Bug?

[combatace]

I can't call this a bug this was just a carelessness in work. I can't even imagine that some professionals can do this. I'm not putting elegations but what I found really shocked me. I'm criticizing ED or any of it members or programmers but I just want to say is please, whatever you do, do it correctly. I am a professional and I expect you too to be professionals. I like you sim a lot, the one who used his brain behind the concept, I have hats off for him. I agree that I was eager to use FC2.0 but not how it is. Yes, the pressure on you might be huge but thats makes the things more better, right? I don't know much about making a sim but I can test it very well for sure.

 

Now here's what that all was for, missile mas was wrong for many missiles you could have gone to raytheon site and got the data of may missiles and more. Aim-120 had wrong data, mevricks my you god my head off AGM-65k is 297Kg and not 360 Kg, AGM-65H is just 211KG not 360kg, range of R-27ER is 130Km head on 13000mtrs rear wind(official site). There are lot more I can't add it will be a long long list and I don't have that much time.

 

 

P.S. Admin please don't delete this post I want ED to know that wrong is always wrong and releasing any untested material will darken their name and not mine.

Edited April 7, 2010 by combatace

[Boberro]

range of R-27ER is 130Km head on 130000mtrs

 

It is low range as on 130 km alt... :D

 

Seriously - many official pages say bullshits so... don't look ino them.

[combatace]

It is low range as on 130 km alt... :D

 

Seriously - many official pages say bullshits so... don't look ino them.

 

Sorry I added one more zero over there. My mistake and I will edit it. By the way it 13Km.

Also I took US missiles 'datasheets' from Raytheon site, they make them buddy.

Edited April 7, 2010 by combatace

[GGTharos]

Yeah, it is 130km against a non-maneuvering aircraft with mach 4 closure at 15000-20000m, probably.

Actual combat manual documentation shows it at 66km at 10km altitude.

[combatace]

I know but if I put it like this that ED had it configured it for 90Km instead of 130Km at height than, what will you say about that?

 

You can look at the pictures in my post in Su-27 Vs F-15 thread, you will clearly be able to see that Aim-120 has more range than R-27ER. How about that?

And you too know that not true.

Edited April 7, 2010 by combatace

[GGTharos]

I would say that at 13000m, 90km sounds about right.

 

I know but if I put it like this that ED had it configured it for 90Km instead of 130Km at height than, what will you say about that?

[combatace]

Well it sounds right but I have fumbled through many sites and I found the same thing round 130Km. Say it R-27R already has a range of 80Km than will a second same size motor and increased flight height add just 10Km, now I don't agree to that.

 

I would say that at 13000m, 90km sounds about right.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, you fumbled through sites; ED has the actual combat manual showing the real-life useable ranges for the R-27 family. The R-27R1 has a range of about 35km at 10km altitude.

 

Well it sounds right but I have fumbled through many sites and I found the same thing round 130Km. Say it R-27R already has a range of 80Km than will a second same size motor and increased flight height add just 10Km, now I don't agree to that.

[combatace]

Yeah, you fumbled through sites; ED has the actual combat manual showing the real-life useable ranges for the R-27 family. The R-27R1 has a range of about 35km at 10km altitude.

 

Oh! than how can a much smaller Aim-120C has a more range than R-27ER.

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/hp.2084/ScreenShots#5456998935916073618

http://picasaweb.google.com/hp.2084/ScreenShots#5456999976972199506

 

Thats on same plane so no other factor can affect both missiles range.

[GGTharos]

The AIM-120C5 has a larger motor than previous AMRAAMs.

[combatace]

The AIM-120C5 has a larger motor than previous AMRAAMs.

 

I saw raytheon's C7 datasheet, C7 is exactly 43cm shorter than R-27ER. and I'm not rough just about R-27ER, you can also see many more together with it. They are all taken from the manufacturers datasheet. And its not just the range weight and diameter and many more things are wrong.

 

Look I'm not criticizing anyone but I found some thing that is wrong and that can be easily rectified if ED is planing for patches.

Edited April 7, 2010 by combatace

[GGTharos]

Maybe you should have a harder look at missiles than manufacturer's websites.

 

The AMRAAM might be shorter, but it's also much, much lighter. Its fuel-to-mass ratio has increased which means its overall available energy, ie. speed and range, have also increased.

It is also a less draggy missile than the R-27ER.

 

Just because it doesn't make sense to you it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

The AIM-120A could already be lobbed at targets 100km distant under the right conditions, but those aren't exactly conditions that would occur often. Likewise, conditions for those 130km R-27ER launches occuring are also not likely to be met.

[combatace]

Than you are forgetting speed differences too. R-27ER has more than 4 mach speed against Aim-120s 3.5 mach speed. It is simple physics that if you through some thing more faster in the air it will travel greater distance than the slower one.

[GGTharos]

Comparing missile parameters from the game's files (which I'm sure you don't understand how the code uses to begin with) to reality or real physics is a mistake.

 

And actually no, it isn't 'simple physics'.

 

Than you are forgetting speed differences too. R-27ER has more than 4 mach speed against Aim-120s 3.5 mach speed. It is simple physics that if you through some thing more faster in the air it will travel greater distance than the slower one.

[combatace]

Ya right it is not simple physics its is called aerodynamics. Larger fins of R-27ER will create more drag and I know that but at the same time it is not that much as to make it a shorter range missile than Aim-120C with smaller motor and shorter burn out time and lesser speed.

 

See this the difference in size, although in game but they have been made replica of original and I appreciate ED for that

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/hp.2084/ScreenShots#5456972311179058290

Edited April 7, 2010 by combatace

[GGTharos]

Yeah, it's called aerodynamics and you're still not getting the very simple notion of fuel-to-mass ratio :)

 

Ya right it is not simple physics its is called aerodynamics. Larger fins of R-27ER will create more drag and I know that but at the same time it is not that much as to make it a shorter range missile than Aim-120C with smaller motor and shorter burn out time and lesser speed.

[combatace]

Yeah, it's called aerodynamics and you're still not getting the very simple notion of fuel-to-mass ratio :)

 

I don't understand what you want to prove. As you said R-27ER to reach 130Km it will need ideal conditions than is same for Aim-120C it will need ideal conditions to reach 100Km. But a moving jet cannot measure the wind conditions and so I should at least have a launch cue at 130Km target and 13Km height.

Edited April 7, 2010 by combatace

[GGTharos]

No, I said that about the AIM-120A.

The C is a different animal with a bigger rocket motor.

 

I don't understand what you want to prove. As you said R-27ER to reach 130Km it will need ideal conditions than is same for Aim-120C it will need ideal conditions to reach 100Km. But a moving aircraft cannot measure the speed of air as measured by a weather station, So I say I should at least get a launch cue or should I not.

[Mugenjin]

Isn't drag a very important factor? Especially a high speeds, because I vaguely remember the drag equation to include the square of speed. May be wrong though.

[GGTharos]

Square below mach 1, much much less above. It's still pretty important.

[combatace]

No, I said that about the AIM-120A.

The C is a different animal with a bigger rocket motor.

 

As I said C7 is even smaller than ER and if you are talking of Aim's having bigger motors isn't that going to affect their performance.

 

And by the way why are you clinging on to just ER and C5. I wrote about AGM-65s too, what about that? Instead of clinging on one thing can't you accept that there are flaws which ED needs to rectify.

 

And you are giving answer to half of my post the other part is left over.

[GGTharos]

As I said C7 is even smaller than ER and if you are talking of Aim's having bigger motors isn't that going to affect their performance.

 

Yes. They will fly farther.

 

And by the way why are you clinging on to just ER and C5. I wrote about AGM-65s too, what about that? Instead of clinging on one thing can't you accept that there are flaws which ED needs to rectify.

 

I am answering a specific point.

[combatace]

So you still wanna stick to a conclusion that a 1.125meter shorter missile will out run a bigger one and as you said above Mach1 drag isn't square of speed than I think ER will have lesser drag than AIM as it is faster.

[GGTharos]

More speed=more drag

More frontal area = more drag

 

No one said drag DECREASES with speed, just the relationship changes. Where below Mach 1 is increases as the square of the speed, above it's more linear, but it still goes up.

 

So you still wanna stick to a conclusion that a 1.125meter shorter missile will out run a bigger one and as you said above Mach1 drag isn't square of speed than I think ER will have lesser drag than AIM as it is faster.

[combatace]

More speed=more drag

More frontal area = more drag

 

No one said drag DECREASES with speed, just the relationship changes. Where below Mach 1 is increases as the square of the speed, above it's more linear, but it still goes up.

 

Well I had a point I placed it round here if you don't wanna go for what is right I can't help it.