R-550Mk2 (Magic 2) & Super 530D Performances: Synthesis and sumary

[IASGATG]

Please define the word "range"

[TheJay15]

Isn't the case with missile range that it is often over the missiles actual effective range? For instance the AIM 120 has a listed range on Wikipedia of 80nm or something like that even though that is a near impossible range.

[Eddie]

Isn't the case with missile range that it is often over the missiles actual effective range? For instance the AIM 120 has a listed range on Wikipedia of 80nm or something like that even though that is a near impossible range.

 

80NM is more than possible, depending on the launch and target aircraft parameters.

 

That's the point IASGATG is making, missiles don't have a single "max" range, it's a dynamic number based on parameters. Without knowing the parameters, giving a range number is meaningless.

[Megaladon7k]

FC3 aircraft are not meant to be realistic in any shape or form other than flight model. the range for FC3 aircraft missile has been lowered by a factor, to compensate for the easy mechanics, meanwhile full fidelity aircraft take more time and effort to use and get realistic missile fight dynamics, in my honest opinion it seems very fair.

[Zeus67]

I learned from an artillery book that there are two types of ranges:

 

Maximum Range (Max.Rng): The furthest the shell, or missile in this case, can fly.

Maximum Effective Range(Max.Ef.Rng): The furthest the shell or missile can fly and still be able to do harm to the enemy.

 

Of course Max.R > Max.Ef.Rng

 

The specific chapter was talking about the mighty 88 (Acht-Acht) in its role as both an anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun.

[TheJay15]

80NM is more than possible, depending on the launch and target aircraft parameters.

 

That's the point IASGATG is making, missiles don't have a single "max" range, it's a dynamic number based on parameters. Without knowing the parameters, giving a range number is meaningless.

 

Yeah I should have been more clear there. I meant isn't that an unlikely/optomistic range. I'm sure it is possible to do it would just require you to be very high and very fast and head on.

[GGTharos]

The funny part is that Zeus just announced that the pilot workload for the m2k is about to increase.... And become about the same as that the FC3 aircraft.

 

It's quite the joke to see people write about how 'easy' and unrealistic the FC3 aircraft are without having a clue. Not having a cliffhanger pit doesn't mean easier or less realistic, in fact they're sometimes harder to use well then a fully modeled aircraft.

 

Still think it's fair?

 

FC3 aircraft are not meant to be realistic in any shape or form other than flight model. the range for FC3 aircraft missile has been lowered by a factor, to compensate for the easy mechanics, meanwhile full fidelity aircraft take more time and effort to use and get realistic missile fight dynamics, in my honest opinion it seems very fair.

[King_Hrothgar]

That struck me as a bit funny too. In regards to missiles, for our purposes in air to air, the only things I care about is for how far and how long the missile is above mach 1 when fired at mach 1 at an altitude of 0m, 5km and 10km ASL. That gives a reasonable effective range estimate. The problem with wikipedia and other such things is they generally assume the target flies mach 2 straight into the missile as it falls helplessly out of the air. Hence 160km AIM-120's and other nonsense like that.:megalol:

[JG-1_Vogel]

The funny part is that Zeus just announced that the pilot workload for the m2k is about to increase.... And become about the same as that the FC3 aircraft.

 

It's quite the joke to see people write about how 'easy' and unrealistic the FC3 aircraft are without having a clue. Not having a cliffhanger pit doesn't mean easier or less realistic, in fact they're sometimes harder to use well then a fully modeled aircraft.

 

Still think it's fair?

 

I think however once more complex INS and IFF avionics are patched in the M2000-C will become more complex than the FC3 aircraft. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, don't have anything like that. Unless it's changed since I was last using the FC3 aircraft for Russians especially you can tell immediately what's friendly or not because of the - or = contacts on your screen. FC3 aircraft may not have clickable cockpits, but let's be fair in the middle of a furball we aren't going to start faffing about with a mouse to click switches we'll use keybinds like you would for the FC3 lot.

 

Eventually, with more and more complex avionics being implemented for full DCS level modules the FC3 aircraft will get left behind with non-interactive cockpits and more "basic" avionics compared to those found on the fully modelled aircraft. This isn't a dig at players who use the FC era aircraft, since I'd get my ass handed to me in a second if I hopped into a Su-27 or F-15C but it doesn't change the realities of the way DCS is progressing.

 

As for missiles though, I don't expect 100% accuracy but the behaviour exhibited by missiles currently is a joke. It's something that should have been addressed a few years back but sadly we are left in a position where we have aircraft modelled down to the minutia in terms of system modelling but arcade missiles which can't hit the side of a barn door.

Edited March 5, 2016 by 159th_LoneWolf

[GGTharos]

I think however once more complex INS and IFF avionics are patched in the M2000-C will become more complex than the FC3 aircraft. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, don't have anything like that. Unless it's changed since I was last using the FC3 aircraft for Russians especially you can tell immediately what's friendly or not because of the - or = contacts on your screen. FC3 aircraft may not have clickable cockpits, but let's be fair in the middle of a furball we aren't going to start faffing about with a mouse to click switches we'll use keybinds like you would for the FC3 lot.

 

The INS you start up and leave alone. The navigation system being more complex is an actual advantage.

 

As for the IFF, what you see in the FC3 planes is not necessarily unrealistic. The Russian planes are by default operating in a nice shirt off similar to m2k's sector IFF. The F-15 can automatically interrogate any defected contact, no designation necessary (better yet, the real deal has a symbol for friendly, unknown, AND enemy).

 

This isn't a dig at players who use the FC era aircraft, since I'd get my ass handed to me in a second if I hopped into a Su-27 or F-15C but it doesn't change the realities of the way DCS is progressing.

 

This is hindrance, not an advantage for the FC3 jets.

[Enduro14]

Well over all the whole Air to Air stuff in dcs world needs a good revamp in many areas just like the AG area needs allot of work to, especially in damage and weapon fidelity. Anyways i think Razbam is on the right path and will set a standard for others to follow. I never do the Air to Air stuff in Dcs world as it lacks so many things but with the Mirage its now My number one interest as well as the AA realm with it.

More Knowledge is shared the better, in regards to the Ins system along with the PCN in the whole i do believe it will be quite similiar to the CDU in the A10c Lots to do with it when its fully modeled Correct me if im wrong.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Enduro14

[VTJS17_Fire]

The funny part is that Zeus just announced that the pilot workload for the m2k is about to increase.... And become about the same as that the FC3 aircraft.

 

It's quite the joke to see people write about how 'easy' and unrealistic the FC3 aircraft are without having a clue.

 

I fly the F-15 since FC 1.12 and still like it. But the lack of an interactive navigation system - creating a own route at start-up or inflight - and realistic INS calibration, datalink and even no bullseye information, less information in the HUD and the missing semi-auto and/ or automatic ECM and dispense systems makes it less attractive to me. I even can't use TACAN ... only the simulation of it via waypoints.

 

I know that the Mirage is missing some of them, too. I also know that the bullseye information in the VTB for using modern tactics isn't a great advantage, because of the - only two - SARH missiles. But it's the right step.

 

And the F/A-18C will bring us these missing parts ... plus a few more.

[Pikey]

@Zeus, to assist with switchology, is it possible to consider some of the radar switches as toggles that only have one button, as well as the full featured ones for the simpit builders? What I mean is that for say bar scan changing, it would be very helpful if you can press the same button and after you go from 2 to 1 bar scan, it goes back to 4 bar scan and thus we save a bunch of buttons? Most modules are doing this and you may already have this in mind, but I keep looking at this X52 and wondering how to compress the switches into those available buttons.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Pikey
tp-yo's

[GGTharos]

Yeah, I'm not so worried about the alignment - in practical terms it just increases the amount of time you have to spend on the ground, or you have to do an in-flight alignment.

 

Obviously everything you mention here is a good example of how a fuller simulation makes it easier to use that jet compared to FC3. :)

 

I fly the F-15 since FC 1.12 and still like it. But the lack of an interactive navigation system - creating a own route at start-up or inflight - and realistic INS calibration, datalink and even no bullseye information, less information in the HUD and the missing semi-auto and/ or automatic ECM and dispense systems makes it less attractive to me. I even can't use TACAN ... only the simulation of it via waypoints.

 

I know that the Mirage is missing some of them, too. I also know that the bullseye information in the VTB for using modern tactics isn't a great advantage, because of the - only two - SARH missiles. But it's the right step.

 

And the F/A-18C will bring us these missing parts ... plus a few more.

[OnlyforDCS]

Sorry to be resurrecting an old thread, I've been away for over a year. Was just wondering are the Matra530Ds and Magic II missiles performing better now than they were at release of the M2000C? I seem to remember that their drag values made them almost unusable at almost any distance.

[mattebubben]

Sorry to be resurrecting an old thread, I've been away for over a year. Was just wondering are the Matra530Ds and Magic II missiles performing better now than they were at release of the M2000C? I seem to remember that their drag values made them almost unusable at almost any distance.

 

Soon after release the ED 530 and 550 where replaces by those made by Razbam.

(The ED missiles had the problem with the Insane Drag).

 

So the Missiles for the Mirage 2000C work perfectly and have been doing so for a long time.

[OnlyforDCS]

Thank you for the reply. Looking forward to trying the training missions and campaign for the M2000C, and of course the multiplayer :)