New missile mod for FC 2.0

[SESova]

Come on SE, let's see your data. If you're gonna make outlandish claims, the burden of proof falls on you. Until then you're just trolling, which, while mildly entertaining, serves no purpose.

 

Lets first ED show thair documents.For all thay published nowt clame thay are wrong.We are interested do thay have eny good one.

[squinkys]

Lets first ED show thair documents.For all thay published nowt clame thay are wrong.We are interested do thay have eny good one.

 

Nice deflection.

 

So let me see if I have this straight...SE releases some mod for FC2 that equalizes the missiles due to some perceived imbalance, repeatedly says that ED (a Russian company mind you) has a Western bias, and yet none of you are willing to post tracks demonstrating the behavior you claim to be "unfair" or the data that backs up your statements. Do you understand why I'm not taking this seriously?

[159th_Viper]

Lets first ED show thair documents.....

 

It is precisely this attitude that ensures that you are not taken seriously and as a consequence, dismissed.

 

That is a great pity.

[SESova]

Nice deflection.

 

So let me see if I have this straight...SE releases some mod for FC2 that equalizes the missiles due to some perceived imbalance, repeatedly says that ED (a Russian company mind you) has a Western bias, and yet none of you are willing to post tracks demonstrating the behavior you claim to be "unfair" or the data that backs up your statements. Do you understand why I'm not taking this seriously?

 

When ED tester,the man whos job is to make shure everything is OK,say that F 15 is the king of the sky,and proff for that is opinion of the Boberro,that US is reach country and thair missiles must be better,+ you have his word that FC 3 is going to be OK,shud i trust him?

[GGTharos]

Who offered Boberro's opinion as proof?

 

It is the opinion of pilots and of people within the industry that the F-15C is the superior BVR aircraft; some of those people are beta testers.

 

Some of this opinion can be formed by comparing operator's manuals for these aircraft as well, looking at histories where needed, and with some knowledge of avionics.

 

I suggest you stop making up fantasy stories about ED, or ED's testers.

 

When ED tester,the man whos job is to make shure everything is OK,say that F 15 is the king of the sky,and proff for that is opinion of the Boberro,that US is reach country and thair missiles must be better,+ you have his word that FC 3 is going to be OK,shud i trust him?

[SESova]

Ragnarok has done the mod.Mod refers to ALL missiles.The only thing,spoken here is that AMRAAM must be the best.No calculations,no data to compare...no eny discusion abouth other missiles.Yust clames that everybody watched on TV that F 15 is the best.

This shows that claims of the SE that Lock on FC2 is not Lock on FC2 than F 15 Eagle are entirely accurate.Soppose FC 3 shod be F 15 Eagle 2.

We dont mind,but we have done "other solution".According to this posts from ED testers,FC3 final wont be much different from FC beta.And its logic.Why would everything in beta was done at one,but at final some other way?More comedy?

 

No more replay to ED from me,unless my friend Ragnarok needs me.No use if thay clame for everything thay have done it is wrong or out of date.

[SEwhiteG]

Nice deflection.

 

So let me see if I have this straight...SE releases some mod for FC2 that equalizes the missiles due to some perceived imbalance

 

Wait the second, the guy who figured all this is Ragnarok and he is from =4c= squad, not =SE=.

After those calculations =SE= guys realise that this thing can be answer for that big missile diference and we support his mod.

Here we can see that you people dont know who made this mod and what he actualy means.

As i see only GG show some arguments but others just spaming.

In this mod only thing wich was changed about amraam is not range, but start speed of this missle.

So you want trk's wich shows that we are right?

If we made that trk's, what will be after that?

I would like to know.....

Edited February 13, 2013 by =SE=whiteG

[squinkys]

Wait the second, the guy who figured all this is Ragnarok and he is from =4c= squad, not =SE=.

 

My mistake, seeing that he's been relatively quiet compared to the SE fellas over the past 16 pages made me think he was in some way affiliated with SE.

 

 

So you want trk's wich shows that we are right?

If we made that trk's, what will be after that?

I would like to know.....

 

I want to see your data that contradicts what we have represented in game. I don't really care about the track, although I can't speak for others. I find it suspect that as a group you've been so reluctant to provide any type of proof.

[RIPTIDE]

Has anyone actually looked at the files of the mod and challenged/supported them?

 

Here is a google translate of the Mod notes, and he has updated missile_data.lua with more or less what is summarized in the text.

 

"

R-27ER> 70km (live time is 90 sec., The minimum speed missiles to 1600km / h. Corrected rifle from 66000m to 70000m)

R-27EM> 95km (4.2 Mach, live by the 126sek., This missile has a rational path to intercept the target). Sparse data from the Internet for this rocket.

R-27ET 64.4 km (live time is 84 sec., Dvopulsnost been added since the drive is identical to the ER, only slightly increased resistance,

and at the end of the sweep with a 52km to 64km. Fixed the rifle from 54000m to 64000m)

R-27R (live time is 75 sec., The range was reduced from 50km up to 55000m 1200km/h.sekunde. Rifle is corrected)

R-27T (live time is 62 sec., Included two stage motor)

R-77 (live time is 73 sec., Included two stage engine, reduced weight for weight burning, and range from 58km to 50km fell. Rifle was changed from 60 km to 50 km.

R-73 (live time is 55 sec., Increased range of 15km to 30km. Till 20km High Altitude draws 30G)

 

AIM-120C (live time is 103 seconds., G max was reduced from 25 to 21, reduced the weight of 7kg, slightly increased resistance. Considered the best technology-AMRAAM and so far, with a range

> 105km ballistic, according to wiki. By 101.sekunde reach her ​​with the speed 1400KM 65km / h, and the corresponding relationship and the encyclopedia Wikipedia, ie. 65km: 70km in favor of the R-27ER)

 

AIM-120B (live time is 87 seconds. Till 1300km / h, G max was reduced from 25 to 23, reduced the weight of 6kg and a slightly increased resistance, and range from 64km to 55km fell. RIFLES reduced from 57000m to 55000m)

 

AIM-7M (live time is 67 seconds. Till 1700km / h, reduced weight, increased resistance, increased from 18 G to 20 range from 62km to 45km fell with a minimum speed 1750km / h to achieve 20G! RIFLES reduced from 58km to 45km )

 

AIM-9M.P, X (the change was not made, except that the corrected typo upper and lower maximal distance. Whether the reverse print.)

 

Corrected the R-27AE in case someone decides to use it."

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Wait the second, the guy who figured all this is Ragnarok and he is from =4c= squad, not =SE=.

Hi WhiteG,

While Ragnarok is indeed respected member of the =4c= squad, this mode has been released without =4c= tags. We at =4c=, including Ragnarok, are talking about the mod on our forum, however, our squad have not adopted it at this time.

[Ragnarok]

Encyclopedia of FC2, which is ignored is all you can ED to provide evidence for his claims. But I did not take the data from that encyclopedia. Missile_data file is one big encyclopedia which shows inconsistency and non-compliance with the laws of physics. Many strangeness and contradictions that are detectable.

If I fix something to you, you are looking for mathematical calculations and sources of information that I do! But Ed has made a complete FC2 and FC3 that is not at least explain his educational project. Neither chart, no physical law, any parameter, or another source. I can give you all this, and in the end I will probably deliver. But not before I see you to have a desire to be transparent. Go to provide ED charts and sources of information that you educate the ignorant. For now this is not published.

My "gut feeling" is not saying that you found the information that may justify your missiles physics. Rather, they're selectively adopting.

If you want me to prove the precise explanation at me, you first publish your precise evidence. You have a greater obligation.

If I see that I was wrong, the hard disk will delete all the documents that I have collected for years.

 

Do not forget that the only problem is to find out the strength of engine thrust. That's the only thing we can not argue, but because I did not touch it booster in of missile_data , although I know, is not quite like this of combustion. If we want to know what happens after the combustion kinetics, it is not a problem. Information about the structure of rocket, known throughout. mathematical calculation also.

I compared the results with the official data. They're a very little less value, but a lot less than the value created in FC2. But the explanation of what is wrong in FC2 I gave in earlier posts. One post that was translated whiteG.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

Missile_data file is one big encyclopedia which shows inconsistency and non-compliance with the laws of physics. Many strangeness and contradictions that are detectable.

 

The missile flight model does not comply with the laws of physics.

 

My "gut feeling" is not saying that you found the information that may justify your missiles physics. Rather, they're selectively adopting.

If you want me to prove the precise explanation at me, you first publish your precise evidence. You have a greater obligation.

 

My gut feeling is that you have nothing to publish. There's no 'you first' here.

[Ragnarok]

My gut feeling is that you have nothing to publish. There's no 'you first' here.

 

Do your the "gut feeling" says about them:

Joseph A. Kaplan

Department of Computer Science

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Blacksburg, Virginia

Alan R. Chappell

Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Corporation

Hampton, Virginia

John W. McManus

Analysis and Simulation Branch

Analysis and Computation Division

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia.

 

my "nothing" have worked in their concept.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

I've probably cited most of them :)

 

But I prefer actual missile data :)

[Ragnarok]

I've probably cited most of them :)

 

But I prefer actual missile data :)

 

You said it in public because there is no other way. Calculations conducted with me by leaving out an update for FC3. What we know for sure is that you do not have confidential data. Everything that you use, and I use it too. Or maybe you want me to send you and all that you have a copy of ...? :)

I'll wait for FC3 update and see if I need to care after your mathematical gift, or bias.

[GGTharos]

Do you have range and timing data for R-27ER? Rocket data?

How about for AIM-9? Range diagram for AIM-120A, etc? Do you know the maximum g's a missile can pull at a certain mach number and altitude?

 

And what does my 'mathematical gift' have to do with any of this? You find parameters that you can find and you try to fit the rest as best you can given whatever sources there are. That is how things work for AIM-120 and R-77. For some older missiles, there is much better data.

 

And finally, how do you reconcile all of this, together with other (non-missile) information to achieve the desired effect within a game that may not be simulating everything there is about A2A combat, like ECM/ECCM etc.

 

What we know for sure is that you do not have confidential data.

Everything that you use, and I use it too. Or maybe you want me to send you and all that you have a copy of ...? :)

I'll wait for FC3 update and see if I need to care after your mathematical gift, or bias.

Edited February 14, 2013 by GGTharos

[blahdy]

Lets first ED show thair documents.For all thay published nowt clame thay are wrong.We are interested do thay have eny good one.

 

Let me re-phase it for you.

 

You have no data.

 

This whole notion of 'omg! AIM-120 can't maneuver because of puny fins!' is stupid. A check with physics course will allow you to discover that fin sizes alone don't make or break a missile's ability to maneuver.

[Pilotasso]

Exactly ^^^^ an example of this is the ASRAAM, barely any fins at all. :)

[Ragnarok]

Formulas are not a problem. Language is a problem. but I'll try:

G max is always calculated from the change in velocity, linear acceleration and turning radius of curvature. Turning is determined by weight, resistance (frontal resistance for a given amount of resistance + surface control for changes, speed..., all written by manuel). But this is known. f = mv2 / r.

The biggest problem is to find out the maximum point at which they are received after the first booster. The precise time duration of the first booster is not so important in the calculation of the total range, it is more important to find the speed at half distance to the point where the projectile with his (calculated mathematically) speed can not turn around and pull out 4-6g.

But, if we assume that the official information published by the army just the distance at which a given projectile velocity to reach that G, and based on facts known to the 60000ft for example, R-27ER reaches a maximum speed of 4.5 Mach, we know the loss rate per unit of time at a certain height from the time of termination of the first booster, until reaching a minimum in the extreme range. It is this loss of our guidelines for the mean half-distance for the role of the third booster (if it exists, or is this just another booster, depending on the type of missile).The mean value gives us strength on the basis of comparing the total mass of fuel that is slowly consumed per unit of time, and distance traveled for each time period or weight change. This compound is a small thing if you want accuracy.

Since the calculation is the third such that combustion is independent of the shift flares, and that is the entire length of time, and it is nothing like the ramjet technology, obviously this will continue to be the biggest secret the biggest problem for FC3.

Information about this will not be for sure, but my free assessment is that there can be three times longer than the time duration of the first booster. which in turn complicates the matter further. The duration of the first booster is very important for the fight at short distances.

And it's very important to accurately determine the most and it.

Either way, we should bear in mind another fact.

large flares, especially at high altitudes, have different value descent due to mass. Light missiles can travel a lot more, but they are not functional. And in both groups do not need this kind of mileage in range counted.

Calculate the deviation angle, los angle, elevation los, los azimuth further build on these calculations.

 

I know I wrote confusing, but it would be easier to speak English. Talk simplified. Translator does not understand complex sentences.

 

P.C. I have some information on the R-27R, and on that basis it can be done proportions. Improvements in the percentage admit in public. Roughly correspond to the information in the manual for the Su-27SK.

For AIM-9 but do not have precise information, but and the R-73 has quantum image processing also,and the bigger Ek and TVC.

AIM-9x it is necessary in FC3 very very much.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Ragnarok

[Ragnarok]

Exactly ^^^^ an example of this is the ASRAAM, barely any fins at all. :)

ASRAAM not suitable for high altitudes and long distances when its speed down.

I will not answer to everyone. Bothered me immensely this topic. It is hard to translate.

[GGTharos]

TVC not modeled in FC2 :( Maybe in FC3. AIM-9X not needed for FC, Su-27SK is inferion in BVR but superior in WVR, because of HMS + R-73. But R-73 needs some work.

 

Here is some data for you: Mk-58 rocket has mass 210lbs (IIRC) and 75lbs after end of boost.

 

It has a boost mode for 4.5sec at ~5800LBF, and ~1100LBF sustain for 11 sec after this. At the end of rocket operation it will reach mach 3 from a mach 0,9 launch at 40000' and it will reach mach 1 again in about 80sec (total flight time, including the rocket operation phase), or a little more.

 

This is for old Mk-58, newer version is probably more powerful for AIM-7M.

 

As for AIM-9L (similar to M, but M should have slightly superior performance) see the attachment. Also note g available ...

The 'Variant' is AIM-9L with AIM-120 like fins and nose cone.

 

For AIM-9 but do not have precise information, but and the R-73 has quantum image processing also,and the bigger Ek and TVC.

AIM-9x it is necessary in FC3 very very much.

[Pilotasso]

ASRAAM not suitable for high altitudes and long distances when its speed down.

I will not answer to everyone. Bothered me immensely this topic. It is hard to translate.

 

your missing the point, its not meant for low speed its meant for short range combat, the body provides the lift, that is the key.

[Ragnarok]

Here is some data for you: Mk-58 rocket has mass 210lbs (IIRC) and 75lbs after end of boost.

 

It has a boost mode for 4.5sec at ~5800LBF, and ~1100LBF sustain for 11 sec after this. At the end of rocket operation it will reach mach 3 from a mach 0,9 launch at 40000' and it will reach mach 1 again in about 80sec (total flight time, including the rocket operation phase), or a little more.

 

This is for old Mk-58, newer version is probably more powerful for AIM-7M.

It's a good engine. Different purposes, but the range is excellent for such a small rocket.

Chart is worth a look.

 

AIM-9

Weight at Launch 125 Lbs

Weight at Burnout 50 Lbs

Thrust 690 Lbs

Time of Motor Burn 8.0 seconds

Maximum Acceleration 30 G’s

Range 2.5 Miles (do not know if this is taken as an example for the calculation and the data are valid with "The Analysis of a Generic Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Model")

Edited February 15, 2013 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

That rocket engine is similar to the one on the R-27R/T.

 

The AMRAAM on the other hand is said to have 'Mach 4 over aircraft launch speed' in USN documents - it's a smaller rocket, but it is newer and the missile is also lighter.

[Ragnarok]

At first I thought that you give the name of the engine for the R-27R. lol

I realize later of which you're talking about missile.