Krippz Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 yeah, quickly! [ATTACH]166261[/ATTACH] So from looking at that it's best to pitch up 45 degrees before launch or am I reading it wrong? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 You're reading it wrong. This is for either a ballistic or appropriately guided flight. The missile can achieve this by lofting all by itself, though if you pitched up you save it a bit of energy doing so. N/A DCS until there's appropriate guidance. I think the real take-away from this is that if you want range, you need to loft - ie. the missile has to spend a bunch of time gliding down to target from high altitude. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 You're reading it wrong. This is for either a ballistic or appropriately guided flight. The missile can achieve this by lofting all by itself, though if you pitched up you save it a bit of energy doing so. N/A DCS until there's appropriate guidance. IIRC, pitching up enables the loft to begin with. Not applying any launch elevation will have the missile fly in a simple PN fashion. At least that's how it works for the AIM-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 I believe that it depends on the on-board software, even for the 7. I've read (or maybe misinterpreted? :D ) at least a couple of versions of 'how to loft' the 7. The 120 has a TTG counter deciding if it will loft or not as one of the parameters - it may or may not have more. :) IIRC, pitching up enables the loft to begin with. Not applying any launch elevation will have the missile fly in a simple PN fashion. At least that's how it works for the AIM-7. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 I believe that it depends on the on-board software, even for the 7. I've read (or maybe misinterpreted? :D ) at least a couple of versions of 'how to loft' the 7. The 120 has a TTG counter deciding if it will loft or not as one of the parameters - it may or may not have more. :) The 120 also, most likely, goes off RTR. As in whether the target is inside or not. No point in lofting below RTR, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Last I checked in the -34 it was ttg and the ttg was suspiciously close to the rocket burn time :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curly Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Last I checked in the -34 it was ttg and the ttg was suspiciously close to the rocket burn time :D TTG is the most likely determinate of wether the missile lofts or not. High loft energy management ascent profiles can lead to a miss due time to climb, especially in a tail chase scenario. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2405896316301197/1-s2.0-S2405896316301197-main.pdf?_tid=ad09ee42-6fec-11e7-b48d-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1500844976_b7e03651cbf08601fa7a225b3c6a8320 It seems like the DCS missiles only have two guidance phases at the moment, boost and terminal. Some midcourse guidance laws designed to manage energy would probably lead to more realistic results. Solutions are publicly available ranging in complexity from keeping the missile flying at L/D max To something more complex like optimal control theory or even more intricate like Singular Perturbation. The missile probably should only go P/N with in the seeker range in the terminal phase. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essah Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 The 7g limit was used for testing loft. When ED introduces better guidance, this sort of limit will be temporary for the duration of the loft only. So I hope :) Are we expected to believe that that will happen in the foreseeable future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probad Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 if it was so certain to happen that we would have cause for expectation, i think he would not had added the hopeful disclaimer. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackmckay Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Ideally, but the time/cost of such an exercise is pretty massive for something like this. Also you have to consider the limitations in the game engine, making such an exercise likely pointless. It'd would help justify the g-limit, but beyond that you wouldn't get much out of it. This tests should be conducted just to get drag force rule for specific missile or plane. Calculations of this kind could be done in matter of less than 2 weeks in moderate(adaptive) mesh resolution. Once AoA[deg] vs Drag[F] chart is complete the rest is on coders. Noo need for realtime calculations because they all would look very similar. Missile flight envelope looks like this: drop-burn-glide-manouver-(hit or die) and physics looks like this: accelerate max speed (burn time, drag from normal pylon hinged to max free flight)-0deg AoA(standard straight drag force slowly depletes energy)-max G/AoA (drag force on maxG/AoA max energy loss) per time segment-until all maneuverable energy lost - ballistic. So in general we have initial velocity vs drag force per altitude/air density combined with drag increment by AoA in specific turn under 1G global vectored field. Its very simple but most important data can be gained by CFD or expensive wind tunnel data. Tunnel is for professionals, no need for that. Just extract drag force chart and make that work on everything that flies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Are we expected to believe that that will happen in the foreseeable future? I guess we'll just have to use them against bombers and cruise missiles only. How will we be able to tell which is which, is another topic ;) Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDsc0rch Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Are we expected to believe that that will happen in the foreseeable future? one of the most important questions in DCS i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamscanner Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 ED we need some guidance please! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 rest is on coders. This is where the problem comes in. The coders can't do anything as it's all DCS engine hardcode. It's pointless doing 2 weeks of high cost work that then cannot be used. Whilst I would love to have the drag force for different AoA's at different airspeeds at different altitudes, the fact remains that from a third party dev's perspective, the most they can change is the max Cl at <M1 and max Cl at >M4, the game engine calculates the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion213 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I guess we'll just have to use them against bombers and cruise missiles only. How will we be able to tell which is which, is another topic ;) I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I've tested the current DCS AIM-54 against fighter targets and it rarely pulls many G during the intercept, even with direct hits when the fighter is maneuvering hard. The energy retention may have some advantages anyway. I also have faith that Heatblur will test this thoroughly. If it has trouble with fighters due to the G limit, they may decide to relax things a bit. :thumbup: -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 So we have aerodynamics in the ball park, but guidance after launch is simply not there for DCS and is simulated by DCS as if it were guided? If so, and we have a launch with preset INS and the guiding aircraft turns away, will we have magic guidance from DCS, meaning the missile in DCS will then become much more capable than it could ever be unless the guidance via AWACS is also a synthetic layer of simulation? 1 ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 So we have aerodynamics in the ball park, but guidance after launch is simply not there for DCS and is simulated by DCS as if it were guided? If so, and we have a launch with preset INS and the guiding aircraft turns away, will we have magic guidance from DCS, meaning the missile in DCS will then become much more capable than it could ever be unless the guidance via AWACS is also a synthetic layer of simulation? I don't quite follow what you're asking. The missile follows the same guidance logic as the AIM-120 does in the game, with a slightly modified loft variables to smooth the loft parabola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I've tested the current DCS AIM-54 against fighter targets and it rarely pulls many G during the intercept, even with direct hits when the fighter is maneuvering hard. The energy retention may have some advantages anyway. I also have faith that Heatblur will test this thoroughly. If it has trouble with fighters due to the G limit, they may decide to relax things a bit. :thumbup: -Nick Don't get me wrong, i intend to fly the F-14 guns only in MP, so for me the 54 won't be an issue. In SP though...... it might. But it won't matter as much, as the AI isn't very good at missile evasion anyways. :thumbup: EDIT: did you check the latest update on FB? It looks awesome! Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion213 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Don't get me wrong, i intend to fly the F-14 guns only in MP, so for me the 54 won't be an issue. In SP though...... it might. But it won't matter as much, as the AI isn't very good at missile evasion anyways. :thumbup: EDIT: did you check the latest update on FB? It looks awesome! Yeah, I saw the FM charts. Super impressive as usual! No doubt the FM is going to be outstanding for this module. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears has gone in to it. :) -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWind Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Yeah, I saw the FM charts. Super impressive as usual! No doubt the FM is going to be outstanding for this module. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears has gone in to it. :) -Nick The -54 better launch at 25000ft -35000ft.:book: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceFuel85 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Yeah, I saw the FM charts. Super impressive as usual! No doubt the FM is going to be outstanding for this module. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears has gone in to it. :) -Nick Yep..HB's really making waves and being super impressive. I'd say probably as near as possible to a maximum fidelity simulator outside of the sims at Oceana..which were dumbed down when released to the public at Pensacola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyco1987 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Man, the amount of research going into this simulation is impressive. This is awesome, great stuff! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 29 October 2009 CGNR-1705 / USMC Cobra * * * * * * * * * Semper Memoria, Semper Vigilens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probad Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 mark my words, half a year later nobody is going to remember this. but when they file their bogus report about how wrong it is that the aim-54 isnt getting them the sure kills they think the history channel promised them, some smartass is going to drag out this paper and point out the guidance deficiencies mentioned within, and half the thread will all of a sudden be in an uproar about the lack of fidelity and how they're mothballing or refunding the module because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastyBaiter Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 My takeaway from this is under normal DCS conditions, the missile either hits within 30-32 seconds at any normal altitude or it does not hit. I think that makes it the longest ranged air to air missile in DCS. System specs: i5-10600k (4.9 GHz), RX 6950XT, 32GB DDR4 3200, NVMe SSD, Reverb G2, WinWing Super Libra/Taurus, CH Pro Pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 mark my words, half a year later nobody is going to remember this. but when they file their bogus report about how wrong it is that the aim-54 isnt getting them the sure kills they think the history channel promised them, some smartass is going to drag out this paper and point out the guidance deficiencies mentioned within, and half the thread will all of a sudden be in an uproar about the lack of fidelity and how they're mothballing or refunding the module because of it. Probably so :( And it's not like the missile issues is a new or obscure one...... :huh: Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts