Jump to content

PE_Tigar

Members
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PE_Tigar

  • Rank
    Member
  1. It's like saying "there's no evidence that 2019 model car has automatic air conditioning if 2018 model has" - from the point of pure logic you theoretically could be right; most likely you're wrong. Here's why: Without going into detail - if you look at major radar system components it's (very roughly) transmitter, receiver, antenna, and indicator. Range gate is logic, "built into" the indicator part, i.e. it incurs very little weight, space or cost penalty to implement for modern electronics. The more modern radar is, more sophisticated the software, more features it packs - if you have
  2. Ah, but now ED will claim that the video is too recent :)...
  3. It's not that the missile is crappy or not, it's trying to maintain altitude with practically no wings in dense air - hence quite high energy bleed. That's a normal behavior when shooting a low and fast target - aerodynamics 101. I don't know how much, or at all, S/A missiles are supposed to loft in these scenarios. But if they don't loft and try to fly more or less horizontal trajectory to the target, they have to bleed a lot of energy. If they don't - like HQ-16 - it's a suspect behavior.
  4. It most definitely looks off - but may I suggest starting a separate thread and attaching a track or Tacview file to the report? This one is related to a specific issue with a specific weapon.
  5. Thanks - good to know. Fingers crossed this happens soon.
  6. Agreed. Also, the point of my post was not to count SP/MP - the point was to ask for a proper bug tracker for open beta. Since we have portions of half-baked code and early-access products in OB, it's only logical for ED to use this sizable OB user population to acquire some meaningful information. A more organized bug tracking process would certainly result in more usable feedback for ED.
  7. Correct - I'm comparing SA-11 (Buk-M1, missile 9M38M1) with HQ-16 missile (fired from HHQ-16 VLSs on 054A (Jiangkai II) frigate). HQ-16 is derived from 9M38M1 with the help of Almaz-Antey, if public sources are to be believed (Jane's for example). My point is that HQ-16 behaves very oddly, especially when compared to the similar 9M38M1. 5V55 should be compared to HQ-9, of course. And - incidently - the charts shown are not "my results" but missile telemetry plots from those same tracks I attached, anyone with DCS and Tacview can redo the analysis.
  8. What is your criterion for defining "better implementation"? I can only talk about HQ-16 and compare it against 9M38 it's derived from/similar to. Currently they act very differently, especially when it comes to HHQ-16s apparent lack of drag. It seems to me that DIS didn't take air density into account at all when modelling this missile, making it able to reach its max engagement distance under any conditions. This does not seem to be the case with other missiles in the game, SFM or not. Please see the attached tracks - 054A and SA-11 battery shooting at the same target, same altitude, sam
  9. Well, since most of us are indeed beta testing, maybe ED could consider giving us a more structured way of reporting bugs and issues. Doing it through forum threads is not only inefficient, but demotivating as well, as most input is left without official response, instead attracting off-the-cuff remarks from people usually too busy to properly read the reports.
  10. Happens in MP as well, that's how the missile reacts when losing the target in notch momentarily.
  11. I can second Takacoon's observation about the 120, and also confirm ED is using 80 seconds for AIM-120C. My reliable sources tell me that's "about right". As for SD-10 - I've only been on the receiving end and can confirm that the missile triggers my RWR long long past it ran out of energy.
  12. The speed of the missile in shots 3 and 4 is quite a bit higher than the speed of the target, #3 is actually the fastest missile. Suggest you look at Gs that the missile is pulling - you can actually see the turn start with Gs increasing when the target leaves the "basket". Goes for shots 3 and 4 as well. My point is that the missile should not maneuver so the target leaves the basket due to missile's maneuver itself, and when it loses the target, it should turn back to target to reacquire - not away from it.
  13. It doesn't. AI somehow "knows" about the launch, every time. And it also knows that you're launching on him, not at his wingman. When launching against AI, make sure they don't have the default (empty) loadout, because they will not have countermeasures loaded either.
×
×
  • Create New...