530D's range

[GGTharos]

It is the right place because it is RB that choose a different tuning philosophy that breaks rank with the rest of the game. It is a very valid concern and you're simply reaping the fruits of this decision. In this context, fairness it's actually very important. You're getting something that is tuned to a different standard than the rest of the game.

 

 

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).

[jojo]

It is the right place because it is RB that choose a different tuning philosophy that breaks rank with the rest of the game. It is a very valid concern and you're simply reaping the fruits of this decision. In this context, fairness it's actually very important. You're getting something that is tuned to a different standard than the rest of the game.

 

What different philosophy ? I thought the point of a good combat simulator was to recreate the known performance of weapon systems...

So far current Super 530D modeling is in line with known parameters.

[T_A]

This a new one... so even if someone make a DCS Module 100% true to life (which i am not claiming the M2K is) , its not good - please dumb it down to conform with FC3

 

The FC3 modules handicap the whole DCS World ecosystem, i hope in 3-4 years they will be a thing of the past.

[*Rage*]

Here is a little bit of reading

 

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

 

Nothing in there about performance related to comparable (competing) platforms which I'll remind you, was the original claim I asked a source for.

[myHelljumper]

I don't think that you can find sources that directly compare missiles if this is what you are looking for.

You only can compare data found in different sources.

[GGTharos]

This a new one... so even if someone make a DCS Module 100% true to life (which i am not claiming the M2K is) , its not good - please dumb it down to conform with FC3

 

The FC3 modules handicap the whole DCS World ecosystem, i hope in 3-4 years they will be a thing of the past.

That's quite the misinterpretation. What do you mean by 'FC3'? How about the rest of the missiles in the game instead? Like, all of them? This has nothing to do with dumbing down anything, it's about the method of determining parameters for the missile flight model.

[GGTharos]

What different philosophy ? I thought the point of a good combat simulator was to recreate the known performance of weapon systems...

So far current Super 530D modeling is in line with known parameters.

If you tune weapons of each model to a different physical standard from, you're not getting the correct RELATIVE performance, and that is Rage's point.

 

I prefer the RB tuning, butt this doesn't invalidate the point that it's being made.

 

FYI Rage, some knowledge for missiles is delivered in private.

Edited January 3, 2017 by GGTharos

[jojo]

Nothing in there about performance related to comparable (competing) platforms which I'll remind you, was the original claim I asked a source for.

 

There are performances about Super 530D. What about YOU doing a little bit of research and providing data ???

 

It's easy to say "no, it isn't good" and disregard any source pointed to you without providing anything else on your side.

[jojo]

If you tune weapons of each model to a different physical standard from, you're not getting the correct RELATIVE performance, and that is Rage's point.

 

I prefer the RB tuning, butt this doesn't invalidate the point that it's being made.

 

FYI Rage, some knowledge for missiles is delivered in private.

 

There is no different physical standard, it's the same game engine...

[myHelljumper]

If you tune weapons of each model to a different physical standard from, you're not getting the correct RELATIVE performance, and that is Rage's point.

 

I prefer the RB tuning, butt this doesn't invalidate the point that it's being made.

 

FYI Rage, some knowledge for missiles is delivered in private.

 

So because ED is doing not realistic missile, Razbam should make its missiles not realistic too ??

 

Wow this is next level simulation here....

 

What if ED change its missile performances and makes them OP, should razbam change its missiles too ?

[GGTharos]

There is no different physical standard, it's the same game engine...

You are half right and half wrong the physical engine is the same. However the actual tuning philosophy is not the same and its results in very different based on which are based on how parameters are chosen.

Edited January 3, 2017 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

So because ED is doing not realistic missile, Razbam should make its missiles not realistic too ??

 

Wow this is next level simulation here....

 

What if ED change its missile performances and makes them OP, should razbam change its missiles too ?

On what basis do you judge that the eagle Dynamics tuning is not realistic? They can actually justify what they have done and so can RAZBAM. Both approaches are valid and what is happening here is the two different approaches were chosen that result in different performance.

[myHelljumper]

I don't understand.

ED missiles are ok, RB missiles are ok but RB missiles are not ok ?

I really would like to understand what you are talking about....

[jojo]

You are half white and half wrong the physical engine is the same. However the actual tuning philosophy is not the same and its results in very different based on which are based on how parameters are chosen.

 

Go on, for the sake of this discussion, just explain what these different philosophies behind ED's missiles and the one one behind Razbam's Super 530D ?

[IASGATG]

The nutshell boils down to this. ED's philosophy is that the limit of the DLZ curve is an aerodynamic limit and the missile stalls at that point.

 

Razbam's philosophy is that a DLZ chart is a guide of effective pK for the pilot and isn't directly an aerodynamic performance chart.

 

Both can be argued and have their merits. They just give very different results.

[GGTharos]

What IASGATG said :)

 

Regardless of which method is chosen, it should be used universally, otherwise you lose the simulation part - ie. the relative performance of the weapons goes completely out of whack. You end up with things not matching up correctly in combat.

 

I don't understand.

ED missiles are ok, RB missiles are ok but RB missiles are not ok ?

I really would like to understand what you are talking about....

[myHelljumper]

The nutshell boils down to this. ED's philosophy is that the limit of the DLZ curve is an aerodynamic limit and the missile stalls at that point.

 

Razbam's philosophy is that a DLZ chart is a guide of effective pK for the pilot and isn't directly an aerodynamic performance chart.

 

Both can be argued and have their merits. They just give very different results.

 

Isn't it just the HUD display that show the DLZ ?

 

I don't know what be are talking about anymore, are we talking about performances or DLZ ? Because according to the available data the performances are spot on...

[IASGATG]

Isn't it just the HUD display that show the DLZ ?

 

I don't know what be are talking about anymore, are we talking about performances or DLZ ? Because according to the available data the performances are spot on...

 

The HUD display is basically a moving DLZ chart yes.

 

The argument goes as follows:

 

DLZ data says that a M0.9 20kft shot against co-speed, co-alt, fighter sized, non-manoeuvring target, will have a max curve of 20nmi, it curves down to 1.5nmi. It'll have a note to say that 5nmi is max pK.

 

Philosophy a says that if the bandit at 5.1nmi turns 180 and extends at M0.9, the missile will miss. Moreover if the bandit is at 20nmi, the missile will hit in a deep stall as all energy is lost. If within 5nmi the missile will have enough energy to catch the 180 turned target and hit it just as the missile falls to M0.9.

 

The philosophy says that RMax is pK 0. It says that somewhere in the middle thete is some pK? And that rtr the pK 0.9 (can never have pK 1).

 

 

Anyway you should get the picture.

 

If the expectation is that the top of the dlz chart for this launch is 40km, then the philosophy dictates thr missile has to be going 300kts on impact. This means the missile has to accelerate to M4 then down to M0.7 in under 50 seconds, with a motor running for 10 seconds of flight and reach a travel distance of about 30km (haven't done the maths on 40km - M0.9 for 50s).

[Pikey]

The original Matra Super 530D from Eagle was in game at launch. Given the Mirage testing by them, how long do you think ED tested that missile for?

 

The original gripe wasn't even about the standardisation...but I agree, it wasn't well done by ED. We all saw it. If the Mirage was supposed to be an interceptor, then the French Air Force was completely ineffective and useless if you want to judge it by RELATIVE performance.

 

I believe common sense, in the absence of reliable data.

[Azrayen]

Interesting :)

 

Regardless of which method is chosen, it should be used universally, otherwise you lose the simulation part - ie. the relative performance of the weapons goes completely out of whack. You end up with things not matching up correctly in combat.

Well, French DLZs are a guide of effective pK for the pilot. So Razbam's call is right, here, and I see no point in turning it into an aerodynamic performance chart.

 

I understand ED different philosophy, and I agree about the need for a "relative performance" equality, but if indeed results are "off-the-mark" with ED's method, why not tuning ED's missiles towards upgraded versions (this should be doable while keeping each philosophy if necessary)?

 

What are we going to say to LN when they come out with their fully modelled Phoenix? Not good either? :huh:

[red_coreSix]

F-14 and phoenix will probably be the same problem but until ED gets around to address the missiles we will be stuck with unrealistic relations between the modules, despite how "off-the-mark" ED's or RAZBAM's philosophy is.

[Oceandar]

Wow, last posts really a good reading. You guys are pro. Thanks for everyone involved

 

Cheers

[Eddie]

The nutshell boils down to this. ED's philosophy is that the limit of the DLZ curve is an aerodynamic limit and the missile stalls at that point.

 

Razbam's philosophy is that a DLZ chart is a guide of effective pK for the pilot and isn't directly an aerodynamic performance chart.

 

Both can be argued and have their merits. They just give very different results.

 

Seems like someone (not you I know) is confusing RMax(ROpt) with RAero. DLZ are a Pk indicator, at least by NATO convention. Sounds to me like Razbam are on the money.