Cali Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 That isn't necessarily true, but we'd have to know the jammer's output power to determine how close you need to get for a pure power burn through (it may actually be less than a mile). I'm going by what the burn through was in FC2, since I don't have FC3 or haven't even played it. I just know in FC2, the burn through range was like 20nm. After burn through, the ECM had no effect on the missile guiding to it's target. I know a lot of things have changed in FC3.....was ECM output power modeled on different aircraft? i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I do not watch tacviews. I do not have the time to watch things, however useful, that will not contribute towards testing. A Tacview will not - I need tracks. Thing is, ED Testers have an variety of different versions of DCS World and any of the modules to test at any one time. By supplying a .trk file the testers can replay this track in the different internal testing versions of the game to see if the behavior is still present in the current build. Mind you, there's no need of proving how it works now in the released build. There's only there desire to make sure it works better in the build that will be released next. Hence, watching how its currently working in tacview is useless in regards to the development of the game and testing internal builds. Hope you understand the need for a track file better now. ~S~ Hey I'm just trying to help improve the simulation by pointing out flaws in a constructive manner, providing evidence and offering explanations (or asking for them if I've misunderstood). Why was Vipers response so dismissive? I repeat again. This isnt a whine thread. This isnt an I want an immediate fix thread. I started this thread to first identify if the ER chaff rejection/susceptibility is intentional and by design or whether there is something wrong with the algorithim. Tacviews are a very quick and easy way of identifying that something in missile guidance is not right. It takes all of 60 seconds to download and watch a simple 1v1 engagement. I was told guidance is not currently being worked on. Thats fine. More time to get it right, but first would you like to recognise that theres a problem? Watch the tacviews. Watch just one (of the chaff only acmis). Even if its just to appear interested. Then again im no PR expert. Im away for the Easter weekend. Im not sure if I saved the actual tracks. In the interest of keeping this moving however I will either find and upload them or make new ones when I get back. While I'm there, anything else that the Devs/Testers would find useful? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krebs20 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 The catch is with tacviews, I can only see what is wrong with the public build. It's useful to see a picture of whats going on. The track I can replay in a test build to isolate the issue. Your tracks will play differently on a test build than on your release. In this case. We can see if the problem was corrected before we report it. Or if the issue has some other change coming that will affect it. I don't see anything wrong with your request. Your not whining or making it a problem for anyone. Viper is simply requesting a track over a tacview. ED testers are not PR people. We just test things. Over and over and over. I'm no missile expert. I spend my time with the uh1. But I agree the ER behavior is strange. I hope we can get some improvement. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Viper Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Why was Vipers response so dismissive? Dismissive? Apologies if you interpreted it to be so - certainly not my intention. I would however agree that I was probably getting a wee bit impatient waiting for an answer after you yourself in a post confirmed the existence of tracks. I then asked twice and still did not receive a reply regarding the link for the tracks. In hindsight it appears as though you were probably referring to the tacview recordings as tracks. but first would you like to recognise that theres a problem? Watch the tacviews. This is how I like to work/investigate: 1 - The fact that you took the time to post a thread regarding the issue is good enough for me. I do not need to recognise that there is a problem - you already think so. 2 - I then watch the tracks you provide with the public release build and confirm your suspicions or inform you if you made a mistake in your assumptions. 3 - If your suspicions are confirmed, I investigate further with the various tester's builds and report the bug. Without a track/s I cannot get past step #1. This is nothing new - I personally have been requesting tracks with every report, where relevant, since I started testing and it will not end now. It is even contained in a sticky thread entitled 'TROUBLESHOOTING: Help us helping you' - see post #1: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=88164 I hope you can now understand why tacview recordings are useless for the purposes of investigating and reporting matters of this nature. Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opps Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Track to tacview is very easy, but tacview to track is not. So just posting track and evryone can watch track&tacview data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Little busy this weekend. Tracks to come tuesday/wednesday... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niehorst Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Performance of su27's missiles..??? I thought those missiles have been reworked? The only thing I can shoot down with the Su's radar guides missiles are transport planes and I have to be really close to them... Fighters easily evade my missiles in BVR Combat. No need to say that the AIM-120 seem to work fine now! :cry: Didn't try it yet, but I guess without the R-77 you don't have any chance of surviving or getting a kill in BVR... NZXT H400i case i9 9900k @ 4,9GHz (cooled by NZXT Kraken X62 4x140Fan - Push/Pull) Asus RoG Maximus XI Gene with 32GB G.Skill CL14 Samsung M.2 970Pro 1000GB ZOTAC RTX 2080ti Triple Fan 11GB 34" RoG Swift Curved TFT runs smooth like Beck's Gold :D HTC VIVE pro eYe (still freaking out!) Thrust Master HOTAS Warthog on MONSTERTECH table mounts 15cm Stick Extension + red spring by SAHAJ 8 (<-- love them) (TM F-18C ordered) TPR (Thrustmaster Pendular Rudder) T.Flight USAF Headset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypersonik Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 work fine on 8 nm or less .. for me at least (ER's) and yea .. R77 are insane. DCSW wishlist : multi-crew :D GTX480, i52400, 8GB, Samsung EVO 840 250G SSD, Raid 0 2TB =~45 FPS [Maxed] [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niehorst Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 ...there was a tool able to configure the aircraft's available weapon payload. Do we still have this option in DCS World 1.2.3 or do I have to complete the 27's campaign with the Mig29 ??? Don't like that kind of "cheating" but the SU doesn't seem to be a suitable opponent for those AMRAAM carriers :huh: btw: Are 8nm still BVR Combat???:book: NZXT H400i case i9 9900k @ 4,9GHz (cooled by NZXT Kraken X62 4x140Fan - Push/Pull) Asus RoG Maximus XI Gene with 32GB G.Skill CL14 Samsung M.2 970Pro 1000GB ZOTAC RTX 2080ti Triple Fan 11GB 34" RoG Swift Curved TFT runs smooth like Beck's Gold :D HTC VIVE pro eYe (still freaking out!) Thrust Master HOTAS Warthog on MONSTERTECH table mounts 15cm Stick Extension + red spring by SAHAJ 8 (<-- love them) (TM F-18C ordered) TPR (Thrustmaster Pendular Rudder) T.Flight USAF Headset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypersonik Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 yes. at least i cant c jack at 8 nm. BVR = beyond visual range. lalt+' for weapons. SU 27 doesn't carry R77. DCSW wishlist : multi-crew :D GTX480, i52400, 8GB, Samsung EVO 840 250G SSD, Raid 0 2TB =~45 FPS [Maxed] [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niehorst Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 yes. at least i cant c jack at 8 nm. BVR = beyond visual range. lalt+' for weapons. SU 27 doesn't carry R77. ok, thanks. Already had this info :music_whistling: NZXT H400i case i9 9900k @ 4,9GHz (cooled by NZXT Kraken X62 4x140Fan - Push/Pull) Asus RoG Maximus XI Gene with 32GB G.Skill CL14 Samsung M.2 970Pro 1000GB ZOTAC RTX 2080ti Triple Fan 11GB 34" RoG Swift Curved TFT runs smooth like Beck's Gold :D HTC VIVE pro eYe (still freaking out!) Thrust Master HOTAS Warthog on MONSTERTECH table mounts 15cm Stick Extension + red spring by SAHAJ 8 (<-- love them) (TM F-18C ordered) TPR (Thrustmaster Pendular Rudder) T.Flight USAF Headset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Ok..house move complete. Now back to missile performance! Will post tracks after 1.2.4 released sine missile performance has been altereed [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krebs20 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 :thumbup: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) 1.2.4 AAM performance 1.2.4 AAM performance seem about the same as 1.2.3.If this is as real as it gets i welcome it especially because i enjoi WVR combat.The aim 120c reaches 4000 km/h speeds now though. What do you guys think of 1.2.4 AAM performance?missile track1.trk Edited April 30, 2013 by otto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Missile kinetics tuning is not done yet. [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...
Essah Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I was so looking forward to that being fixed :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 We all are. The devs have created a wonderful physics engine for the missiles - it's really good! But, the flip side is that it has also brought to light the fact that little information is available for said missiles, and some assumptions that have been made need to be re-evaluated or just thrown out outright. [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...
vadIL Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Missile kinetics tuning is not done yet. Most important last priority....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandrake5 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Missile kinetics tuning is not done yet. But I thought FC3 is out of beta now....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 FC3 funded missile kinetics, yes, but missiles are an overall part of DCS, not just FC3 - so adjustments and bug fixes will continue to happen. Adjusting the missile data is easy. Making the data correct and understanding the information we have is not. Does that help explain what's going on? [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...
159th_Falcon Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 But I thought FC3 is out of beta now....? FC3 is Question is, are A-A Missiles part of A, DCS World B, Flaming Cliffs 3 If B, then all would be done now and working as it should If A, then it would mean AMM is still WIP. As GGTharos already mentioned, there still WIP/being tuned, so the correct answer is; A :smartass: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandrake5 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Anyone tested the AAMs in 1.2.4 yet? Is it still possible to overtake your own aim-120? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Anyone tested the AAMs in 1.2.4 yet? Is it still possible to overtake your own aim-120? So, how many hrs is .4 released now? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) 1.2.4 A2A Missile Discussion/Details I'm going to attempt to talk entirely in numbers rather than speculation and hearsay. I'm also not going to talk about what real world missiles actually do. Speed Test All missiles shot at 16,000' at 400kts AIM-120C 2060KTS AIM-120B 1920KTS AIM-7 1310KTS AIM-9M 1630KTS R-77 1930KTS R-27ER 2350KTS R-27ET 2050KTS R-73 1600KTS Defensive Tests Tests were done 3 times for fairness. Scenario: F-15 Aggressor shoots AIM-120C at Defender F-15, maintaining lock throughout. Defender (Full payload/Fuel) Split-S defense as soon as the last missile is shot. At first missiles were shot at 15nmi, then 1 mile until kill was 100%. Two missiles were shot, one at 15nmi and then x (X reducing in range by 1nmi after each test) until 100% kill. Results: Missiles were all defeated until 10nmi, at which point kill rate was 100%, even shots at 15nmi and 11nmi were defeated. Scenario: MiG-29 Aggressor shoots at at Defender F-15. Since the R-77 is slower than the C, it seemed pointless to test this. Instead we decided to test a 15nmi ER shot followed by a decreasing range R-77 shot. Results: The R-77 is defeated at ranges down to around 8nmi, however this wasn't conclusively tested. Testing was cut shot when we realised that the ER stops tracking as soon as the F-15 begins the split-S.Results.rar Edited May 3, 2013 by IASGATG Grammar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfidude Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Are the ERs supposed to be faster than 120s? [sIGPIC]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/ralfidude/redofullalmost_zpsa942f3fe.gif[/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts