dundun92

Yeah, just like in the whitepaper AIM-54, which, spoiler alert, is back to M1 only 7s after burnout . AIM-54 just isnt a good missile down low.

For sure, im just pointing out why its happening, this is fundamentally an issue with both missiles being affected by chaff way too much, and the AI chaff being super effective for some reason

So all the missiles in the tacview had just enough energy to hit the target, what happened is that the AI chaffed them from well outside the notch like usual. . Its probably best to run the test against a human opponent that doesnt cheat with super effective chaff and notching. Otherwise, I think most of those would have been hits.

yeah, that was never realistic. The straightline NEZ was way overmodeled before, the discrepancy was over 2x in some low altitude scenarios. Right now, the ASL NEZ is ~4nm, 6km is ~8-9nm.

Yeah thats the broken loft profile I mentioned above. If you look at the tacview it stalls out at the top of the loft HB definitely needs to look into this, as this pretty much makes lofted Mk47s useless

So I looked at the tacview, and what this looks like is that the Mk47s loft profile is broken for some reason. The Mk60 is following a nice, smooth ballistic loft as seen here, without any of the old snap-down behavior (though this would have to be tested more to make sure its not just this specific shot profile) Meanwhile, the Mk47s are using an odd loft profile where they climb at a seemingly fixed pitch until stall speed, bleeding a ton of speed EDIT: i looked at another tacview and its not that its using a fixed pitch angle, its just overlofting and staying in the loft too long. Its like the loft is tuned perfect for the Mk60, but on the Mk47 it gets too slow too fast for that loft to work

Those wobbles are a tacview artifact from how it handles rounding of speed data

It is usable though, Your very own tacview shows a 40nm shot at 35kft with an AIM-54C can intercept a target that maneuvers at missile active. How is that unusable?

Both the 120 and AIM-54 hit in the track you gave.

not according to their CFD research, no. M2 is indeed the max speed it should be hitting ASL, look at the whitepaper.

based on what? That 40° of AoA "feels" too high to you?

<24th_C> Reaper - F-15C

<24th>dundun92 - F-15C <24th> Darkthorian - F-15C Reserve

In DCS, all SARH can reacquire if you relock the original target, and the target is still in the missile seeker's FoV (under special conditions you can actually make it relock to another target but thats a whole other can of worms ).

24th Archers Aircraft: MiG-21/19, F-5E Map: Caucasus, Marianas

I think he used that term specifically because of an ongoing meme in the Russian missile thread

Actually, no, I didnt "completely ignore" them. I very well understood what was said in the whitepaper. Nowhere in the whitepaper was it mentioned that this level of discrepancy (2x kinetic range when unlofted, as persumably a lot of the energy loss being compensated for is caused by the horrible loft-down maneuver) was needed to compensate and hit test shot parameters. Nor is 2x the NEZ an "edge case", as that is a big factor in determining the MAR, and ultimately fundamentally changes the defense techniques you use. The whitepaper dev AIM-54 did in fact strictly match the CFD, and did make almost all the test shots (albeit with a 7G limit to reduce the magnitude of the loft energy bleed). But again, my issue wasnt strictly matching the CFD, it was the magnitude of the discrepancy. But, again, HB says that this was caused by DCS guidance changes, and that the original AIM-54 did in fact come much closer to the CFD, which is all the bug report was about.

Its not, as HB controls the drag coefs in the lua. Its a simple lua edit that we could do ourselves until ED locked the files (though HB's are still unlocked)

I fully understand that, the issue is not with the general principle of adjusting somewhat to compensate for bad guidance etc. It is the magnitude of the issue. The in-game AIM-54 out ranges the CFD one in tail chase range by over 2 times on the deck, and 1.6 times at 12km. If you do an approximate integration of the speed vs time chart, the CFD AIM-54 covers ~17km in the first 30s of flight. The in game AIM-54 meanwhile does 23.15 km. A plane at M 0.9 covers 9km of distance in 30s. This gives a tail chase range after 30 seconds of missile flight of ~8km for CFD AIM-54 vs 14km for in game. This gets worse after burnout because the vastly faster speed loss of the CFD AIM-54. If you calculate the tail chase range assuming with a missile termination speed of M1, the CFD one hits M1 after 37s of flight, covering 21km. A target at M0.9 will cover 11km in this range, giving 10km tail chase range. Meanwhile, in game takes a whole 60s to slow down to M1, covering 40km in those 60s. Subtract the 18km a target will cover in those 60s, you have a tail chase range of 22km at 500m altitude!. Granted this discrepancy goes down with altitude, but even at 12km, the discrepency in tail chase range (M1.5 missile termination criteria) is 32km vs 53km. This is not an insignificant difference at all, and IMO deserves a 2nd look, which you mentioned the HB team would look into.

Hello, The in game AIM-54 kinetics do not match the values found in the whitepaper CFD posted by Heatblur. For example, at 500m the in game AIM-54 Mk60 hits Mach 3.1 and takes 25s to decelerate from Mach 2.0 to 1.0. The whitepaper AIM-54 Mk60 meanwhile hits M 2.0, and takes 7.5 sec to decelerate from M 2.0 to M1.0. This same discrepancy of much higher top speeds and taking much longer to decelerate persists at higher altitudes. It would be nice to get comment from HB on this discrepancy. (FYI, the whitepaper AIM-54 can be recognized as the Mk60 by comparing the 6km simulation charts to the 6km AIM-54 variants comparison chart) DCS 500m, 6km, 12km Whitepaper, 500m, 6km, 12km, 6km comparison Mk60 6km.trk Mk60 12km.trk Mk60 500m.trk

That is just the RNG aiming error mechanic ED added a few months ago. As for why, dont ask me, but thats not unintended behavior

Why havent you started a tech company subs ?

<24th> dundun92 <24th>Darkthorian F-15C, Reserves

Wait, youve flown both IRL? Enlighten me plz, what exactly does "faster than light RPM" even mean? RPM is not a linear speed, its rotations per minute