Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

I agree there is work to be done on certain aspects but the whole my missile should have hit complaint has been going on since before time began.

I think this is what the snake said to Eve. :megalol:

So, 4 pages later and nothing that disproves the paper?

So, 4 pages later and nothing that disproves the paper?

I don't think anybody wants to or is trying to disprove the paper. I think it's been said before, you can't make one missile achieve more realistic levels of performance whilst leaving the rest behind it doesn't make sense. If you simulate all missiles to perform to a set level regardless of how accurate, you can't then upgrade only one missile to simulate a new improved level. Its like including a motorbike in a bicycle race.

What I think is more interesting is that a private group of individuals has had more say on the matter than ed, even if it is only one missile

The 120 is so bad right now it is a crap shoot to hit an SU25 flying straight and level at 5k. sorry missiles don't generally go up to come straight down. This needs to be fixed.

Also i have heard rumblings of a dev giving ED a more realistic coding for the 120 and it being shelved because it would upset the DCS balance. dont know how much truth there is but could def see it happening.

I would guess a missile like the 27ER and ET would be fairly easy to model since one is thermal tracking and the other relies solely on the AC radar while the 120 is semi active and has more variables but damn at least get it somewhat believable. Yes I understand other sims have been over realistic but meh for a sim that strives on it it being realistic i would have to give the FC series are resounding F. hell i may be done with DCS and go play some BMS for a better A2A fight.

I would guess a missile like the 27ER and ET would be fairly easy to model since one is thermal tracking and the other relies solely on the AC radar

Apparently not since they're suffering too.

If I was going to don a foil hat and speculate, I'd say that F/A-18 will be the next step with missiles. ED have said that AFM missile was lumped in with FC3 development which itself was partially a stand in for DCS Fighter. I guess the work required to get missiles into the final state was underestimated.

I kind of wonder why they were left as they are, but I guess ED doesn't want to continue work on them until they're in a position to get them up to a certain standard. Or maybe with some of the up coming changes to DCSW, an short lived interm solution would be a waste of time from a developer standpoint.

I guess the work required to get missiles into the final state was underestimated.

 

I kind of wonder why they were left as they are, but I guess ED doesn't want to continue work on them until they're in a position to get them up to a certain standard.

It was always the plan to do the FM for FC3. The FM, mind you, NOT the guidance. The old guidance algorithms pretty much suck at efficiently driving the new FM, which is the biggest problem the missiles face right now.

That's a realistic issue with PN.

But IMHO the missiles need serious drag coefficient adjustment for the radar guided models.

Just because ED doesnt say anything to you dosnt mean they are not working on the issue...

I never said they arent.

Just because ED doesnt say anything to you dosnt mean they are not working on the issue...

But it would be nice if they could say a word.

That's a realistic issue with PN.

Yes, but only for missiles that actually use PN guidance. ;)

That would be most of them :P

Yes, but only for missiles that actually use PN guidance. ;)

After a month and a half of steady simming, this is what I've come up with:

Is there a way to simply adjust values for the missiles ourselves at this point? Seriously, launching 4 slammers at a single target 20 miles away from 30k feet and none of them impact? I hardly ever play online, as I prefer solo missions and such (I've done the six-month online squadron training program...never again), so just tell me how to tweak the values so I can make this sim not a chocolate mess when it comes to BVR. In fact, I've begun building lots of Gunzo missions because BVR is so infuriatingly ridiculous that I'm afraid I will actually uninstall this sim out of frustration, and I don't want to do that.

Button mashing every single button is cool for people who want to ramp start the jet and then quit the sim. That's pretty much what DCS is at this point, isn't it? Let's be honest, here. It's nice to fly around as long as you don't have to shoot anything else that flies. I love immersion and realism just as much as the next guy, but do you know what's NOT immersive and kills all that immersion you built up with the ramp start checklist button mashing?

First and foremost: turrible, turrible missiles

Awful ATC comm (I have instruments; I don't need to know my heading)

Even worse AWACS comm/comm options

Still worse wingman AI and wingman/flight comm options

Seriously, Jane's F-15 had better comm options back in 1997.

Campaigns are not campaigns, they're just a string of missions that move to the next mission when some arbitrary mission parameter is ticked, even if you die on the runway while landing. Conversely, if you can't figure out said arbitrary mission parameter due to the author's honest mistake or poor design, have fun repeating that same mission umpteen times until the sim gets it right.

What can I say? The mission editor is the mission editor. It's been practically the same mission editor since Flanker 2. It's a teeny weeny bit more user-friendly than it was back in 2001, but only because of the layout of the buttons.

If you take anything away from this rather tongue-in-cheek, lightly scathing rebuttal on DCS: FC3, it is that FC3 is the incarnation of the Su-27 in video game form. What I mean by that is that it's possibly the most beautiful of its kind and loaded with potential, but it's just so clunky and bogged down with outdated ideas, poor design choices, and retro thinking that it's inevitable that it will be superseded by something else (even by the same designers), only to be left on the shelf while everyone pines away for what might have been. FC3 is neither the uber-sim that is the A-10C, nor is it the less-anal-retentive-but-more-fun sim that it was actually designed to be. I think that is what is frustrating to most people (aside from the missiles, of course); they feel hamstrung. They're flying a jet with weapons that should be modeled to do X in reality, but instead of either doing X or a lighter, easy-mode Y, they have a Nightmare/Impossible mode Z.

That said, can we work around it? Of course. These parameters aren't impossible, they're just unrealistic and extremely frustrating. What's more, not tackling such a glaring problem immediately in favor of other projects and the constant forum back and forth doesn't exactly give people a warm fuzzy.

Still, I can't stop playing it. It's infuriating and I want to actually uninstall it and just go back to BMS, but it calls to me every single day. Every time I approach my desk, I see my throttle and flight stick and I have to fire it up. I keep coming back to it, warts and all. Every day I have this renewed hope that I will figure something out that fixes everything, and every day I'm disappointed. Then I get up and do it all over again the next day. ED is doing something right, I just don't know what it is.

Is there a way to simply adjust values for the missiles ourselves at this point?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131806

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD THAT'S AMAZING!

Ask and you shall receive.

Best. Community. Ever.

You're welcome. :)

BTW, what folder do I add the mods to? I see several "mods" folders...not sure which one.

EDIT: nevermind, found it.

I just want a server I can play it on :)

Then I get up and do it all over again the next day. ED is doing something right, I just don't know what it is.

U have lost that "Loving Feeling". As U wish for a speedier track record from Eagle Dynamics. (Small Group of individuals) with a dream. That dream being, to put together the best Military Aviation Simulator on the Market.

The negative things u mention are due to the "Timing" of this product. Not to mention the small groups budget. When U include all variables in the making of this "Great Simulator" i.e. Timing (outdated DX ver.) Budget (To small) but only when it is compared to the juggernauts that have huge budgets large marketing teams and a plethora of programmers, this group of individuals with a dream held there own against major corporations.

Few in history have done anything close to that in business today. The first company that comes to mind is NIKE selling shoes from the trunks of their cars. Now look at them. We are in the early stages of a major (future) Corporation. Enjoy the ride.

After the bugs are worked out and the 3rd. party developers are moving forward with additions to DCS. will they then not have time for the "Spit and Polish" U so desire? I get the same level of frustration U do. Then I imagine that small group of guys in that little office (There were Pictures of it earlier) and I realize the level of work needed to accomplish what they have so far. It is then I am able to forgive the level of bugs and the lack of speed we have grown used to from the Big Box Corporate Marketing Juggernauts. And I jump into their Forums with the "Ask not What DCS can do for me. But What I can Do for DCS". and assist them by way of my PC. repair and Windows knowledge. Makes me feel part of a team doing great things with very little. "Never have so Few done So Much for So Many".

See U in the not so friendly Skies.

Where can one get an overview (list / spreadsheet) of the F-Pole (Rpi) or Rmax for each usable A-A Missile in DCS?

Someone would have to put one together for you.

I can not believe that such a list does not already exist. If I'm wrong I'm going to do some effort to create such a list