Su-27, Su-33 or MiG-29?

[Sov13t]

Atmospheric conditions are easy enough to simulate in terms of knowledge. We know how much a given IR or radar signal of particular frequency is attenuated depending on vapor content etc. We already have a dynamic weather engine and there's no reason that it could not simulate other atmospheric parameters (ie. humidity) along with wind.

Knowing what the actual sensors are doing is the missing part.

 

And the more you get to modern day sensors the harder it is...

[Pilotasso]

Why would you ever need real life behaviour?

 

It would take ages to develop all of the mentioned effects and believe me, after a day or two of MP play you'd be sick of it...

 

well if you arent sick of planes with hacked weapons and warning systems I dont think realism would be any worse...

[GGTharos]

We can bound the upper range with physics - the required formulae are out there (eg: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/IR_prop/IR_prop.htm for a naive upper bound), but we need to know what sort of noise the system should have on average (the SNR) ... this we may or may not find out by going to commercial IR camera producers or scientists who work on this sort of thing.

 

From there on ... what sort of algorithms do they use? Why? Etc. They're certainly not going to outperform radars or become raptor-killers any time soon (notice that the main sensor is STILL the radar!) regardless how much people would want them to ... so you look at what has been done in existing systems and take a guess.

 

As far as DCS goes though - I would imagine they might be reluctant to model some sort of IRST without better knowledge of the instrument.

 

Take the Litening pod that's modeled in the A-10C for example: Its range, clarity, and some other visual features might not be entirely true to reality, resulting from the way it is modeled in terms of graphics programming. On the other hand, the operating modes etc are pretty accurate - you could operate a real pod by knowing how the one in the A-10C sim works, it's just that you might find yourself seeing ... features and things that you haven't seen in DCS (for example, new pods are capable of tracking multiple targets).

 

And the more you get to modern day sensors the harder it is...

[Cali]

What I was trying to say is that it would cause another billion of "why" threads and doubts it's really like that. On the other hand how 'bout the more weathered the skin - less powerful sensors option to simulate wear and tear of older units...

 

Manuals, IMHO following the manual would only generate data from perfect condition tests not something that happens from time to time based on atmospheric conditions.

 

It is pretty similar to birds slider which is something that may and may not happen you cannot predict it so some already nag bird strikes happen too often and that birdstrikes IRL are less dramatic and frequent...

 

 

I agree with bird strikes, they don't always go for the engines. I haven't had many online in the servers I fly in, but I don't know what or if they have them on. I'm sure the 104th have or had them on before cause I did have one in there once.

 

As far as the "why" threads, they are always going to be there. Many people in here have some sort of clue on how some things work. Either they work on jets, have friends that work on them or know people/pilots. Of course having manuals work great, but they are not always prefect. These are machines with many different parts and weird things happen all the time. I talked to a crew chief for F-15's a few years ago and he said that the RWR was so screwy on it, that it would pick it's own self up.

[Cali]

i do not know in 2.0 / 112 the 77 only has 10 more mpr. on the 120. i was cheeking the the burn and ranage on the 120 and 77 thay have the same ranage then thay blowup at 30 mil

 

112 the 120 has a 10 burn. f4af the 120 has a 15 sec brun . so in 112 or 20. you need to shoot on your sec. R.MAX ( only in this game )

 

I have a heard time understanding what you are saying. Are you sure you got a 10 second burn time on the 120's? I did a test many years ago with burn times and speeds. I got 7 seconds, but I'm not sure if that was 1.12 or FC1.

[GGTharos]

Who cares what it is in F4?

 

Start making sense and please stop spamming. I don't think anyone knows what you're on about.

 

in F4AF the 120-b and c has a 15 sec. / 120c-4 and 120-5 i do not know

[Frostie]

I tried google translate and got the most sense from Klingon.

 

Basically AIM-120 burn time in FC is 10 seconds, and in F4 it's 15 seconds (i'll let the F4 guys know later), you gotta water it down, learn to use your secs, there are 2 RMAX's?, shoot when you have 2 lights on your head, 120's can outturn and outshoot you so watch your 6, don't gamble unless you know how, when trying a new game you need to know what to do.

 

The only thing that concerns me here is the burn time, how could F4 be so wrong?

[GGTharos]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't ... some people are guessing at the 'extended burn' rocket operation, but there's no reason for it to burn slower - it could just as well give you more thrust, resulting in a shorter time-to-target in the Rtr. On the other hand, a longer burn time gives you a slightly longer Rtr with the same rocket.

 

Also, rocket burn time and thrust is dependent on outside air pressure, ie. most commonly altitude. The higher you are, the more efficient - more thrust, longer burn time - it gets.

[EtherealN]

My guess on burn time might be that it's an easy solution to some limitation in the missile physics - perhaps they gave it a longer burn time to give it more proper range, compensating from some deficiency in the modeling?

 

Would be interesting to compare the effect of F4's implementation overall with FC's. Perhaps they end up at roughly the same even though they have different burn-times due to how each simulation models their flight?

[GGTharos]

You can't really compare the two. Different physics engines with seriously different results :)

[Frostie]

Im impressed though, this thread about Mig's and Su's managed to last near 14 pages before the dreaded F-15 came into, well done lads. :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure if it's a good omen or a bad one - I think this was an AMRAAM vs a 77 though, the F-15 got dragged in by coincidence.

 

By a Klingon, no less ;)

[Pilotasso]

Different versions of the 120 burn for different times. There are differences in the rocket motors. having said that F4's implementation always felt massively overmodeled at the time I still flew it.

 

LOMAC's NEZ should be closer to real life figures. F4's if my memory doesn't fail me, was much higher and didnt break lock against ground clutter easily at all. Basically a death ray under 20 miles.

[KTLeth_61]

spaming

 

GGTharos / no spaming. copy that . i think i need to make an apology for last night. i had way to much rum , and i was seeing three key boards :doh:

[Cali]

Im impressed though, this thread about Mig's and Su's managed to last near 14 pages before the dreaded F-15 came into, well done lads. :thumbup:

 

Well, he first started talking about the 120 and R-77.

[KTLeth_61]

this is not good

 

ok i deleted most of what i posted.