Does "Loft" mode work?

Actually no, I'm not making assumptions. Its the opposite of what you are saying. This is a stupid argument to have, the weapons "capabilities and limitations" are the physics and guidance, they are the same thing. A missile isn't a Newtonian baseball thrown through the air. You can't solve a simple equation to determine where it will land based on trajectory and velocity. Its an "aircraft" with 4 wings, and 4 tail fins moving at a high rate of speed, that is then supplied with a fixed amount of force causing acceleration, that makes control inputs while accelerating and while decelerating, inducing drag and changes in direction, in response to guidance commands. The physics aren't "just the physics," that's the whole problem. The behavior of fluids around a wing at supersonic velocities can be approximated, with varying levels of complexity. DCS models it one way, but its an approximation, and by definition it is "wrong" to some extent - as are all models. Drag in particular is difficult, and as loft mode is designed to decrease drag by maximizing flight time in less dense air, the accuracy of the model as it pertains to drag substantially effects whether Loft Mode is worthwhile.

 

Ironically, the capabilities of the older missiles we have in DCS are well documented. We know the type and mass of propellant, weight, shape, battery life, etc. In addition to the issues associated with the model, what we don't know precisely is the guidance (or flight path shaping in your words). RL versions are smarter, they do not make high G corrections during burn or in response to small maneuvers so as to not waste energy like the DCS models do (less susceptible to the DCS Roll), and as a result are better able to use their max aerodynamic range - but the problem is much more complex than that.

 

Don't take my word for it, Ralfi has a good video with the guy who performed the mesh models (and got himself a new job for it):

If this guy's missiles are going to be directly implemented into DCS, that just makes me more excited about the F-14. Finally missiles that work outside of 6 miles.

Actually no, I'm not making assumptions.

You're making gigantic assumptions.

Don't take my word for it, Ralfi has a good video with the guy who performed the mesh models (and got himself a new job for it):

Like I said, I know IASGATG.

You're making gigantic assumptions.

Like I said, I know IASGATG.

Come on, dude. We both know the missiles in DCS have very inaccurate guidance and aerodynamic models. You should know that guidance algorithms for missiles are more complicated than an equation to hit a target flying straight and level through time of flight, and those things are classified. Guidance alone is why the AIM-120D has such a such a better range over an AIM-120C5.

If you know IASGATG, who acknowledges that DCS missiles suck (from the video), yet you say that there are no plans to change it, my question is: Does ED know it sucks but just can't get good info on missiles, so it won't implement data from shady sources? Or is it that ED knows it will be kind of gameplay ruining for Russian jet fliers?

I really expect the latter, because Russian jet's just really don't have a WEZ with an AA-10C (R-27ER) to fight a realistic AIM-120 threat on even grounds.

If there's a roadmap to make more realistic missiles, ED should put that out in a newsletter. If there isn't ever a roadmap to it and the missiles keep performing like s***, I really just assume ED's focus is to make things "balanced" instead of realistic.

Gonna be honest, I've always felt it was due to balance and not so much not having the capability of fixing it...just not really desiring to.

It isn't meant to be a fair fight in the real world, but in this case, I think it is.

Gonna be honest, I've always felt it was due to balance and not so much not having the capability of fixing it...just not really desiring to.

 

It isn't meant to be a fair fight in the real world, but in this case, I think it is.

This is exactly how I feel. All of DCS "realism" as far as air to air goes is just to make it a game. DCS air to air priority is to make things even. The priority isn't to make it realistic combat.

This game isn't a sim until the missiles do things realistically. Everything up to now is complete bulls***

Edit time.You're really a complete idiot on air to air weapons if you think there's a set course to take on another air to air fighter. There's algorithms that prevent energy bleed. You absolutely have never been in aero engineering or in a fighter world. Sorry, friend, but the DCS missiles are just f***ing bad

I come from the Red camp (~15 years), but have been flying the F/A-18C exclusively for the past 5 months. I will say this, on the topic of missile performance in DCS...

Missile dynamics are a lot better since ED implemented "adaptive proportional navigation factors". Before that, however, they had already disabled lofting for R-27 and R-77 missiles quoting realism. Yes, we cried and complained, but we learned to live with it. Yes, the dynamics need to be updated, and I believe ED are already working on the physics portion of it (guidance and navigation are separate), but there are limitations, both computational and that pertaining to classified "military" information.

Also, not all changes are for balance. I agree with GGTharos on the point that missile trajectory can be calculated, and the effect of wind, air resistance etc. modeled for the sim. BUT, I also agree with RShackleford on the point that not enough is being done in this regard and missiles continue to be unrealistic. DCS continues to grow and use the hardware better so looking at where we come from, we should see advancements in the future.

But before we delve into what's "realistic" or "unrealistic"... I have another question... if we look at recent and past conflicts, how has the performance of A2A missiles been? An AIM-9X missed an Su-22 in Syria, using cold-war era flares ... almost all US A2A engagements have mostly been against lesser equipped nations flying older aircraft. Depending on the source, the reported Pk of AMRAAM varies quite a lot but is upwards of 60%. Can we say the same in DCS? Real-world pilots use better tactics and value their lives. Players in the game know and understand how the missile's guidance logic would work and use it to their advantage when avoiding missiles.

So, when modeling for a sim like DCS ... Should we consider anecdotal evidence when we gauge a missile's reliability and performance (and if yes, then which side's?), or the manufacturer's charts (marketing comes into play here), or the publicly available information (news and other media; which can also be biased), or flight manuals (which are available online, despite other "classified" intel)? Heck, there have been articles on the Internet claiming how a MiG's radar conflicted with western missile datalinks... what do you use as the basis for your modeling?

CFD calculations are only as good as the model, but do we (civvies) really have laser-scanned models of the missiles (I admit, I could be misinformed on this one)?

If we are going into realism then, kinematics aside, there's plenty of other factors which also come into play which would affect the actual Pk of a missile. Jamming, being the first of them... and DCS truly lacks a good EW simulation. The Jammers are simplistic, at best. Then you have radar modeling ... we don't consider conflicting frequencies or reflections. A lot of it is done simply to make the simulation playable on a desktop computer, and retain the "entertainment product" part of it.

But before we delve into what's "realistic" or "unrealistic"... I have another question... if we look at recent and past conflicts, how has the performance of A2A missiles been?

Pretty good actually.

An AIM-9X missed an Su-22 in Syria, using cold-war era flares

I see that the myth lives on :) That missile malfunctioned. AIM-9X won't care about flares after it's locked onto an aircraft.

Heck, there have been articles on the Internet claiming how a MiG's radar conflicted with western missile datalinks... what do you use as the basis for your modeling?

User manuals. :)

CFD calculations are only as good as the model, but do we (civvies) really have laser-scanned models of the missiles (I admit, I could be misinformed on this one)?

It has to do with the skill and knowledge of the operator also.

Anyway yes, it's a complex simulation with many parts and the more realism is desired, and more knowledge (and work) is required.

You should know that guidance algorithms for missiles are more complicated than an equation to hit a target flying straight and level through time of flight, and those things are classified.

No they're not ... what a specific missile might be doing is, but guidance algorithms overall are not classified. This is a silly conversation; guidance it 'just equations' ... the very basic PN used to day is 'just an equation', once that's broadly used in missiles everywhere. In RL, they use more - possibly different equations for each axis (vertical/horizontal) and for different phases of flight.

Guidance alone is why the AIM-120D has such a such a better range over an AIM-120C5.

Pretty sure getting launched from an M1.8 F-22 is helping there. And IIRC the larger motor - though don't quite me on that one.

If you know IASGATG, who acknowledges that DCS missiles suck (from the video), yet you say that there are no plans to change it, my question is:

Can you quote where I literally said that? I may have said so a long time ago, but the work on the AIM-7 at this point speaks for itself.

I really expect the latter, because Russian jet's just really don't have a WEZ with an AA-10C (R-27ER) to fight a realistic AIM-120 threat on even grounds.

Heh, really? :) This is where people mistake the limitations of the game for some kind of intent. Here's a simple fact: In DCS R-27s eat chaff, 120Cs do not. R-27s do not loft, AIM-120s do. R-27's do not have an ARH seeker, AIM-120s do. R-27's are less agile than 120s. There are a lot of points of comparison which would suggest that 'balance' is not the intent. These on their own might not be enough to make whatever difference certain people believe it should make, but they are there, they are WHAT is available in-game to use as a differenciator.

It's funny that you're calling people idiots, but at the same time you've absolutely no clue about what's going on within the simulator. ED isn't striving for balance, and they get plenty of complaints about how unfair slammers are. Heck, the 120C is banned on certain servers.

That doesn't speak to realism, but it does speak to the entire balance argument. Same with 9X.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

What I -think - GGTharos is saying is that regardless of whether flight dynamics for missiles are accurate or not, having even a relatively simple loft algorithm will improve a missile's performance in comparison to what we have now. In that sense, you do not need fancy flight models to get more realistic missile behavior (although it would be ideal).

^^^^

Further, such algorithms are out there, 'open source'. There are no secrets with respect to the existence or computation of the algorithms - there is a huge volume of research on such things, as well as guidance algorithms for all phases of flight.

The secrets are the implementation details in a given missile - that part we cannot know. But that in itself isn't stopping anyone from implementing path shaping.

I’ve skimmed the pages of this thread and I haven’t been able to determine if there is a consensus if Loft mode works or not.

My personal experience is that it used to work. Months ago if I lofted a 7 it’d climb upwards to cruise at a much higher altitude.

In my (admittedly limited) recent utilization of the 7 it’ll only track straight and level off the rail.

The loft algorithm right now does some things that makes loft 'not work' even if it works. All WIP I imagine :)

The loft algorithm right now does some things that makes loft 'not work' even if it works. All WIP I imagine :)

Roger that. :thumbup:

My responses are being mischaracterized or misunderstood here, no where do I say that DCS missiles suck. I am correcting facts, and trying to shed some light on the gross oversimplifications in this thread.

You can direct the missile to fly a loft pattern, however, if the effect of drag is modeled incorrectly, particularly if it does not accurately model the effect of air density on drag, then the loft flight path will not produce the same benefit.

That said, we don't even know if that's the problem. Perhaps the implementation is wrong. Perhaps players are trying to loft at 15,000 ft. I have no idea.

My objection to this argument is that the physics are 'just the physics.' Fluid dynamics in general are poorly modeled in flight sims. I say this as someone with experience modelling fluid flows in engineering applications, and as a high hour pilot. Simulators do not model well the way a wing stalls asymmetrically or partially, or how an airplane skids, or how sudden control inputs induce boundary layer turbulence on an airfoil. Its why the planes feel twitchy, and why real life planes are much more challenging (in some ways) to fly. They try, and in some cases its very good - see VRS in the helos for an example, but again, its an approximation.

All simulators, by definition, are an approximation of real world behavior. There are typically a range of scenarios where the approximation is reasonably accurate, and others where it breaks down. Training simulators favor flight model and systems accuracy over graphics. The fly by wire system in the f-18 is another good example. The plane performance improved as the flight model controlling the FBW system improved. DCS is more middle of the road. Neither is inherently good or bad, they are design decisions.

The same is true for missile guidance. Again, having some experience programming PLC control, the idea that a guidance algorithm that guides a object traveling at several thousand mph to intercept a object traveling at several hundred miles per hour that is deliberately maneuvering in a manner to avoid being intercepted are simple or that anything resembling our military's most modern implementation is open source is nuts.

DCS has some issues. For a couple clear examples - the ATC simulation does not accurately model real ATC interaction, nor do AI wingmen accurately model RL wignmen. The missile models have some issues as well. Proximity fusing is unreliable. Evidence strongly suggests, based on the max aerodynamic range, that drag values are too high. In my opinion, the guidance system over reacts to target maneuvering, particularly in the early phase of flight. It is probably a good thing that PK is lower than RL counterparts, as none of us as as skilled as our RL counterparts. We also tend to fly solo more, or with poorly simulated AI wingmen, SEAD support, etc. We don't know, but it might be a deliberate design decision. Again, my opinion, but multiplayer is better for decreased PK.

fwiw I don't hear people complaining about SAMs too much. Jump in a 18 and go buzz the tower of the Kuznetsov, my assumption is that would be a bit more challenging in real life.

The thrust of a solid fuel rocket cannot be adjusted nor stopped once ignited. For that you would need liquid fuel, which is less stable and requires a lot more maintenance.

Meteor missile ramjet use solid fuel and can adjust thrust :smilewink:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)

My responses are being mischaracterized or misunderstood here, no where do I say that DCS missiles suck. I am correcting facts, and trying to shed some light on the gross oversimplifications in this thread.

I suspect you're making things more confusing. People are asking about DCS, not about generalizations.

You can direct the missile to fly a loft pattern, however, if the effect of drag is modeled incorrectly, particularly if it does not accurately model the effect of air density on drag, then the loft flight path will not produce the same benefit.

That's great, but you can't quantify it.

That said, we don't even know if that's the problem. Perhaps the implementation is wrong. Perhaps players are trying to loft at 15,000 ft. I have no idea.

So there's a bunch of deference to IASGATG followed by 'we don't know what the problem is'. I disagree. We do know what the problems are, at various levels of knowledge. I have the DCS EQMs for missiles on my HDD, as well as graphs showing how they work for various drag and lift coefficients and at various AoAs. No, I'm not sharing.

Fluid dynamics in general are poorly modeled in flight sims.

By poorly do you mean 'not doing real-time CFDs'?

DCS is more middle of the road. Neither is inherently good or bad, they are design decisions.

Ok, good general info, likely new for some people and maybe it furthers their understanding.

The same is true for missile guidance. Again, having some experience programming PLC control, the idea that a guidance algorithm that guides a object traveling at several thousand mph to intercept a object traveling at several hundred miles per hour that is deliberately maneuvering in a manner to avoid being intercepted are simple or that anything resembling our military's most modern implementation is open source is nuts.

I'm just going to point you to PN and the fact that pretty much every homing missile uses it out there in some form ... and a guidance algo, it's readily simulated. So, we don't have kalman filters and guidance delays etc. We also don't need them, since we don't have to deal with noise etc. What's nuts is your assumption that you cannot deliver an equivalency in-game to existing guidance algorithms.

Evidence strongly suggests, based on the max aerodynamic range, that drag values are too high.

Ok, where's your evidence? Do you know how ED designs their missile aerodynamics? Have you tried matching AIM-9L/M flyout to the real thing? You might be surprised. So with that in mind, what I am saying is that if you have real figures for a given weapon and you can share them, ED can implement. If you don't, you can cite 'blah blah suggests' all you like, it isn't relevant.

In my opinion, the guidance system over reacts to target maneuvering, particularly in the early phase of flight.

No, the guidance system is using a form PN and it's doing exactly what's expected of it. That 'over-reaction' is missing features, not 'over-reaction' ... which by the way has been dealt with to some degree with the addition of variable PN constants to the guidance algo.

Again, my opinion, but multiplayer is better for decreased PK.

All that does is encourage gamey tactics. That's fine, it's what most people do. It's just the peeps who are trying to get more simulation out of this that pay for it. Increased Pk in the right circumstances will increase realism and generally enrich play.

fwiw I don't hear people complaining about SAMs too much. Jump in a 18 and go buzz the tower of the Kuznetsov, my assumption is that would be a bit more challenging in real life.

We're talking about lofting algos, not overall DCS issues.