Shein Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 1.2.3 is out. Missiles, all of them, appear to be incredibly nerfed. Inside of 8 miles I can't hit a hard turning target with an AIM-120C. To be fair, the russian missiles are also as nerfed... what do you guys think? I think a lot more fights are going to end up WVR these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripcord Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Missiles nerfed, or maybe the AI got a little more intelligent? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Nerfed. I'm exrtemely surprised At the moment, no. I've been too busy, and with so many updates coming out at the same time, it might not be a good idea to collect data that may or may not remain consistent between patches. It's mostly because I haven't had time though. I might be able to do more tests tonight and possibly on the weekend. EDIT - I managed to do a quick comparison test between AIM-120C, AIM-120B, and R-77. F/A-18C carried AIM-120, Su-30 carried R-77. The target in all cases was Yak-40, placed about 28 nm away, flying at 295 knots and 26400 ft. Patch 1.2.1.6192 Missile launch altitude [Kft] - launch range [nm] - launch velocity [kt] - max velocity - impact velocity AIM-120C 30 - 24 - 636 - 2900 - 892 22 - 21 - 617 - 2610* - 823 AIM-120B 30 - 25 - 628 - 2600 - 500 22 - 22 - 615 - 2400 - 442 R-77 30 - 19 - 709 - 2350** - 514 22.6 - 17 - 701 - 2300 - 475 * - Missile pulled max g turn out of loft just before the rocket cut out, resulting in loss of speed ** - Missile pulled max g turn while rocket was burning. Max speed was reached in a dive. The R-77 definitely has the worst kinematic performance of the three missiles. What I found most interesting though was that the R-77's powered dive didn't seem to help it. The AIM-120's both lost power before or during the turn to come out of loft while the 77 fired from 30000 ft came out of loft with full power (though acceleration basically stopped during the turn). I'm pretty sure that it had a higher initial dive speed than the AIM-120B, but it only just bearing beat the B's final velocity despite having less distance to travel. I'm also wonder if the missiles are maybe a little too draggy during maneuvering, but as I've not done the math I don't have anything to support my feeling. What I really want to see is a range increase from proper flight path modeling, or AMG as GG put it. I redid this test, AIM-120C only. Max velocity was 1800, final velocity was 413. It could barely go 26 miles against a non maneuvering target head on with a 600 knot launch from a superior altitude. The loft issue was not addressed in this update for those wondering. Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shein Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Missiles nerfed, or maybe the AI got a little more intelligent? actually good observation, meant to mention that too. They are a lot smarter... they don't travel in a straight line and just try to beam, they react to low energy missiles and maneuver hard now... to great effect. But the missiles are definitely nerfed. One turn can defeat a R-27 it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shein Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Nerfed. I'm exrtemely surprised I redid this test, AIM-120C only. Max velocity was 1800, final velocity was 413. It could barely go 26 miles against a non maneuvering target head on with a 600 knot launch from a superior altitude. The loft issue was not addressed in this update for those wondering. Wow awesome comparison. Thanks for that... yeah like I said, a 120C from 8 miles couldn't catch a mig-29... seems a little suspect. And yeah I remember specifically being told the lofting would be fixed months ago, in november... but I notice they still do that too Edited February 27, 2013 by Shein added loft note Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 One turn can defeat a R-27 it seems This is especially confusing because I thought the goal was to do the opposite. WVR missiles especially. The AMRAAM is supposed to be a Mach 4 missile, it's struggling to reach Mach 3 under decent launch conditions. Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki_ Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) 1.2.3 A-A Missiles still not right Firstly, ED thanks for all the hard work you've put in to the sim and patch 1.2.3. I was excited to test out the new missile dynamics but found one glaring problem: The A-A missiles are all still not quite right. Fired against non-manuevering targets, all missiles seem to do a great job during the initial launch stage of calculating a lead pursuit trajectory so as to anticipate where the target will be at time of impact. However, once the missiles have expended their fuel and begin decelerating they seem to lose that lead pursuit trajectory and slowly fall further and further into a trail pursuit. The result is that if a target is travelling perpindicular to the launching aircraft any missile fired at medium to long range will impact the target aircraft nearly sideways. This results in a whole bunch of unnecessary drag on the missile. Having never fired an air to air missile IRL I cannot say for certain that this is a bug. However, I would think that modern missiles should predict their own deceleration before it occurs and build in additional heading correction during the initial burn phase to compensate for that planned deceleration before reaching target. This would ideally result in a missile impacting at a 90* angle when fired at a perpindicular target. Edit: The images below illustrate the current model's tendancy to go 'trail' pursuit on a non-manuevering target during the deceleration phase. As the missile gets closer it continues to fall behind and continuously steers itself to correct before impact. This results in too much drag and reduced range. It should be able to impact a non-manuevering target with very minimal steering correction in the deceleration phase. Again, this target is not manuevering. Yet the missile ends up impacting it at >45* steering correction even though it was launched with the steering dot in the center of the ASE circle. Edited February 27, 2013 by Loki_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Missile Flight Models are still considered a work in progress. The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world. Current Projects: Grayflag Server, Scripting Wiki Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread) SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 The missile details are still WIP. Tuning the missiles is actually quite difficult where detailed information does not exist. The AIM-120 and R-77 are particularly difficult to deal with, while there is fairly detailed information on AIM-7F (yep, F) AIM-9L, and some of the R-27 family. Even so, it isn't an easy job since it doesn't take much to get it wrong. On top of this, guidance is a very big issue when it comes to missiles and right now DCSW only has one type of guidance - PN. [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 More sharing options...
Kenan Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 ^^Well, that's understandble but after so much wait for 1.2.3 most of us didn't really expect missiles to be this porked, even after update.. Not sure if I should really download 1.2.3 or wait for 1.2.4 release instead.. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genbrien Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Good news is: If you're an A-10 guy, your survival on the battlefield will be a bit longer:music_whistling: Do you think that getting 9 women pregnant will get you a baby in 1 month?[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Mobo: Asus P8P67 deluxe Monitor: Lg 22'' 1920*1080 CPU: i7 2600k@ 4.8Ghz +Zalman CNPS9900 max Keyboard: Logitech G15 GPU:GTX 980 Strix Mouse: Sidewinder X8 PSU: Corsair TX750w Gaming Devices: Saytek X52, TrackIr5 RAM: Mushkin 2x4gb ddr3 9-9-9-24 @1600mhz Case: 690 SSD: Intel X25m 80gb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 You should. 1.2.3 is your opportunity to improve your notch-to-merge skills ;) ^^Well, that's understandble but after so much wait for 1.2.3 most of us didn't really expect missiles to be this porked, even after update.. Not sure if I should really download 1.2.3 or wait for 1.2.4 release instead.. [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 More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 There are additional factors to take into account like gimbal limits for LOBL missiles etc. In any case, missile flight dynamics are the main improvement for FC3. Guidance will probably come some time later, not now. Having never fired an air to air missile IRL I cannot say for certain that this is a bug. However, I would think that modern missiles should predict their own deceleration before it occurs and build in additional heading correction during the initial burn phase to compensate for that planned deceleration before reaching target. This would ideally result in a missile impacting at a 90* angle when fired at a perpindicular target. [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 More sharing options...
BRooDJeRo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Genbrien has a point too. Perhaps the current settings aren't realistic, but wasn't there a conciderate downgrade needed to create more balance with other modules for multiplayer? I thought i heard Wags talking about this in the latest known sim podcast where he talked about DCS for an hour. So now you need to get much closer to have a positive impact? It might resolve the need for splitting up air-to-air and air-to-ground in multiplayermaps like 104th runs. When the current settings do that then i'd call it a win/+. Edited February 27, 2013 by BRooDJeRo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) It's just a transitional problem. There's no need to balance anything. Why would you want to balance, eg. a P-51 vs a MiG-29? The survival of an A-10 on the battlefield is directly related to the following: 1) Ability to interpret AWACS or other bandit reports. 2) Ability to read sensors, particularly RWR 3) Ability to hide from enemy sensors. This is accomplished by having a clue how A2A radar works. 4) Ability to not fly directly at the 29 nail while screaming for air support as the fighters come for you ... see #3 5) Patience and reasonable plan to attack enemy assets, ie. spending 5 min over the target area, not 25 ... see ... you know, mission focus #5 6) Capable, mission focused air cover 7) Understanding and application of air to air principles ... no, you don't get to skimp on'em because you're an A2G guy. Genbrien has a point too. Perhaps the current settings aren't realistic, but wasn't there a conciderate downgrade needed to create more balance with other modules for multiplayer? I thought i heard Wags talking about this in the latest known sim podcast where he talked about DCS for an hour. Edited February 27, 2013 by GGTharos 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 More sharing options...
BRooDJeRo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) I was thinking of a more conventional combination where there's a mix of fighters and A-10C's/Frog's red vs blue scenario's. I guess the means of working together plays a large role in it. I'm not having trouble with it myself, however theres the ocasional crying where theres no protection for the air-to-ground and get raped by the enemy fighter over and over. I totaly don't rule out human error on this though. :D Edited February 27, 2013 by BRooDJeRo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandrake5 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yup Aim-120C is now about as agile as a V2 at >5nm...... Majorly nerfed and utterly useless :mad: Please reinstate the 1.2.2 missile afm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0op8ack Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 You should. 1.2.3 is your opportunity to improve your notch-to-merge skills ;) In 1.2.3, you can break STT lock within 10nm/5nm by notching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenan Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 You should. 1.2.3 is your opportunity to improve your notch-to-merge skills ;) Aren't the R27s still porked? I was not referring to AIM120C. I'm quite happy with its current performance. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtherealN Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 In 1.2.3, you can break STT lock within 10nm/5nm by notching Yes? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPTIDE Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I haven't got my exports working properly yet, but for now R-77 and R-27ER seemed to have improved kinematics relative to the others in comparison with 1.2.2 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon_120 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I understand that all missiles are WIP, but is it true that max speed is just 1800 now? Why has that max speed been reduced so much? This obviusly shorts every missile quite a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejjvid Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Notching correctly (forcing the aggressors radar to look down) is very effective IRL. You basically get very little doppler return and you get a lot of ground noise. Without doppler return the radar can't distinguish between ground and aircraft returns. i7 8700K | GTX 1080 Ti | 32GB RAM | 500GB M.2 SSD | TIR5 w/ Trackclip Pro | TM Hotas Warthog | Saitek Pro Flight Rudder [sigpic]http://www.132virtualwing.org[/sigpic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0op8ack Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yes? YES, tested vs AI and vs human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0op8ack Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Notching correctly (forcing the aggressors radar to look down) is very effective IRL. You basically get very little doppler return and you get a lot of ground noise. Without doppler return the radar can't distinguish between ground and aircraft returns. Sorry sir, my radar is not looking down, I keep alt same as bandit or even lower. If the bandit turn 180 deg then turn back, you are expecting STT lock breaking TWICE.:smilewink::smilewink: Edited February 27, 2013 by L0op8ack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts