Jump to content

Ракеты в DCS


Chizh

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

Что обозначает дуга, выделенная красными точками?

Типографическую ошибку. На этом гарфике даже расстояния между радиусами неодинаковые. Разницу межу 50-60км и 40-50 км видно невооруженным глазом.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
18 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

When will the CFD arrive Whats the progress on it

Will the new archer arrive then too?

When we have something to answer, we will definitely let you know.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
4 minutes ago, Hoarfrost said:

А обновления сегодня будет?

Нет, на этой неделе не будет.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 часа назад, SAB сказал:

Напомню, что в 2016г. были произведены настройки по вышеуказанной номограмме исходя из энергетической дальности, а не технических ограничений по РЛС. Настройка производилась путём подгона коэффициентов сопротивления. ЕМНИП по р-27эр если она выполняла график по ЗПС, то имела перелёт по ППС - исходя из условий настройки, которые предположил Чиж, советская ракета должна была достигать контрольных точек номограммы с располагаемой перегрузкой =1G, то есть для ППС =1G, в ЗПС недолёт ~ 2км. При аналогичной настройке aim 120b и расчетных настроек aim 120c в ППС получилось с располагаемой перегрузкой ракеты 3g в ЗПС поражение с 1G. 
 

Почему так и как это объяснялось я не помню (что то типа не вижу противоречий, поскольку американские ракеты имеют прекрасный боевой счёт), но критики такого подхода со стороны пользователей было так же много.
 

Таким образом, по моему мнению, произошла подмена технических ограничений, точнее их стыковка с энергетическими. 

Ага, "художник так видел".
Предложения, хотя бы - считать дальность по номограмме в ЗПС - как аэродинамическую, а дальность в ППС  - как дальность связанную с ограничениями РЛС были проигнорированы.
В итоге и появилась вся эта имеющая место "дичь" с ракетами 🙂


Edited by goro
  • Like 3

Л.Н. Гумилев - «Нынешняя интеллигенция — это такая духовная секта. Что характерно: ничего не знают, ничего не умеют, но обо всем судят и совершенно не приемлют инакомыслия...»

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 hours ago, goro said:

Ага, "художник так видел".
Предложения, хотя бы - считать дальность по номограмме в ЗПС - как аэродинамическую, а дальность в ППС  - как дальность связанную с ограничениями РЛС были проигнорированы.
В итоге и появилась вся эта имеющая место "дичь" с ракетами 🙂

 

С ракетами нет никакой дичи.

Они вполне похожи на себя. Периодически уточняются, когда появляется новая информация.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2021 at 6:17 PM, Chizh said:

These are the problems of this chart. Here you can see that they drew with their hands and with mistakes. In general, the accuracy of these charts is very approximate.

Pay attention to the difference in range at different target speeds by altitudes. The biggest difference is at a height of 5 km. This is not real and suggests that the draftsmen of this chart made a mistake with the line. The range at an altitude of 1 km should be closer. Something like this. See in blue.

Screenshot 2021-03-30 191709.jpg

 

 

Against your ridiculous claim, why don't you take a look at your Su-27 DLZ simulation software?

In this post you made years ago, you wrote down the ranges at ZPS and 1100 km for fighter and target.

In the aircraft DLZ, the ranges will always be lower, as you stated before.

 

 

1 km altitude

Chart: 9.3 km

DLZ: 7.95 km

Difference: 1.35 km

Reduction of 14.5 %

 

5 km altitude

Chart: 14.45 km

DLZ: 12.13 km

Difference: 2,32 km

Reduction of 16,1 %

 

10 km altitude

Chart: 26,6 km

DLZ: 22,01 km

Difference: 4,59 km

Reduction of 17,3 %

 

Overall, the safety margin that is left with the DLZ at 1 km is perfectly in line with the other two.

So the range in the chart is pretty accurate, and not a mistake at all.

It also fits the range of the R-27ER flyout chart.

 

Maybe instead of reducing 1100 km/h range, check if 900 km/h range should be higher to get your desired separation?

 

I hope missiles in DCS will be modelled based on accurate data, and not on "I feel that the missile should not fly as far as shown in the graph".

 

dlz3.PNG


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

In reality, the DLZ also does not coincide with the real missile capabilities. However, we will still adjust the DLC.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chizh said:

In reality, the DLZ also does not coincide with the real missile capabilities. However, we will still adjust the DLC.

 

Yes, the DLZ will show less range than the actual kinematic performance of the missile, propably to make sure that only shots with a decent chance of hitting are fired.

 

So if the DLZ shows 7.95 km at 1 km altitude, then the missile will fly about 15 % further than that - which is pretty much exactly the 9.3 km from the chart.


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Yes, the DLZ will show less range than the actual kinematic performance of the missile, propably to make sure that only shots with a decent chance of hitting are fired.

 

So if the DLZ shows 7.95 km at 1 km altitude, then the missile will fly about 15 % further than that - which is pretty much exactly the 9.3 km from the chart.

 

That is simply not true.  The ability of the DLZ to be accurate relies on a lot of things, including the processing capability of the computing system among other things.   Can't say that this would apply to the Su-27/MiG-29 weapons system (specifically the first iterations of them at least) but it's not true that DLZ have to under-estimate and they've done the opposite in the past.  While I'd lean on the R-27 DLZs being more accurate, they simply aren't guaranteed to be.

The more modern the system, the more accurate the DLZ representation can be, from there on it's all about good data collection.

  • Like 1

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

That is simply not true.  The ability of the DLZ to be accurate relies on a lot of things, including the processing capability of the computing system among other things.   Can't say that this would apply to the Su-27/MiG-29 weapons system (specifically the first iterations of them at least) but it's not true that DLZ have to under-estimate and they've done the opposite in the past.  While I'd lean on the R-27 DLZs being more accurate, they simply aren't guaranteed to be.

The more modern the system, the more accurate the DLZ representation can be, from there on it's all about good data collection.

 

??

 

Chizh has a DLZ simulator of the real Su-27 SUV. It shows the same DLZ that the real aircraft would show.

Permitted launch ranges from that simulation are below the ranges indicated in the graph by a pretty consinstent percentage.

So it is pretty safe to say that the DLZ indicated in the HUD is less than the kinematic range, or the range shown in the chart in case of the Su-27 that we are talking about here.


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rush_ said:

The original Su 27 in flight and the R 27ER!

 

Su 27 - 960km /h speed, 13100 meters altitude!

Target 1150km/h speed head on, altitude 6100 meters!

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

 

On the top left is not the target speed, it is the recommended speed for you to fly at.

The target speed is not really shown, only the closure rate. It is on the right vertical line in the HUD. The arrow on this scale shows the closure speed, the small line below the arrow is the own aircraft speed, and the line at the bottom is the zero closure speed.

If the target is flying directly towards the aircraft in this image, then its speed is quite low, it will be around 600 km/h.

 

This is at least how I understood it from the SU-27SK manual, correct me if I am wrong!

 

The length of the horizontal line in the top of the HUD shows the estimated flight time of the missile, full length is propably 60 seconds.


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

On the top left is not the target speed, it is the recommended speed for you to fly at.

The target speed is not really shown, only the closure rate. It is on the right vertical line in the HUD. The arrow on this scale shows the closure speed, the small line below the arrow is the own aircraft speed, and the line at the bottom is the zero closure speed.

If the target is flying directly towards the aircraft in this image, then its speed is quite low, it will be around 600 km/h.

 

This is at least how I understood it from the SU-27SK manual, correct me if I am wrong!

 

The length of the horizontal line in the top of the HUD shows the estimated flight time of the missile, full length is propably 60 seconds.

 

I would rather see the opinion of a real Flanker pilot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Yes, the DLZ will show less range than the actual kinematic performance of the missile, propably to make sure that only shots with a decent chance of hitting are fired.

 

So if the DLZ shows 7.95 km at 1 km altitude, then the missile will fly about 15 % further than that - which is pretty much exactly the 9.3 km from the chart.

 

Chart is not correct a specially at 1 km altitude. I showed it above.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Chart is not correct a specially at 1 km. I showed it above.

 

You don't seem to understand.

 

Your SUV-27 simulation always shows the range with around 15 % less than the kinematic range of the missile, as safety margin.

Your SUV-27 simulation shows 7.95 km for 1 km.

Add 15%, and you end up with around 9.14 km of range. Pretty much the value of the chart.

 

Do you want to say now that the DLZ simulation also has the error in it? Was the code for that software hand drawn as well?

 

But let's look at the flyout chart.

I made it square to be easier to work with, and marked the flyout distance of the missile at 1100 km/h, which is at 306 m/s.

It is slightly short of 10 km. If we now factor in the minimum closure speed for the proximity fuze to work (150 m/s), then it is no suprise that the launch range chart shows a little less.

There is nothing to argue here, you have now seen from three different sources that the R-27ER flies quite far at 1100 km/h and 1 km of altitude. And this is how it should perform in DCS as well.

image.png


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
5 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

You don't seem to understand.

 

Your SUV-27 simulation always shows the range with around 15 % less than the kinematic range of the missile, as safety margin.

Your SUV-27 simulation shows 7.95 km for 1 km.

Add 15%, and you end up with around 9.14 km of range. Pretty much the value of the chart.

 

Do you want to say now that the DLZ simulation also has the error in it? Was the code for that software hand drawn as well?

 

But let's look at the flyout chart.

I made it square to be easier to work with, and marked the flyout distance of the missile at 1100 km/h, which is at 306 m/s.

It is slightly short of 10 km. If we now factor in the minimum closure speed for the proximity fuze to work (150 m/s), then it is no suprise that the launch range chart shows a little less.

There is nothing to argue here, you have now seen from three different sources that the R-27ER flies quite far at 1100 km/h and 1 km of altitude. And this is how it should perform in DCS as well.

image.png

 

It is not worth measuring the range along these strongly oblique charts. Their accuracy is even less than that of circulars.

As you known SUV-27 simulation shows 7.95 km for 1 km.

 

We have done a preliminary CFD research of the R-27ER. It turned out that in the game missile has less drag than the research shows.

Therefore, we will not change anything yet.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chizh said:

It is not worth measuring the range along these strongly oblique charts. Their accuracy is even less than that of circulars.

As you known SUV-27 simulation shows 7.95 km for 1 km.

 

We have done a preliminary CFD research of the R-27ER. It turned out that in the game missile has less drag than the research shows.

Therefore, we will not change anything yet.

I don't understand how you can say the data is inaccurate when it is official data. Are you denying official data because you "think" it is wrong now? How many times have you told other users in this thread that what they think does not matter, and that they need to provide official data. Yet, when we provide official data you think is wrong because it is hand drawn? 

How can you argue against the facts? That is irrational, illogical, and asinine even, Chizh. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chizh said:

We have done a preliminary CFD research of the R-27ER. It turned out that in the game missile has less drag than the research shows.

Therefore, we will not change anything yet.

 

Well, then either your CFD is bad or you have to increase the thrust of the motor.

Because it has to reach the ranges specified in the charts.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
6 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Well, then either your CFD is bad or you have to increase the thrust of the motor.

Because it has to reach the ranges specified in the charts.

Our missiles mostly matches the charts. But the problem is that the charts themselves are not very accurate.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
4 minutes ago, Jack1nthecrack said:

Who said the charts are not accurate? Do you work at Vympel and can tell us with absolute authority that the charts are wrong?

Above, I have already shown the incorrectness.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...