Jump to content

DCS FIGHTER PILOT

Members
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

  1. I know this is not the first time I have posted about this topic but are there still any plans to address the Aim-54's lofting issue towards the end of its flight? For those of you who are not aware, towards the end of its flight, the missile will abruptly change its flight path to get on an intercept course with the target costing the missile hundreds of knots of airspeed. It seems as if the faster the target is, the more pronounced the issue is. Aim-54 Lofting Issue.trk
  2. In the tracks provided below you can see that I ran a test in which I had an f-16 coming at me at 30,000ft and Mach 1. Flying an f-16 myself at the same speed and altitude, I was able to pick up the target on radar at about 41 nautical miles out. In an f-18, I was able to pick up the target at around 44 nautical miles. In the Jf-17, I was able to pick up the same target at around 53 nautical miles and bug him at around 51. Now I am no expert on radars, but is the Jf-17's radar performance still too good? Perhaps I am wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the 17's radar can best the 16's radar and especially the 18's. Additionally, in the final track I provided, I was able to pick up the f-16 at the same range in the Jf-17 while I was jamming him. Again, perhaps I am wrong but wouldn't the jammer at least steal some power from the radar if not turn it off completely like in the f-16 and f-18? Things just seem a bit odd here. F-16 Detection in F-16.trk F-16 Detection in F-18.trk F-16 Detection in Jf-17.trk F-16 Detection in Jf-17 With Jammer On.trk
  3. I have been hearing rumors that the F-18's pylon drag (and drag in general) is too low and needs to be fixed. Can someone confirm if this is true?
  4. As Jester would say, "HERE WE GO AGAIN!" NOTCHING_THE_120.trk Tacview-20211120-183827-DCS.zip.acmi
  5. The question is, do they really want to figure this out?
  6. Whether or not the missiles are more or less efficient in this patch than in last is not the point we (at least myself) are trying to make here. The point is, there is an underlying problem that has plagued these missiles for quite some time and it has not yet been properly addressed. Many updates ago, (and I cannot remember which one exactly), notching radar guided missiles became extremely easy to do. Now some patches may have improved upon this slightly since then but overall, the problem persisted and continues to persist. The fact of the matter is, when you see behavior like in the tracks I provided below, the BVR/ radar guided missile experience is completely ruined. It is my crazy suspicion that it is ED's goal to always force players into dogfighting scenarios, or to save ground pounders who would not know a Sidewinder from a Phoenix from hot shot BVR aces, by nerfing as many BVR tools as possible such as the radar (i.e. the current look down problem on hot, fighter sized targets currently plaguing the Viper and Hornets radar) and the missiles (whether it be their kinematic abilities or CCM abilities). Now with all of this said, returning back to the topic at hand, notching and distracting radar guided missiles with countermeasures should not be impossible. However, from what I understand and have heard from people on these forums who are much more knowledgeable in this subject area than I am, making modern missiles like an AMRAAM, R-77, or SD-10 go haywire from notching and countermeasures, should be very hard to do (certainly much harder than it is now). As @Hotel Tango put it in another post, "Notching one missile should be a fluke, not a rule...". Well right now, it is pretty much guaranteed if you just turn 90 degrees away from any incoming radar guided missile and hit the brakes a little, it will miss. I think these tracks will highlight just how bad things are. The third one is actually quite hilarious. NOTCH 1.trk NOTCH 2.trk NOTCH 3.trk Right here!
  7. I guess the folks over at ED just really like dogfighting?
  8. Yeah that's what I figured. No skill required to completely trash a 21st Century missile.
  9. Current behavior after the patch, you guys be the judges. NOTCH 1.trk NOTCH 2.trk NOTCH 3.trk
  10. As with the Hornet at the moment, the Viper is unable to detect low flying fighter sized aircraft at high altitudes regardless of the targets aspect. Since this has been labeled a "bug" for the Hornet, I would imagine this is a bug for the Viper as well. F-16 No Detection.trk
  11. I’m not worried about that at all. What concerns me the most is what happened in the first track. I posted the other two just to hammer home the point.
  12. I think the tracks will speak for themselves. When a WWII plane can tank several sidewinders and an AMRAAM, you know something is off. Bf-109 Damage Model.trk Bf-109 Damage Model 2.trk Bf-109 Damage Model 3.trk
  13. I’m glad I am not the only one noticing this. Some aircraft, like the Jf-17 for instance, can’t even be picked up and can sneak right under the Hornets radar.
  14. As you can see in the tracks, I loose track of a hot Su-33 at around 10 miles that is flying much lower than me. In the second track, you can see that I cannot even bug a Jf-17 that is low flying and hot on me. Needless to say, these targets are not notching and I see no reason why I cannot see them on my radar. Radar Track Lost 1.trk No Detection.trk
  15. The big problem that I see is everyone will only want to fly the Eurofighter when it comes out. Those that won’t be able to fly it, or the very few who have no interest in flying it, will get absolutely slaughtered in MP or will have all of their kills stolen. I mean let’s face it, the c5 and the planes that carry it in DCS right now, won’t be able to hold a candle to the Eurofighter and the Meteor. The fact of the matter is, the Eurofighter and Meteor, as cool as they are, don’t fit into DCS world, as they are just far too modern. I suppose it will be up to the servers to limit the amount of Eurofighters in the air, the number of meteors they carry, or both.
  16. This post will probably receive a lot of hate, (and that’s okay I am used to it :)), but since Heatblur is developing the Meteor, why can’t ED or another third party make the newer Aim-120’s , ie. the c7 and D? I am well aware that there is very little public data to go off of when developing these missiles and they would be more of less estimates of the real deal, but is that not the case for the meteor? I would imagine that data for that is even more scarce than the newer AMRAAM’s but I could be wrong. Same goes for the more modern Russian missiles, why not attempt to model those?
  17. It would have less agility if it stored that extra fuel up for the terminal attack phase but it would decelerate at a lower rate.
  18. Even on the ACE setting, the AI does a very poor job when defending against Active Radar Homing missiles. As you can see in the track file and Tacview provided below, the AI initially shoots and cranks, (as it should) but then slams on the brakes. At 30000ft when an AMRAAM is homing in on you, this is a suicidal move. Why would the AI slow down when it should actually be speeding up and diving for the deck as I am? Is it trying to enter into a notch or something? When defending against a fox two, cutting the engines makes since seeing as how you want to lower your heat signature but against fox one's and three's? This has been an issue in DCS for as long as I can remember and really makes fighting the AI in this situation far too easy. Tacview-20210727-114607-DCS.zip.acmi Poor AI Missile Defence.trk
  19. I conducted a simple test in game where I would fire a missile in a straight and level line and found the following. At 35,000ft under standard atmospheric conditions Aim-120C Deceleration time from 2500 knots to 2000 knots~10.20 seconds Deceleration time from 2000 knots to 1500 knots~13.65 seconds Deceleration time from 1500 knots to 1000 knots~21.85 seconds Total deceleration time from 2500 knots to 1000 knots~45.70 seconds SD-10 2500-2000~9.05 seconds 2000-1500~12.60 seconds 1500-1000~19.20 seconds 2500-1000~40.85 seconds Aim-54A/Mk60 / Aim-54C/Mk47 2500-2000~9.90 seconds 2000-1500~15.75 seconds 1500-1000~28.90 seconds 2500-1000~54.55 seconds As you can see, during this simple test, the Aim-54 easily outcompetes the Aim-120C and SD-10 while the Aim-120C just barley bests the SD-10. As a result, during long range engagements, the Aim-54 will easily dominate (no surprises there), while the Aim-120C should beat the SD-10 PROVIDED it is launched from a fast aircraft such as the Viper, Eagle, a lightweight Hornet, and soon, the Eurofighter. Now given during this test, the missiles did not loft and did not pull any G's whatsoever. However it reasonable to assume that during long-range engagements where the missiles loft and fly in a relatively straight line, the following rankings should hold to some extent (even with the 54's lofting issue). When it comes to the terminal phase, where the missiles have to maneuver, I am not sure which one would win in a competition as I have not conducted any tests in this area. Also in regards to the current ECM modeling, I have no comment as I am certainly no expert in this area. The next very simple test that I conducted does indeed show the current gap that exists between the Aim-120C and SD-10. Here, I launched a missile in a straight and level line as before under the following conditions, Launch Altitude 35,000ft, Launch Speed Mach 1.0. Aim-120C~2240 Knots : Burn Time~6.5 seconds SD-10~2455 Knots : Burn Time~10.0 seconds Aim-54C/Mk47~2510 Knots : Burn Time~27 seconds Aim-54A/Mk60~3000 Knots :Burn Time~30 seconds This is where eyebrows have been raised, including my own, in regards to the AMRAAMS burn time and top speed. If @nighthawk2174 would like to comment on this, he can tell you a lot more about this than I can. So in conclusion, the SD-10 is a good missile no doubt, but a long ranges where the AMRAAM is launched at high speeds, the SD-10 and thus the shooter of said missile, should be defeated while the Aim-54 on the other hand, is on a whole different level.
  20. I suppose I was just wondering if the high top speed given to the Phoenix was meant to compensate for the loft issue but it sounds as if this is not the case.
  21. I am curious as to whether or not the top speed on the Aim-54, particularly the Aim-54 Mk60, is a “DCSism” considering the fact that usually during mid course guidance, the missile suddenly changes its vertical trajectory bleeding off literally hundreds of knots of airspeed. As I recall, this is due to a de-sync issue that has plagued the missile from the very start. If and when this problem is ever fixed, will the top speed on the missiles come down or is it correct as is?
×
×
  • Create New...