Jump to content

Ракеты в DCS


Chizh

Recommended Posts

AGM 86D- из двенадцати запущенных с Б52 -четыре смогли долететь в район цели,рельеф разный был(но без крутых горок):подпрыгивали до 2-3 км над уровнем моря-но в итоге поврезались кто в дома кто в деревья кто в ЛЭП,не знаю как там сейчас BGMы-109 себя чувствуют-наверно как и ранее,как и AGMы 86 сейчас-бьються обо всё что встретится.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 час назад, Чарик80 сказал:

AGM 86D- из двенадцати запущенных с Б52 -четыре смогли долететь в район цели,рельеф разный был(но без крутых горок):подпрыгивали до 2-3 км над уровнем моря-но в итоге поврезались кто в дома кто в деревья кто в ЛЭП,не знаю как там сейчас BGMы-109 себя чувствуют-наверно как и ранее,как и AGMы 86 сейчас-бьються обо всё что встретится.

Миссия, трек?

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 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

I don't think DCS is focused on any specific time period. With the Typhoon and METEOR that is completely out the window anyway. And not like there is any more information on the SD-10 or 120C5. It's all guesswork based on shape and video material. 

 

What do you mean by "properly" modeled? 

And interesting that they state RVV-AE since a lot of sources last year said they ordered around 200 RVV-SD's. Might be some from storage somewhere. Only way to tell would be seeing one hung without the cover and compare the nose shape. 

 

The R-27Es have issues with their kinematics and range (like lower than stated NEZ not matching charts or time of flight from DLZ sims) that hopefully will go away with a CFD

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, okopanja said:

They are quite coy about these things. E.g. that datasheet state N019E, but it also states (air-to-air, air-to-ground and meteo modes). Within the commentary, the pilot even mentions the ground mode with x-29

It would not be surprising if this is a similar case to the Su-27SM1
Where the radar is still like the older Cold War version except with the addition of A2G modes
It could be a N019ME as some one else in another forum said he asked a pilot to which he said we can now see fighters further

But thats just hearsay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 часов назад, Chizh сказал:

Миссия, трек?

просто взял Б52 повесил АГМ-Д на крылья,поставил с300,дал Б указание -он пустил-они летели и врезались,не знаю как записать трек или где его найти,ещё раз попробовал-из 12ти АГМ-Д вообще 11 врезались кучно в дерево-одна осталась лететь.


Edited by Чарик80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

The 27 was already CFD'd and according to this topic matches ED's internal referenced. At least at 0 AOA. Soviet charts like the one for the ER are known to sometimes be vastly inaccurate or simply estimated numerically. Famous case being some Mig-21 accel. charts which were completely wrong after western operators did their own flight tests. Same applies to the soviet AIM120A and AIM7F/M estimates. 

The 77 does need a CFD rework however. 

It's quite conspiratorial to say that all the best sources on Soviet equipment are widely inaccurate and useless.

Especially just on the feeble grounds that it's because it is Soviet. sSpeaks more to a bias against these things coming from those who say that imo.
I wonder what they'd use in lieu of their own documentation to train pilots irl.

*preliminary CFD*
It isn't the final version
And ED is mistaken, their figures for the R-27ER/ET do not match known charts/fly off ranges, but also fall below figures given in the Su-27 DLZ sim they themselves posted

Ironically enough the R-27R is more inline with all known documentation and other things we know about the missile like >150m/s cut off parameters in some charts

This post here proves Chizh may possibly have been misled as to what the stern WEZ of the R-27ER should look like

It was also pointed out here that the R-27ER burn times and thrust are wrong because of ED's use of an odd university value built on speculation compared to information found in manuals for the Su-27 & MiG-29


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

It's not conspirational, I provided some examples where charts and graphs from soviet sources tend to be inaccurate. You can make of it what you will. Point being, all missiles in dcs need a proper cfd treatment using the same methods, software and eval tools. Otherwise you'll get inconsistent results.

Where is the burn time and ISP stated? What manual?

 

Id like to remind you of an old proverb. One swallow doesn't make a summer, especially if that swallow is very old...

 

If you have have actual evidence saying these manuals and graphs are truly as errant as you claim

 

I would like to see evidence backing that up. Otherwise your claim is circumstantial at best

 

If the MiG-29 manual doesn't satisfy you maybe this other source showing the same findings will

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

DM me a link to said Mig-29 manual which has R-27ER references in it.

There are MiG-29 manuals available with charts for R-27ER, the one from the manual has been posted on this forums multiple times. Also you are missreading the chart as R-27 aero/range, but is chart to give pilot idea when to expect 'PR'.

Also CFD of AoA 0' helps, but isn't the magic bullit, since its been performace/speed loss when turning that was the issue before, not the streight line one.

But I think we all agree all A to A missiles need to be done in the same way and same level of modelling. Hopefully soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been charts of both Russian and Ukrainian data that clearly show this shortfall. Rs fit these data in DCS, ERs fall short. Why the discrepancy?! 

But there are other IMO bigger issues with ERs. For example how can this missile have PURE pursuit HOJ homing!? No missile would ever use such a PN for guidance, its pure nonesense.

Yet only R27 family suffers this terrible modelling. While Aim7s are literally FnF vs Hoj targets with perfect accuracy. 

Go figure!

  • Like 4

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Can you link them? I think this will mostly come down to ISP.

Has anyone done an overlayed chart of the current DCS performance vs. those official charts?

All on this topic, you just have to go pages back...

  • Like 2

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Yeah I don't have time for this and pretty sure I saw all of the stuff posted in here. Nothing I haven't already seen. Again, I have yet to see someone provide said Mig-29 manual with the stated numbers. 

1. we are in Russian part of the forum, so unless we manage to learn Russian instantly, lets keep discussion in English at minimum.

2. you either located what was posted before, or stop complaining. There are pretty intersting topics here 😉

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Yeah I don't have time for this and pretty sure I saw all of the stuff posted in here

I am pretty sure you didn't, since I know what I posted now for few years, including stuff you were asking about. So ether put the time or don't complain.

Manuals are out there, you just need to put the time in to find them. And in current climate not body is send them that easy.


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 1

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

I want recall you about the R-27ER paper scan chart that is quite incorrect.

R-27ER DLZ Sim.jpg

DCS R-27 very close to correct data from SUV-27 sim (dots). 

 

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

8 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Yeah I don't have time for this and pretty sure I saw all of the stuff posted in here. Nothing I haven't already seen. Again, I have yet to see someone provide said Mig-29 manual with the stated numbers. 

 

Here page 187 it talks about the fuel fraction and burn time
7500kg of peak thrust
burns for 8.6 ~ 11 seconds

Don't believe me yet find a copy here
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2378427/

 

Also again Chizh you posted that corrected graph of yours but you are not an authority on the R-27E

I am willing to accept some flaws in the chart, from my experience with older American ones its usually on the edges/certain flanking shots etc
Yet these are always most accurate at Head on and in tail on paramters

Something interesting is that at the Su-27 SUV Sim seems to always fall short by 15% ish percent in these spots too

This is because it has greater built in safety margins as pointed out by other ED staff but Chizh refuses this to be true


His own points even disagree with the DLZ sim

Your new points also look a little suspect as they seem to make a perfect circle

Most WEZ diagrams of this nature are like ovals shifted forward and with a gentler couture in the front and more dramatic one in the rear obviously shifted forward in a way so they have more range head on than in the rear


unknown.png

the R-27R matches its manual's graphs with the 150m/s provision

But the R-27ER can't even match the DLZ sim figures with that provision
So why is that?

Even on page 450 Maestro agrees a fully CFD'd missile should see improvements in the low alt stern NEZ department


 

Spoiler

unknown.png

2 hours ago, Chizh said:

R-27ER DLZ Sim.jpg


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

  • ED Team

All these points are all taken from Weapon System Simulation 27.
Here we definitely believe that paper scans are not very correct. Now the R-27 missiles in the DСS are very well in the corrected chart.

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

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

All these points are all taken from Weapon System Simulation 27.
Here we definitely believe that paper scans are not very correct. Now the R-27 missiles in the DСS are very well in the corrected chart.

Did you not just see my post?
The ranges you gave are lower than the sim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
5 часов назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

Did you not just see my post?
The ranges you gave are lower than the sim

Could you show what range exactly?

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

18 hours ago, Chizh said:

Could you show what range exactly?

compare your 900kmh 1km cold shot range to the WEZ sims numbers in the same paramters

 

17 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

I think the best thing you could do is overlay a tacview perf. chart from the current DCS build and compare it to the DLZ sim. So one can actually show some hard numbers and not simply words. Most of it could very likely be fixed by a 1-1.5s increase in burn time.

EDIT: Also the manual reference you posted doesn't contain R-27ER/ET data or equations anywhere really. 

 

Why so all that testing can get ignored again by Chizh/ED?

We've posted this test countless times since the preliminary CFD what can I say except lurk more new friend


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
59 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

compare your 900kmh 1km cold shot range to the WEZ sims numbers in the same paramters

Just checked 900 km/h, alt 1 km and tail on position at 8 km range. Screenshot at moment before hitting.

All is OK.

59 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

Why so all that testing can get ignored again by Chizh/ED?

We've posted this test countless times since the preliminary CFD what can I say except lurk more new friend

Today I have tested one of your claims. Just wasted time.

Screenshot 2022-05-04 070825.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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
30 минут назад, Чарик80 сказал:

А что теперь высота на марше у авиационных ПКР (Гарпун,китаец СМ802) 1500м будет?

После обнаружения цели Гарпун спускается на сверхмалую высоту.

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
57 минут назад, Gypsy 1-1 сказал:

 А почему только после? РБ15Ф то по навигации спускается. 

С малой высоты цель искать сложно. Горизонт близко.

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

The manual I have for Harpoon (B-52 launched) shows Harpoon sea-skimming (if programmed this way) until it's time to pop-up to search for the target, then come back down to sea-skimming.  Of course, my manual is quite old and guidance software could have easily changed since then.

  • 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

04.05.2022 в 22:21, Chizh сказал:

После обнаружения цели Гарпун спускается на сверхмалую высоту.

А с какого, примерно, расстояния Гарпун должен обнаруживать цель?

1 час назад, GGTharos сказал:

The manual I have for Harpoon (B-52 launched) shows Harpoon sea-skimming (if programmed this way) until it's time to pop-up to search for the target, then come back down to sea-skimming.  Of course, my manual is quite old and guidance software could have easily changed since then.

I read about it too.

ПОЗОР ВОЕННЫМ ПРЕСТУПНИКАМ!!! ПОЗОР "АРМИИ" ДЕТОУБИЙЦ!!! ПОЗОР ТРУСАМ, СПОСОБНЫМ ВОЕВАТЬ ТОЛЬКО С МИРНЫМ НАСЕЛЕНИЕМ!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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