Schmidtfire Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 The IR guided R-3S is way to sophisticated as is, and should be dumbed down. It is an reversed engineered version of an AIM 9B Sidewinder. The GAR-8 and AIM 9B is esentially the same... But in the sim, R-3S outperforms the GAR-8 by a LOT. I cannot speak for GAR-8 made by Belsimtek, but it feels closer to a first generation sidewinder that takes a lot of skill and luck to score with. And the only thing that seems different between a R-3S and an much newer R13M1 in the sim is the range....
Hadwell Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 well at least it's an interesting experiment... what happens when 3 different developers make their own versions of the same missile? My youtube channel Remember: the fun is in the fight, not the kill, so say NO! to the AIM-120. System specs:ROG Maximus XI Hero, Intel I9 9900K, 32GB 3200MHz ram, EVGA 1080ti FTW3, Samsung 970 EVO 1TB NVME, 27" Samsung SA350 1080p, 27" BenQ GW2765HT 1440p, ASUS ROG PG278Q 1440p G-SYNC Controls: Saitekt rudder pedals,Virpil MongoosT50 throttle, warBRD base, CM2 stick, TrackIR 5+pro clip, WMR VR headset. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
mpdugas Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 and that is the conundrum inherent in all of DCS World...
scaflight Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 I feel like instead of trying to tweak it unilaterally, ED and LN should work out common solutions. This is a part of DCS development that I don't know anything about, and since it has gone (to my knowledge) unreported I can't easily speculate on the extent of such standardization.
c84 Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Agreed, should be dumbed down a lot. AI is able fire and hit with R-3S even head on. target: another mig, without afterburner
scaflight Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Agreed, should be dumbed down a lot. AI is able fire and hit with R-3S even head on. target: another mig, without afterburner I think that is quite separate. I filed it here, but also noted their previous AI disclaimer.
c84 Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I think that is quite separate. I filed it here, but also noted their previous AI disclaimer. I am not expert in this so there big chance i am wrong. There is file missiles_data.lua from ED, where are stored data for all the missiles. But R-3S is not there (and i cannot find it anywhere else) - i expect R-3S is done by Leatherneck, and probably not correctly so R-3S is UFO and AI think it is all-aspect.
Schmidtfire Posted December 10, 2014 Author Posted December 10, 2014 I got hit head on with an R60M, me flying the F86F Sabre... that is quite a kill considering the heat signature of a subsonic fighter ;) there is also a big difference between Leatherneck R60 and the R60M. The older R60 is vastly better! Low smoketrail, better agility, more lethal (almost always score a pilot kill) and VERY resistant to flares. Only fools would use the newer R60M on their Mig21s :-)
Recommended Posts