Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

Not possible, we need targets.

This :megalol::megalol::megalol:

Yes this Video is the best example of what is happening here.

 

I WANT TO FLIGHT THE RUSSIAN PLANES, BECAUSE I LOVE IT, CLEAR LIKE THE CRYSTAL!!!!

 

We will not accept this AFM Missiles just because there are a lot of interesting customers waiting for a DCS F-18 to use the fantastic Aim-120 by ED.

 

If this Hobby is Too expensive to not get money with the russian pilots customers. THEN PUSH OUT THE RUSSIANS AIRCRAFTS OF THIS SOFTWARE, SOMEONE WILL BRING US SOMETHING FAIR.

Why is it so difficult to understand that this game sales allot in the USA and in order to keep it like that and even make this sale bigger, things need to be like ''that'' (USA friendly,MP at least).

You cannot see this because your mind is ''fogged'' and you are looking very close and loose the ''big'' picture.:smilewink:

Do not glue yourself to LOMAC.. wait for the DCS: su-27sm and I am sure you ll get your revenge easily..

Because the highlighted part is factually untrue.

Why is it so difficult to understand that this game sales allot in the USA and in order to keep it like that and even make this sale bigger, things need to be like ''that'' (USA friendly,MP at least).

the fantastic Aim-120 by ED.

 

Where is this? Is it a mod I can download?

Because the highlighted part is factually untrue.

That was definitely a mistake of mine (the highlighted part)

EDIT:

I thought that it was highlighted by me..it wasnt...

This is my opinion and stays like that sorry.

May be false for you but it is my opinion.

(this is how I do it in my busines anyway) and this is how EVERY business works. money is target..

Sorry to say that, but truth hearts my friend.

The fact remains that all missiles in this game suffer from the same problems. Some may appear to be worse than others for a variety of reasons, but they all are subject to the same code, same bugs, and thus effectively the same issues.

And yes, it is true that an R-27 is modeled to have less chaff rejection capability than an AIM-120 - and why would anyone be surprised by this? AIM-120A is a generation newer than R-27, and AIM-120C is a generation newer than AIM-120A (or even B). You will notice that AIM-7 behaves similarly to R-27, though newer AIM-7's should be about as capable as AMRAAM in counter-measure rejection, to a point.

So, how does anyone come to the conclusion that a realistic (As realistic as the game can handle, that is) portrayal of electronic differences between those missiles is somehow bias on the part of developers?

That aside, again, all of these missiles are subject to the very same problems. If R-27's aren't working well, neither are AIM-120's. They might work a bit better than 27's, but that part is intended; they are still both subject to the exact same problems.

As a whole, missiles are not intended to perform so very poorly as they do right now.

The fact remains that all missiles in this game suffer from the same problems. Some may appear to be worse than others for a variety of reasons, but they all are subject to the same code, same bugs, and thus effectively the same issues.

 

And yes, it is true that an R-27 is modeled to have less chaff rejection capability than an AIM-120 - and why would anyone be surprised by this? AIM-120A is a generation newer than R-27, and AIM-120C is a generation newer than AIM-120A (or even B). You will notice that AIM-7 behaves similarly to R-27, though newer AIM-7's should be about as capable as AMRAAM in counter-measure rejection, to a point.

 

So, how does anyone come to the conclusion that a realistic (As realistic as the game can handle, that is) portrayal of electronic differences between those missiles is somehow bias on the part of developers?

 

That aside, again, all of these missiles are subject to the very same problems. If R-27's aren't working well, neither are AIM-120's. They might work a bit better than 27's, but that part is intended; they are still both subject to the exact same problems.

 

As a whole, missiles are not intended to perform so very poorly as they do right now.

I agree and + 1000

I would like to ad that since the release of BS and A10c, LOMAC (and fc123) are nothing more than a MP airquake that has allot off fun for some, little for others.

AA missile together with all other weapons are going through a major simulation upgrade at the moment (truly impressive for me) but this simulation is not suited for LOMAC products, it has to be more targeted at DCS level of realism products, like the upcoming DCS:F-15c and DCS:su27sm.... introducing this kind of simulation to unprepared audience (LOMAC MP people) will definitely bring this kind of arguments.

I personally find the 27er and r , very lethal weapons. Of course f15 have western r77s and are capable of leaving their long sticks behind and run but again they are very DODGABLE.

My point here is that when AFMs and clickable cockpits come, then I am 100% sure that the problem will be the pilot and only the pilot.

And again, at the moment, newcomers can have an easy kill only with a 15. (that is why my opinion on my previews post)

I haven't read the whole thread but here's a comment for you all:

You complain about the reliability of BVR missiles, right?

It's the same after IRL conflicts all the time. BVR missiles have never lived up to what they were supposed to do.

^^^^

Completely irrelevant argument.

In RL, missiles fail for reasons which are simply not modeled in the game, and will not be (to my knowledge). This includes rocket motors not firing, vaccum tubes shaking apart during launch or landing in your old old old plane, poor storage conditions, carrier radars failing, etc.

In DCSW, when you launch a missile against a non (or barely)-maneuvering target, you should rightly expect it to hit when launched within range and correct aspect.

BTW, modern missiles are doing a pretty good job of living up to their expectations when stored, maintained, and used correctly. Note that the first two items, both big factors - are not simulated and will not be simulated in DCSW to the best of my knowledge.

^^^^

 

Completely irrelevant argument.

I know :smartass:

The fact remains that all missiles in this game suffer from the same problems. Some may appear to be worse than others for a variety of reasons, but they all are subject to the same code, same bugs, and thus effectively the same issues.

 

And yes, it is true that an R-27 is modeled to have less chaff rejection capability than an AIM-120 - and why would anyone be surprised by this? AIM-120A is a generation newer than R-27, and AIM-120C is a generation newer than AIM-120A (or even B). You will notice that AIM-7 behaves similarly to R-27, though newer AIM-7's should be about as capable as AMRAAM in counter-measure rejection, to a point.

 

So, how does anyone come to the conclusion that a realistic (As realistic as the game can handle, that is) portrayal of electronic differences between those missiles is somehow bias on the part of developers?

 

That aside, again, all of these missiles are subject to the very same problems. If R-27's aren't working well, neither are AIM-120's. They might work a bit better than 27's, but that part is intended; they are still both subject to the exact same problems.

 

As a whole, missiles are not intended to perform so very poorly as they do right now.

GGtharos you can write and try to convince here the people. Do you think we flight in the moon?? If all what you say is like that and the 120 is weak, why you dont take the russian fighters and show us the worth of your words? We test and flight everyday and the result against the F-15 is devastating. We can not hit anything because all have been made easy for the F-15 pilots to turn back at 25 km while the russians missiles are missed cuz chaff. Also the R-77 turn down when the F-15 dispence chaff while the Aim-120 keep the same trayectory. Just take a look in the HOJ mode of the russian missiles, is a shame, even shooted against one A-10 with pasive reaction against threat

Please everybody can do this test with this .miz, the first A-10 is for the HOJ mode ( use only one R-27 ) and the other two is to shot the R-27ER normal, probably sometimes you will reach the third A-10 with non R-27ER after a lot of miss agains a soft target like that, just imagine a fighter...

PD: TaliG go ahead. Next question to you: How can I fry an egg?

RUmissiles vs A-10.miz

GGtharos you can write and try to convince here the people.

No, pepin, I wrote facts. It is obvious that you either did not read what I wrote, or you did not try to understand it.

Also the R-77 turn down when the F-15 dispence chaff while the Aim-120 keep the same trayectory.

Just in case you haven't figured it out yet:

AIM-120C > AIM-120B/R-77 > R-27/AIM-7.

It always has been this way, and it always will be.

This still has no effect on the bug that is plaguing all missiles.

Goooooood News Wags!!!!

keep them coming.

Goooooood News Wags!!!!

keep them coming.

Feeling better Tek? :)

I felt for you and your frustration man.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1821216#post1821216

Feeling better Tek? :)

I felt for you and your frustration man.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1821216#post1821216

Yes but I will feel even better when TWS and EOS works in su-27.

New patch released 1.2.5

Back to my labour of love with more testing.

To recap.

-2 missiles launched at 30km range

-Angels 7

-Further 2 missile volley launched much closer in if first volley fails

At all times lock is maintained. Target is above launch platform and not in the notch

5 tracks with chaff. 5 without. 28 missiles launches in total

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4661f9773e8i1au/tRj7PRAET9

Testing with target chaffing

Track 1 - 4 launches - 4 missiles go for chaff, 0 track

Track 2 - 4 launches - 3 missiles go for chaff, 1 tracks

Track 3 - 2 launches - 1 missile goes for chaff, 1 tracks

Track 4 - 4 launches - 3 missiles do for chaff, 1 tracks

Track 5 - 4 launches - 3 missiles go for chaff, 1 tracks

18 missiles launched

- 4 track

- 14 missguide to chaff for no good reason

Testing with target not chaffing

5 Tracks. 2 missiles launched in each volley. ALL TRACK.

Analysis

Almost exact same results as in 1.2.4.

Ptrack - 22% when it should be closer to 100%

We have identified an error introduced in March 2013 that increased chaff effectiveness by a factor of 10. This was corrected internally today and initial tests look promising. The chaff error affects all radar-guided missiles, but as GG mentioned above, the relative CM rejection capability will impact seeker pull-off.

Thanks for the reply but why did it take so long to reply?

I am sure your team are aware of this thing from long ago..

Why you leave the community wright 100nds of replies on multiple threads about it when you already know, and you are after this bug then? (if it is a bug after all)

dont get me wrong but this ''chaff'' thing exists from long time ago with no answare.

Was it so dificult for you to state what you just stated when you identified the thing in your above statement?

Thanks for the reply but why did it take so long to reply?

I am sure your team are aware of this thing from long ago..

Why you leave the community wright 100nds of replies on multiple threads about it when you already know, and you are after this bug then? (if it is a bug after all)

dont get me wrong but this ''chaff'' thing exists from long time ago with no answare.

Was it so dificult for you to state what you just stated when you identified the thing in your above statement?

The bug might have been introduced in march, they may have only just found it.

Have a look at latest update from Matt - confirmed error in chaff algorithm. Already rectified and to be included with next update.

Thanks for the reply but why did it take so long to reply?

I am sure your team are aware of this thing from long ago..

Why you leave the community wright 100nds of replies on multiple threads about it when you already know, and you are after this bug then? (if it is a bug after all)

dont get me wrong but this ''chaff'' thing exists from long time ago with no answare.

Was it so dificult for you to state what you just stated when you identified the thing in your above statement?

Did you consider that maybe they were busy updated the software and looking for the bugs?

Give it a rest please.

It makes me a bit sad seeing nothing but complaints every time a new update is out. This is software in development and it will be like that for some time to come. It's getting better but new features introduces new bugs, that's just the way things are.

Nothing personal.

Cheers!

He told you as soon as he knew what the problem actually was. Yes, we were all aware that a problem existed - there was actually more than one problem regarding missiles that was fixed, but this is the one that made things bad for everyone.

You don't always catch the bug you want to catch. If you knew how big and complex this project is, and how difficult it is to test, your head would explode. This isn't like a shipyard where you are paying loads of people to make sure things go right (and bad things still happen!) ... the testers are volunteers, and we only have so much time to deal with things, and this goes double for the developers.

It's one thing to complain about things that are not resolved yet, but to complain about announcements that tell you that a bug has been found and is being fixed is utterly useless, frustrating, and frankly, rude.

To put it another way: I could have been testing the missile fix while responding to your post.

Thanks for the reply but why did it take so long to reply?

I am sure your team are aware of this thing from long ago..

Have a look at latest update from Matt - confirmed error in chaff algorithm. Already rectified and to be included with next update.

Superb. Can't wait to test it. Thank you ED.

Now whats the deal with those ETs? :)

What deal with ETs?

We have identified an error introduced in March 2013 that increased chaff effectiveness by a factor of 10. This was corrected internally today and initial tests look promising. The chaff error affects all radar-guided missiles, but as GG mentioned above, the relative CM rejection capability will impact seeker pull-off.

Thanks Wags! Look forward to it.