Jump to content

Air-to-Air Missile Discussion


Shein

Recommended Posts

Proof?

 

And more about:

 

Callsign was Vega 31, pilot was Lt.Col Dale Zelko.

 

Basically the target that night was of high importance and near Belgrade. It was also a difficult one because of exceptional Russian state-of-the-art defence systems operated by motivated and well-trained crews.

Several missions were sent previouosly against that target without success, his was on the 4th night. I'll translate directly:

 

During my initial penetration into Yugoslav airspace, I was monitoring a primary attack frequency, listening to other events that were happening as part of the attack sorties. Even before boarding, on the aircraft shelter, i sensed that if there was a night where it was particularly appropriate for my plane to get shot down, this was it. I was plainly conscious of my vulnerabilities, and the risks and dangers that the mission presented. The information coming to me through the radio during ingress only increased the sensation that something bad would happen that night. Thus, when it did happen, I was not surprised at all. To tell you the truth, I watched the whole thing happen.

 

He was asked whether he received any RWR warning, to which he did not answer owing to the fact that it involved the Nighthawk's capabilities. Still secret. He went on.. But I can tell you that I saw the entire ground-to-air engagement and even during the initial stages there was no doubt that I had no way out. I did everything to avoid impact,but the truth is there was no way out. And remember, I had a front row seat during the entire engagement. So, was it pilot error? No. Was it maintenance? No. Was it a good shot? Yes, it was a good shot.

 

I think he never received the signal of the modified P-18, or he never fly at only 13km of the SA-3 system, maybe he was warned about the lock of the tracking system, but couldn't avoid the missiles. Anyway he will never disclose is there was a flaw in the RWR system ... classified!.


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And at the same time, if we take his answer exactly when he said " But I can tell you that I saw the entire ground-to-air engagement and even during the initial stages there was no doubt that I had no way out. I did everything to avoid impact,but the truth is there was no way out", that answer take me again into the discussion about the countermeasures reliability and the effectiveness against soviet SARH missiles below 20km distance, most ED testers here defend their position that it's possible to avoid with chaff and maneuvers FOUR R-27ER launched below 20 kms distance (I have the tacview and the track if someone wants to watch it!) let me tell you guys, one or two maybe, BUT FOUR!???


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some implications:

 

An RWR might generate a launch warning tone or an 'in lethal zone' tone based on STT + Signal strength. While not ideal, it works.

 

A missile like R-27R that has to be guided in HPRF is prone to countermeasures, especially with aspect change. At the ranges the R is used at aspect may be less of an issue, but more advanced radars attempt to do things to keep their SARH going - but this also implies that SARH range against rear aspect targets is limited at high altitudes by having to guide in HPRF.

 

In the WCS of the MiG and Su, AFAIK distance of the missile to target is not tracked. You only have a missile time-out, ie. a count-down of x seconds until missile can no longer be in controlled flight. The missile itself however knows closure and has some notion of distance/time-to-go.

 

This should tell you something about who has more computing power in their radars and missiles, and consequently, other systems like RWRs, jammers etc.

Hold on, because your very own translation of how the MiG and Su radar works is not as good as your understanding of how a western radar works this now makes it clear to everyone that MiG and Su radars are inferior. That's bordering on making things up.

 

Even the USAF talk of Su, MiG radars being more powerful than F-15C's.

 

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f15.html

The F-15C has an air combat victory ratio of 95-0 making it one of the most effective air superiority aircraft ever developed. The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superior radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles. Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's I went to talk to someone who works with RWRs, and I've been told it will absolutely generate a missile launch warning if configured to do so.

 

You have to be joking... seriously, I think you're the one that doesn't get it :music_whistling:
  • Like 1

[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

No, they do not. In fact, pretty much from Kuky's credible source, if we're talking about the same, "A Su-27 won't get to launch against an F-15 coming off its perch until it's being pinged by a 120. If they surprise you, then it could be scary".

My sources say the same - but we're not talking about Su-30MKIs or Su-35's. I know people who saw the 30MKI at RF and have quite a bit of respect for the aircraft.

Regarding the study you're talking about ... that was a brilliant push to upgrade to Golden Eagles. I have no doubt that a modern ESA would have been superior to the APG-63 MSA, but at the time of the study it was not a factor :)

 

 

Even the USAF talk of Su, MiG radars being more powerful than F-15C's.

Edited by GGTharos

[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

What do you know about F-117 countermeasures? We don't know what it was equipped with at all. We don't even know the model of RWR it carries, and as I have already told you, you are trying to compare apples to oranges and frankly you should know that yourself if you know all you imply to know.

 

And at the same time, if we take his answer exactly when he said " But I can tell you that I saw the entire ground-to-air engagement and even during the initial stages there was no doubt that I had no way out. I did everything to avoid impact,but the truth is there was no way out", that answer take me again into the discussion about the countermeasures reliability and the effectiveness against soviet SARH missiles below 20km distance, most ED testers here defend their position that it's possible to avoid with chaff and maneuvers FOUR R-27ER launched below 20 kms distance (I have the tacview and the track if someone wants to watch it!) let me tell you guys, one or two maybe, BUT FOUR!???

[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

No, they do not. In fact, pretty much from Kuky's credible source, if we're talking about the same, "A Su-27 won't get to launch against an F-15 coming off its perch until it's being pinged by a 120. If they surprise you, then it could be scary".

My sources say the same - but we're not talking about Su-30MKIs or Su-35's. I know people who saw the 30MKI at RF and have quite a bit of respect for the aircraft.

That is the realm of jammers vs radars which is an extremely classified area for both sides. The points you make seem to stretch out to probably more advanced F-15's than the ones that reside in DCS, plus you seem to be focusing on one-one encounters, the more radars, not old tech import MiG-29 radars, but hi tech frequency agile radars of real MiG-29's and Su-27's, focused on a target aircraft then the weaker that aircrafts jammer becomes, so much that it can become useless.

Regarding the study you're talking about ... that was a brilliant push to upgrade to Golden Eagles. I have no doubt that a modern ESA would have been superior to the APG-63 MSA, but at the time of the study it was not a factor:)

 

Lets stay focused on what we're really discussing here, there are no Golden Eagles in DCS, the F-15C in DCS has an APG-63(1). It would be nice to see F-15's with AESA, JHMCS and IRST of the Golden Eagle just as much as it would be great to see Su-35's, Rafale, Typhoon etc. but they ain't there so pointless to bring into the discussion.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, it's like Crufts in here.

 

And at the same time, if we take his answer exactly when he said " But I can tell you that I saw the entire ground-to-air engagement and even during the initial stages there was no doubt that I had no way out. I did everything to avoid impact,but the truth is there was no way out",

 

Which is why I directed your attention to the *maneuvering performance* of the F-117.

 

Zelko had enough SA from the systems available to the Nighthawk to put his eyes on two launched munitions- that is, he had both warning of a lock, and a launch, and received a relative heading aspect to locate the inbound weapons. So your initial premise that he didn't *know* there was a shot, given nature of the battery he passed by, is ludicrous.

 

that answer take me again into the discussion about the countermeasures reliability and the effectiveness against soviet SARH missiles below 20km distance, most ED testers here defend their position that it's possible to avoid with chaff and maneuvers FOUR R-27ER launched below 20 kms distance (I have the tacview and the track if someone wants to watch it!) let me tell you guys, one or two maybe, BUT FOUR!???

 

That aspect has absolutely nothing to do with making a case concerning countermeasures reliability modelling in DCS because the F-117 doesn't have the ability to USE COUNTERMEASURES. An SA-3 hit an F-117 cruising at 470 knots with extremely severe (sub 5.0) G and roll restrictions limiting its ability to evade the weapon in the endgame; that's hitting the proverbial broad side of a barn door with a shotgun.

 

"Seriously guys- let's redefine the interaction modelling of SARH missiles against countermeasures based on essentially a guaranteed hit in the real world against an effectively non-maneuvering target that had no active countermeasure capability!"

 

:doh: :lol: :P


Edited by lunaticfringe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this bleating about whether or not an RWR is going to get a change in information with a launch is fun, and helps separate who has an idea as to how radar works, and who doesn't.

 

The underlying fact, however, is that the radar equation itself underscores the first order reason *why* a radar's signal to a target would make an appreciable change at the time of launch: receiving antenna aperture. What the emitting aircraft's radar can see accurately enough to maintain acquisition on is an entire order of magnitude different at a given power than the weapon, with an antenna that is less than one twentieth (or more) than the former's size, must have in the way of a return to begin calculating the intercept.

 

Thus the signal must change.

 

Know the antenna aperture and have a general idea of power? The nature of the emission for tracking is known to you- it's simple math. See that value change significantly in the fashion applicable to a smaller receiver?

 

Bang- you know he's launched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the more radars, not old tech import MiG-29 radars, but hi tech frequency agile radars of real MiG-29's and Su-27's, focused on a target aircraft then the weaker that aircrafts jammer becomes, so much that it can become useless.

 

What'd you say to GG- "pointless to bring into the discussion"?

 

No, but really- this is where the integration factor comes into play. Depending on how well the jamming system can tell the apparent threat level, it can swap targets of its intent. It might get overwhelmed, sure- but it's not going to really be useless, per se- it's simply going to do battle with what it thinks it can beat, while you're left to deal with what it can't.

 

Lets stay focused on what we're really discussing here...

 

This I agree with from all counts. I admit that I'm having a good laugh at the F-117 derailment, because the event not only has no actual benefit to the argument that's attempting to be made off of its usage as an example, but that it actually undermines said argument.

 

The real example that was mentioned that should be focused on where it concerns the nature of the interaction between situational awareness from the RWR and relative performance of active countermeasures and maneuver against potential weapon employment was the first one mentioned- that of "Mole" Underhill.

 

Instead, it's dismissed out of turn because Rodriguez got away, not realizing the reasons why; further, it's derided as a potential example based on the premise that it was a third world pilot, as you say, flying with "old tech import radars".

 

The Coalition had a good idea as to what Iraq had in hand in the way of both systems and weapons; however, much of that data is only as good as registered trade shipping manifest data provided through sources such as SIPRI (which is greatly dependent on the accuracy of information provided to the UN Register of Conventional Arms).

 

That is to say, while they had expectations, you fight with a margin because you might just be wrong. Russia sneaks Archer beyond an embargo, if Rico doesn't turn, were possibly talking an Eagle shootdown. And there's a bit of circumstantial evidence that points to the fact that there was a shot attempted. This opens up an entire smorgasbord of both questions and logical answers.

 

But instead we talk about a squirrel who couldn't have helped to find a nut because it was already sitting there on the ground and couldn't get away. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did some testing on the latest version of DCS world

I had a ACMI track from BMS of a long range lofted Aim-120C shot on a Su-27 and wanted to compare it to DCS so I recreated the moment in DCS and attempted to reproduce the situation to see how the missile flight would differ between the 2.

 

parameters were at the moment of weapon release:

BMS:

F-16:

 

ASL: 29,063 ft

Mach: 1.11

TAS: 657.6 kts

31 degrees nose up for the loft

Velocity vector(/FPM) at 24 degrees up

 

 

 

Aim-120C

1 second after launch (earliest reading available)

TAS: 842 kts

Mach 1.43

Missile looking at ~30 degrees nose up at launch

Range to target at launch: 24.0 nm

Missile flies a high arced loft shot profile

 

peak speed

Mach: 4.01

TAS: 2299.4 kts

 

peak altitude: 47,004.0 ft ASL

 

 

DCS

 

I did several attempts trying to maintain the speed I had in BMS and firing at 24 nm but since DCS AMRAAMS don't fly loft profiles attempting that would skew the results even more since the missile would just attempt to pull out of the nose up attitude and loose speed.

 

therefore peak altitude is also not relevant for comparison.

 

DCS Aim-120 had higher energy level throughout the first and middle stages of the flight due to not climbing in the loft. With a peak speed of 4.14 compared to 4.01 of BMS.

 

2 seconds after launch (earliest reading): DCS Aim-120 does 1.69 and BMS does Mach 1.48

due to inconsistency with altitude and speed of the aircraft this is more of a source of error added for reference. However should still be able to deduct something from the following speed comparisons

 

At 12nm to target DCS Aim-120 does 3.54 and BMS Aim-120 having just passed the peak of the loft is at Mach 3.13

 

At 6 nm to target BMS Aim-120 is coming down at 23 degrees doing Mach 2.43 while DCS Aim-120 is doing 2.36 the conclusion to this is that the speed bleedoff for the DCS equivelent is somewhat higher, probably partially due to not lofting and thus not having gravity assist in the final phases. the result shows at impact when DCS Aim-120 is down to 1.17 compared to BMS which still has 1.64

 

of course the path of the target aircraft also has a lot of influence on the energy states at specific ranges, but in this case they flew fairly similar flight paths doing diving jinking at ~30 degrees angle off.

 

In a lot of cases the missile would miss, the attempt in DCS where I drew the numbers from (last attempt) had the missile miss at some 60 ft without detonating, only the first attempt was a successful intercept, the others the missile would most often seemingly lost guidance temporarily in later phase despite host aircraft still maintaining lock (and thus datalink guidance)

 

DCS missile flew for 1 minute 5 seconds and the BMS missile for 50 seconds from launch to impact which is odd, considering that BMS missile's flight path was longer due to the loft profile, but probably has to do with the slower speed bleed off

 

In conclusion, the missiles (or at least the Aim-120) has been somewhat fixed from the brokenness reported in earlier versions which is good. It is possible (albeit harder) to destroy an aircraft at similar ranges in DCS as it is in BMS and while this might not be completely realistic I'll settle for that, believing that BMS is a somewhat accurate. (without having any evidence handy)

 

What should be done is to implement a loft profile for the Aim-120 to increase the efficiency of the missile flight at long range shots.

The DCS Missile does in fact reach higher speed than in BMS but does so at a much less efficient flight profile and as a result ends up with less energy for the intercept resulting in lower Pk. It also has some weird issues with lost guidance despite host aircraft maintaining lock on target. I suspect some lacking or even absent datalink guidance modelling.

 

I would like to hear the results of someone else trying to reproduce the same scenario from the data written in the beginning. should be enough. The engagement took place over ocean so terrain wasn't a factor.

I'll attach the tacview files for the BMS flight and the DCS attempt I used for the data comparison.

the BMS file is part of a longer BVR training mission I did but it is the very first Aim-120 shot that I used for the comparison.

Aim-120shot.rar

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What'd you say to GG- "pointless to bring into the discussion"?

 

No, but really- this is where the integration factor comes into play. Depending on how well the jamming system can tell the apparent threat level, it can swap targets of its intent. It might get overwhelmed, sure- but it's not going to really be useless, per se- it's simply going to do battle with what it thinks it can beat, while you're left to deal with what it can't.

Yes, useless was probably too strong a word. But you're missing the point, radars with different frequencies attacking a jammer force that jammer to divide its power up to combat those frequencies, this reduces its power and increases burn through range. 1v1 in the Nevada desert or 4v2 in Iraq this is irrelevant but in a complex scenario with HiTech vs HiTech hardware with numbers and tactics the fighters ECM system can become little more than a speed bump, the need for Growlers and Prowlers etc. become apparent.

 

Did some testing on the latest version of DCS world

I had a ACMI track from BMS of a long range lofted Aim-120C shot on a Su-27 and wanted to compare it to DCS so I recreated the moment in DCS and attempted to reproduce the situation to see how the missile flight would differ between the 2.

Comparing DCS with BMS is like comparing the data of a scooter and a quad bike around the track and debating which is closest to Formula 1. :D

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did some testing on the latest version of DCS world

I had a ACMI track from BMS of a long range lofted Aim-120C shot on a Su-27 and wanted to compare it to DCS so I recreated the moment in DCS and attempted to reproduce the situation to see how the missile flight would differ between the 2.

 

parameters were at the moment of weapon release:

BMS:

F-16:

 

ASL: 29,063 ft

Mach: 1.11

TAS: 657.6 kts

31 degrees nose up for the loft

Velocity vector(/FPM) at 24 degrees up

 

 

 

Aim-120C

1 second after launch (earliest reading available)

TAS: 842 kts

Mach 1.43

Missile looking at ~30 degrees nose up at launch

Range to target at launch: 24.0 nm

Missile flies a high arced loft shot profile

 

peak speed

Mach: 4.01

TAS: 2299.4 kts

 

peak altitude: 47,004.0 ft ASL

 

 

DCS

 

I did several attempts trying to maintain the speed I had in BMS and firing at 24 nm but since DCS AMRAAMS don't fly loft profiles attempting that would skew the results even more since the missile would just attempt to pull out of the nose up attitude and loose speed.

 

therefore peak altitude is also not relevant for comparison.

 

DCS Aim-120 had higher energy level throughout the first and middle stages of the flight due to not climbing in the loft. With a peak speed of 4.14 compared to 4.01 of BMS.

 

2 seconds after launch (earliest reading): DCS Aim-120 does 1.69 and BMS does Mach 1.48

due to inconsistency with altitude and speed of the aircraft this is more of a source of error added for reference. However should still be able to deduct something from the following speed comparisons

 

At 12nm to target DCS Aim-120 does 3.54 and BMS Aim-120 having just passed the peak of the loft is at Mach 3.13

 

At 6 nm to target BMS Aim-120 is coming down at 23 degrees doing Mach 2.43 while DCS Aim-120 is doing 2.36 the conclusion to this is that the speed bleedoff for the DCS equivelent is somewhat higher, probably partially due to not lofting and thus not having gravity assist in the final phases. the result shows at impact when DCS Aim-120 is down to 1.17 compared to BMS which still has 1.64

 

of course the path of the target aircraft also has a lot of influence on the energy states at specific ranges, but in this case they flew fairly similar flight paths doing diving jinking at ~30 degrees angle off.

 

In a lot of cases the missile would miss, the attempt in DCS where I drew the numbers from (last attempt) had the missile miss at some 60 ft without detonating, only the first attempt was a successful intercept, the others the missile would most often seemingly lost guidance temporarily in later phase despite host aircraft still maintaining lock (and thus datalink guidance)

 

DCS missile flew for 1 minute 5 seconds and the BMS missile for 50 seconds from launch to impact which is odd, considering that BMS missile's flight path was longer due to the loft profile, but probably has to do with the slower speed bleed off

 

In conclusion, the missiles (or at least the Aim-120) has been somewhat fixed from the brokenness reported in earlier versions which is good. It is possible (albeit harder) to destroy an aircraft at similar ranges in DCS as it is in BMS and while this might not be completely realistic I'll settle for that, believing that BMS is a somewhat accurate. (without having any evidence handy)

 

What should be done is to implement a loft profile for the Aim-120 to increase the efficiency of the missile flight at long range shots.

The DCS Missile does in fact reach higher speed than in BMS but does so at a much less efficient flight profile and as a result ends up with less energy for the intercept resulting in lower Pk. It also has some weird issues with lost guidance despite host aircraft maintaining lock on target. I suspect some lacking or even absent datalink guidance modelling.

 

I would like to hear the results of someone else trying to reproduce the same scenario from the data written in the beginning. should be enough. The engagement took place over ocean so terrain wasn't a factor.

I'll attach the tacview files for the BMS flight and the DCS attempt I used for the data comparison.

the BMS file is part of a longer BVR training mission I did but it is the very first Aim-120 shot that I used for the comparison.

 

Both worlds simulate missiles differently, also DCS missiles still WIP, like the missing loft trajectory (never noticed it was missing because everyone flies low).

[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

Both worlds simulate missiles differently, also DCS missiles still WIP, like the missing loft trajectory (never noticed it was missing because everyone flies low).

 

Still WIP?? If the DCS Missiles are still WIP then we are inside a MEGA-Beta proyect and we are used like Kids!! So, is not possible DCS Missiles are WIP because otherwise ED should sale the relaese version for only cannon dogfighting.

 

The Missiles are not WIP, this is a excuse to put the downgraded russians missiles in this box. We are already in the stage to request the finish release version with the russian missiles working properly.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been beta testers since the 90's. Only now you realise? :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

Still WIP?? If the DCS Missiles are still WIP then we are inside a MEGA-Beta proyect and we are used like Kids!! So, is not possible DCS Missiles are WIP because otherwise ED should sale the relaese version for only cannon dogfighting.

 

The Missiles are not WIP, this is a excuse to put the downgraded russians missiles in this box. We are already in the stage to request the finish release version with the russian missiles working properly.

 

They are still working on the missiles, whether you like it or not, so therefore they are a work in progress.

 

Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are WIP and they will be WIP for a very long time. If you have performance data that can be used, show it right now.

 

If you attempt to quote wikipedia or manufacturer's sites, don't even bother posting since you obviously don't know what kind of data is needed.

 

The Missiles are not WIP, this is a excuse to put the downgraded russians missiles in this box. We are already in the stage to request the finish release version with the russian missiles working properly.

[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

;1915369']Yes they are... where are you getting all this false information about what is going on in Eagle Dynamics?

 

We were not Aware about the perpetual WIP stage of the Missile at the Moment of purchase. We purchase an aircraft combat simulator and if the R-77 reduce his speed to 1000km/h after 12 km and etc... etc.. and all the etc... you can find in this thread.

 

So the only false Argument have been made by yourself trying to hide something is clear, atherwise tell me where the customers can read the WIP and Beta stage of the FC3 Missiles:

 

Read what say the shop about the WIP stage and the useless russians missiles:

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/lock_on_flaming_cliffs_3/

 

Nothing right!! then where is the false argument in my words?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you have not been paying attention.

 

Missiles have been called WIP for a long time, and not just by beta testers. Why have you not been paying attention?

 

Nothing right!! then where is the false argument in my words?

[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

Network code, EOS, TWS, Missile, and the rest of the bugs have been around since FC3 release.

I believed it would get better in FC3, Now we are all waiting for EDGE.

 

I just hope that ED can dig them self out of this deep hole of WIP, because we can not enjoy the simulator.

 

It is not right to tell enthusiasts that it will get better in the next product we get. And trust me If EDGE will have same problems or as many as FC3, I will start to play WAR THUNDER:).

 

FC3 have given those who run servers more troubles than actual enjoyment.

 

Im sorry to be that negative, But this is not about EOS,TWS, Missiles that are in WIP, Its about that the game is broken.

 

I feel sad to say this because I really enjoy this simulator and have been doing it for years.

 

And if enthusiast as me are about to lose their patience about WIP everywhere what about all steam users that we have lost because of all this disconnect nonsense.


Edited by Teknetinium

Teknetinium 2017.jpg
                        51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from a few graphical issues EDGE has nothing to do with bug fixing.

[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

what game is that?

[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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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