Jump to content

Ракеты в DCS


Chizh

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Chizh said:

Yes, there is such a problem.

All radar missiles now have near instant capture. We have plans to introduce a lock delay for missiles with extreme autopilot and sensors implementation. We will do this primarily for the AIM-120.

 

F-16 onboard equipment issues should be discussed in another topic.

 

I mean it is a monopulse radar it can get range and angle information with only one pulse I see no reason that the delay to acquire would be anything more than fractions of a second so long as the target is in the FOV (especially if the missile is getting datalink updates).  As pointed out by GG things like more realistic gate modeling and things like proper HPRF to MPRF mode for the amraam are probably going to be more impactful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
15 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Would you also introduce capture gates instead of 'target game object #1234'?  Ie. closure/angle/range gate, eventually provided in different formats (for example AWG-9 does this differently than an AMRAAM platform).  A lock-on delay is great but these other things are better IMHO.  Also, how much can this delay be?  The AIM-7 is used as close as 1500' in dogfighting IRL so this is probably fractions of a second, unless a there is a search phase.

 

There is also the question of how many targets can a missile discern in its FoV instantaneously (what about con-can vs monopulse?) for the purposes of search and target selection.

Also, where things become more guesswork:  should missiles do a raster search if they cannot find a target where they are expected to look?

 

Finally, I have information on how sparrow handles some of the above problems and it seems like it would be a common method to most missiles.

Probably next step.

  • Like 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

I mean it is a monopulse radar it can get range and angle information with only one pulse I see no reason that the delay to acquire would be anything more than fractions of a second so long as the target is in the FOV (especially if the missile is getting datalink updates).  As pointed out by GG things like more realistic gate modeling and things like proper HPRF to MPRF mode for the amraam are probably going to be more impactful. 
Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS).

This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

Anyway glad that ED is looking into this matter.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

  • Like 3

 

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

18 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS). emoji23.pngemoji23.png


This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

 

 

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

 

Right but why would it take more than fractions of a second to acquire the target?  Plus lets just assume that it does take some time, it still wouldn't matter much as English bias commands would give the seeker the initial information it needs to keep the target in the seeker fov anyway.  So again in comparison to proper gate modeling and HPRF-MPRF modes (again assuming that your assumption is right, which I don't hink it is, its probably a truly minor factor.

 


Edited by nighthawk2174
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Right but why would it take more than fractions of a second to acquire the target?  Plus lets just assume that it does take some time, it still wouldn't matter much as English bias commands would give the seeker the initial information it needs to keep the target in the seeker fov anyway.  So again in comparison to proper gate modeling and HPRF-MPRF modes (again assuming that your assumption is right, which I don't hink it is, its probably a truly minor factor.

 

 

I think you and breakshot are talking about different things.  You are correct is that once the target has a SNR acceptable enough to be picked up, there isnt gonna be some sort of significant acquisition delay. What breakshot is referring to is the fact that the DCS AIM-120 has a fixed detection range for all aspects. closures, and lookup/lookdown. There is no SNR simulation at all. The AIM-120 shouldnt pickup a hot lookup target at the exact same range as a cold lookdown target.

  • Like 3

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you and breakshot are talking about different things.  You are correct is that once the target has a SNR acceptable enough to be picked up, there isnt gonna be some sort of significant acquisition delay. What breakshot is referring to is the fact that the DCS AIM-120 has a fixed detection range for all aspects. closures, and lookup/lookdown. There is no SNR simulation at all. The AIM-120 shouldnt pickup a hot lookup target at the exact same range as a cold lookdown target.
This is true, but what if the defined pitbull range is already considering a good %of locking success (good Snr) for incoming and cold target (eg. Radar is going pit bull at 8nm but acceptable locking range is 14 nm for hot and 8nm for cold target for 5m2 rcs targets...)

This of course is classified info and I don't think we are going to get this info anywhere.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some unclassified info regarding these ranges wrt HPRF (husky) but not MPRF - aka pitbull.    The 120 can lock onto a target from quite far head-on, possibly surprisingly far.  We don't know anything about the MPRF functionality and the 120 has an interesting battery stack which could indicate MPRF capability that doesn't quite align with an aircraft radar comparison for example.

As usual, MPRF doesn't care about aspect.

 

Point being very little is known or understood about the PRF effect on anything here since the information is lacking.  The search process, other than what's known for sparrow, is also not known for the 120 although it 'seems' obvious that under certain circumstances it would have to raster instead of stare.

[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

2 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

This is true, but what if the defined pitbull range is already considering a good %of locking success (good Snr) for incoming and cold target (eg. Radar is going pit bull at 8nm but acceptable locking range is 14 nm for hot and 8nm for cold target for 5m2 rcs targets...)

This of course is classified info and I don't think we are going to get this info anywhere.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Thats fair, but I doubt it would wait until the 8nm to start searching. Itd likely start searching from further out, and using the DL attempt to find the target as quickly as possible.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 9:13 PM, BlackPixxel said:

 

Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.

 

On 7/13/2021 at 9:14 PM, Chizh said:

Yes

 

Will R-27 also be corrected and use PN instead of pure pursuit when HOJ?


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

  • ED Team
2 часа назад, Rich сказал:

 

 

Будет ли R-27 также исправлен и будет использовать PN вместо чистого преследования при HOJ?

 

Not

  • Like 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

Not
You are so close to normalizing a good standard for A2A missiles in DCS and ER has been worked on recently. Why not finish it once and for all? Fix its PN (to same standard as other missiles)

Why leave things hanging in the air for more years?

Perhaps ED team can look into this from a general game dynamics standpoint?

Introduce new features that affect A2A uniformly and don't leave missiles and dynamics that are fundamental to the MP community neglected (your most hardcore group of customers).

People like to pay for complete products. Not a 5yr WIP plans, and having to chase the developer. All these affect the gameplay, hence we are here.

Less moaning from customers, more fun!

Don't treat everything as just a 'bug report'...

Just MHO.

Anyway, recent progress brings some optimism. Looking forward to new upcoming patches.

S!





Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

  • Like 6

 

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

On 7/18/2021 at 4:10 PM, tavarish palkovnik said:

Model-page-001.jpg

Tavarish Palkovnik, where are this number coming from, so I can crossreference them with DCS?

 

 

-------

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

I doubt you will get similarity but you can try. Idea was to approximately show how rocket fly with inertial phase and not taking care a lot about overloads what I will explain in next step by step text.

 

So this is how it should be in real, it is everything about computer in BRLS, computer and autopilot in rocket and lot of kinematic and dynamic data for and about rocket.

Imaginary case...

 

1-page-001.jpg 

 

 

Red dot is fighter in second 0 and first blue dot is target in second 0 when everything starts. It means computer already calculated everything and PR is given. First is to have orbital speed knowing how long inertial flight will take, and let's say computer said it will be 35 seconds.

So orbital speed is 4,926 / 35 = 0,1407 deg/sec.

Now with this data computer calculate angle for which antenna in GSN will rotate. It is based on formula T/3 * orbital speed, 35/3 * 0,1407 = 1,6415 -> so it angle -1,6415deg 

 

 

2-page-001.jpg

 

If velocity vector of fighter is with some angle regarding target in second zero, that angle should be included in calculation.

What is important to say, that calculated angle and imaginary line is parallel to the line ''connecting'' rocket and the target in moment when rocket's GSN will make lock

 

3-page-001.jpg

 

And that is basis for inertial flight, that line is axis X in rocket's system of coordinates. Without it inertial phase is impossible, something must be fixed.

 

4-page-001.jpg

 

Every blue dot is target after 5 seconds and cyan lines are parallel lines. Ideally would be that rocket after it's 5, 10, 15 etc seconds is ''on the line'' .It would be in strict PPS and ZPS but in this case not. Idea is, and autopilot calculate kinematic overloads such way, that at final of inertial flight and when guiding starts rocket get ''on the line'' ... or to say that adjustment in Y and Z axis ''get in zero'' ... nulovanje ... you will understand this term

So let's show for example second 20th

 

5-page-001.jpg 

 

Axis X pointing target in it's second 20th but rocket still is not ''on the line'' but closing to it. And like that second by second all to the final second when inertial phase stops and PARSN and proportional navigation starts

 

 

6-page-001.jpg

 

All together, horrible task for making programs and trajectory of the rocket

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 3:46 AM, Breakshot said:

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS). emoji23.pngemoji23.png

This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

Anyway glad that ED is looking into this matter.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Uh, you CAN'T support the missile all the way, it doesn't work like that. 
"This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range."
lmao, that defeats the point of the missile design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Uh, you CAN'T support the missile all the way, it doesn't work like that. 
"This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range."
lmao, that defeats the point of the missile design.

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.
@chizh can you please also look into making the relevant PN adjustment and remove variable PN logic and loft for SD10 and Aim54s vs ECM.

Because they can just be manually lofted into space with a high pitch angle. ECM makes no difference to those missiles.

Thanks

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

 

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

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.
What missile are you talking about? Certainly doesn't work that way for an AIM-120C-5. Once pitbull the datalink connection is severed and the missile is on its own.

Mobius708

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.
Exactly! This is how it should be. A supported missile should have much better PK than an unsupported one.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

 

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

18 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

What missile are you talking about? Certainly doesn't work that way for an AIM-120C-5. Once pitbull the datalink connection is severed and the missile is on its own.

Mobius708
 

No. Supporting 120s does increase PK, there are post active DL updates. All relevant manuals (F-16 -34 to name 1) support this

  • Like 2

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

What missile are you talking about? Certainly doesn't work that way for an AIM-120C-5. Once pitbull the datalink connection is severed and the missile is on its own.

Mobius708
 

Yes it doesn't work this way in DCS as of right now but it should work this way

 

20 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

Exactly! This is how it should be. A supported missile should have much better PK than an unsupported one.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Yes it'll result in a higher PK but the missiles even without out datalink updates the missile is still going to be extremely resistant to both countermeasures and notching.  Datalink updates are just the icing ontop for the rare circumstances where something weird happens or there are friendlies mixed in with hostiles.


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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