Does "Loft" mode work?

After testing the AIM-7 I wonder if "LOFT" mode works? In the Caucasus practice mission for the AIM-7 I immediately lock up a target with the missile in "NORM" mode, and soon get the blinking "SHOOT" message. I then switch to "LOFT" and it takes quite a while before I see the blinking "SHOOT". I thought the purpose of "LOFT" mode was increased range?

It does - whether it increases range depends on the altitude and speed of the launcher and target.

That's why you can select it or not.

Why is "Loft" a selectable mode? I thought it was purely a physics related thing?

Apologies for my ignorance - new to the F-18 in DCS. I've flown Falcon in the past, and to loft, you just pointed the nose in the air and it modified the DLZ.

It has to do with the missile itself. Loft for the 7 is a selectable mode in the eagle as well. Not on the fc3 one though.

Okay, I just hope that they include an explanation in the final manual. So we know under which circumstances the "LOFT" mode is better than "NORM".

When you want 20% more range on long shots, typically against non-maneuvering targets.

In the 120 it's automatically programmed (not quite reflected in DCS right now, but might be as the AA systems of the hornet evolve), in the AIM-7MH it is selectable.

I'm just speculating, could it be that LOFT optimizes range over speed and maneuverability, i.e. LOFT burns fuel more slowly. That would explain why the no escape range decreased with LOFT for Fred00 and why it would typically be used against non-maneuvering targets like GGTharos says.

I'm just speculating, could it be that LOFT optimizes range over speed and maneuverability, i.e. LOFT burns fuel more slowly. That would explain why the no escape range decreased with LOFT for Fred00 and why it would typically be used against non-maneuvering targets like GGTharos says.

Being picky, but it does not burns fuel slower, since it has nothing to do with an engine setup, but selects a flight profile going high were air is thinner thus it has less drag, after that the missile can coast downhill to the target (hopefully non maneuvering one).

I think its not working atm.

A quick search on the net of course gives the answer:

Lofted is the default flight profile and is automatically selected upon initial weapon selection. Missile lofting places the missile at a higher altitude for most of the missile time of flight than non-lofted launches. The higher trajectory causes the missile to lose less energy since the missile flies through higher-altitude, less dense air, allowing extended missile range and/or greater missile energy at target intercept. In most cases, a lofted missile has greater capability than a non-lofted missile and does not decrease capability. Lofting may be deselected by unboxing the LOFT option from the STORES format.

Being picky, but it does not burns fuel slower, since it has nothing to do with an engine setup, but selects a flight profile going high were air is thinner thus it has less drag, after that the missile can coast downhill to the target (hopefully non maneuvering one).

The range circle does not vary when (de-)selecting LOFT (neither changing to another Sparrow type does...)

my question:

is the LOFT type to increase the distance from which is shot or just give the missile an energy adventage towards the target?

The range circle does not vary when (de-)selecting LOFT (neither changing to another Sparrow type does...)

 

 

my question:

is the LOFT type to increase the distance from which is shot or just give the missile an energy adventage towards the target?

If I'm understanding you correctly, the answer to your question would seem to be "both." For a given range, your missile would likely have higher energy at the target (and presumably higher Pk) with LOFT mode. If you are trying to achieve a given energy state at the target, you could fire from further away with a LOFT profile.

As an example, real AMRAAMs almost always loft. According to one manual, they won't loft if the computed time of flight is less than 10s. That's 5nm, head-on.

"The higher trajectory causes the missile to lose less energy since the missile flies through higher-altitude, less dense air, allowing extended missile range and/or greater missile energy at target intercept."

My simple mind is struggling to understand why you wouldn't use this mode on every shot?

"The higher trajectory causes the missile to lose less energy since the missile flies through higher-altitude, less dense air, allowing extended missile range and/or greater missile energy at target intercept."

 

My simple mind is struggling to understand why you wouldn't use this mode on every shot?

See GGTharos' response. If you are head on with your target at close range, your missile should have more than enough energy to reach the target and maneuver for a kill. More important in that situation is having the shortest time of flight possible so that your missile hits him before his hits you. A more direct path would likely result in shorter TOF than lofting. The benefits of lofting are greater at longer range when the missile has further to go through dense air on a direct path.

ahh ok i understand now thank you sir

I'm just speculating, could it be that LOFT optimizes range over speed and maneuverability, i.e. LOFT burns fuel more slowly.

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.

As an example, real AMRAAMs almost always loft. According to one manual, they won't loft if the computed time of flight is less than 10s. That's 5nm, head-on.

Is work being done to make them loft? Would be nice to get a more realistic WEZ on this thing, though I know it is a limitation of unclass info you dudes can attain. I think you've seen me complain numerous times on here about WEZs being horrible in DCS, so I'm sure you're sick of it lol.

I don't know if they're working on it, but classified documentation is probably a non issue here.

No

I don't know if they're working on it, but classified documentation is probably a non issue here.

Classified docs aren't an issue for a realistic AMRAAM? Or are you trying to say something else? If you meant the former, it's pretty safe to say you're wrong.

I'm not trying to downplay how great this sim is, Tharos, but there are a lot of limitations on what you can do. Still love DCS

What, I can't have an equation or set of equations for a good loft algorithm? No need for any secret documents for that :)

What, I can't have an equation or set of equations for a good loft algorithm? No need for any secret documents for that :)

You're substantially underestimating the complexity of missile flight modeling.

Missile performance in DCS is the proverbial dead horse. They are working on it to some extent, but it is not realistic. The 7 is better than it was, others need work.

Guidance profiles doesn't matter if the flight model is not accurate. More specifically, whether the missile lofts into higher air for less drag is irrelevant if drag is not accurately modeled. Educated players have conducted fluid dynamics models that takes weeks of processing time depending on mesh size, and provided them to ED to help, but it is not a simple equation or set of equations to model drag and energy loss for a streamline object traveling at several times the speed of sound with very large control surfaces (relative to its overall cross sectional drag), with very high AoAs. Throw in variable air density, the reason loft exists, and you can appreciate the problem.

fwiw DCS is a sim, but its an entertainment sim. In general DCS missiles are "dumber" than their RL counterparts, with a tendency to waste energy early in their flight path resulting in decreased hit probability relative to what it should he as range increases. Be careful what you wish for however, let's see how players like zero warning aim-54 hits from 15 miles in a couple weeks.

You're substantially underestimating the complexity of missile flight modeling.

You're making some substantial assumptions yourself there.

Good loft algos will do good work. Path shaping is not a secret, neither are the equations for flight path shaping. While the real secret is each weapon's capabilities and limitations, the physics are the physics.

You're making some substantial assumptions yourself there.

 

Good loft algos will do good work. Path shaping is not a secret, neither are the equations for flight path shaping. While the real secret is each weapon's capabilities and limitations, the physics are the physics.

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):