GGTharos Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Mogas and Falcon, this particular type of exchange ends here. Ok? ;) [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
*Rage* Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Mogas and Falcon, this particular type of exchange ends here. Ok? ;) It should end with a track posted here you mean. Just kidding..play nice..:P [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
Breakshot Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 (edited) The Rmax will shrink considerably in a tailchase if your bandit is fast. yes of course... but so with any missile... I think the issue here is the ET kinematic range relevant to the ER! Something isnt right, its same missile, same motor, same weight... essentially only the seeker is different... So the difference in range performance should be negligible at best in a straight line kinematic flight (without taking into account ERs ability to take loft trajectories due to intertial command updated datalink etc..)... but as it stands now the ET lacks legs MASSIVELY in comparison to ER... just do a straight line maddog test and see what i mean... This fact in effect limits the ETs usefulness in a tail chase scenario (which should be its domain really)... Rmax indicators, etc... are not relevant here... @ED: Is there a reason for the ET to be like this?! Edited April 9, 2010 by Breakshot 1 Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot
*Rage* Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 yes of course... but so with any missile... I think the issue here is the ET kinematic range relevant to the ER! Something isnt right, its same missile, same motor, same weight... essentially only the seeker is different... So the difference in range performance should be negligible at best in a straight line kinematic flight (without taking into account ERs ability to take loft trajectories due to intertial command updated datalink etc..)... but as it stands now the ET lacks legs MASSIVELY in comparison to ER... just do a straight line maddog test and see what i mean... This fact in effect limits the ETs usefulness in a tail chase scenario (which should be its domain really)... Rmax indicators, etc... are not relevant here... @ED: Is there a reason for the ET to be like this?! +1 Will the ED testers/moderaters bring this to their attention? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
GGTharos Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 I put a bug about it a long time ago. [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
Teknetinium Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Yes GG I remember that. 51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
Breakshot Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 I put a bug about it a long time ago. Perhaps a little reminder now and then... :smilewink: I reckon this should be an easy "2 minute" fix in missiles_data.lua by simply changing the range and flight time values for ET to be more consistent to ER... Btw, thank god that file is integrity checked by default under weapons folder because u can do literally anything with those values... For example, you can turn ERs into ARH missiles by simply changing one parameter... etc Anyway i do hope ED looks into this "ET issue" for the patch! Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot
Pilotasso Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 If R-27ET range is nutered by all means fix it. But take in consideration it still not a BVR missile and that its cooling abilities degrade over seconds, so we still wouldn't obtain a missile that has the same range as its motors allow it, but rather take in consideration seeker limits for actual effective combat range. AFAIK I don't think this is modeled yet. Perhaps the reason behind its characteristics in game. .
RvEYoda Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Perhaps a little reminder now and then... :smilewink: I reckon this should be an easy "2 minute" fix in missiles_data.lua by simply changing the range and flight time values for ET to be more consistent to ER... Btw, thank god that file is integrity checked by default under weapons folder because u can do literally anything with those values... For example, you can turn ERs into ARH missiles by simply changing one parameter... etc Anyway i do hope ED looks into this "ET issue" for the patch! I belive we did put in a new report for it. Unfortunately from what I know the effect of "round nose" is hard coded in the game, however one could remove the "round nose" state entirely through lua and just slightly increase the drag compared to the ER. However we'd need some range graphs, preferably from flight manuals to indicate exactly how much the round nose should change things. Even then, it would be up to the devs to decide if it should be changed or not S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'
Boberro Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Is it normal 120 behaviour? They can track you at angle almost of 90 degrees. Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ
Pilotasso Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 It doesnt look like 90º to me, and if the AMRAAM can do this so can the other missiles. .
Breakshot Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 I belive we did put in a new report for it. Unfortunately from what I know the effect of "round nose" is hard coded in the game, however one could remove the "round nose" state entirely through lua and just slightly increase the drag compared to the ER. However we'd need some range graphs, preferably from flight manuals to indicate exactly how much the round nose should change things. Even then, it would be up to the devs to decide if it should be changed or not Interesting! So its alittle more complicated to change than i initially thought... Your solution seems quite feasible if the "round nose" thing is hard to alter though... But AFAIK they did alter it back in the day from 1.02 to 1.1 so its not impossible. I still remember in 1.02 the ET behaving completely different, with datalink capability back then, loft trajectory, decent range... etc... I guess we keep our fingers crossed and see what ED decides on this! :) Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot
159th_Viper Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 What do you need to edit the .lua files? pfunk http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/about.php Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
GGTharos Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Right, but also keep in mind that it may actually not be wrong. If it reaches its target according to the weapons chart, then it doesn't really matter what it does with respect to the ER - I think this is the point that is hardest for people to understand. Here is the ER diagram. In general the ET should be about 20% less in range, but the MOST important range that has to match is tail-chase at the same parameters as in the diagram. Also I'll point out that tweaking missile range is not simple; you might think you can just change a single parameter and make it work out, but it doesn't work that way unfortunately ... some of these parameters interact, and by changing one you could achieve desired range but have wrong time-to-target or speed etc. Perhaps a little reminder now and then... :smilewink: I reckon this should be an easy "2 minute" fix in missiles_data.lua by simply changing the range and flight time values for ET to be more consistent to ER... Btw, thank god that file is integrity checked by default under weapons folder because u can do literally anything with those values... For example, you can turn ERs into ARH missiles by simply changing one parameter... etc Anyway i do hope ED looks into this "ET issue" for the patch! [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
borchi_2b Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 my fingers are crossed breakshot. more realisticweapoons for the russian side would be one nice thing to have http://www.polychop-sims.com
Vault Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 (edited) However we'd need some range graphs, preferably from flight manuals to indicate exactly how much the round nose should change things. Even then, it would be up to the devs to decide if it should be changed or not Check out Eugene Fleeman's book on missile design, He specifically states that missiles with a round nose seriously effect a missiles aerodynamics compared to a tapered nose. The nose on the R-27T is actually one of the worst shapes for aerodynamic efficiency. My point is that if round nose cones are as inefficient as Fleeman states, ED might of actually simulated the ET's range accuratley. Edited April 10, 2010 by Vault [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RotoFly Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 SU-27 flanker % le charme all aircraft Flaming Cliffs 2 i like .
Recommended Posts