 'ghost missile' on the client was never generated b) There is a small possibility that if you are playing with different data (missiles_data.lua) or something else that this may happen. If none of the above are the case, and this is happening for you consistently, then I don't know what's going on, it's very unusual. If it just happened once, then it's just a network connection issue. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts