Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[GGTharos]

You would need to increase the controlled flight time of the missile in the missile_data.lua.

[rassy7]

I guess I'm the only person that does 'dumb' stuff in single player, just to observe the effects.

 

Hey Spade, did you see this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116505

 

You are not alone, ha ha. Pretty cool too.

[blkspade]

Hey Spade, did you see this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116505

 

You are not alone, ha ha. Pretty cool too.

 

That is pretty bad ass.

[Shein]

I may be late to the game here, but did anyone notice a difference in the missiles in the latest patch?

I thought they were a tad better...

[*Rage*]

I may be late to the game here, but did anyone notice a difference in the missiles in the latest patch?

I thought they were a tad better...

 

Not yet..

[Shein]

Not yet..

 

huh. Must be the placebo effect

or maybe I'm just becoming a better pilot :smartass:

[*Rage*]

Yes, I've said previously, and confirm, the ERs are definitely better a bit at holding a stable target lock. Been seeing more ER kills since 1.2.6c in general.

 

Wrong.

 

I have the current missile files (which have not changed) and the new new missile file with the proposed changes yet to be incorporated into a patch.

[*Rage*]

Lol..our resident Expert has spoken :megalol:

[Teknetinium]

I'm sure the missiles' performance and code is not solely residing in the LUA files. The executable contains all the logic behind the numbers taken from the config files. It is programmed in MS Visual Studio or elsewhere with ANSI C/C++ and compiled to make the EXE and the needed libraries.

 

The fact is that since 1.2.6 patch 3, the ERs are different.

And other missiles' performance has changed since the AFM been added earlier.

I do nothing but fly DCS online and I can tell you that.

 

I'm not even going to question you having the soon to be updated LUAs for missiles, for the next or any future patch, as with "everything is a subject to change" is still valid. So just thank yourself for the attempt to dilute this change to the missiles, as you must know everything about what's going on in the development department it seems.

:thumbup:

 

We have been conducting test in same conditions for each patch with recorded tacviwes, when we compare them there is no change yet.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Ragnarok]

I'm sure the missiles' performance and code is not solely residing in the LUA files. The executable contains all the logic behind the numbers taken from the config files. It is programmed in MS Visual Studio or elsewhere with ANSI C/C++ and compiled to make the EXE and the needed libraries.

 

The fact is that since 1.2.6 patch 3, the ERs are different.

And other missiles' performance has changed since the AFM been added earlier.

I do nothing but fly DCS online and I can tell you that.

 

I'm not even going to question you having the soon to be updated LUAs for missiles, for the next or any future patch, as with "everything is a subject to change" is still valid. So just thank yourself for the attempt to dilute this change to the missiles, as you must know everything about what's going on in the development department it seems.

:thumbup:

 

Track file which you recorded in the previous patch, should show the difference when you run an the next patch. If the patch has brought something else, patch interpret same track file in its different manner. Just follow the values ​​and compare!

[westr]

I seem to have found a problem when using close air combat vertical scan mode with Russian aircraft. It will not longer auto lock onto the target, I thought it may be a problem with the 1.2.7 beta but I tried 1.2.6 and had the same problem. I have no mods added to either versions, Anyone else have the same problem?...

[otto]

@Westr

 

No bug. I think it's like that in real life.

[westr]

Ok. Am I missing something. I press the 3 key to put the HUD in cac mode and I press I to ensure the radar is on. I make sure my target is within the two vertical lines and it used to lock, onto the target and give me launch authorisation(obviously if its within a close enough range) I can not get this to happen any more. I have followed what it says in the manual. Should I be pressing a key or something that I have missed?

[Buzpilot]

Wrong.

 

I have the current missile files (which have not changed) and the new new missile file with the proposed changes yet to be incorporated into a patch.

 

You totally exclude net code here I think.

[dpatt711]

When will we see improved AA missiles?

 

After using AMRAAMS and Adders for a bit, I realized they're terrible. So I set up some scenarios and these are the abridged results,

F15C @FL550 was unable to hit an unmaneuvering AWACS @ FL350 Range >13nm

F15C @FL550 was unable to hit an lightly (Shallow S turns) maneuvering AWACS @ FL350 Range >10nm

F15C @FL550 was unable to hit an heavily maneuvering AWACS @ FL350 Range >9nm

 

The results with Su-33 and R-77 were almost identical

 

Older versions of these missiles actually have records of taking out fighter jets at 20+ miles, and even some cargo planes at 30-40+ miles, an AWACS at 13nm should be easy kill.

[St3v3f]

Try with different targets, I believe AWACS have strong ECM

[Pilotasso]

has AWACS ever boasted any ECM ingame? (besides simple chaff/flares)

 

Radar missiles seekers have been lacklustre sing AFM was introduced. somehow they are related (speed profile affecting Doppler effect?). They say its going to be fixed eventually but seems not to be the priority right now.

[howie87]

I just did a quick test and managed to hit an Ilyushin Il-78 at 35nm with an AIM-120C.

 

Both at 30,000ft and 400 knots, head on.

 

Seems 'bout right to me.

[Frostie]

After using AMRAAMS and Adders for a bit, I realized they're terrible. So I set up some scenarios and these are the abridged results,

F15C @FL550 was unable to hit an unmaneuvering AWACS @ FL350 Range >13nm

F15C @FL550 was unable to hit an lightly (Shallow S turns) maneuvering AWACS @ FL350 Range >10nm

F15C @FL550 was unable to hit an heavily maneuvering AWACS @ FL350 Range >9nm

 

The results with Su-33 and R-77 were almost identical

 

Older versions of these missiles actually have records of taking out fighter jets at 20+ miles, and even some cargo planes at 30-40+ miles, an AWACS at 13nm should be easy kill.

You seem to be doing something wrong, what is your altitude?

 

I've just tried this now @25,000ft mach1.0, launching one AIM-120C at exactly 25nm range against an A-50 @25000 which goes into a crank and dive with chaff and i'm making a kill every time.

[GGTharos]

@Howie

 

Seems not far enough to me if that was max range.

[Ragnarok]

Testing for non maneuvering targets work best against F-5. Set the task "nothing".

[howie87]

I'm finding that on long range shots, the AIM-120 climbs to altitude properly but then decends too quickly. The flight profile looks somewhat like an inverted V.

 

The sharp turn at the top to face the target bleeds a lot of energy and the missile seems to descend too quickly and ends up falling short.

 

On the other hand, the AIM-9 seems a lot more spritely with the reduced lift and drag of 1.2.7.

 

Perhaps the 120 should receive similar treatment to make up for the sub optimum flight profile? Not the most realistic solution but probably the easiest fix. Of course I'd rather ED just solved the problem but any fix is better than none.

Edited January 8, 2014 by howie87

[Ragnarok]

correction of the course does not mean that everything is running smoothly and properly.

Although I think that this phenomenon is not a simulation course corrections. Size of the parabola will forever remain a mystery for the simulator, but I have high praise for precision in 1.2.7!

[*Rage*]

More testing to follow once 1.2.7 is 'official'

[Ragnarok]

Testing R-27ER, beta open 1.2.7

Conditions: head on, one mach mutually, no maneuvering target.

 

38km distance launch

High Altitude 6km (attacker) vs. 4km (target)

 

the time it takes to hit 43 s

speed of the projectile at the time goal: 970km / h

 

High Altitude 4km (Forward) vs 6km (target)

the time it takes to hit 45 s

speed of the projectile at the time goal: 830km / h

 

difference

2 s (According to my data it is good)

 

 

 

 

58km distance launch

 

atitude 8km (attacker) vs. 10km (target)

the time it takes to hit 61 s

speed of the projectile at the time goal: 950km / h

 

10km (attacker) vs. 8km (target)

the time it takes to hit 56 s

velocity projectile point scorer: 1150km / h

 

difference

5 s (According to my data it is very good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

 

 

 

51km distance launch

 

atitude 6km (attacker) vs. 10km (target)

the time required to score: 53.5 s

speed of the projectile at the time goal: 930km / h

 

10km (Forward) vs 6km (target)

the time it takes to hit 48 s

velocity projectile point scorer: 1230km / h

 

difference

5.5 s s (According to my data, should be 8 seconds. What is wrong here?)

 

Ok, you fire with critics! :thumbup:

 

**************

Addition:

58km distance launch

12km (attacker) vs. 8km (target)

difference 10 s (also very good)

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ragnarok