Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi guys request for an update to add some diversity to the missile effects.

 

I think the current effects suit SAMS and Russian missiles but not so much for western missiles.

 

Compare:

 

Screen_160422_124552.thumb.jpg.711932a85b7b8dd52297bdedcab3fd10.jpg

AIM120

[ATTACH]139141[/ATTACH]

fZbKVKY.thumb.jpg.ff13d2684982d473268bcbf543287d91.jpg

 

 

 

I know lighting conditions and exposure probably change what we are seeing but the difference is still apparent, so should we bring back the diamonds for the western missiles and maybe missile add contrails depending on altitude?

 

What do you think?

2565196807_5de5c240e3_o.thumb.jpg.eb6c4c5833ba56ce5af44745ed5568a2.jpg

Edited by huge
  • Like 1
Posted

Planes cause contrails because they heat up a large amount of air, expending it to create its trust, which then gets cooled down quickly. I'm not sure a missile would cause contrails as they do not directly heat up air to get their propulsion, instead they use a reaction which yields heat. I would tend to think that this might not be enough to create a drastic temperature change on enough air molecules to end up in a contrail. Also, the hypersonic speed of missiles would mean that there are more air molecules to heat in a given amount of time, making conning harder?

 

This is just an educated guess, hope someone has a real answer to this

Posted

Seems good enough to me, the contrail needs some time to form so the missile flies x distance ahead of it.

Maybe that's the reason you don't see it as much in the picture?

 

Also, over the years many variants of the aim-120 were developped, and i believe the newer versions produce less smoke while the rocket motor is burning.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Posted

Yes I agree the smoke trails do look good but I think there could be more flame variation depending on the missile.

 

Watch some more AIM120 or AGM88 launches and you will notice the pronounced diamond effect that's currently missing.

 

Its hard to compare videos or photos because there are so many unknowns (conditions, variant, etc) but I think we can all see that the current effects in game don't look as life like as they could.

 

 

 

Again just a suggestion and maybe its on the way already with new Edge effects.

Posted

+1 I think, and I know it's work, to have an effect that best suites ordnance in terms of realism - that's what DCS is all about right?

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Posted
Planes cause contrails because they heat up a large amount of air, expending it to create its trust, which then gets cooled down quickly.

 

Heating, expanding, etc. doesn't change a thing as long as the absolute moisture stays the same. In such conditions, you either need to cool the air or compress it or both to get below the dew point. Since burning hydrocarbons yields a lot of water though, the moisture content is changed, which condensates when the exhaust stream cools down to ambient temperature. Depending on the fuel used, the same can *potentially* happen in a rocket exhaust. A2A rockets use rather specialised fuels though. I don't think the exhaust contains much water vapor if any.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Posted

A lot of missiles/rockets need their own smoke set, its a bit of a mess last time I checked with S24/S5/S8/S25 all leaving identical smoke trails. Only S25L had its own much fatter smoketrail for some reason.

 

Also Hydra's should not have the same smoketrails as the russian stuff, pretty obvious when comparing recent Russian rocket footage from Syria to any Hydra use.

 

The whole thing needs looking at really.

  • 2 years later...
Posted

With our lovely new vapour effects on the Hornet are we going to see any update to the missile flames?

 

That AIM-9X flame looks like its going to the moon.

  • 1 year later...
Posted

ReHASH!

 

We need updated effects!

Little smoke puff then diamond effect similar to our afterburners?

 

These rocket motor effects are over the top and unrealistic when everything else is looking so good.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=139142&d=1461295861

 

vs

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=238877&d=1591511126

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=238878&d=1591511126

Screen_200607_155510.thumb.png.d9cc37ecde9c58d007a996367878f885.png

Screen_200607_155525.thumb.png.77406f560cffae1192fce782f018ca21.png

Posted

Explosion effects for missiles also could do with looking at. And that's just the graphics. Properly simulated proximity warheads would be heavenly :)

 

In the end, we'll get there, be sure. Two weeks ;-)

I5 9600KF, 32GB, 3080ti, G2, PointCTRL

Posted (edited)

Yeah all the missile effects need an update! The HARM/AMRAAM/AIM9 all look pretty simlar though just different sizes.

Edited by huge
Posted

The Russian missiles look about spot on.

 

 

 

 

Just need some work on the western missiles.

Posted (edited)

Sure i agree functionality first but why not AIM for the most realistic possible? I don't think a flame effect is going to affect the flight dynamics.

Edited by huge
Posted (edited)
The more you nittpick on eye-candy, the less they work on functionality.

 

Nah, don't think so, I don't think the graphics guy is doing the functional stuff...

 

"Oh sorry we didn't do this [insert functional item here] because some effects were updated" Don't think so.

Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

  • 3 months later...
Posted

missile contrails? afaik we have then but theyre really bugged

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

  • 2 months later...
Posted

Gonna bump this again since watching the awesome DCS 21 and beyond video - the coming clouds look incredible!

 

That said will an Aim-9 launch still look like a ballistic missile launch?

Posted
On 9/20/2020 at 2:30 AM, dundun92 said:

missile contrails? afaik we have then but theyre really bugged

 

Do we? I've never really noticed, all I see is the normal smoke trail from the rocket, I'll have to do some testing. 

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
On 4/22/2016 at 6:47 AM, Ktulu2 said:

Planes cause contrails because they heat up a large amount of air, expending it to create its trust, which then gets cooled down quickly. I'm not sure a missile would cause contrails as they do not directly heat up air to get their propulsion, instead they use a reaction which yields heat. I would tend to think that this might not be enough to create a drastic temperature change on enough air molecules to end up in a contrail. Also, the hypersonic speed of missiles would mean that there are more air molecules to heat in a given amount of time, making conning harder?

 

This is just an educated guess, hope someone has a real answer to this

Pardon my ignorance about the AMRAAM, but there is high chance that AIM-120 can produce contrails. This comes from the testimony of a downed serbian MiG-29 pilot hat was shot down by an AIM-120A in 1999. He reported that he had visually identified 4 contrails heading towards him and his wingman. From the mission debrief, of the F-15C pilots that actually fired those shots, 3 x AIM-120A were fired from an altitude of around 20k feet, so I guess those were the contrails from the AMRAAMs. The MiG-29 pilot specifically recognized them as missile contrails coming from two launching aircraft. What is questionable here is how come he had noticed 4 contrails when only 3 missiles were fired, but I guess this be accredited to stress. 
Of course, this is only under the premise that the A variant had a smokeless motor, which if it didn't renders my post useless.

Edited by Cmptohocah

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...