Jump to content

Air-to-Air Missile Discussion


Shein

Recommended Posts

A joke:) this thread is intended only for R/ER guidance. You might have noticed however 159th Falcon posted something about ET vs ER kinetic range discrepancies in the bugs subforum.


Edited by ///Rage

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you knew how big and complex this project is, and how difficult it is to test, your head would explode.

 

I really cant understand the lack of consideration & appreciation for the undertaking that goes into sifting through this enormously complex piece of software. I am actually amazed in the turnaround time in the list of items that have been and will be addressed already in the "quick patch" after the release of 1.2.5. Thank you very much ED staff for your efforts.

 

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.

 

Agreed!! We need to be more supportive and get behind these guys to keep them motivated so they can continue to deliver. This community has something really good going and frankly there is no other developer, that I am aware of, to match this level combat simulation.

Intel i5-9600K @ 3.7GHz

Gigabyte Z370XP SLI Mobo

G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4

GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2070 8GB 256-Bit GDDR6(Assume the latest driver version)

Thermaltake Water 3.0 Certified Liquid Cooling System

Windows 10 Professional

Oculus Rift-S /TrackIR 5 in case VR dies

Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog w/ Thrustmaster T-Flight Rudder Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...is somehow bias on the part of developers?

 

Why, because they suffer from their own personal biases and preconceptions of course ;) OK where's me coat, carry on...

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't know the facts you said, but in wikipedia and the encyclopedia in the game, we can find R-27ER has a longer range than AIM-120C, which likes the performance of them in FC2. However, they have the same range in FC3(v1.2.5) as my tacview shows. Aren't they facts? Or shouldn't we consider them as facts?

Anyway, this is a game after all, and it is the BVR combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s that makes FC our favorite game. But now, with Su's and Mig's missiles porked, I'm afraid that few wanted to fly Su-27 and Mig-29S, and they wouldn't like this game anymore. So please make the combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s more balanced on the basic of simulation.

Tacview-20130725-152952.txt.rar


Edited by ohmyflanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the facts you said, but in wikipedia and the encyclopedia in the game, we can find R-27ER has a longer range than AIM-120C, which likes the performance of them in FC2. However, they have the same range in FC3(v1.2.5) as my tacview shows. Aren't they facts? Or we shouldn't consider them as facts?

Anyway, this is a game after all, and it is the BVR combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s that makes FC our favorite game. But now, with Su's and Mig's missiles porked, I'm afraid that few wanted to fly Su-27 and Mig-29S, and they wouldn't like this game anymore. So please make the combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s more balanced on the basic of simulation.

 

Please tattoo this somewhere on your person:

 

F-15+AIM120C wins 1:1 BVR versus Mig29S+R77 /SU27+R27ER every time (pilots being equal).

 

SU27+EOS+R27ET+R73+HMCS wins 1:1 WVR versus F15 every time.

 

It's so painfully simple and these circular arguments are getting so painfully tedious.

 

Can we keep this thread to sensible requests, such as broken EOS, draggy missiles, bugs, etc and ditch the infantile conspiracy theories, or don't some of you reds want this game to reflect reality at all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tanks alot for all the testers and developers for this whole LOT of work You get for a really cheap 40 bucks game! Just wanted to say this and really can't understand complaints facing a new update with many fixes!

Sure I'm upset some time too when it takes long for a (seemingly) simple bug to fix but readying all the messages and seeing the whole LOT of work and the results being produced I think some times it's worth waiting! (Regarding there ist no equivalent to this project anyway!

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Good combat flight is understanding the nature of things and the feeling to handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

AIM-120C > AIM-120B > AIM-7 = R-77 >> R-27 from my experience now.

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.

After update it will be

AIM-120C > AIM-120B > AIM-7 = R-77 >> R-27 again in same proportion relation because it always will be?

May be it should be like this: AIM-120C > AIM-120B = R-77 > AIM-7 = R-27 at last?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the facts you said, but in wikipedia and the encyclopedia in the game, we can find R-27ER has a longer range than AIM-120C, which likes the performance of them in FC2. However, they have the same range in FC3(v1.2.5) as my tacview shows. Aren't they facts? Or shouldn't we consider them as facts?

 

Neither wikipedia nor the in-game encyclopedia give you realistic figures.

 

Anyway, this is a game after all, and it is the BVR combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s that makes FC our favorite game. But now, with Su's and Mig's missiles porked, I'm afraid that few wanted to fly Su-27 and Mig-29S, and they wouldn't like this game anymore. So please make the combat between F-15Cs and Su-27s more balanced on the basic of simulation.

 

All missiles are porked. Balance, however, isn't part of the deal.

[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

Yes, this is the way it should have always been (barring bugs). AIM-120B and R-77 should have more or less equal CM rejection, and AIM-7 and R-27 should also have more or less equal CM rejection. Small differences are ok, and kinematic ability in this case is not part of the equation (but again, here AIM-120B and R-77 should be comparable here as well).

 

May be it should be like this: AIM-120C > AIM-120B = R-77 > AIM-7 = R-27 at last?

[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

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.

.

 

Please accept my apologies.

It was a rough day for me last day, for reasons that have nothing to do with the game or the forum, and I asked a wrong person to ''pay the bill''. Wrong move and I promise I ll try to squish that bug out of my ''beta'' brain..

I hope you all understand.

Apologies again..

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

TaliG - 373vFS

 

“Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward for the correction it has been a strange few days online after returning to SIM'ing. :)

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually amazed in the turnaround time in the list of items that have been and will be addressed already in the "quick patch" after the release of 1.2.5. Thank you very much ED staff for your efforts.

 

Amen! Just saw the patch, and I, for one, appreciate the effort and thoroughly enjoy DCS as the greatest of all flight sims even with these minor issues which I'm sure will be worked out with time.

 

Patience, humility, appreciation, respect!

 

Keep on truckin'

The State Military (MAG 13)

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



 

SHEEP WE-01

AV-8B BuNo 164553

VMA-214

Col J. “Poe” Rasmussen

http://www.statelyfe.com

 

Specs: Gigabyte Z390 Pro Wifi; i9-9900K; EVGA 2080 Ti Black; 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4; Samsung 970 EVO Series M.2 SSD; WIN10; ASUS VG248QE; CV-1 and Index



Modules: A-10C; AV8B; CA; FC3; F-5; F-14; F-18; F-86; HAWK; L-39; P-51; UH1H; NTTR; Normandy; Persian Gulf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen! Just saw the patch, and I, for one, appreciate the effort and thoroughly enjoy DCS as the greatest of all flight sims even with these minor issues which I'm sure will be worked out with time.

 

Patience, humility, appreciation, respect!

 

Keep on truckin'

 

I respect your religious praise and your admiration for the patch 1.2.5, but You have totally lost the north. The waypoint turned on in this thread, is the waypoint called "air-to-air Missiles"

 

go ahead here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=110336

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The missiles are what they are. Unless you are a dev, there is nothing you or any of us can do about it. We can play or we can not play. I choose to play.

  • Like 1

The State Military (MAG 13)

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



 

SHEEP WE-01

AV-8B BuNo 164553

VMA-214

Col J. “Poe” Rasmussen

http://www.statelyfe.com

 

Specs: Gigabyte Z390 Pro Wifi; i9-9900K; EVGA 2080 Ti Black; 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4; Samsung 970 EVO Series M.2 SSD; WIN10; ASUS VG248QE; CV-1 and Index



Modules: A-10C; AV8B; CA; FC3; F-5; F-14; F-18; F-86; HAWK; L-39; P-51; UH1H; NTTR; Normandy; Persian Gulf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The missiles are what they are. Unless you are a dev, there is nothing you or any of us can do about it. We can play or we can not play. I choose to play.

 

You can play and accept this situation. Maybe you really dont care the main sence of this thread and what you try to do is detract from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine fine, settle down. I'd like to see improvements like everyone else but 1.2.5 and a patch was JUST released. I don't think repeating the same issues to ED another 1,000 times for another 46 pages and that will fix it.

 

I just took a second to agree with somebody else, who bravely thought for a moment, that perhaps after more than 40 pages of what's wrong, we might take a second to consider what's goneright. That is all.

 

Now, back to why missiles are bad and everything sucks, I guess.

The State Military (MAG 13)

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



 

SHEEP WE-01

AV-8B BuNo 164553

VMA-214

Col J. “Poe” Rasmussen

http://www.statelyfe.com

 

Specs: Gigabyte Z390 Pro Wifi; i9-9900K; EVGA 2080 Ti Black; 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4; Samsung 970 EVO Series M.2 SSD; WIN10; ASUS VG248QE; CV-1 and Index



Modules: A-10C; AV8B; CA; FC3; F-5; F-14; F-18; F-86; HAWK; L-39; P-51; UH1H; NTTR; Normandy; Persian Gulf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to ED another 1,000 times for another 46 pages and that will fix it.

 

+1^32

 

Just goes to show how short is the average attention span here - gamers disguising themselves as simmers maybe :D And never mind the common personal biases either...

 

PS. And if you take offence to the 1st opinion expressed, then at least consider the 2nd if you'd be so kind - because we all have ours, including yours truly ;)

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supporting missiles was what made me a perfect target for your ET's :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real deal is that only fools support missiles if it will doom them.

There are plenty of RL tactics utilizing cheapshots.

 

Sounds to me like jealousy :D

 

Rage, I just noticed your "Real men support their missiles" sginature...LOL, awesome! :D

 

Hear that Pilotasso? :D

[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

... has anyone tried 1.2.5 update 1 yet?

 

Rage made a test on Er-27 Chaff resistance in 1.2.5 before the hotfix. As I understand ED will have another one in a week where missiles chaff resistance might be fixed.

 

Some testing will be done when next hotfix is out and posted in here. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=103377&page=10

Teknetinium 2017.jpg
                        51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...