Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    32598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by GGTharos

  1. Yes. It uses a polynomial curve generated from 3-4 parameters for the drag coefficient graph, a fairly simple lift coefficient graph and none of the other parameters that you see in the new format. Chizh mentioned transferring it to the new format some time in the future when they complete more accurate CFD on it.
  2. The AIM-54 is capable of Mach 5 for a scant few seconds anyway IRL. In any case, again please keep in mind that the old missile FM didn't take a lot of parameters into consideration and the high speed part (>mach 4) of flight is an edge condition for every missile in-game.
  3. Yeah, you're comfortable with not knowing anything, which is why you are not citing references on purpose - fact, not insult
  4. Yes, all the relevant files were hidden as of 2.7 IIRC. The current rocket motor has been defined such that is there is almost no boost/sustain difference (based on new data) AFAIK, but I maybe talking out of ignorance here.
  5. I would wait for the new FM. The missile itself may or may not be capable of it, but only a CFD can tell with better accuracy than the existing FM. This basically depends on two things other than the motor, IMHO: 1) The drag coefficient at those speeds, which in the old FM always tends down as a line function (it does IRL too, but perhaps not as linearly) 2) The drag induced by the control surfaces (trim drag) which is not accounted for in the old FM.
  6. Engine thrust is given a bench thrust, I don't recall any public source calculating T/W from anything else.
  7. ... and now everyone will read between the lines, so you just closed that door. But in any case, no person with privileged information would risk that anyway ... it only takes a moment to let that slip, these guys are trained not to talk. So fantasize about it all you want.
  8. Well, if you consider testing like this alone, you're exactly right, you have to somehow remove drag from the equation. But, you can't even really guarantee that the thrust you're getting is correct. So, at slow speed drag is pretty much not that big of a deal, right? But at the same time the motors lose a lot of thrust when installed and at slow speed. What we do have or well, ED has for the F-18 and F-16 are acceleration charts. The eagle and miG-29 have them too, and I'm sure those two aircraft match their charts quite well. I don't know about the other two though.
  9. But this is looking more like an FC3 vs. new aircraft turning. The F-18 and F-16 should be losing thrust much faster than the fighters with variable ramps in those climbs.
  10. Is that a fact? I mean it's always a possibility, but is MSI factually implemented this way, with the WCS generating the m-link without having generated its own track?
  11. Ok so keeping in mind that Tacview 'lags' a bit behind when looking at G-onset, in this: https://forums.eagle.ru/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=231638&key=7580d37b44f10994b14f8ab99d2b037a You evade 2 MANPADS head-on with just a 3.x-4.0 g jink head-on. Later on, you're hit while pulling 6g because you are in an established turn.
  12. I don't know, it depends on what/how you did it. If you're just pulling into/away from the missile and it has become an established turn, that's easy for PN to deal with. You want to introduce seeker settling problems which aren't really modeled in DCS (but there's a good chance that they will be down the road) ... but that still won't help you as much with modern MANPADS which would have shorter seeker-settling periods. The best way to evade a missile very generally is to have it on the 3-9 and apply orthogonal max-g when it's fairly close (1-2 seconds)
  13. Simple turns that have become established are not and should not be effective.
  14. Can you please implement the concept of the Predicted Intercept Point? While this implies that the missile will intercept its target at that point, that's not exactly how it's used in all cases, and it's especially important when modeling missiles with INUs or Command guided (at least to a certain point) as opposed to homing-all-the-way. Eg, take the S-200 that you're creating now, it's supposed to have 200km + range against a beaming target. The way to achieve this is to the send the missile to the PIP and begins homing once it's close to the intercept. The same applies to PATRIOT, S-300 etc. and is critical for ABM intercepts where the missile will fly to the PIP and then turn to intercept the missile head-on - the PIP is basically to get the missile on the target's trajectory in this case. This requires that the weapon systems employing these missiles (including AMRAAM, R-77 etc) are aware of the missile's TOF with fairly good accuracy, and may further require the weapon system to predict the missile's speed at that time to ensure that the target does not out-gimbal the missile ... which may require further maneuver/positioning of the missile, depending on target speed (consider a mach 2 missile intercepting a beaming target doing mach 0.8 vs mach 2).
  15. Why? It's pretty much what has been said would be a major factor. It's great that work was done to make it clear.
  16. https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf I'm not fussed about WVR drone kills, they're not in the same context of A2A combat.
  17. The primary way flares work is that they cause the seeker to lock onto them before launch, therefore operators are trained not to launch if there are flares in or near the missile's FoV. This important part of the whole deal is not modeled in DCS. After the seeker is locked on, flares will work but you'll need a lot of them for any kind of modern seeker, and for some modern seekers they won't have any effect at all.
  18. 'Too many flares for just one MANPAD' because you're flying where the MANPAD is effective, and you're not practicing one-pass-haul-a** which is what an F-18 would most likely do in a lot of situations. You'd hit your target and leave, not this DCS mission thing where you constantly re-attack. MANPADS have to be credible threats, otherwise why should they be there at all?
  19. No it isn't. Missiles need time to get to their targets, those targets move in that time so ending the fight WVR is absolutely no surprise and expected. No it doesn't. History is literally showing that things are moving more towards BVR. Maybe slower than desired/wished for, but steadily.
  20. Not only training, they can contain quite a bit of instrumentation, and you can test seekers etc.
  21. Captive carry just means attached to the aircraft. If you're not going to shoot it, you can't do all those things like measure missile aerodynamics etc.
  22. Why are you comparing them to SA-13? A bunch of MANPADS have a more advanced seeker and autopilot than SA-13 missiles. It's an incorrect comparison. Get data on the specific MANPADS, then ED will do something.
  23. Actually they are ... well counted. The BVR survey is showing that more and more launches occur BVR.
×
×
  • Create New...