How accurate to IRL will the capabilities be?

[Zoddom]

I'd love to know the degree of realism that the EF and its weapons will have in DCS.

I've just heard that the Meteor for example has a max range of 200km and an active/pitbull range of 80km. It sounds pretty insane compared to the rest of missiles we have in DCS and I wondered how effective this would be IRL.

 

For one, I highly doubt that the EF radar can get a reliable lock at 120km, from what Ive experienced in DCS. But my question is, am I biased because I only know DCS and in fact IRL its actually much more capable than I think? And how close to this could we get in DCS with the "publically available data"? I mean those 200km range sound pretty much like propaganda to me, so would it make sense to incorporate this in DCS?

 

IM SO HYPED THO

[speed-of-heat]

the max range is not terribly different from the phoenix based upon public numbers... i suspect with similar results; likely more effective. It will be interesting to see. I'm looking forward to finding out... i guess a lot depends on how smart the meteor is, if it can boost -> cruise ->  boost, then it would have energy in the final phase of attack , something the phoenix lacks at range ... 

Edited August 2, 2021 by speed-of-heat

[TLTeo]

For the most part I doubt it will be less realistic than e.g. the Hornet or Jeff, which also do not have much documentation available (e.g. the e/m diagram of the Hornet) but are still fairly believable modules in terms of their performance. The one thing that will be completely fantasy and unrealistic is the EW capability of the aircraft (which IRL is also one of its strengths compared to other 4th gens), because it's done extremely poorly in DCS, but that's not exactly news.

  

5 hours ago, Zoddom said:

For one, I highly doubt that the EF radar can get a reliable lock at 120km, from what Ive experienced in DCS.

And why would this be the case? The Captor-M is the best mechanically scanned radar ever built. If the AWG-9 can do it, I don't see why the Captor can't. But yes, these super long ranges reported e.g. on Wikipedia are obviously estimated under hyper-optimal conditions, see the 53 nm figure for the AIM7 and 60 for the AIM-120C.

Edited August 2, 2021 by TLTeo

[Dragon1-1]

It's Heatblur. Of course it'll be perfectly accurate to the available missile data.  Heatblur won't sign off on it otherwise. However, don't believe manufacturer's range estimates, they're for sales and not much else. That's the range you could get, perhaps, against a non-maneuvering transport plane flying straight at you, while you're flying at max speed and max altitude with the wind at your back. In real world, ranges are nowhere near that long.

[hi41000]

9 hours ago, Zoddom said:

I'd love to know the degree of realism that the EF and its weapons will have in DCS.

I've just heard that the Meteor for example has a max range of 200km and an active/pitbull range of 80km. It sounds pretty insane compared to the rest of missiles we have in DCS and I wondered how effective this would be IRL.

 

For one, I highly doubt that the EF radar can get a reliable lock at 120km, from what Ive experienced in DCS. But my question is, am I biased because I only know DCS and in fact IRL its actually much more capable than I think? And how close to this could we get in DCS with the "publically available data"? I mean those 200km range sound pretty much like propaganda to me, so would it make sense to incorporate this in DCS?

 

those ranges are for targets flying at 30k feet for a semi large target that does not maneuver to evade, plus an active/pitbull range of 80km is completely unrealistic, it would give the target to long of an opportunity to notice and evade the missile. more accurately it is probably the same as the amraam so between 10-15km range or ~10 seconds until predicted impact time.

 

in terms of radar range it really comes down to the aircraft you are looking for but most sites say the eurofighters radar range is about 160km for a fighter sized target, so in terms of dcs it should be near the f-14s current detection range.

Edited August 2, 2021 by hi41000

[Zoddom]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

It's Heatblur. Of course it'll be perfectly accurate to the available missile data.  Heatblur won't sign off on it otherwise. However, don't believe manufacturer's range estimates, they're for sales and not much else. That's the range you could get, perhaps, against a non-maneuvering transport plane flying straight at you, while you're flying at max speed and max altitude with the wind at your back. In real world, ranges are nowhere near that long.

Exactly. How is something like this portrayed in DCS generally? I would guess the manufacturers numbers in lab conditions can be at least estimated to somewhat realistic scenarios with the known physics of how these radars work, dont they?

 

Like, would Heatblur put in the plain numbers on paper from the manufacturer or tune them to likely be more realistic in all different weather and target conditions?

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

They won't use the manufacturer's range estimate at all. Instead, they'll plug in the numbers that matter (which is to say, motor parameters and aerodynamic coefficients) and let the physics handle the rest. That's how it's done in DCS, the only fixed "range" value a missile can have is the one at which it goes pitbull, and even that is different between targets due to being affected by the RCS. Just as with the missiles we already have, the actual range depends on where both you and the target are, and what you're currently doing.

[Lurker]

Why is it so hard to believe that a ramjet missile (something so far not modelled in DCS) would have a longer range than a comparable solid booster missile? (Like the AMRAAM for example).

 

I mean it's literally the main requirement and the reason why the ramjet technology was actually used in the METEOR missiles in the first place. Now I seriously doubt that a 200km range is anywhere close to a realistic firing solution even with a high-altitude, high-speed head-on target aspect shot, but 100km or so as an optimal firing solution against a head on, high closure target (which is about 54nm) and a no escape zone of 60km (which is about 32nm) sounds reasonable for a missile specifically developed to have a much longer range than any comparable medium range air-to-air missile in service at the moment. 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Lurker

[bies]

I've heard an interview with Eurofighter or Gripen pilot on YT and he said Meteor has practical NEZ about 3x bigger than AMRAAM and that this is a really big deal.

But any details are obviously classified.

Edited August 4, 2021 by bies

[QuiGon]

35 minutes ago, bies said:

I've heard an interview with Eurofighter or Gripen pilot on YT and he said Meteor has practical NEZ about 3x bigger than AMRAAM and that this is a really big deal.

But any details are obviously classified.

 

I guess he has not mentioned what AMRAAM variant he compared Meteor to?

An AIM-120D has a much bigger range than an AIM-120A and without this information this pilot statement says absolutely nothing...

Edited August 4, 2021 by QuiGon

[bies]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

I guess he has not mentioned what AMRAAM variant he compared Meteor to?

 

Everything suggests the most common variant uses in Europe like AIM-120C-7 (or early D) since this is the missile used among the NATO since more a decade.

 

B is probably phased out many years ago, C-5 may be still in depots, D may not be operational in Europe yet, even though production of D started in 2008?

 

He gave an impression Meteor is a game changer compared to AMRAAM. But all of the details are strictly classified obviously, we will never know the details, they are way too modern.

Edited August 4, 2021 by bies

[falcon_120]

Some European countries still uses aim120b, like Spain, although the C7 is also in the inventory in small numbers.

UK and Germany are probably the countries with more modern variants of the amraam including even the aim120D.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Spurts]

When the statement was made the B was the prevalent model.

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb bies:

 

Everything suggests the most common variant uses in Europe like AIM-120C-7 (or early D) since this is the missile used among the NATO since more a decade.

 

B is probably phased out many years ago, C-5 may be still in depots, D may not be operational in Europe yet, even though production of D started in 2008?

 

He gave an impression Meteor is a game changer compared to AMRAAM. But all of the details are strictly classified obviously, we will never know the details, they are way too modern.

 

 To my knowledge at least in 2018 it seems Germany had the AIM-120B in stock, exclusively. And not that many either... According to some newspapers in 2017 there were basically enough A/A missiles to arm a handful of alert fighters.

I doubt we bought a larger number of AIM-120C, as we had parlament still fight over budget for buying the Meteor. 

[shagrat]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb bies:

I've heard an interview with Eurofighter or Gripen pilot on YT and he said Meteor has practical NEZ about 3x bigger than AMRAAM and that this is a really big deal.

But any details are obviously classified.

 

Keep in mind the NEZ is not the overall range. The interesting thing about the Meteor is that its RamJet engine can "burn" (generate thrust) far longer than a "classic" fuel motor, but(!) this is massively influenced by air density.

And as Qui Gon already mentioned, the AMRAAM family of missiles has evolved quite a bit. The most current AIM-120D should be similar or may even exceed the Meteor performance. The AIM-120C alone has undergone multiple revisions and upgrades over the years.

[falcon_120]

Keep in mind the NEZ is not the overall range. The interesting thing about the Meteor is that its RamJet engine can "burn" (generate thrust) far longer than a "classic" fuel motor, but(!) this is massively influenced by air density.
And as Qui Gon already mentioned, the AMRAAM family of missiles has evolved quite a bit. The most current AIM-120D should be similar or may even exceed the Meteor performance. The AIM-120C alone has undergone multiple revisions and upgrades over the years.

Yes, basically the aim120D has now ranges in excess of 60 nm, the thing is that the NEZ its not so much increased, meaning that increases in a similar proportion to its maximum range. In a ramjet missile the NEZ is bigger with relation to its max range with the counterpart of longer flight times specially at shorter ranges. At least that is the concept sought by having a modulated thrust

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[kseremak]

Meteor is a kind of revolution, practically every pilot asked about it say so. It has ramjet air breathing engine with variable thrust so it's overall theoreticall max range is not that much greater than conventional missile, but true difference is Meteor's;

- no escape zone against maneuvering target because having air breathing engine it doesn't need heavy loft profile like conventional missile i.e. AIM-120 to fly a long distance

(in AIM-120 or other conventional missile there is only a few seconds impulse and that's it, if missile didn't loft outside the dense atmosphere it will bleed the whole energy rapidly flying like a glider. And if did loft but enemy changed its course the missile is wasted as well)

- next is Meteor engine, contrary to AIM-120 and other conventional missiles, still burns even during the last part of the interception, this gives Meteor much higher maneuverability in the final phase

 

But without having an access to "NATO restricted" documents we can't tell anything really. It's only a wild guessing. Commercials and publically available information are not only scarce and very rough estimates without any conditions specified, but very ofter they are intentionally misleading not to give any usefull hint to the potential opponents, especially in areas that are really important.

It's good to remember about this before starting an argument.

[Zoddom]

Guys I didnt wanna start a discussion about the missile performance.

 

I basically just want information on to what extent the aircraft will be realistic, like in %.

 

And if possible, what systems are confidential and have to either be deactivated completely, or modeled to a very arcadey degree.

[Rick50]

 

Well... unfortunately, the plane and the missile are kinda inseperable when discussing this topic. (Well, until launch anyway!)  But seriously, Meteor IS going to be a major factor with an EF2000 module, no question at all, and so it's worthy of discussing.  As for the very long range of Meteor, I think that will be effective, in part because it won't just use the launch aircraft radar for intercept data. I think it probably uses the whole network, any radar that's linked, including probably satellite data. But I'm just doing a "edumacated guess" on that!

 

As for the realism in the aircraft, we fanbois on the forums, aren't really sure. We can't give you a %.  Mainly because, I don't think the public really knows how much, or how little of the EF's real world capabilities are in fact shrouded in secrecy.  

 

I think that the flying will feel like the real thing, and likely be 95% or closer, to what the real deal can do. The weapons pages will likely be 100% or close to it, for most of the weapons (likely a couple of exceptions).  The fuel burn rates and volumes... that may not be 100%, but it could be completely accurate, kinda depends on how much an airforce wants to keep combat radius numbers secret or not... these days they might not care as they used to. 

 

I think the biggest area for secrecy, will be the more advanced radar modes, the ELINT gathering, the countermeasures systems, any EW and jamming capabilities. Similarly, the datalink networks will likely "look" like the real thing, but may not actually behave exactly like the true aircraft, because secrets and classified documentation. The thermal imager on the nose may not behave as truly realistic... it might behave more reliably in DCS but with less range, or it might be truly OP where in real life it's got real world limitations.

 

I don't care about what's classified, personally. Make the module as close as possible to the real plane for all the unclassified data, and then give us a "good representation" or "best guess" that feels like it's real world, of the classified side of the plane, I'd be very happy with that.  It would never be truly 100% accurate, but I'm good with that. Militaries around the world are very open about some things, and then suddenly get VERY cagey about certain topics and data. That'll only change when the world decides it doesn't need militaries at all anymore!

 

There are a couple other modules where a few capabilities had to be "guessed" due to secrecy as well, and that will likely also be true for the upcomming ApacheLongbow too... nothing Eagle Dynamics or any 3rd party module maker can do about that. ED has to be careful even about Russian aircraft content, because the Kremlin (well the airforce anyway!) would be very unhappy with them if secrets were released. This is why a full fidellity Flanker module is probably several years away, at best, and might never happen at worst.

 

There are STILL classified secrets, partly about technology, some about operations even from WW2 even today. Good luck getting ALL the secrets out of a military about their new shiny super jets!

Edited August 5, 2021 by Rick50

[WarbossPetross]

7 часов назад, Rick50 сказал:

There are a couple other modules where a few capabilities had to be "guessed" due to secrecy as well, and that will likely also be true for the upcomming ApacheLongbow too... nothing Eagle Dynamics or any 3rd party module maker can do about that. ED has to be careful even about Russian aircraft content, because the Kremlin (well the airforce anyway!) would be very unhappy with them if secrets were released. This is why a full fidellity Flanker module is probably several years away, at best, and might never happen at worst.

 

There are STILL classified secrets, partly about technology, some about operations even from WW2 even today. Good luck getting ALL the secrets out of a military about their new shiny super jets!

 

Which is exactly why we can't have nice things like MiG-25 even if we have MiG-29 - because it has too much in common with The Hound. Oh well...

[Slant]

17 hours ago, bies said:

 

Everything suggests the most common variant uses in Europe like AIM-120C-7 (or early D) since this is the missile used among the NATO since more a decade.

 

B is probably phased out many years ago, C-5 may be still in depots, D may not be operational in Europe yet, even though production of D started in 2008?

 

He gave an impression Meteor is a game changer compared to AMRAAM. But all of the details are strictly classified obviously, we will never know the details, they are way too modern.

 

 

What is this "everything"? Personal bias or do you have sources for that statement?

 

Not trying to be difficult here, but what you're doing is manipulating your own expectations and unless you have an actual reason to believe any of that, this is pure speculation and you possibly setting yourself up for disappointment. Just a friendly reminder, manage your expectations.

13 hours ago, Zoddom said:

Guys I didnt wanna start a discussion about the missile performance.

 

I basically just want information on to what extent the aircraft will be realistic, like in %.

 

And if possible, what systems are confidential and have to either be deactivated completely, or modeled to a very arcadey degree.

 

It will be 100% realistic enough for you to not be able to tell if it's realistic or not.

[bies]

6 hours ago, Slant said:

 

It will be 100% realistic enough for you to not be able to tell if it's realistic or not.

 

Yes. JF-17 and Eurofighter are different than all other modules in DCS since there is absolutely impossible to verify if they are realistic or even close to realistic since there is practically zero detailed documentation publicly available.

 

For all other modules there are literally hundreds or thousand of pages of declassified detailed documentation to verify, even 2005 Hornet, let alone Cold War aircrafts.

 

When it comes to A/A weapon systems obviously everything post ~2000 is partially fictional because it has to be like that for obvious reasons.

Edited August 5, 2021 by bies

[Lurker]

Talking about percentages is kind of missing the point. AFAIK Heatblur\Truegrit will be modeling only the systems that they are reasonably sure that they can accurately model. And by accurately I mean, the systems will be simulated to work within the DCS framework to match the performance of their real world counterparts as closely as possible. To do that they don't need to know exactly how a certain system operates (although having that data is certainly desirable), all they need is documentation and SME support as to what the system is supposed to do. 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Lurker

[Rick50]

On 8/5/2021 at 5:46 AM, Slant said:

It will be 100% realistic enough for you to not be able to tell if it's realistic or not.

 

 

 

LOL!!!  Yea, agreed!