Jump to content

MISTRAL suspected bug


Dino Might

Recommended Posts

Can we have TacView at sea level of Aim-9X, R-27r, and Mistral fired at the target at 5km... let's take bets which one will have the best odds and will first hit the target...

 

Stinger in the game feels natural, Mistral like a Rail Gun... has than ED got all of their missiles that wrong then?

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Again, the videos give no status of the actual version shown.

As I stated, the animation of the missile is something we can debate.

NEZ of the mistral and stinger are for both missiles roughly around 4500m.

We are talking here about NEZ and not max range.

For us the discussion is obsolete.

 

@fragal: You think is is BS.

Well as long as you are not working with the missiles in RL and as long as you are not Rythoon or a weapons specialist and you have no classification permit you can have an opinion, but calling something BS is anything then constructive.

Therefore, thanks for the videolinks, but that is about it.

 

I could give you a rough data of the original missiles, but as stated before, a puplic forum is not a place to share classified information.

 

A suggestion from my side is to search for the data of the stinger which can be found online, but even they are changed on certain aspects.

 

@FoxAlfa:

We do not know if ED has got all thier missiles wrong, but what I know is, that the russian missiles are not correct on multiple aspects. Why that is that way we do not know and we do not ask for the reasons. If the stinger ingame is wrong in performances? I do not know, cause I have not taken a look at it yet. In other words, I have not made a test yet and at the moment I am not planning on testing a missile that is not in our hands for now.

 

For us the topic is closed for now.

This might sound rude or some people will not comprehend our standing, but, as long as we do not get any constructive numbers from the people that claim the mistral would be wrong, and youtube videos will not do, we see this as a basic complain that has not a very strong base of facts.

 

I hope I do not disappoint you to much here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it literally is BS and from this thread i'm not the only one who thinks that....so i guess lets replace all land based shorad with mistrals and every a2a weapon as it's clearly superior to everything else it outperforms 90% of every other short range missile in game. Including SA15's.

That's a powerful little motor with it's 2 second burn time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fragal: I am not going to argue with you here. Send me the data of the real missile that are classified. After that, lets talk.

 

You have not even responded on the 4500m NEZ, so I am assuming that you know about the 2 stages of burn, like I assume that you can agree that you do not see a 2 stage burn on the videos. I am not sharing anymore about this missile for now.

 

If you want to stay constructiv on the matters of this topic, please come up with numbers and I am happy to discuss them in regards if they are somewhere close to real data.

 

That also applies to anyone else who likes to discuss the mistral.

 

Thanks a lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to stay constructiv on the matters of this topic, please come up with numbers and I am happy to discuss them in regards if they are somewhere close to real data.

 

A 20Kg missile (Compared to 10Kg for stinger), which is also quite a bit longer and wider than stinger. It's going to have more fuel. Yep, I can see the 2.6M peak speed vs stinger's 1.8M and that's fine by me. You're going to get there in one of two ways: Boost to it all the way, or sustain to it all the way (excluding the launch motor here). Whichever way Mistral does it, the amount of fuel present determines the useful range.

It's a very fast missile compared to stinger, thanks to its larger mass and larger fuel content.

The high speed is key to this missile being successful.

 

Your CM rejection setting in-game though, AFAIK, is appears to be too high. Relatively high sensitivity to CMs by Mistral was confirmed by real firing tests in Finland.

 

Mistral, like Stinger, and other MANPADS, has tiny little fins. The range of these missiles is not only limited by the peak speed they achieve, but also by their relative high stall speed. Once the rocket motor is spent, these missiles will lose speed very quickly (they're light, so the effect of drag force is large) and their little fins will not be able to steer them for long - they're probably useless before they even become subsonic by comparison to missiles with large fins that can keep them effective against certain types of targets down to M0.5.

This stuff is important: Both stinger and Mistral have similar effective ranges, but they get there differently. Stinger does so by burning longer and having a lower speak speed (so less drag), Mistral has a pointy-nose which really reduces drag, but the diameter and high speed pile it back on - it's going to hit the brakes hard once the motor burns out ... something on the order of an entire mach number in the span of about 5 seconds. That's nothing to sneeze at of course: with an average speed of 650m/s it's going to far in those few seconds.

 

I can gather more information but I'm already quite certain that you have some corrections to make. Reasonable calculations regarding the ballpark capability of the missile can be made. Yes, they won't be super-accurate but it's beside the point; they're ball-park and they can tell you a lot of things.

 

Likewise, I wouldn't talk about ED getting the Russian missiles wrong ... their sources include not only detailed literature, but actual RuAF DLZ planning tools for those missiles, and even detailed information such as the ECCM circuit.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey GG, been a while hope you've been keeping well ?

 

@borchi

No your right i'm not an expert but i have a fairly good general understanding of missile physics though and from your mention of the motor it's the mistral 2 we have ? I would maybe suggest in that case you do try and make that known in game along with some appropriate model updates though unfortunately i still fail to see how the first stage ejection motor is able to power when it separates from the missile maybe 15ft from the launcher is enough to help boost that missile up 17500k feet and it still going 1400knots also will just leave this here as well because i still feel skeptical that the missile can do it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_-hzqBGHI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GGTharos:

I am not going into this what is wrong or what is right on the russian missiles for a good reason. I tried to answer the question raised in some normal way and not point a finger directly at ED. That was not and will not be my intention. Other then that, I could hand you the contact for the russian missiles, if you think you need or want someone, but that is up to you guys.

 

I have read your post there. I do understand your point.

 

What we could do is talk about missile values and at the end we can figure if certain thoughts are right or wrong.

 

Sure the Stinger is slower and it also has a round shaped head, but if the stinger is facing less speed and more drag then a mistral, how can certain values then be true for the stinger ?

 

Max range is 8km/ Minimum range 1000m. NEZ around 4500m for medium to high altitude targets/ 3800m for low flying targets. Max speed is 750m/s. self destruct at 15s - 19s after launch. ?

So looking at the values of a missile that is supposed to be performing less powerful on longer ranges then the mistral, does the mistral represented by us make more sense ?

 

Basically we are scratching here a surface that we maybe should not discuss puplic, cause as you know, missile perfromances are classified and not ment for puplic discussions.

 

As a sidenote, the data of the stinger that I have mentioned can be found online.


Edited by borchi_2b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GGTharos: Max range is 8km/ Minimum range 1000m. NEZ around 4500m for medium to high altitude targets/ 3800m for low flying targets. Max speed is 750m/s. self destruct at 15s - 19s after launch. ?

So looking at the values of a missile that is supposed to be performing less powerful on longer ranges then the mistral, does the mistral represented by us make more sense ?

 

 

It doesn't sorry. 3 sec motor burn to 2.6M (800m/s) is what it should be. It shouldn't be terminating at 17000' and 1400kts, just no - this makes no physical sense :)

 

 

If we take just the max range you've mentioned and the maximum possible time to self destruct, the missile should be running at 430m/s by that time or a little more. That's hardly 1400kts. You'll under 600m/s by 11sec of flight time (the faster you're going at motor burn-out, the faster you slow down) - so yes, your missile SHOULD be fast, but it's retaining far more speed than it ought to.

 

 

Basically we are scratching here a surface that we maybe should not discuss puplic, cause as you know, missile perfromances are classified and not ment for puplic discussions.

 

 

Nothing I said is classified; everything is from open sources - basic, very back-of-the envelope aerodynamics and some knowledge of what missile speed-time profiles look like borchi. You need to have another look at your Mistral, it's doing some things that it shouldn't if it obeys basic laws of physics.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a quick look, here's what I would do (and note I haven't really dug into rocket motor weight etc, but it's probably not the biggest deal in the world):

 

 

Reduce burn time to 3sec from 5 or 6, to match the real rocket motor. Also increase thrust, so that peak-speed is M2.5-2.6 at burn-out.

 

 

After that, you might need to add a bit of drag. You said self destruct is 15-19s ... which one is it? :) Set it to the highest. This is more than is needed to reach 8km. You want to terminate there at about 400m/s (this is a guess, but I think that's about all the little fins can use) so tune drag for that. The missile will fly past 8km in non-guided (straight) flight and self destruct well after this. That is ok because it gives the missile for maneuvering flight.

 

 

Personally I think you're very close with this missile, it just needs a little more fine-tuning. It's in a place where it makes a difference.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no need to be a rocket scientist to realize something is wrong with MISTRAL missile

 

 

it self destructs while it is still very very fast, so :

 

 

- either the people at MBDA are so dumb they severely restricted their missile effective range by setting a way too short timer

 

 

- or it is poorly modeled in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

What GGTharos said and add the smoke to it....

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

1280px-Lansarea_unei_rachete_MISTRAL.jpg

 

A-Launch-MANPADS_2.jpg

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't see anyone talking about the uncanny ability of the IR seeker to detect targets even through solid objects.

 

I've used the Mistral on PvP servers (no shame tbh) and I can track enemy helos behind hills and just ambush them at the moment they enter the valley.

 

That being said, I have also being locked and shot down by a Mig 29 using a R27 semiactive radar while being stationary in front of a hill side at 5 ft over the ground. Super duper pulse radar! And yeah, I know it was a radar missile because the Gazelle has RWR. It was not an ET fired with the EOS.

 

 

Well rotor blades spinning at high speed are a huge radar return irl. But, DCS doesn't model this because... DCS things.

 

Also you can fire ET's from STT, its the only way to get give good guidance without LOBL, basically just turns an ET into a LOAL IR missile.

Being a Mig-29 though, I would put money on it being an R-77, R-27 don't track low/slow targets very well... at all....


Edited by Kazansky222

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so lets clearify here something.

First of all, the RL performance of these weaponsystems, like Mistral, Stingers, Aim9, any ARH or SARH are classified. Therefore, if you like to judge the ingame performance and like to compare the ingame missile with a video of a very early stage prototype missile that is fine o me and the team, but this will not help you or the community at all. I have stated before that we have no info about the videos that you guys use for judgements. Other then that, I can tell you, that Wikipedia is no relevant resource itself in terms of weapon performances.

If you think the Mistral is to powerful, ok, that is your opinion, but believe it or not, we have spoken to the people that use it for living and we have recieved rough numbers and still we have not made it 1 to 1 with the numbers for multiple reasons.

 

So the option for the player is, to like the mistral or hate the mistral. I probabaly come down to the fact on which side of the mistral you are standing, behind, or infront.

 

That said, seekerlogic and balistic performances will not change, cause they are also, very close to the real stinger, just saying :joystick::pilotfly::lol::music_whistling:

 

So what you're saying is that the mistral is correct and the stinger is wrong, so the stinger performance in DCS is not a good comparison?

 

Personally if I had unlimited resources and was a high level decision maker in the DCS software development world, I would just have a few aerospace engineers look at how much fuel is in all the weapons in DCS, find out what type of fuel they are, what is their ISP & thrust, and then run CFD of the weapons at various altitudes various AoA and various G loading to really find out how they should perform relative to each other inside of the game engine.

 

In DCS it is quite obvious that the mistral missile's ballistic performance breaks the meta of DCS. I mean its a pretty hard pill to swallow that the mistral missile which is a very small lightweight and inexpensive (in relative terms) weapon employed from a lightweight and relatively "cheap" helicopter, performs on par with or outright outperforms the AIM-9X, R-73 and more, not to mention stinger, igla ect...

 

It basically breaks the meta of DCS by not fitting into the DCS "World" no pun intended ;), now I believe you when you say you have spoken with operators of the real weapon system and you are alot closer reality then other weapon systems in DCS, it would be your due diligence to do so :thumbup:.

However, the performance of the missile is just so outside the scope of DCS that is breaks the meta, hurts immersion, and generally hurts the community, in single player, its not much of a problem, but in multiplayer, it is.

 

I will say I am a bit disappointed in your hard-line stance against changing ballistic performance of the mistral missile, I hope you reconsider, it would (ahem) help you gain/keep customer(s) ;) but if not for that then for the health of the multiplayer community.:pilotfly:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people think that they know more then the people that have the classification rating or not, makes no difference on the informations we recieved.

 

 

What damn classification rating?

 

There are nations that offer all the information about the Stinger missiles for their infantry personnel in reserve, all that you need to do is to sign in the initiation classes that are couple times a year in various places and there is limited number how many gets in. You can get all the information from there, see missiles disassembled to pieces, every part, every function, every documentation for field servicing, repairs, storage etc available. All the training in the simulators etc. And if you are in active duty, you might be one of the lucky ones to get then to fire the real missile on training target. Sure you don't get the blueprints and source codes to home, but none of that is required as even reserve is trained for maintenance of those weapons and given all the specifications for their operational performance.

 

Yes yes, we can all play the official thing "Destroy the missiles if loss to the enemy is imminent" card, but the information is already out from so many official public sources that has purchased the missile system that if someone thinks that it is "Top Secret", then no.

 

Like only thing that keeps me from disclosing the data, is that I am not allowed to do so. Not because ED forum rules (1.16) states so, but because most people do not have reasons to even have that information. But it is out there, almost like walking to a public library and requesting the specific book from a "closed section". You can't take it with you, you can't make copies of it etc. But it is available.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What damn classification rating?

 

There are nations that offer all the information about the Stinger missiles for their infantry personnel in reserve, all that you need to do is to sign in the initiation classes that are couple times a year in various places and there is limited number how many gets in. You can get all the information from there, see missiles disassembled to pieces, every part, every function, every documentation for field servicing, repairs, storage etc available. All the training in the simulators etc. And if you are in active duty, you might be one of the lucky ones to get then to fire the real missile on training target. Sure you don't get the blueprints and source codes to home, but none of that is required as even reserve is trained for maintenance of those weapons and given all the specifications for their operational performance.

 

Yes yes, we can all play the official thing "Destroy the missiles if loss to the enemy is imminent" card, but the information is already out from so many official public sources that has purchased the missile system that if someone thinks that it is "Top Secret", then no.

 

Like only thing that keeps me from disclosing the data, is that I am not allowed to do so. Not because ED forum rules (1.16) states so, but because most people do not have reasons to even have that information. But it is out there, almost like walking to a public library and requesting the specific book from a "closed section". You can't take it with you, you can't make copies of it etc. But it is available.

One thing is knowing exactly how it works, and another is if you CAN simulate it. This can lead to legal problem depending on their contracts with the real developers.

Chinook lover - Rober -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It breaks physics. You don't need CFDs or anything fancy to determine this - this missile is flat out incapable of even fitting into back-of-the-envelope physics calculations.

 

It's one thing to slide the graph a little in this direction or a little in that direction, and another to just slap some arbitrary figure there and call it 'realistic', followed up by backing it up with 'we don't discuss this' and whatever other excuse there is.

 

Let's face it, polychop didn't even bother running the basic physics on that missile ... they're not simulating anything.

Personally I'd ban the mistral gazelle on any pvp server out there - they have a missile that performs like a much larger, heavier weapon than what it is.

 

In DCS it is quite obvious that the mistral missile's ballistic performance breaks the meta of DCS.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...