Missile Dynamics - A discussion

[SESova]

There is no point to discus abouth this Tek.Thinks are simple.ED doing the game for US market,so russian weapons must be stupid.We dont have to take a part in that.If you dont like it,you dont have to buy it.And,if ED is interested to sell us FC 3,thay can contact us on our sites and offer it.

 

One more prof for allmighty Aim 120C.

 

You guys from 51-st can do the thing,you own the server.

1. Create the server with out SF F-15.

2. Do the mod for the FC 3 wich is going to fix flight model and head of the missiles,and who want to play on your server,must to install the mod.

F-15 pilots can play on other servers agains each other and have great fun.

[Jona33]

I really don't see why a Russian company would be bias towards the US.

[SESova]

Money

[Frostie]

 

You guys from 51-st can do the thing,you own the server.

1. Create the server with out SF F-15.

2. Do the mod for the FC 3 wich is going to fix flight model and head of the missiles,and who want to play on your server,must to install the mod.

F-15 pilots can play on other servers agains each other and have great fun.

Sova while I admire your passion for ideas the 51st will not fly without F-15's on the server. Every aircraft has its pros and cons, this for me is part of the experience and enjoyment in DCS/FC.

 

The Flankers represented in FC are underdogs on the BVR stage compared to a more advanced F-15C version, this is how it should be, maybe if we had Su-27SM with TWS and RVV-AE then things would be better. When it comes down to WVR the aces should be in the Flankers hands and they are for the most part in FC2.

 

With updates to FC3 coming along such as a real TWS multi launch function for the MiG-29S the whole East v West battle will become a slightly tougher environment for F-15's.

 

IMO having F-15's, Flankers and Fulcrums on the same side in the server is what adds to the enjoyment especially not knowing if you're facing an F-15 or Ukrainian Fulcrum or Flanker, this is how it will remain unless the Eagle adopts freakin laser beams on their freakin heads. When FC3 is final we should be able to develop some more interesting missions.

[danilop]

Money

 

+1 :)

[wilky510]

There is no point to discus abouth this Tek.Thinks are simple.ED doing the game for US market,so russian weapons must be stupid.We dont have to take a part in that.If you dont like it,you dont have to buy it.And,if ED is interested to sell us FC 3,thay can contact us on our sites and offer it.

 

One more prof for allmighty Aim 120C.

 

You guys from 51-st can do the thing,you own the server.

1. Create the server with out SF F-15.

2. Do the mod for the FC 3 wich is going to fix flight model and head of the missiles,and who want to play on your server,must to install the mod.

F-15 pilots can play on other servers agains each other and have great fun.

Current missile performances are a WORK IN PROGRESS.

 

 

 

doing the game for US market

I doub't it, they just went out of their way to make a 6dof Su-27 cockpit and are giving TWS to the MiG-29S... Just what the US flyers and market wanted! You were right!

[Pilotasso]

There is no point to discus abouth this Tek.Thinks are simple.ED doing the game for US market,so russian weapons must be stupid.We dont have to take a part in that.If you dont like it,you dont have to buy it.And,if ED is interested to sell us FC 3,thay can contact us on our sites and offer it.

 

One more prof for allmighty Aim 120C.

 

You guys from 51-st can do the thing,you own the server.

1. Create the server with out SF F-15.

2. Do the mod for the FC 3 wich is going to fix flight model and head of the missiles,and who want to play on your server,must to install the mod.

F-15 pilots can play on other servers agains each other and have great fun.

 

The only proof I see is a bugged loft trajectory, theres nothing wrong with the rest because the missile is being directed by datalink. Same as R-77 (which by the way, you are getting it despite never have been an operational missile in RuAF).

 

Money

 

If ED wanted to make money they would do something else than making software for a niche market. :)

 

As you can probably reason, dropping something 'mid-shot' should have a Pk somewhere inbetween. The overall Pk IN GAMEwith stats as collected by Case for AMRAAMs is 0.3. That is about equivalent to a 120 with INS-only guidance to terminal.

 

I understood it the first time. I still think your throwing it off context and building your argument over two coincident values yet very different concepts. GG's intent was demonstrating an absurd, you picked up from the absurd and extrapolated from it.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Alfa]

The Flankers represented in FC are underdogs on the BVR stage compared to a more advanced F-15C version, this is how it should be...

 

Why exactly? :)

 

The Su-27 was introduced into service in 1984, while the upgraded F-15C came along around 1985(IIRC).

 

So the Su-27 and F-15C are completely contempory and at the time of induction their BVR armament consisted of R-27R and AIM-7M respectively....no "long burn" R-27 variants, no R-77s and no AIM-120s around.

[jctrnacty]

Why exactly? :)

 

The Su-27 was introduced into service in 1984, while the upgraded F-15C came along around 1985(IIRC).

 

So the Su-27 and F-15C are completely contempory and at the time of induction their BVR armament consisted of R-27R and AIM-7M respectively....no "long burn" R-27 variants, no R-77s and no AIM-120s around.

 

TRUE

[Teknetinium]

Why exactly? :)

 

The Su-27 was introduced into service in 1984, while the upgraded F-15C came along around 1985(IIRC).

 

So the Su-27 and F-15C are completely contempory and at the time of induction their BVR armament consisted of R-27R and AIM-7M respectively....no "long burn" R-27 variants, no R-77s and no AIM-120s around.

 

We have missiles introduced in 2001 (aim-120C), If missions are design to have EWR and AWAC Su-27 becomes very deadly, In RL I would assume Su-27 dont need EWR o AWAC to use data link witch would put F-15 from 1985 in deep shit whit out data link if there was no support from EWR or AWACS.

 

So we should ask for data link whit out of support of awac or ewr, witch I believe would not be so fun for F-15C from 1985 against Su-27S in 4vs4 clash.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

Why exactly? :)

 

The Su-27 was introduced into service in 1984, while the upgraded F-15C came along around 1985(IIRC).

 

So the Su-27 and F-15C are completely contempory and at the time of induction their BVR armament consisted of R-27R and AIM-7M respectively....no "long burn" R-27 variants, no R-77s and no AIM-120s around.

 

TRUE

 

 

It didnt take long untill those wepons came online too though.

[danilop]

...

If ED wanted to make money they would do something else than making software for a niche market. :)

 

Well, they taught us differently in economics and business classes - small company should always explore possibility to enter niche market neglected by Big Boys. ;)

 

Anyway, ED revived combat sim market, and they're doing good business wise (as good as market segment would allow). There is no real competition at the moment, isn't it?

 

I completely understand the obvious bias towards US jets (best paying market ought to be priority) - at least they'll survive to make a few ultra high quality Russian Birds here and there.

[Pilotasso]

Exploring a niche market nobody else is exploring allows you to survive but not making serious money from it. profit margins are bound to be low. This is of course an exageration because ED is really not alone in this market, just reduced competition.

 

There is no Bias, I can easely go to the other extreme and call eastern bias. ED is a russ companny and most of their products were eastern. Russ planes get real time datalink, Dual R-77 capability which never existed operationally in Ruaf etc etc.

 

All in all, the gap between East and west planes is pretty closer ingame than it is in reality, I understand this as most audience would never be able to cope with realistic differences and the product would not sell. :)

[SESova]

Current missile performances are a WORK IN PROGRESS.

 

 

 

I doub't it, they just went out of their way to make a 6dof Su-27 cockpit and are giving TWS to the MiG-29S... Just what the US flyers and market wanted! You were right!

 

Stories for naives.What is use of TWS if you have no missile for it?Ha?

Thats why final realise is in delay.ED is compromised him self with FC 2.All players want FC3,but bugs free,better missile flight model.

Thats why thay sel pre-order version+promise that missiles are going to be OK.Now stories with TWS on MiG`s.Wow must be something good.Good story that people by something and thay dont even know what are thay bying.If final version is relised,some people vould by it,tell the others that thinks are the same,and hundreds the others would not by it.

[SESova]

The only proof I see is a bugged loft trajectory, theres nothing wrong with the rest because the missile is being directed by datalink. Same as R-77 (which by the way, you are getting it despite never have been an operational missile in RuAF).

 

 

 

If ED wanted to make money they would do something else than making software for a niche market. :)

 

 

 

I understood it the first time. I still think your throwing it off context and building your argument over two coincident values yet very different concepts. GG's intent was demonstrating an absurd, you picked up from the absurd and extrapolated from it.

 

Yea,just bugged loft trajectory.Every time is something just.We had a lot just this two years.

[Pilotasso]

Sova, get your act together, ED delayed the product and allowed access to paid beta to give you more features while keep themselves afloat for the spent extra time doing it. Because you asked.

 

No Missiles for dual TWS mode? did you removed R-77 from your brain memory banks somehow?

[SESova]

Sova, get your act together, ED delayed the product and allowed access to paid beta to give you more features while keep themselves afloat for the spent extra time doing it. Because you asked.

 

No Missiles for dual TWS mode? did you removed R-77 from your brain memory banks somehow?

 

No,I know for R 77,active missile wich you fire and sometimes go for the target,sometimes not,never mind that you have radar lock.It is dangerous,but from 15 km.Aim 120C will follow the target even with out TWS lock.Head of the AIM 120C is powerfull just like plane radar,maby better.You can brake lock to airplane radar at 20 km,but you cant do it with amram head.

Maby there is space ship at area 51.I am shure there was AIM 120C on board.

[danilop]

Exploring a niche market nobody else is exploring allows you to survive but not making serious money from it. profit margins are bound to be low. This is of course an exageration because ED is really not alone in this market, just reduced competition.

 

There is no Bias, I can easely go to the other extreme and call eastern bias. ED is a russ companny and most of their products were eastern. Russ planes get real time datalink, Dual R-77 capability which never existed operationally in Ruaf etc etc.

 

All in all, the gap between East and west planes is pretty closer ingame than it is in reality, I understand this as most audience would never be able to cope with realistic differences and the product would not sell. :)

 

Everyone sees that it will be at least 3-4 years wait until we get proper DCS:Russian Fighter. We got A-10c (great fun), then P51d (I don't get it in 21st century theatre, but OK), next is DCS:USA Fighter. That's the bias I'm talking about!

 

I've been ED user since old Flanker series, so believe me, the bias is definitively shifting towards US jets ;).

[Alfa]

It didnt take long untill those wepons came online too though.

 

I kind of disagree with that Pilotasso.

 

In the case of the F-15C it took 7 years(1985 to 1992) before it got the AIM-120A.

 

....and a several years more before it got the AIM-120C.

 

In the case of the Su-27 it took some 5 years before it got the R-27ER/ET(IIRC came along around 1990), as for the R-77(RVV-AE)......a couple of decades :D

[Pilotasso]

The ingame 120C might as well be renamed 120A. Well never get credible C5 standards.

 

Then the gap between ER and the 120 is merely 2 years. :)

[Pilotasso]

Everyone sees that it will be at least 3-4 years wait until we get proper DCS:Russian Fighter. We got A-10c (great fun), then P51d (I don't get it in 21st century theatre, but OK), next is DCS:USA Fighter. That's the bias I'm talking about!

 

I've been ED user since old Flanker series, so believe me, the bias is definitively shifting towards US jets ;).

 

1º party russian fighters would take 3-4 years yes, but what stops 3rd parties from doing it? I dunno, but I think its only a matter of time before someone does. And then it should take much less time than that.

[Pilotasso]

No,I know for R 77,active missile wich you fire and sometimes go for the target,sometimes not,never mind that you have radar lock.It is dangerous,but from 15 km.Aim 120C will follow the target even with out TWS lock.Head of the AIM 120C is powerfull just like plane radar,maby better.You can brake lock to airplane radar at 20 km,but you cant do it with amram head.

Maby there is space ship at area 51.I am shure there was AIM 120C on board.

 

Sorry but that is wrong, a mistake due to your Bias. R-77 seeker is the same as 120 in this SIM. So your claim is clearly a contradiction.

 

Not only that you dont even have the finished product to make conclusions from.

[danilop]

1º party russian fighters would take 3-4 years yes, but what stops 3rd parties from doing it? I dunno, but I think its only a matter of time before someone does. And then it should take much less time than that.

 

Agree, but we were talking ED bias, not 3rd parties.

[Alfa]

The ingame 120C might as well be renamed 120A. Well never get credible C5 standards.

 

But there are several versions of the AIM-120C - why exactly C5?

 

Then the gap between ER and the 120 is merely 2 years.

 

In terms of dates - yes something like that, in terms of technology - no :) .

[SESova]

Sorry but that is wrong, a mistake due to your Bias. R-77 seeker is the same as 120 in this SIM. So your claim is clearly a contradiction.

 

Not only that you dont even have the finished product to make conclusions from.

 

The most funyest thing ever spoken here.

Why than AIM 120C will find you at any angle,any altitude,any range,never mind is it TWS lock lost or not,but R 77 wont?

 

And R 27ER is 3 times biger than AIM 120C.You want to say it is done that way just to looks better under the plane wing and it has nothing with fuel quantity,engine power....?

Edited January 5, 2013 by =SE=Sova