Jump to content

Max1mus

Members X
  • Posts

    643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Max1mus

  1. Then the russians were either horribly wrong with their estimations on lofting missiles, or something is up with non-draggy missiles at very high altitudes in DCS. But the range relationship in that document between 530, 7M and 120 is not represented in DCS. The difference between 7M and 530 is even reversed. The fact that the AIM-9M outspeeds and outranges the AIM-7MH at altitudes like 40.000ft adds more questions. @Jack1nthecrack Check Maestros post from a few pages ago (last page?) He did the testing and marked the points on the chart. I couldnt find the original posts so i will just re-post them: ER_falls_behind (1).trk - 1000m in ZPS, around 9.6km (less than on the graph). Missile even falls behind. I skipped 5000m, but the differences there are also extreme 10.000m_not_enough_energy_fast.trk - 10000m. Missile hits, but with not enough energy reserve, and the launch distance also seems to be a bit within the chart range. 10.000m_battery_life.trk - 10000m This one shows how close the ER is to running out of battery life up there (i shot slightly further here and it already ran out). A bit less drag - and it would not be limited by energy, but by electronics (it might barely already be). This could very well explain the smaller gap between fast and slow speed at high altitude, which from what i understood, is the reason why some in ED do not believe the graphs.
  2. Gryphon 33 | Maximus MiG-29 Can switch to MiG-21 if many are interested in the Fulcrum slots, i like both equally.
  3. In DCS, the AIM-7M has significantly less range than the R-530D, especially at the 0.5km mark. And the DCS gap between a non-lofted AIM-120B(A) and the AIM-7 is also bigger than described in this document.
  4. What i am asking about is these markings. They compare the old and new missile capabilities. Is that kinematic ability MINUS >150 m/s or ability to destroy the target in DCS? PS: No, it cannot. Ive given you tracks showing the missile fall behind the target well within the declared range. I dont know what else to say.
  5. Do the markings posted by Maestro respect that required speed, or is that just pure kinematic ability?
  6. Why? It literally proves that "possible launch" means the missile must be able to overshoot the target with a significant amount of extra energy.
  7. It still underperforms in 2/3 areas, and im not sure this even includes the energy reserve (if its not factored in, its still all 3 areas), hardly a good compromise. A good compromise would be the adjustments GGTharos suggested, it would match 1km and 5km. At 10km, i guarantee you that with battery life and the 150+ m/s energy reserve factored in, you would end up not far from the current value. A different question, you did have this chart - why did the missile underperform in all 3 areas for this many years?
  8. Or it could be illegally aquired by KGB intelligence. Chizh said its of unknown origin, but it surely didnt just appear on EDs desk one day. It has to come from somewhere. And infact, the CFD AIM-120 matches it up until 5.000 meters, with an energy provision. So it clearly cannot be that wrong. The R-27R and R-27T also now match their charts. So why not the ER and ET? If ED is concerned that a properly modelled ER will be too dangerous, i can assure you that it will still be pointless against AIM-120C without a more modern radar, with better gimbals. The AIM-120 will still have a better initial engagement and will be more dangerous around the no-run-zone, since it is an active missile with a more advanced seekerhead. Your imbalance is safe. Please make the missiles behave consistently with eachother, and dont make one undershoot the chart, one match or overshoot it, just the way you like it. Only with such a consistency can you live up to the standard of high fidelity, close to reality simulation. Interpreting charts differently to create an artificial (im)balance is a well known trick used by certain less realism-oriented games with an inferior systems modelling.
  9. I think the russian and soviet air forces knew their own missiles. If ED wants to artificially nerf them to help their casual playerbase, which its looking like more and more by the way - then might aswell go all-out crazy with it. Why keep pretending. The new changes on the AMRAAM have been going in that direction too - they ignore chaff more and just have a straightup random chance of missing, treating the ground like countermeasures. Its very beneficial to players who wish to be able to defeat missiles, without wanting to learn how.
  10. At 10km, the missiles in DCS are only a few seconds away from running out of battery life (60s). It is absolutely reasonable to believe that the real-life 10km values are limited by battery, not energy. That way, you can have consistent results at 1000, 5000, and 10000 meters, taking into account the necessairy energy reserve for the missile to work reliably.
  11. I doubt ED ran any software. They just adjusted the values to match that Mid-2000s chart at high altitude. Meanwhile, they ignore the only source for lower altitude launches (reminder, this is where all the kill shots happen), and nerf the crap out of the ER there, to the point where the AIM-120 will even match it in terms of Rear Aspect NEZ. Which is absolutely not supported by any real life pilots, from both sides of fence. The difference is absolutely noticable when flying, by the way. The R-27Es are much less deadly missiles now. PS: The russian and soviet air forces have significantly more resources than ED when it comes to knowledge about their own missiles. ED telling us that their charts are wrong, and making the missile in game even worse, is laughable. We are lucky to have proper documentation on these missiles publicly available, yet ED chooses to ignore them... Why, is unknown. Apparently because they cannot recreate the results with their software and in-game atmosphere?
  12. There is literal proof that the missile radio fuze needs AT LEAST 540 km/h to even work. And the Su-35 guy said that it should have a 2-3G energy reserve on top. I dont know what to say, it doesnt even reach the numbers ballistically, without the energy reserve. A little consistency would be nice.
  13. But the AIM-120 overshoots its chart everywhere... By as much as 20-30% up high, 6% at medium altitude. What is the problem of assuming the same thing for R-27ER? Do your marks take into account the 150+ m/s and 2-3G energy provision in the terminal conditions? And why does R-27R now match its graph, but not the ER?
  14. The hard facts are that in DCS, the F-14, F-16 and F-18 are entirely immune to jamming. The F-18 has a nice little J that comes up when you ECM on, yet its missiles track perfectly and the lock cant be broken. Meanwhile, try to hold a lock on an aircraft flashing the jammer in su-27. Good luck. This means bluefor is entirely immune to redfor missiles until 43km. Which is the moment the AIM-120C hits (or even past that), and way past the moment the AIM-54s will hit you. The FC3 F-15 is also affected btw.
  15. They were always going to be only for the bombers. Loosing an aircraft carrier is not worth shooting down a few cheap MiG-23s for.
  16. Math question: When your carrier group has 50 AIM-54s and the enemy is planning on bringing a wave of 50 bombers every day armed with nuclear anti-ship missiles, how many fighters can you afford to waste the missiles on?
  17. Full fidelity versions of even the soviet 29 and Su-27 would have more tools, especially on the topic of datalink. FC3 is not a factor for combat, its about how modern the plane and its missiles are. The FC3 stuff tops out in the 90s, with the early 2000s for the F-15C.
  18. As you can see from my list, there are red fighters in the 90s and 2000s more than capable of beating the blue counterparts. The 29A is simply not the appropriate version for the current DCS environment.
  19. In DCS, low flight will not protect you from AWACS detection. Not that it matters anyway, given that the blue fighters have radars that are more than capable to entirely scan the airspace in front of and below them. Send some AI MiG-29A against 2 AI Hornets with 120C and 9X. The result was: The AI MiGs need a numbers advantage of ~5:1 to win (taking heavy losses along the way). Compare that to my previous BF-109 vs MiG-21 example. The 2 planes are also 20-25 years apart. Again, only with a numbers advantage of ~5:1 can they push the MiGs away with some hits, again with heavy losses. It offers nothing new. Unless the target has practically no air defenses, it has no secondary roles apart from the Air to Air one. Which it will miserably fail at in DCS, mostly due to the reason described above, but also because EDs double standard with russian weapons. Dont waste your time. Now, a package of the full fidelity, old soviet MiG, and a medium fidelity, modern MiG with good missiles would be a whole different story. 2 planes = Instant 200$ purchase from me. Sounds fair. Let the casual guys play with the switches, and the air combat guys play with the AMRAAMs.
  20. MiG-29A -> 1982-1983 AIM-9M/AIM-7M -> 1982-1984 Su-27 with ER/ET -> 1987-1990 AIM-120A -> 1991 R-77 (for export Su-27) -> 1994 AIM-120B -> 1994 Su-30MKK -> 1998 AIM-120C5 -> 1998-2001 AIM-9X -> 2003 Su-30MKI and Su-30MK2 -> 2003-2005 DCS: F-18C variant -> 2004 DCS: F-16C variant -> 2007 MiG-29M and MiG-29K -> 2008-2009 R-77-1 for MiG-29M and MiG-29K -> 2012-2015 Adding the MiG-29A to DCS will be equivalent to bringing a BF-109 against MiG-21s and F-4s. Sure, if they have a stroke mid-flight, you may be able to kill them.
  21. The AIM-54 seems to have significantly improved CCM abilities now - it reaquires from chaff much better than the AMRAAM. Could you (ED) check this out? If i report this to HB, they will just ignore it again.
  22. I would buy an early, early access variant for 200 dollars. Dont have info on some MFD pages? Deliver them later - thats how ED did it with the F-18. What else is missing? You say you finished the FM, you have some info on avionics. SPO-32? Just make a healthy assumption. Almost all RWRs with the exception of the F-14s and MiG-21s in DCS are completely unrealistic too. If you slap the PL-12 on it, you will have solved the main problem of DCS. ED will add better SAMs, and then they can focus on bugfixing while you focus on polishing the Su-30. Deal? Lets go.
  23. @Маэстро Hello, What are the plans for development on the R-27? They fail to achieve the numbers on the official charts at 1.000m, and as i showed in DM they even fail to do so at 10.000m of altitude. This is now especially worse due to the range reduction at low altitude mentioned in your recent newsletter. On the non-kinematic front, there is of course the bug with the missile maneuvering when lock is lost. It would be interesting to hear about the progress on that too. Thank you in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...