Eagle Vs Flanker

[D-Scythe]

I'd guess the 120 and 77 were modelled the same for simplicty and lack of solid info ('cos its all classified) - so one model or ARH missile.

 

Um, that shouldn't apply to the AIM-120B/C - it's far superior to both the AIM-120A and its Russian equivalent, the R-77.

 

If we assume all things are equal, the R-77 is AIM-120A tech - in fact, I don't even think it's capable of lofting IRL. I don't know why people believe in the myth of the R-77 outranging the AMRAAM - including ED. It's questionable whether the R-77 out-ranges even the AIM-120A.

[Kula66]

I was watching a recording of an on-line session the other day and an ET missed its target, did a 180 and chased it down and hit ... god those things are over-modelled.

[Kula66]

GGT - after Chizh said WAFM may be in BS, any news of changes?

[44th Eagle]

Ah, but Frost1e, it does paint an overall picture. Yes, the stats are not 'proof' per se, as presented

 

I never said it was proof positive? All I said was look at the data.

[GGTharos]

Eagle: I'm just agreeing with his general statement; not discarding yours. ;)

 

Kula: I don't know. There's no update as of last time this was mentioned, so it is still in the 'don't know if we will have time for it/no promises' stage.

[Frostie]

OK what are you turning me into ,ive delved into the stats and poured over the top 8 pilots and amounted these stats:

 

Mig29s (flown by 7 of the 8 )93 kills F15 - 9 deaths by F15

F-15 (flown by 6 of the 8 ) 113 kills Mig -31 deaths by Mig

 

Ive wasted time working out this and it tells me jack:cry:

[44th Eagle]

just making sure im not being misquoted. :)

[Pilotasso]

Eagle: I'm just agreeing with his general statement; not discarding yours. ;)

 

Kula: I don't know. There's no update as of last time this was mentioned, so it is still in the 'don't know if we will have time for it/no promises' stage.

 

 

 

Im crossing my fingers for that, even if the sensors modeling are the same, even a speed and range increase would be highly welcomed (R-77 seems to track better as it stand now due to its higher speed), not to mention how better they will look in flight. AIM-9 and R-73 would look very nifty with their hard turns and aparent ramdom trajectory twiches.

[Kula66]

Kula: I don't know. There's no update as of last time this was mentioned, so it is still in the 'don't know if we will have time for it/no promises' stage.

 

Ok cheers ...

 

Cali: Quick test ... the 77 has about 120-150 mph on the 120 after 7 secs .. but as far as I remember it is a larger diameter giving it a bigger rocket motor so I would guess it has more ooomph. The ET has another 150mph over the 77.

 

Given the rumors of the 77s higher drag fins (and also its greater size), I would expect it to loose speed faster after motor burnout.

 

The biggy for me is the difference betwen low-high show and high-low shot ... or rather lack of difference regardless of the missile.

 

PLUS The ET needs a major seeker re-work/dumbing down!

[GGTharos]

Ok cheers ...

The biggy for me is the difference betwen low-high show and high-low shot ... or rather lack of difference regardless of the missile.

 

With you on that. Unfortunately that does indeed require WAFM ... (this includes of course, ARPM ... Advanced Rocket Propulsion Model :D )

 

PLUS The ET needs a major seeker re-work/dumbing down!

 

On the list :)

[tflash]

With you on that. Unfortunately that does indeed require WAFM ... (this includes of course, ARPM ... Advanced Rocket Propulsion Model :D )

 

 

 

On the list :)

 

I do have some concerns about the used physics model if such a simple thing requires WAFM. In the "light" sim WOE a missile shot from low to high of course behaves differently than a shot from high to low, for the very very simple reason of G-force. That doesn't even need some thin/thick air moddelling.

 

A physics engine without this simple fact, G-force on earth, seems totally absurd to me. I must say I'm puzzled.

[GGTharos]

I do have some concerns about the used physics model if such a simple thing requires WAFM. In the "light" sim WOE a missile shot from low to high of course behaves differently than a shot from high to low, for the very very simple reason of G-force. That doesn't even need some thin/thick air moddelling.

 

A physics engine without this simple fact, G-force on earth, seems totally absurd to me. I must say I'm puzzled.

 

It 'requires WAFM' because of this: Since there IS work being done on WAFM, there's little point in wasting time on the old weapon FM.

WAFM brings more to the table than just g-force. We'll see differences between TVC and non-TVC missiles, for example, as well as different turning characteristics which will have impact on range, and so on and so forth. In short, it will be more complex behaviour than what we have now.

[EvilBivol-1]

The biggy for me is the difference betwen low-high show and high-low shot ... or rather lack of difference regardless of the missile.

My tests were pretty quick, so may not be accurate, but if you look in here (post #31 and down), you'll see there is still a considerable difference in launching from low versus high altitude, although not nearly enough.

[GGTharos]

Those, however, aren't very good because you used the Rmax on the HUD, which, sadly, isn't properly calculated. I'll happily launch at 20nm against someone really high, and they'll have a much harder time beating that missile up there, than me beating their missile in the weeds.

[Pilotasso]

It 'requires WAFM' because of this: Since there IS work being done on WAFM, there's little point in wasting time on the old weapon FM.

WAFM brings more to the table than just g-force. We'll see differences between TVC and non-TVC missiles, for example, as well as different turning characteristics which will have impact on range, and so on and so forth. In short, it will be more complex behaviour than what we have now.

 

Oh boy you got me mouth wattering ... Sure hope so it doesnt get shelved for too many complications or schedule. But thx for sharing. :)

[EvilBivol-1]

Those, however, aren't very good because you used the Rmax on the HUD, which, sadly, isn't properly calculated. I'll happily launch at 20nm against someone really high, and they'll have a much harder time beating that missile up there, than me beating their missile in the weeds.

 

I said post #31 and below. :)

 

Assuming they'll launch back at you and all other things being equal, their missile will still have a considerable energy and TOF advantage over yours.

[GGTharos]

I said post #31 and below. :)

 

Assuming they'll launch back at you and all other things being equal, their missile will still have a considerable energy and TOF advantage over yours.

 

Do a single snake and they'll never reach you :) Just so long as you do it at the right time!

[GGTharos]

Oh boy you got me mouth wattering ... Sure hope so it doesnt get shelved for too many complications or schedule. But thx for sharing. :)

 

Well keep in mind that this is what WAFM means to me - I sure hope there won't be any watered-down WAFM :D

 

Anyway, even if it doesn't make it into BS, it'll make it into the next project. As I've said before: Although WAFM will correct kinematic behaviour, it will -not- correct guidance and sensor behaviour, so the same maneuvering that works right now to waste a missile's energy, for example, will work with WAFM also.

 

Until there are ways to constrain the g-limit for these missiles, they'll be easy picking for speed-draining maneuvers. Once these constraints are in, you will see two things:

 

BVR will once more become BVR in many cases, and you will see a /noticeable/ difference from current HoJ behavior. To give you an example, without knowing target vector and closure, you cannot reasonably decide when to release your constrains, so the jammer+maneuver might work much better to drain the missile of speed (current HoJ is Pure. Realistically it is PN, and that is what will happen in the future) .. if you trig the target you can still reasonably loft the missile, and give it a 'time to go' to release its constraints, but this is inaccurate compared with knowing target position well, and often. So, you might releasetoo early, you might release too soon ... sheesh, that sounds dirty.

 

Anyway. WAFM is *only* a piece of the puzzle, and the -real- clincher will be advanced guidance and sensor modeling.

[D-Scythe]

I said post #31 and below. :)

 

Assuming they'll launch back at you and all other things being equal, their missile will still have a considerable energy and TOF advantage over yours.

 

True, but the fact is, it is still much easier to evade missiles down in the weeds. You're aircraft performs *much* better at low altitudes (I can personally say that the F-15 seems to be rather underpowered at it's normal "perching" altitude - >40 000ft), plus energy retention by a manuevering missile is *horrible* at low altitudes.

 

One 90 degree turn, and you can basically shave at least 600 kmph in 2 seconds from the incoming missile.

[GGTharos]

'Personally?' As in you've flown one?

[Pilotasso]

No, but your not deaph to pretend to ignore what others who did told you.

I've heard of training missions of F-16's over here up to 45000 feet without the use of afterburner to mainatin an armed F-16 afloat.

 

Thats what D sythe wants to say, of course, with f-15's they would have even less trouble to do that.

 

Besides your question can be used against Sythe as much as it can against anyone who claims to know anything about this, including you. So take it "personaly" as a figurative way of speach, as in belief according to gathered data.

[GGTharos]

My point is that phraseology ought to be accurate as much as possible. We have real pilots telling us that the F-15 is underpowered; 'Personally' should be something that ought to be said if it is indeed your personal experience.

 

Give less ammo, get shot at less.

[S77th-GOYA]

We have real pilots telling us that the F-15 is underpowered;

 

But it doesn't appear to be underpowered in the horizontal. Top speed and acceleration appear to be much closer (though not perfect) to realistic than any climbing maneuver. And this is not limited to the F-15. The thrust to weight of the MiG ought to let it take off and accelerate vertically even better than the 15. It can't.

 

I still think the problem seems to be in how the LOMAC world (atmosphere/gravity) is modeled. Either that of the thrust modeling has seperate horizontal and vertical components that are not compatible.

[Pilotasso]

thrust to weight and airframe drag are undermodeled but wing load and weapons drag are probably overmodeled. We shouldnt have to use AB maintain level flight.

[GGTharos]

But it doesn't appear to be underpowered in the horizontal. Top speed and acceleration appear to be much closer (though not perfect) to realistic than any climbing maneuver. And this is not limited to the F-15. The thrust to weight of the MiG ought to let it take off and accelerate vertically even better than the 15. It can't.

 

I still think the problem seems to be in how the LOMAC world (atmosphere/gravity) is modeled. Either that of the thrust modeling has seperate horizontal and vertical components that are not compatible.

 

Well, aka the flight model, yes. I don't know if the MiG has 'all moving' inlets like the 15 - if it doesn't, it probably doesn't provide as much thrust at high altitude as the 15 - but that's a pretty wild guess, and a touch OT.

 

It feels like all aircraft are underpowered in some way - as if the power curve was really linear. The problem, as mentioned, may lay elsewhere - ie. drag, etc.