Vikhr missiles are too fast

[Flagrum]

You two guys are so funny... You're actually asking from me to prove something which is clearly stated even in DCS manual by ED developers :huh:?! I guess you're not really accustomed to check that PDF from time to time and that's the reason for you spamming and raging in this thread. I encountered that so many times, people just don't like to read manuals, ...

 

IF you two little fellows are OK with vikhr missile speeding up to almost mach 3 in the sim even if in the manual is clearly stated that speed should be mach 1.8 I really don't care. I don't have time or will for filling two leisured forum bots with knowledge nor do I want to pinpoint you to manual pages... Do your own research and actually learn something!

 

First post of this thread is aimed toward competent people which will acknowledge or dismiss this bug report with the proper facts and maybe a bit more detailed explanation than it's given in DCS manual. Those people are certainly NOT you two!

 

And, by the way , tnx for negative rep outlaw :thumbup: , it's actually my first one since I registered on ED forums...The time when you probably didn't even hear for FC and DCS series...

Nobody here says that your claim is wrong, but without knowing the exact circumstances that lead to your observation, your observation is somewhat useless.

 

Assuming that you already had gathered the data you compare your observation to - how else could you otherwise claim that there is something off? - why is it too much for you to provide these references as well? To present a consistent and complete picture of the issue - if not for us "lazy forum peasants", then for the guys who shall take care of it?

 

It is called "methodical work" - a skill not only helpfull here, but in RL as well. You really should try it sometime - it is probably better for your reputation and more effective than resorting to personal attacks when you run out of arguments. Well, that is at least my personal opinion - facts > personal attacks. :o)

[GGTharos]

How about this?

 

Incidentally, it's pretty unlikely for this missile to go anywhere near M3 ... it's a matter of available fuel, and this missile isn't heavy enough to have the requisite amount of fuel. It is as large as a sidewinder, but half the weight - and the amount of fuel Sidewinder uses is half the weight of this missile.

 

Edited September 28, 2014 by GGTharos

[Frostie]

23 seconds to impact at 8 km that is a lot longer than we have now.

The fast destruction of ground units on servers by Ka50 may be over.

[karambiatos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG-_AVqeiT8

 

this video says it takes the vikhr 28s to cover 10km, so that's an average speed of 1285.7142 kmh

 

or whatever these videos are showing, the distance is either 3600 or 2800m at the time of the recoding and it takes the missile 3 seconds to cover that

 

so the missiles either going 4320kmhor 3360kmh

[GGTharos]

There's a actually an official or semi-official time-to-distance chart floating around for the Vikhr somewhere. I couldn't find it though.

 

In any case, your second video is not useful for determining missile speed. There's not enough information shown on it.

 

As for taking 28s to cover 10km, that might be because of the long rocket motor sustain operation, thus keeping average speed high (ie. near M1.6 or 1.8 for a long duration). The missile probably slows down quite quickly once the rocket motor ceases operating.

[Vecko]

How about this?

 

Incidentally, it's pretty unlikely for this missile to go anywhere near M3 ... it's a matter of available fuel, and this missile isn't heavy enough to have the requisite amount of fuel. It is as large as a sidewinder, but half the weight - and the amount of fuel Sidewinder uses is half the weight of this missile.

 

 

Heh, as always, when is needed to degrade performance of Russian build weapons, GG is there! :D

 

But this time , that's precisely what I was looking for, I must agree...:thumbup:

 

Will you report this issue then?

[GGTharos]

Yep. But I want to find that time-to-target chart. Then I can change the missile profile myself and just give them a solution to test, so they can work on other stuff.

 

Max speed of 610m/s and 23s to 8km is really not much information to go on.

[Buzpilot]

Nobody here says that your claim is wrong, but without knowing the exact circumstances that lead to your observation, your observation is somewhat useless.

 

Assuming that you already had gathered the data you compare your observation to - how else could you otherwise claim that there is something off? - why is it too much for you to provide these references as well? To present a consistent and complete picture of the issue - if not for us "lazy forum peasants", then for the guys who shall take care of it?

 

It is called "methodical work" - a skill not only helpfull here, but in RL as well. You really should try it sometime - it is probably better for your reputation and more effective than resorting to personal attacks when you run out of arguments. Well, that is at least my personal opinion - facts > personal attacks. :o)

 

Fact of most data is secret, but if you ask me I have a big problem believing any data here is real, and you ask people to come up with some real data, that nobody are allowed to post?

A few of us know for instance, the computer in a tank can compute the impact point really good, but the hydraulic and the gearing to do that, don't come cheap, so a few of us have a real problem believing a cheaper tank kan hit at same distance. ( at the same rate)

Edited September 28, 2014 by Buzpilot

[Flagrum]

Fact of most data is secret, but if you ask me I have a big problem believing any data here is real, and you ask people to come up with some real data, that nobody are allowed to post?

A few of us know for instance, the computer in a tank can compute the impact point really good, but the hydraulic and the gearing to do that, don't come cheap, so a few of us have a real problem believing a cheaper tank kan hit at same distance.

I had just so simple things in mind like "600 m/s according to DCS manual" and "Launched from a stationary Ka-50". It makes probably a slight difference if you launch a missile from 0 km/h off a Ka-50 or from 500 km/h off a Su-25T ...

 

Something like that, just the usual stuff we commonly consider, that was my impression up to day, as usefull and helpfull when it comes to issues and problems. A track file would probably been gold ... but hey ...

[Buzpilot]

I had just so simple things in mind like "600 m/s according to DCS manual" and "Launched from a stationary Ka-50". It makes probably a slight difference if you launch a missile from 0 km/h off a Ka-50 or from 500 km/h off a Su-25T ...

 

Something like that, just the usual stuff we commonly consider, that was my impression up to day, as usefull and helpfull when it comes to issues and problems. A track file would probably been gold ... but hey ...

 

Usually the data on a weapon system don't include other factor like platform shooting, using random speed, so it's natural to asume it's fired from 0m/s on the platform doing the shooting.

[159th_Viper]

Also need to remember that the new Vikhr-1 missiles might be a wee bitty faster than advertised, although they themselves are now a legacy system with the operational testing of the Ka-52 mounted Hermes-A anti-tank missiles, no slouches at 1000m/s.

[Flagrum]

Usually the data on a weapon system don't include other factor like platform shooting, using random speed, so it's natural to asume it's fired from 0m/s on the platform doing the shooting.

Ok, then it is natural to assume things, regardless of the background of the person who states something. We assume that the OP's assumptions are the same as our assumptions. No more tracks necessary, no more screenshots, natural assumptions suffice.

[opps]

In DCS vikhr fries 8km in 15sec.

Ka-50 vikhr @ 8km.trk

[SnowTiger]

I think "opps" has the right idea to prove the actual speed.

That is to do the simple mathematical calculation of a vikhr shot within any mission.

Laze the target to get the distance, fire the shot and time it.

 

This should confirm the actual Fps or Fpm or M/sec etc.

 

But I don't see any of this being worth any arguments or insults. The Screenshot doesn't lie. Whether the increments or values are correct ... who knows ?

It's worth further exploration by all those interested in knowing for sure. I know I'm going to check it out for myself.

[159th_Viper]

In DCS vikhr fries 8km in 15sec.

 

Which is 533m/s, well within valid parameters, yes?

[SnowTiger]

Agreed !

[effte]

Average speed != maximum speed. :vertag:

 

And open source material in this field requires one to be vary of equipment versions (as always) and the fact that published data is what they want the world to believe regarding the capabilities of the product.

 

Not that I see much reason to fudge the time to target value in this case. Is it the same version though?

[GGTharos]

No, it is absolutely not.

 

The stated time to target is between 23 and 28s, and the maximum NOT average missile speed is 600-610m/s.

 

Treating it as average has huge implications regarding tracking of fast-moving targets at long ranges for example, as well as significant implications for threat reaction time.

 

Which is 533m/s, well within valid parameters, yes?

[Vecko]

Which is 533m/s, well within valid parameters, yes?

 

I'm not sure...According to GG document 600m/s is max missile speed in flight while in game max speed is way of that scale. Also, 23s as presented in the vikhr commercial is significantly slower that 15s. Now , I dont think that producer of the vikhr missiles will degrade their own product in their commercial.

 

Something is strange here and it would be nice IMO to present this issue to the developers.

I'm also glad to hear that some testers are (GG) willing to investigate this issue further more...

 

EDIT:

If you could find that time to distance chart GG, that would be very helpful...

Edited September 28, 2014 by Vecko

[Emu]

A lot of missiles may be too fast. The AIM-54 gets to about 9,000kph from a high speed launch.

[outlawal2]

You two guys are so funny... You're actually asking from me to prove something which is clearly stated even in DCS manual by ED developers :huh:?! I guess you're not really accustomed to check that PDF from time to time and that's the reason for you spamming and raging in this thread. I encountered that so many times, people just don't like to read manuals, ...

 

IF you two little fellows are OK with vikhr missile speeding up to almost mach 3 in the sim even if in the manual is clearly stated that speed should be mach 1.8 I really don't care. I don't have time or will for filling two leisured forum bots with knowledge nor do I want to pinpoint you to manual pages... Do your own research and actually learn something!

 

First post of this thread is aimed toward competent people which will acknowledge or dismiss this bug report with the proper facts and maybe a bit more detailed explanation than it's given in DCS manual. Those people are certainly NOT you two!

 

And, by the way , tnx for negative rep outlaw :thumbup: , it's actually my first one since I registered on ED forums...The time when you probably didn't even hear for FC and DCS series...

 

LOL

Wow the attitude is awesome!

 

Please be sure to let us know how this approach works on getting what you want.. Spout BS with zero reinforcing info, then get nasty when asked for specific info and tell those you are trying to convince to look it up for ourselves...

 

Dale Carnegie would be proud!

LOL

 

What a RAY of sunshine...

:thumbup:

[Vecko]

A lot of missiles may be too fast. The AIM-54 gets to about 9,000kph from a high speed launch.

 

Maybe, but again AIM-54 is a rarely used missile while vikhrs are commonly used, therefore their proper behavior is more important for realism...

 

 

LOL

Wow the attitude is awesome!

 

Please be sure to let us know how this approach works on getting what you want.. Spout BS with zero reinforcing info, then get nasty when asked for specific info and tell those you are trying to convince to look it up for ourselves...

 

Oh please, knock it off already, or en least say something constructive , will ya? The bug is recognized by one of the main ED testers so my request is fulfilled. Fell free to check few last pages of this thread, especially GG Tharos's posting. You are giving your selves to much credits if you think that I'll report progres regarding thiss issue to you...:D

[GGTharos]

AIM-54 is in need of its own tuning, but like Vecko said, you don't see it on player-used aircraft anyway.

 

Y'all knock it off now. It's an acknowledged issue, it'll be resolved when it's resolved.

[Frostie]

I expect to see a detailed report in my pm box by morning or else.:spam_laser:

 

 

P.S.

So is the Maverick and probably a few more missiles.

[GGTharos]

Maverick is about right, but I think it still uses the old FM so I'm a bit reluctant to touch it. I have to see if I can dig up peak speed docs for the -65, not sure I'll be able to find them any more though.

 

Edit: I just checked one known AGM-65G test launch, ~2600m range flown in 7.3 sec, indicating that AGM-65 definitely breaks the sound barrier ... soundly. :)

Edited September 29, 2014 by GGTharos