S530 Range

[Azrayen]

Therefore I think the doppler filter presence does not rely on antenna elevation.

But I've never implied that.

It's a bit more complicated. Back in FC 1.12 you got into look-down if your radar beam got lower than an angle calculated as A = half the tangent to earth surface (given your current altitude & taking earth curvature into account). I don't think it has changed in FC2 or FC3.

=> Look-up and look-down (radar-wise) is about the radar horizon.

 

Sorry if it wasn't clear. You may refer to this "old" doc (in French) made in 2007 by MajorBug:

[ame]http://www.evac-fr.net/docs/biblio/radar-v1.0.0.pdf[/ame]

 

Particularly p. 30-33 with formula, graphics...

 

Now, IRL it's possible that it's even more "clever" i.e. to take into account a very high mountain just in front of you (the most simple way to test that would be for the radar to be able to detect for itself that it is "blinded" by ground clutter, and switch on the doppler filter then). I don't know how Razbam plans to / has implemented all this.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Azrayen

[Bacab]

But I've never implied that ;)

Right :) but it is not related to the "radar looking down" which is what you said (yep I've made a short-cut assuming we were flying straight;)).

[Azrayen]

I edited, wasn't clear :)

[Bacab]

I edited, wasn't clear :)

Right I understand the confusion. As you said in the last part I wasn't talking about the in-game simulation but about IRL mechanics. My point was just to say that IRL you can't rely on radar horizon alone to decide to apply the doppler filter or not.

[JNelson]

Yes, but at certain relative velocities the Doppler shift is the same on the target as the ground clutter. That was the intended point.

 

I know this I was just commenting on this:

If the contact is perpendicular to the beam, there is no wave frequency change thus the contact becomes invisible to the radar.

 

If the target is perpendicular there is still a frequency change in the beam.

[Brisse]

If the target is perpendicular there is still a frequency change in the beam.

 

I think what Zeus meant to say was that the doppler shift is then the same as it is for the ground clutter, which makes the contact disappear in the clutter.

[OnlyforDCS]

Thank goodness the PK is close to zero and not close to 100%. Personally, if I have to live with one or the other, I would rather be forced to get in close and take my chances in a knife fight, than get nailed by the other guy or gal from BVR 100% of the time. :D

 

:thumbup: MJ

 

Im afraid the sentiment expressed here is precisely the reason why we have unrealistic BVR combat currently present in the game, why BVR missiles are not modeled to completion and are at this time very inefficient.

[Azrayen]

I'm sure missiles modelization could be pushed further, yes, particularly regarding sensors.

 

OTOH, I also think that many of us have irrealistic expectations (regarding range in particular); probably because we've integrated "bad habits" from earlier, less precise (versions of) simulators.

[Bacab]

I'm sure missiles modelization could be pushed further, yes, particularly regarding sensors.

 

OTOH, I also think that many of us have irrealistic expectations (regarding range in particular); probably because we've integrated "bad habits" from earlier, less precise (versions of) simulators.

+ 1

 

Though I don't blame ED for that because data about missile seekers are very difficult to find and even when they can be found they are not to be trusted.

[OnlyforDCS]

I'm sure missiles modelization could be pushed further, yes, particularly regarding sensors.

 

OTOH, I also think that many of us have irrealistic expectations (regarding range in particular); probably because we've integrated "bad habits" from earlier, less precise (versions of) simulators.

 

If we limit the discussion to range and aerodynamic performance only, then this is not (strictly) true. It has already been noted that parasitic drag reduction (by virtue of the rocket engines of said missiles) is not modeled in the game. This drag reduction is not insignificant, during motor burn it can be as much as 20%. One other thing to consider, CFD models have been done on some of the BVR missiles currently in use that purport to show that in the current implementation they are all much more draggy in the game than they should be according to those models.

 

How this will affect the SuperD is anyone's guess, but since ED has reported fixes to that missile thanks to Razbam Im thinking and hoping that the SuperD will perform close to real world specs. (At least with regards to range)

Edited December 14, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[Moos_tachu]

You may refer to this "old" doc (in French) made in 2007 by MajorBug

 

Haha, good old times... :D

[funkster]

S530 Range

 

Is the range correct for the 530? circa 10nm? I know its a medium range missile but it seem very short range to me! or im I missing something?

[Zeus67]

I posted this in another thread a long time ago:

 

The S530D speed/range changes with altitude.

 

At sea level, it is slow and its max range is about 10 nautical miles.

At 40,000 feet MSL (and above) it reaches it max stated range of 23 nautical miles and it is very fast.

 

It was designed to hit slow high flying nuclear bombers like the Tu-96 Bear.

If you like, you can consider it the French version of the AIM-7 Sparrow.

 

If I remember correctly it should have about 40% kill ratio, meaning that you usually shoot two to hit a single target.

 

In DCS, it is highly susceptible to chaff "flooding" (the target starts dispensing chaff like crazy, creating a cloud of the thing) due to the built-in ECM mechanics (each chaff bundle has a specific probability of spoofing the missile and they stack on top of each other with each bundle released until you get 100% spoof probability).

[funkster]

Thanks Zues, that makes sense.

 

Great job BTW

[Rlaxoxo]

I posted this in another thread a long time ago:

 

The S530D speed/range changes with altitude.

 

At sea level, it is slow and its max range is about 10 nautical miles.

At 40,000 feet MSL (and above) it reaches it max stated range of 23 nautical miles and it is very fast.

 

It was designed to hit slow high flying nuclear bombers like the Tu-96 Bear.

If you like, you can consider it the French version of the AIM-7 Sparrow.

 

If I remember correctly it should have about 40% kill ratio, meaning that you usually shoot two to hit a single target.

 

In DCS, it is highly susceptible to chaff "flooding" (the target starts dispensing chaff like crazy, creating a cloud of the thing) due to the built-in ECM mechanics (each chaff bundle has a specific probability of spoofing the missile and they stack on top of each other with each bundle released until you get 100% spoof probability).

 

Are there any plans in improving this missile because it looks like it has a huge airbrake on it's tail once the fuel is out

[Zeus67]

Are there any plans in improving this missile because it looks like it has a huge airbrake on it's tail once the fuel is out

 

Missile FM are done by ED. We can request changes but they always asks for hard data before consideration. We had to dig a lot and do a lot of computing to get something they could work with.

 

As you understand Matra remains quite silent when people ask them about their products. ;)

[Rlaxoxo]

Missile FM are done by ED. We can request changes but they always asks for hard data before consideration. We had to dig a lot and do a lot of computing to get something they could work with.

 

As you understand Matra remains quite silent when people ask them about their products. ;)

 

I see, well I guess I'll get used to using S530's to make the enemy go defensive and kill it with a magic or guns I suppose

 

For now or whatever guess we'll see : P

[myHelljumper]

In fact, after some testing the missile is not that under-powered, it works well against same period fox 1s. The only thing that prevent a good use is the inability to crank while maintaining lock due to the radar not being able to move up/down.

 

Again it will come in due time

[TomCatMucDe]

But Zeus, does It mean that this missile is simply much worse than the other SARH missiles and there is nothing to do with it?

[*Rage*]

Missile FM are done by ED. We can request changes but they always asks for hard data before consideration. We had to dig a lot and do a lot of computing to get something they could work with.

 

As you understand Matra remains quite silent when people ask them about their products. ;)

 

Will the chaff susceptibility be modified by ED? Must it always be that releasing enough chaff will 100% spoof a SARH missile? I would hate for the 530D to be neutered as the (E)R has become.

[Rlaxoxo]

Will the chaff susceptibility be modified by ED? Must it always be that releasing enough chaff will 100% spoof a SARH missile? I would hate for the 530D to be neutered as the (E)R has become.

 

I think we gonna see some improvements down the road but I don't think they gonna come soon-ish.

 

I do hope for that tho

[Zeus67]

ED will always modify an unwanted behavior if shown evidence. The problem is coming with the evidence.

 

Usually it is track files where the problem happened.

[Zeus67]

Will the chaff susceptibility be modified by ED? Must it always be that releasing enough chaff will 100% spoof a SARH missile? I would hate for the 530D to be neutered as the (E)R has become.

 

The Super 530D has hardly been neutered, it is just something that you must take into account, and ED can modify parameters if we manage to show that the chaff is too effective.

 

But that will take some time to gather the data.

[*Rage*]

Well I have enough on my hands trying to convince ED of (E)R chaff issues. Someone else can carry that baton for the 530D :)

 

Edit: Perhaps the 530D is not neutered now but trust me once online players catch the scent of how easy it is to just dump chaff and spoof it while staying hot it will be.

Edited December 27, 2015 by ///Rage

[sedenion]

Comparing basic caracteristics :

 

S-530D :

Length: 380 cm

Diameter : 26 cm

Weight : 270 kg

Tnt: 30kg

Speed: Mach 4.5

 

AIM-7 :

Lenght :366 cm

Diameter : 20 cm

Weight : 230 kg

Tnt: 30-40kg

Speed: Mach 4

 

 

They are pretty the same... obviously, S-530D should have similare behaviour and performance than AIM-7

 

In fact, it appear that S-530D should be sighly better than AIM-7 since S-530D has a better maximum speed (which mean less dragg or better propulsion)...

 

The question is: Currently, is the S-530D realy worst than the AIM-7 in DCS ?