Does "Loft" mode work? - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2019, 05:07 AM   #21
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
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

Last edited by RShackleford; 02-21-2019 at 05:22 AM.
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 06:19 AM   #22
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,883
Default

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

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 08:54 PM   #23
sk000tch
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
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.
sk000tch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 09:04 PM   #24
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk000tch View Post
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.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Last edited by GGTharos; 02-21-2019 at 09:06 PM.
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 11:38 PM   #25
sk000tch
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
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): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-DkOKGWnI
sk000tch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 11:56 PM   #26
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk000tch View Post
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): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-DkOKGWnI
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.
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 03:48 AM   #27
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk000tch View Post
Actually no, I'm not making assumptions.

You're making gigantic assumptions.



Quote:
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): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-DkOKGWnI

Like I said, I know IASGATG.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 04:20 AM   #28
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
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.
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 05:21 AM   #29
Rainmaker
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 654
Default

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.
Rainmaker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 05:41 AM   #30
RShackleford
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
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

Last edited by RShackleford; 02-22-2019 at 05:54 AM.
RShackleford is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.