EOS 1.2.7

[GGTharos]

In terms of signature or missile launch?

 

The Mig pilot launched at similar ranges to what is now max LA range in DCS. How do you reconcile a prop driven UAV flying at jogging pace to an afterburning fighter at Mach >1+ ?

[*Rage*]

In terms of signature or missile launch?

 

Max seeker range small prop driven UAV at 150km/h = 2 km

 

Max seeker range afterburning fighter at 1300km/h = 3km

 

Sounds awfully wrong to me.

Edited April 13, 2014 by ///Rage

[GGTharos]

Non-afterburning. The fuselage will still bask the AB, but not very well.

 

Max seeker range small prop driven UAV at 150km/h = 2 km

 

Max seeker range afterburning fighter at 1300km/h = 3km

 

Sounds awfully wrong to me.

[Frostie]

So by getting a launch cue at 3km, followed by the time holding the trigger to get the missile off the rail, the target has virtually flown past making the term all aspect missile pretty redundant.

In the Falklands war of '82 the RAF purchased the AIM-9L to give them the ability to engage Mirages head-on, they must have got it wrong.

[IvanK]

So by getting a launch cue at 3km, followed by the time holding the trigger to get the missile off the rail, the target has virtually flown past making the term all aspect missile pretty redundant.

In the Falklands war of '82 the RAF purchased the AIM-9L to give them the ability to engage Mirages head-on, they must have got it wrong.

 

It was the RN Frostie :) .... and as a side line just how many head on shots did they take anyway ?

[Frostie]

It was the RN Frostie :)

Well really it would have been the MoD. Many RAF pilots flew the SHAR in the war and pushed for the inclusion of AIM-9, even asking for cardboard cut outs for photo scaremongering, these were German based pilots the best UK had to offer.

They even beat F-15s based at Bitburg in mock ACM 7-1.

[*Rage*]

Non-afterburning. The fuselage will still bask the AB, but not very well.

 

In low-low, low-hi and hi-low LA was always at 3km with an afterburning target head on. That Mig pilot launched at about 2 km but thats not to say he couldnt launch sooner. Even if we assume he couldnt you still have not reconciled the heat signatures of a UAV and an ABing jet.

 

If its a bug or WIP thats fine. Its an open beta. But im saying this modelling cannot be true.

[Darkwolf]

 

I can t really add more than this. I could not believe that the aircrat body could mask AB. Well it can.

[Ragnarok]

Engines are not the only heat source in an airplane. For example, the F-16 on the front edges of attack, the Mach 1, the temperature at the front edge of the 100 degrees celsius. MiG-25 to Mach 2.5 speed even over 400 degrees. Friction through the air produces enormous heat. Thermal cameras can record far less heat than 100. See your web cam, only change exposure you get an amazing filter for invisible reflections. What to say about IR cameras and military technology?!

Edited April 14, 2014 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

Which part of 'we have the seeker sensitivity data' was difficult to understand?

 

Engines are not the only heat source in an airplane. For example, the F-16 on the front edges of attack, the Mach 1, the temperature at the front edge of the 100 degrees celsius. MiG-25 to Mach 2.5 speed even over 400 degrees. Friction through the air produces enormous heat. Thermal cameras can record far less heat than 100. See your web cam, only change exposure you get an amazing filter for invisible reflections. What to say about IR cameras and military technology?!

[Ragnarok]

I doubt the validity of your data. No one will give.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

Bring something better if you don't like it, send what you have directly to ED :)

 

I doubt the validity of your data. No one will give.

[GGTharos]

That's not to say he could have launched sooner either. In any case, there are two things here:

 

One is actual seeker data relating to IR emission sensitivity combined with the actual emission signature of said aircraft/aircraft parts. We know enough about this generally.

 

Two is the expectation that this is modeled very realistically. It's not, as in there is no actual radiance simulation as far as I know ( ... yet? ), there's 'I'm idle, up to mil, or AB' and there's a +/-15 deg head-on fuselage mask which may be 2D only.

 

Even so, my concern is that both EOS and missile seekers should be consistent in operation, my understanding is that one sees a difference between AB and MIL, the other does not.

 

Having said this, I find it strange that I can lock a 9M at 7-8nm against an after burning plane, but you're telling me your R-73's/R-27Ts do not?

 

In low-low, low-hi and hi-low LA was always at 3km with an afterburning target head on. That Mig pilot launched at about 2 km but thats not to say he couldnt launch sooner. Even if we assume he couldnt you still have not reconciled the heat signatures of a UAV and an ABing jet.

 

If its a bug or WIP thats fine. Its an open beta. But im saying this modelling cannot be true.

[karambiatos]

seems if its head on, it doesnt matter if its after burning or not, if its even slightly off, it locks at 8-10 km.

 

I have no way of conclusively showing it, since the AI, doesnt want to cooperate and keeps turning off their after burner at the last moment.

 

With that said the AI always shoots their IR missile at 3 km, with or without my afterburner being on.

Edited April 14, 2014 by karambiatos

[GGTharos]

Is that because you are at low altitude and 3km might be a more reasonable range to shoot from?

[karambiatos]

Is that because you are at low altitude and 3km might be a more reasonable range to shoot from?

 

7000m asl, North part of the map

Su-27 Afterburner ON.trk

[GGTharos]

Ok, so 8-10km is quite a fair shot. I've heard of AI opening fire at fairly long range. I'm wondering if there is some sort of DLZ issue for the AI.

[karambiatos]

another Off topic thing is, the Su-27 seems to be made out of cardboard, all surfaces just fall off the moment a missile hits you, it kind of makes the damage model pointless.

[Haukka81]

another Off topic thing is, the Su-27 seems to be made out of cardboard, all surfaces just fall off the moment a missile hits you, it kind of makes the damage model pointless.

 

 

No fighter can't survive from direct hit. :music_whistling: (maybe A-10 but it's not fighter )

 

Damage model is there for proximity hit's or guns etc..

[GGTharos]

That's not correct.

 

An F-15C took an AIM-9 and landed with one damaged engine. An F-15J took an AIM-9 and the pilot had to bail out. It all depends on where/how the missile hits.

 

Anyway, all that is OT, if you have a complaint about the damage models, please make another thread.

[karambiatos]

here are some more tests i just did in 1.2.7 vs 1.2.8

Tracks.zip

[*Rage*]

That's not to say he could have launched sooner either. In any case, there are two things here:

 

One is actual seeker data relating to IR emission sensitivity combined with the actual emission signature of said aircraft/aircraft parts. We know enough about this generally.

 

Two is the expectation that this is modeled very realistically. It's not, as in there is no actual radiance simulation as far as I know ( ... yet? ), there's 'I'm idle, up to mil, or AB' and there's a +/-15 deg head-on fuselage mask which may be 2D only.

 

Even so, my concern is that both EOS and missile seekers should be consistent in operation, my understanding is that one sees a difference between AB and MIL, the other does not.

 

Having said this, I find it strange that I can lock a 9M at 7-8nm against an after burning plane, but you're telling me your R-73's/R-27Ts do not?

 

We could not get a LA beyond 3km against a head on afterburning target with R73/Ts. This is not a kinetic issue but rather a seeker issue.

 

ED have been working very hard to get the kinetic range right and I believe they have done a good job. Current heat seeker tweaking however is a step back.

[GGTharos]

That is very strange ... it looks like some missiles don't work like others (... in a case where they should). All of this is in 1.2.7?

[karambiatos]

That is very strange ... it looks like some missiles don't work like others (... in a case where they should). All of this is in 1.2.7?

no its 1.2.8

[GGTharos]

Then we're not talking about the same thing. OK.