530D's range

[myHelljumper]

What? What are you talking about. We flew on Open Conflict and you saw me flying only high and not in the valleys. Your tacview will show you.

 

It's not the topic though but it only oeuvre how you just don't give a damn about facts sources, data. When you say "it just doesn't sound right to me" it becomes pointless to show you facts. A dedicated FC3 pilot complains about realism. How ironic...

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tom is right. Back your complains with facts, otherwise it's just trolling.

Edited December 27, 2016 by myHelljumper

[TomCatMucDe]

Back your complains with facts, otherwise it's just trolling.

 

 

 

He is trolling but he is not doing it in purpose. That's maybe worse

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

I'll just leave this here, and no I don't have links handy-I am also very far away from home, but if you look quite hard you will find the following information:

 

40000k 1.4M co altitude and speed, head on and non maneuvering AIM7F RAero 53nm from official USAF documents.

Try to guess the missile impact speed with a 20nm launch.

[Oceandar]

did anyone manage to outmaneuver a 530D launched at you from TIR distance ? I mean drain energy from it with a spiral coil maneuver ?

Its doable, I did that in MiG-29 with 9G hard maneuver in OC server few months ago, and not just 530D but also the Magic. Actually I didn't believe it myself that I could survive and even managed to kill the Mirage. Too bad can't provide you with a track.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Oceandar

[Frostie]

Tom is right. Back your complains with facts, otherwise it's just trolling.

 

I don't see any facts about battery life, I have already stated the range is irrelevant but the fact the missile still has plenty of energy at 60km seems wrong.

[TomCatMucDe]

did anyone manage to outmaneuver a 530D launched at you from TIR distance ? I mean drain energy from it with a spiral coil maneuver ?

 

 

 

Yes. I did this several times. Yesterday a guy did it to me. He outmaneuvered both 530 and both shots were bellow 7 and 4 nm. I did everything right but he did it well. He didn't break the lock, he simply maneuvered the missiles. I can send you the tacview

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enduro14]

Yes. I did this several times. Yesterday a guy did it to me. He outmaneuvered both 530 and both shots were bellow 7 and 4 nm. I did everything right but he did it well. He didn't break the lock, he simply maneuvered the missiles. I can send you the tacview

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Was this on Blueflag....???? I have out maneuvered 530 and so has others out maneuvered mine.

[diditopgun]

Ok the data :

 

M2000 : 45 kft - 1.37Mach

F-15C : 45 kft - 1.28Mach

 

Missile : ToF 45 sec, Max speed 4.25Mach, impact speed 2.43Mach

 

The 2 aircraft where flying strait head on with no maneuver from the targeted aircraft.

 

Range : 31.4 nm/58.2 km

 

Hey, that's a very long shot !

 

With the particular conditions, it does not seams too far off from the data that we have.

 

I did some tests myself to add to yours:

 

Test 1:

 

M2000 : 40 kft - 2.23Mach

F-15C : 40 kft - 2.45Mach

 

Missile : Launched at 20nm (max DLZ), ToF 45 sec, Max speed 4.78Mach, impact speed 3.76Mach 12,4 nm from launch point, if no impact: distance from launch to self-destruction 24.3 nm / 45 km at 2.27Mach final speed.

 

Test 2:

 

M2000 : 40 kft - 1.22Mach

F-15C : 40 kft - 1.22Mach

 

Missile : Launched at 20nm (max DLZ), ToF 45 sec, Max speed 4.01Mach, impact speed 2.7Mach 14.5 nm from launch point, if no impact: distance from launch to self-destruction 20.5 nm / 38 km at 2.04Mach final speed.

 

So in the best conditions we have a M4.8 missile with a 45Km range. It's closed to available public data which are not precise about launch/end of flight/target parameters.

We could even boost a bit more the 530D to really reach Mach 5.0, but there will be too much whining..... :D

 

Seriously, 530D is far to be an uber missile, 99% of time in game/online launch conditions are far from the ones stated above. To achieve a kill by 530 is quite tricky against Su-27 (Missiles ranges) / F-15C (spamraam and pump), because of its short range and radar beaming sensitivity. :joystick:

So when you do a 530 kill you feel so much "I'm a God !!!" :D

Edited December 27, 2016 by diditopgun

[TomCatMucDe]

Was this on Blueflag....???? I have out maneuvered 530 and so has others out maneuvered mine.

 

 

 

Nope. It was yesterday on Open Conflict. The guy called Eniks. An excellent pilot.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[myHelljumper]

I don't see any facts about battery life, I have already stated the range is irrelevant but the fact the missile still has plenty of energy at 60km seems wrong.

 

Yeah because Zeus of course does not known anything about the 2000, and he does not have access to more data and pilots than we do. (BTW he is the RAZBAM main dev).

 

I take what Zeus say as facts, to bad if you don't. My point still stand.

 

I will do tests with other missiles and we will see what come from it.

[Frostie]

Yeah because Zeus of course does not known anything about the 2000, and he does not have access to more data and pilots than we do. (BTW he is the RAZBAM main dev).

 

I take what Zeus say as facts, to bad if you don't. My point still stand.

 

I will do tests with other missiles and we will see what come from it.

 

Seems everyone can question EDs missiles even though they've been doing this for 20 years but to question a 3rd party developers missiles when something doesn't add up is blasphemy.

 

In what world would it make sense to have your missile travelling at 2.5 mach run out of battery life.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Frostie

[GGTharos]

In any world where you want a short time to target and you're limited by weight and volume for your battery.

[myHelljumper]

And in 99,9% of the time you won't shoot it at a target flying strait at you at 1.5Mach at 45 kft.

 

When you shot it at 10-30 kft the 45 seconds are enough because the missile will run out of energy before.

 

I see your point, maybe it have too much speed in this (very rare) case. IMHO not worth changing the missile FM as it can break elsewhere.

[GGTharos]

You guys are trying to simplify a fairly complex issue without actually knowing what you're talking about.

 

Both ED and RB have made a tuning choice, and neither is necessarily wrong.

[jojo]

I did some tests myself to add to yours:

 

Test 1:

 

M2000 : 40 kft - 2.23Mach

F-15C : 40 kft - 2.45Mach

 

Missile : Launched at 20nm (max DLZ), ToF 45 sec, Max speed 4.78Mach, impact speed 3.76Mach 12,4 nm from launch point, if no impact: distance from launch to self-destruction 24.3 nm / 45 km at 2.27Mach final speed.

 

Test 2:

 

M2000 : 40 kft - 1.22Mach

F-15C : 40 kft - 1.22Mach

 

Missile : Launched at 20nm (max DLZ), ToF 45 sec, Max speed 4.01Mach, impact speed 2.7Mach 14.5 nm from launch point, if no impact: distance from launch to self-destruction 20.5 nm / 38 km at 2.04Mach final speed.

 

So in the best conditions we have a M4.8 missile with a 45Km range. It's closed to available public data which are not precise about launch/end of flight/target parameters.

We could even boost a bit more the 530D to really reach Mach 5.0, but there will be too much whining..... :D

 

Seriously, 530D is far to be an uber missile, 99% of time in game/online launch conditions are far from the ones stated above. To achieve a kill by 530 is quite tricky against Su-27 (Missiles ranges) / F-15C (spamraam and pump), because of its short range and radar beaming sensitivity. :joystick:

So when you do a 530 kill you feel so much "I'm a God !!!" :D

 

You just proved the DLZ need an upgrade :megalol:

[Panthir]

When you have to face and fight a better weapon you have to enhance cooperation between wingmen and learn how to fight with your pair. Eventually M2000C with the A/A Tacan can assist pair cooperation. 530D is an excellent missile the way is presented in DCS. IMO is by far better than 7M.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Panthir

[Frostie]

You guys are trying to simplify a fairly complex issue without actually knowing what you're talking about.

 

Both ED and RB have made a tuning choice, and neither is necessarily wrong.

 

They're both wrong if they bring different ideas on missile behaviour into the same simulator. One dev err on the side of caution with its parameters while the other goes all out, this just creates a lost muddled simulator.

[Chrinik]

They're both wrong if they bring different ideas on missile behaviour into the same simulator. One dev err on the side of caution with its parameters while the other goes all out, this just creates a lost muddled simulator.

 

ED has said multiple times that they are not happy about their missile performance below 40000 feet...

[*Rage*]

It's disjointed when every developer within the same MP ecosystem has his own take and agenda on how missiles perform.

[GGTharos]

Really? Why one is erring on the side of caution here? (hint: everyone). The possibility of making such accusations is basically nil given both approaches.

 

Yes, it is disjointed. And it just might be a good thing that it is happening.

 

They're both wrong if they bring different ideas on missile behaviour into the same simulator. One dev err on the side of caution with its parameters while the other goes all out, this just creates a lost muddled simulator.

[myHelljumper]

Regarding the data available the razbam missile are realistic. The problem is not here.

 

BTW i think belsimtek have done their own missiles too.

[jojo]

It's disjointed when every developer within the same MP ecosystem has his own take and agenda on how missiles perform.

 

Did you try the original version of the missile ?

[*Rage*]

Did you try the original version of the missile ?

 

Actually yes since I was a day one pre purchaser. Yes they were poor. The Mirage is incorporated into DCS but it may as well be in its own game with regards to how it's missiles are modelled now.

 

I don't have an issue with the way they are modelled per se (check my posts). I have an issue with consistency within the MP ecosystem. Comparable systems should be comparable till proven otherwise.

 

I think that it is advertised to have a long range compared to it's competitors...

 

Still waiting on that advert/source. Please no more links to other random threads which contain no credible source. Actual sources (if there are any).

Edited January 3, 2017 by ///Rage

[myHelljumper]

Actually yes since I was a day one pre purchaser. Yes they were poor. The Mirage is incorporated into DCS but it may as well be in its own game with regards to how it's missiles are modelled now.

 

I don't have an issue with the way they are modelled per se (check my posts). I have an issue with consistency within the MP ecosystem. Comparable systems should be comparable till proven otherwise.

 

 

 

Still waiting on that advert/source. Please no more links to other random threads which contain no credible source. Actual sources (if there are any).

 

Ok you can call all this community work of research "random" and "no credible", this is just disrespectful as you did not even provide anything to back what you say.

 

At least I tried to back up what I said, it is your choice to ignore the sources that I have provided.

 

If your point is to try to say that the FC3 plane missiles are under-powered, well that is not the right place to report.

As you said the missile have no issues the way they are modeled so I really don't see what you are talking about if not fairness (no place in DCS).

 

Edit : PLEASE provide numbers or something, you say there is a problem but you doesn't even tell us what is the problem....

Edited January 3, 2017 by myHelljumper

[jojo]

Still waiting on that advert/source. Please no more links to other random threads which contain no credible source. Actual sources (if there are any).

 

Still waiting for your source to challenge current modeling.

 

Here is a little bit of reading

 

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=593