Jump to content

AIM-7 Aerodynamics


Xordus

Recommended Posts

@IASGATG So since i recently got into a bit of AtoA combat and i previously heard it mentioned (can' really recal where, youtube maybe) a couple of times that missiles in DCS have roughly a 30 to 40% lower range over all AtoA conditions and setups....and that this was due to ED's gameplay considerations. Somehow getting people closer together before the fight. Again, can't point to specific posts or videos, thats just what i recall.

 

Would you say there is nothin to it and perceived missile performance in DCS was always due to engine technology, time and resources poured into it rather than ''gameplay design decision''?

 

I am just curious as to whether i can more or less forget the entire issue and just let time pass until the overhaul is finished with the expectation to have the most realistic missile model ED can produce with what is available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel that you're doing justice to how accurately modeled missiles can be.

If you look at the AIM-9M modeled in DCS. There are publicly available documents that list it's Cd, Cl, Cm, Xcp, Thrust, Structural Limits, etc etc. This gives you all the information you will ever need to make an accurate and realistic simulation of how it performs.

 

Likewise, having spoken to people at ED, I know they have reliable data for the Sparrow as well. Similar techniques that can be applied to any missile, given the time and money. None of this is breaking any secrets acts or IP law. It's just physics. Saying that they are taking artistic licence with it is like saying that the cockpit isn't realistic and they are just taking artistic licence with that too.

 

 

A better way of putting it would be that although ultra-realistic modelling is certainly possible, it wouldn't be allowed for use in a public-release entertainment sim. That's what I meant.

 

 

Instead, we get a pretty good representation of how things generally behave. It's easiest to do with "generic" items, such a solid lead slugs or cannon shells that have no guidance system, which is why I maintain that for best realism as far as weapons performance goes, you're better off sticking with guns :)

 

 

Radar, guided missiles of all varieties, and even the effectiveness of chaff & flares on various missile types is the kind of info that's not only hard to get, but is a political hot potato in some respects. For example, the latest Sidewinder X and AMRAAM D missiles are incredibly expensive, and if they're either extremely good or extremely bad at rejecting countermeasures, no-one will want the general public to know about it. We just assume the latest ultra-expensive Western equipment is un-beatably good, and the rest of the world is scrambling madly to catch up :)

 

 

But you're right, their general flight performance such as acceleration, top speed at a given altitude, turning ability etc. can be reasonably accurately guessed based on fairly straightforward physics.

 

 

AD

Kit:

B550 Aorus Elite AX V2, Ryzen 7 5800X w/ Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 SE, 2 x 16GB Kingston Fury DDR4 @3600MHz C16, Gigabyte RTX 3070 Windforce 8GB, EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 PSU, HP Omen 32" 2560x1440, Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS fitted with Leo Bodnar's BU0836A controller.

--Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground, and having all the rules and regulations get in the way!

If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with a lot more money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a bit better. I think there is a bug which I've asked about which undoes some of the good work, but I've found that for a 10kft alt engagement, it adds about 0.5-0.75M worth of energy to the missile. The bug I think I found is where at 8km, the missile suddenly switches to 100% PN which if I understand the code correctly, it shouldn't. This means when it hits 8km it suddenly goes from gentle 1.5g turns to 10-15g turns which dumps a ton of energy. We'll see if this is a bug or is as intended though.

 

I did some testing in the weekend and it looks like it's a matter of guidance phase.

 

What I saw is that if you dropped lock around 6-8 miles (assumed HPRF range) there was a violent oscillating behavior with very high and nonsensical Gs. Once it got within 6 miles it either stabilized to normal behavior or lost the target completely. Sometimes it picked it up later and repeated this behavior.

 

On the other hand if you had TWS or STT support until within 6 miles (assumed MPRF range) this violent behavior did not occur and the missile guided smoothly all the way.

 

The other thing I noticed is that it's VERY easy to notch the missile. You literally just have to fly through the notch for a fraction of the second (hot/cold turns are enough) and the missile will lose you, and even if it managed to reacquire this might be enough to cause a miss. But this is all missing features IIRC, currently I don't think the ARH heads have any memory or support in terminal phase from the launching platform. I tried STT or TWS all the way but it doesn't help against the notch.

 

So far online I didn't feel much of a difference in range or reliability though and I didn't similarly examine the previous versions to have a meaningful conclusion.


Edited by <Blaze>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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