SEVERELY DECREASED Missile Performance as of late

Opinions ? Opinions are not a part of bug reporting. We've given a specific procedure in last update to report bugs:

Write an accurate and detailed report. Do not be vague, or leave simple things out. The more information that is presented, the better, as we can recreate the problem exactly as the user experienced it.

Include all the steps taken to produce the bug(s).

Attach Missions, TacViews tracks, and/or SARPP, dcs.log data files, and screenshots.

Show real world data compared to the modules’ data. Preferably in English or Serbian.

Keep all the information presented in a neat, orderly easy-to-follow format.

 

Based on your first posts (so before the above procedure) I asked for verification and as stated in latest update we took some time to verify it. So far nothing in this regard changed since they were first modeled, especially around mentioned by you guys date of 2016. Missiles were corrected in August 2016, but that concerns R-60M heatseekers and it was conducted according to ED guidance.

 

There are variables outside of our module that may have changed, but at this point we need a solid report on:

- what is wrong with specific missiles,

- what should be correct.

Also as example for tests.. on page 11 you can find this line:

 

"Истребители, вооруженные ракетами Р-3С, должны иметь скорость полёта в диапазоне 900-2000 км/ч на высотах до 20 км."

 

My translation: Fighters, who carry R-3S, should have speed in the range 900-2200 KPH on altitudes up to 20 KM.

 

That is giving us idea about how they did testing.. and from which tests numbers are coming from..

 

Use google translate as well, I specifically write it down in russian so it would be convenient for you to just copy paste it.

Okay? what does it say about the missile, though. You didn't mention this in your post.

that's a good place to start testing, but as you can see: Mortisrose's tacview was in the 900-2200 kph range at an altitude up to 20KM, and the testing for that is all over the place.

Plus: The AIM-9B STILL shows superior characteristics at that range. Why would that be?

 

Opinions ? Opinions are not a part of bug reporting. We've given a specific procedure in last update to report bugs:

 

 

Based on your first posts (so before the above procedure) I asked for verification and as stated in latest update we took some time to verify it. So far nothing in this regard changed since they were first modeled, especially around mentioned by you guys date of 2016. Missiles were corrected in August 2016, but that concerns R-60M heatseekers and it was conducted according to ED guidance.

 

There are variables outside of our module that may have changed, but at this point we need a solid report on:

- what is wrong with specific missiles,

- what should be correct.

What should I do, then? Should I submit this to the bugtracker instead?

 

The missiles are not accelerating to correct velocities, as seen in the Mortisrose tacview, and they have no angular authority at certain speeds. After burnout, they turn toward the target but do not track toward them. In particular the R-3S family of missiles.

 

You can see this by placing yourself behind a cold enemy that is flanking slightly, fire either of these weapons and watch them as they track toward the target.

This isn't an endemic problem, because the R-60 works great.

I'm not saying M3 broke the missiles, but can you see if maybe something with the weapons changed in this time period? I find it strange that the GAR-8 and the R-60 show none of these problems, but the R-3S, R-13M, and R-3R continue to show these issues (I don't know if the R-55 still shows it).

 

So what else must be done, and can Magnitude 3 fix it if it's an ED problem with missile dynamics?

 

Most importantly: Can you tell me if this issue is still being investigated?

 

EDIT: Furthermore, weren't the seeker rules changed around 2016? I can go back in the patch notes and confirm this, but I'm certain the seeker head used to be different for the R-3R.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Auditor

And I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing,too. I'm going to re-quote mortisrose's Tacviews.

 

I flew level at 1000m and 800 kph tas and these were the results. Apparently the R3S and the R-13M1 perform about the same and the GAR-8 outperforms both. R3R has somewhat less performance than R3S.

 

Reviewing my old Tacview files the decrease in performance occurred sometime in August of 2016, before the R-13M1, R3R could accelerate to ~Mach 2.3

 

Look at the speed it starts at, and look at the speed it finishes at. These are at the same height, same speed, pre-and-post 2016 patch. Compare this to yours.

 

 

 

I'm trying not to talk past you here, But can you really not see the difference between these tacview files and yours? I'm getting really tired of this conversation because you've just gone back to the first argument we were having on page 2.

 

PS: I hope you're aware that mach changes depending on altitude. It's based on the sound barrier. So going higher didn't change the results of these tacviews, it just changed the goalpost it had to meet. This is like the argument we were having on page 2 where the starting speed affects the top speed, only now it's altitude.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Auditor

By the way, what are the effective ranges of the Equivalent missiles of the AIM-9 from the other module? Anyone have any experience with using them? Basically, the R-60 is just the Ruskie Version of the AIM-9, isn't it?

Nop.

 

Very diferente missile the R-60 is. The Atoll is the very basic version of the Aim-9.

That is why I went higher.. As I said I assumed max velocity posted as MACH 2.5 can be achieved only at max altitude which for R-13M is stated as 15000. and indeed at 15000 MACH 2.45 achieved from platform speed of Mach 0.7. I'm talking about R-13M only now.

 

I guess I didn't say it but why we should care about how it was before 2016 or after? We just need to check how it is now and if it is good within known data.

 

Look at the file names on picture you just reposted from Mortirose post, both files named as from 2018. How you know they are from pre and post 2016? Not that it dismisses my initial thought that we should care about how missile performs at the moment.

 

What in my new tests is wrong? lead me here please, and have patience with me poor head. I'm just trying to check your claim that missile doesn't reach Mach 2.5, I did first test you said my platform speed was too high, now I did second test and now what is wrong when I have Mach 0.7 platform speed? I know from the start that max speed will be different on different altitudes, but I'm just trying to build logical line: step by step. To force ED or M3 to change something we need solid ground, if we will just have that something changed after 2016, how we can prove that it didn't change to the more accurate state?

 

Also don't forget we need to test data from R-3S document. And I kinda don't want to do it alone, would be nice if you will spend some time and show tests as well.. We need to check charts on page 12 and 13. I think charts are available on free tacview branch.. check it. If we will have R-3S data as zeroing point we can assume some numbers from there within some error margin.

 

Okay, great. This I can agree with, both of us need to do testing at this point. When I get some time this week, I'll start testing with the upgraded version of Tacview along with video, hopefully.

Also: The reason 2016 is so significant is because this was when the first wave of missile changes were made. You can go look this up in the patch notes when seeker logic for some of these missiles were changed.

 

Which is what the Mortisrose tacview files are saying: after this change, that's when the missiles started having such a deficit in energy.

 

By the way, what are the effective ranges of the Equivalent missiles of the AIM-9 from the other module? Anyone have any experience with using them? Basically, the R-60 is just the Ruskie Version of the AIM-9, isn't it?

No, you're thinking the R-3S, the R-60 is a completely different missile focused on maneuverability. The R-3S is an almost 1:1 recreation of the AIM-9B, the same missile that is mounted on the Saber and the Tiger ii. Which is why I'm baffled that they don't share the same performance characteristics in-game.

The R-13 has even less of an excuse, because it is a version of the R-3S that came much later with increased range and better aerodynamics.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Auditor

Has anyone reading that document figured out, why the very same missile has different range, or at least launch zone, when fired from different MiG-21 variants? I can not think of any reason for that.

The chart I posted was from 2018. The thin red and purple lines are showing kinetic energy (I suppose in kilojoules) with GAR-8 reaching 24969, R-3S at 15892. I have several old Tacview files from 2016 multiplayer sessions I could show graphs from.

From a multiplayer environment in 2016

A link to my Tacview files from 2016-01-10 to 2017-06-12

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fJXBriFlvknyA-JXJfbeexnjZFsd_I2g?usp=sharing

 

Tacview20160812 is when I first noticed a change in missiles.

Also I've noticed the Motor of the R-3S runs for about 6 seconds before burning out. Acceleration is slower when compared to GAR-8 with the GAR-8's motor burning out in about 3 seconds or less and accelerating faster. This can be seen in the graph I posted in post #4.

 

According to the document (if I'm reading it correctly translated) from 2005 linked in Hiromachi's post #21 the R-3S motor should run for 1.7 - 3.3 seconds depending on charge temperature as per section 1.4.2., 2.4.1, and shown in 2.4.2

 

1.4.2 page 6:

"...depending on the temperature of the charge, works for 1.7 - 3.3 s."

 

2.4.1 page 34:

Engine running time:

 

at charge temperature + 60С ... 1.7s

at a charge temperature of –54 ° C ... 3.2 s

 

Section 2.4.2 on page 37 shows a graph to support this: Fig. 33.

Thank you so much Mortisrose. I haven't had time recently to do this and I really appreciate your analysis.

Report I made concerning the R-3S:

Also posted in Leatherneck Bugtracker

 

 

Tacview files to go with report here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Up0Ncryq7KA9ejZ1PPV0LIM1I-p5AxmR

 

 

Correction: *Aim-9B at 5km was launched at M 1.3, target M 1.0*

R-3S Performance.pdf

Edited November 28, 2018 by Mortisrose
added link, correction

And underperforming at low altitude by roughly 20%.

Yes, max range under-performance at low altitudes, over-performance at higher altitudes.

R-3S and Aim-9B at 5 km, Mach 1.3 launch speed:

 

R-3S: Max speed: M 2.4 in 7 sec.; Range: 3.4 km; M 1.1 over launch speed; At +20 sec. flight: M 0.8; M 1.6 speed reduction from top speed, Detonation time: 22 sec.

 

Aim-9B: Max speed: M 2.8 in 3 sec.; Range: 3.4 km; M 1.5 over launch speed; At +20sec. flight: M 0.8, M 2.0 speed reduction from top speed; Detonation time: 25 sec.

 

Whats interesting is both missiles after 20 seconds of flight are traveling at almost the same speed and reached same range even though the Aim-9B reached M 0.4 higher speed in less than half the time. At +20 seconds Aim-9B is dropping at 2.2 deg/s out of the sky, R-3S is still flying straight ahead. It appears the Sidewinder has more drag, about 22% if taken the difference between speed reduction of M 2 and 1.6 from top speed. Both missiles should have near the same weight, 165 lb (74.8 kg) Aim-9B and 75.3 kg R-3S.

 

Here are both missiles at +20 after launch: