The Gazelle Air-Air missiles

Borchi, I truly respect the amount of work gone into the Gazelle, and I can relate to being protective and proud of your work, you should be!

But on the other hand it is quite a pity not improving it to the maximum it can be and especially since lot of people will take as benchmark when gauging if they should by your upcoming undisclosed.

No body is working on assumptions here... data that is being quoted is the official manufacturer ones and can be easily checked by everyone. I think MDBA would be the first ones to promote their range as 7.5km then the 6.5km. Also the flight time and booster time can be now clearly seen again on the official manufacturers video. I do understand that video wasn't available when Gazelle was coded but there is again no reason not to apply that new found knowledge now especially if it would improve the product and make a lot of people happy.

Regarding the smoke produces levels on launch I think we all agree they are on stringer igla level and there is a lot of both picture and video evidence coming from credible sources(army and industru) to verify that.

I think this fixes according to new videos and information would dispel a lot of hostility currently regarding its performance.

borschi you can't provide papers either lol

Do you realize, that according to forum rules, even if someone here would posess the RL documentation for the system, posting it here would result in a ban and removal of the post?

We have lots of missile systems in this game that is supposed to be a simulation. The mistral behaves very differently than comparable missiles. Now which one is wrong? Yours or all the others? If ED has recently developed their own mistral version, why is it that much different than yours?

@Kazansky222 and others that come up with wordslik, I hope x y z steps in and takes over or fixes stuff.

How would you feel about owning something and your neighbour says someone has to step in and take over, just because the person thinks he knows something about you but basically does not know anything about the facts given and only has his assumptions?

 

So please, first of all, stop talking trash, thank you.

 

Other then that, we have x y z data available about the missile, and even if you do not like it, according to the data, which can partially be found in the internet aswell, we have build a missile close to what we have as information given. Other then that, Mistral has not been in the game and we hit limits, but that is something we have to clear with ED and how much access we had in terms of weapons.

 

Thank you a lot for your comprehension and as long as you can only base your complains on pure assumptions, or words like, imho common sense, etcetc, we have a ton full of common sense talk from customers, may it be weapons, flightmodel or rwr or else, but nonof them ever provided hard fact numbers or papers. So thanks, we have a bag full of that, but nothing ever helped, so itis useless baggage.

 

we take critisism very serious, but when you have only an opinion andcan not provide papers, then it is useless and only filling forum post for nothing.

 

Thanks for your reading

Have fun in the virtual skys

I'm sorry but you just asked people to speak in a professional manner, then proceeded to speak to one of your customers in this way and expect us to now treat you seriously? If you wanna be treated as a professional company, then please act like one. Can you imagine a large multi national company responding to a customers feedback in that way?

As others have pointed out, when you defensively fire back at people saying they are just conjecturing, not only does it you look petty and unprofessional, you look ridiculous when you yourself point out that you do not have the data and are merely "conjecturing". This kind of attitude and the state that the gazelle has been left in is why people in the community no longer trust you to deliver a product.

As I said, if you want to be treated and thought of as an actual professional company, then act like one!!

I'm sorry but you just asked people to speak in a professional manner, then proceeded to speak to one of your customers in this way and expect us to now treat you seriously? If you wanna be treated as a professional company, then please act like one.

While I understand your sentiment, the post you react to is an couple of weeks old and I hope we've moved on from insults and back to the subject of this thread.

I'm pleased to say Polychop acknowledged the issue with the Mistral on the 30th October and have promised to make some changes.

Mistral missile

The mistral missile has long been an item of discussion. A community member has supplied us with an altered version of its Lua configuration. This configuration will serve as a base for future adjustments of the mistral missile performance as this configuration seems to be a configuration most people agree on. A first version will be implemented soon and includes amongst other changes, the removal of an apparent “ghost stage” and the addition of a smoketrail.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4051672&postcount=1

You could just use the ED configuration also. Then you avoid all of this and defer to ED for the missile performance. Their configuration is in a reasonable ball-park.

Would you care to share the rocket and drag parameters supplied for your change?

Either way, good to see these changes.

You could just use the ED configuration also. Then you avoid all of this and defer to ED for the missile performance. Their configuration is in a reasonable ball-park.

 

 

Would you care to share the rocket and drag parameters supplied for your change?

 

 

Either way, good to see these changes.

Hi GGTharos,

As the configuration was done by the (or members of the) community it's only fair to post it here as well. In fact we hope we can leave the endless discussion behind us and instead work on the parameters together and settle for a configuration we can all more or less agree on. Like we've stated in the latest sitrep, the missile will be a work in progress for a while but we want to have this first update out of the door as soon as possible and work from there.

Feel free to edit the code below and let us know what you have changed and why and we will certainly take a look and implement it if it makes sense.

Last thing I'd like to say is that there are already some subject matter experts that have suggested some changes to the code below but this is, with exception of the smoketrail related lines and the added comments, the version we have received.

[EDIT] Code below is now obsolete and has been completely rewritten in the new ED format.

Escort = 0, 						--0 - no, 1 - launch aircraft, 2 - another aircraft, 3 - from the ground.
Head_Type = 1, 						--homing type 1 - IR, 2 - Active radar, 3 - Antiradar, 4 - Laserhoming, 5 - Autopilot, 6 - Semiactive radar, 7 -  Semi auto AT.
sigma = {1, 1, 1},					--maximum aiming error in meters, in the coordinates of the target. x - longitudinal axis of the target, y - vertical axis of the target, z - transverse axis of the target.
M = 19.7, 							--gross weight in kg
H_max = 18000,						--maximum flight altitude.
H_min = -1,							--minimum flight altitude.
Diam = 90, 							--Case Diameter in mm
Cx_pil = 1.29,						--
D_max = 7000, 						--low launch maximum range
D_min = 500, 						--minimum starting range
Head_Form = 0, 						--false - hemispherical shape of the head,- // true - lively (~ conical).
Life_Time = 17, 					--lifetime (self-destruction timer), sec.
Nr_max = 30, 						--maximum overload (G load) on turns 
v_min = 669.8, 						--minimum speed.
v_mid = 904.4, 						--average speed.
Mach_max = 2.66, 					--The maximum Mach number.
t_b = 0, 							--engine start time.
t_acc = 5, 							--accelerator run time.
t_marsh = 0, 						--march time.
Range_max = 14000,					--maximum starting range at maximum height.
H_min_t = 0, 						--minimum height of the target over the relief, m.
Fi_start = 1, 						--launch tracking and sighting angle.
Fi_rak = 3.14152, 					--allowable target angle (rad).
Fi_excort = 1, 						--target tracking angle (sight) of the missile.
Fi_search = 99.9, 					--free angle limit.
OmViz_max = 99.9, 					--line of sight speed
warhead = {
mass = 3, 
expl_mass = 5.1, 
other_factors = {1, 1, 1}, 
obj_factors = {1, 1}, 
concrete_factors = {1, 1, 1}, 
cumulative_factor = 0, 
concrete_obj_factor = 0, 
cumulative_thickness = 0, 
piercing_mass = 0.6, 
caliber = 90}, 
Damage = 25,						--direct damage. 
exhaust = { 1, 1, 1, 0.5},			--Tail smoke color format {R, G, B, alpha}. 
X_back = -1,						--the coordinates of the center of the nozzle in the axes of the rocket 
Y_back = 0, 
Z_back = 0, 
Reflection = 0.0182, 				--effective reflective surface, square meters
KillDistance = 7, 
SeekerSensivityDistance = 20000,	-- The range of target with IR value = 1. In meters. 
ccm_k0 = 0.5, 						-- Counter Countermeasures Probability Factor. Value = 0 - missile has absolutely resistance to countermeasures. Default = 1 (medium probability)
SeekerCooled = true, 				-- True is cooled seeker and false is not cooled seeker.
shape_table_data = {
{name = "MBDA_Mistral", 
file = "MBDA_Mistral", 
life = 1, 
fire = {0, 1}, 
username = "MBDA Mistral", 

Hi GGTharos,

 

As the configuration was done by the (or members of the) community it's only fair to post it here as well. In fact we hope we can leave the endless discussion behind us and instead work on the parameters together and settle for a configuration we can all more or less agree on. Like we've stated in the latest sitrep, the missile will be a work in progress for a while but we want to have this first update out of the door as soon as possible and work from there.

Thanks! Just FYI, we never leave the missile discussion, once you check in, you don't check out :D

Feel free to edit the code below and let us know what you have changed and why and we will certainly take a look and implement it if it makes sense.

I've looked at it and I suggest switching to the ED supplied one at this point: Unless there's some code missing here, this is old 'SFM' missile code, ED's is a little more advanced with additional room for growth.

Last thing I'd like to say is that there are already some subject matter experts that have suggested some changes to the code below but this is, with exception of the smoketrail related lines and the added comments, the version we have received.

I've been working with ED's missile code for a while, and I sort of maintain the missile mod, though the missiles have got better enough that it isn't needed as much now.

The code you have there uses an out-dated model, and the seeker setting (Fi_Search, imviz_max etc) is incorrectly set up as well.

The rocket motor appears to fire for 2 sec longer than it should as well.

A typical rocket motor will fire for a shorter time to get to a higher peak speed. You expend the same total impulse in a shorter time, you get more acceleration.

Again, I strongly suggest switching to EDs version, they seem to have worked it out fairly well. Any suggestions/changes that I make to your snipper here would resemble ED's version of this.

Thanks for your reply GGTharos,

It sounds like it is worth it to check out ED's version and we will. Also, I'd gladly get in touch with you on Discord if you're up for that. With your experience you seem to be the go to guy to talk about missile configurations for DCS.

I'd be happy to help, PM me and we'll get in touch.

Done, thanks!

I don't think I was trash talking at all.

Maybe something was lost or picked up in translation?

All I said is that I hope ED forces a fix, if thats not the case then I hope somebody at poly forces a fix. And the thing is the flight model of the Gazelle really only effects the person flying it, and people who purchased it, if they are ok with it and Polychop says it good, and ED agrees that its good, fine its good. But the Mistral effects people who have not purchased the Gazelle from Polychop, its unrealistic performance ruins the experience for others.

Now I don't have access to any secret documents or confidential information, but I do have nearly 20 years working in Aerospace professionally, and can do some relatively basic math, and those rough back of the napkin calculations have told me there there is not a single solid rocket propellant in existence on earth that can give the mistral the performance it has in DCS and "smokeless propellants even less so". In fact the only propellant that got it up to and beyond the performance it demonstrates in DCS is metallic hydrogen and it only exists in theory, I believe a lab have said they they may have made a tiny amount of it but its yet to be independently verified.

Scientifically your missile should not perform like it does, its is quite literally impossible.

Now I do not believe this is trash talking, this is just simply stating facts.

I appreciate 3rd party devs bringing more life into DCS World, and I hope they all continue to grow and succeed, but not at the expensive of bringing unrealistic performances into DCS World.

Personally I'm happy with the direction that chosen to take right at this point.

Commendations to the crew.

With pointers from GGTharos we have rewritten the flight model for the Mistral completely, in a much more advanced format that has been introduced by ED after the Gazelle was released. This should bring the Mistral behavior closer to that of it's real life counterpart. We hope you'll be pleased with it but we're open to feedback.

With pointers from GGTharos we have rewritten the flight model for the Mistral completely, in a much more advanced format that has been introduced by ED after the Gazelle was released. This should bring the Mistral behavior closer to that of it's real life counterpart. We hope you'll be pleased with it but we're open to feedback.

Do you have a rough idea when we can expect to see the new fm in an open beta release?

Hi WildWeasel303,

One of many things we learned is not to make any promises on release dates. What we can do however is be as transparent as we can about the process. The first updates will be released when the sound issue has been resolved. Completely rewriting the soundcode from scratch has the highest priority at the moment as it is a gamebreaking bug. This also gives us the time to test the new bugfixes and features before we release it in to open beta. If all goes well the first update will include the new soundcode, new Mistral FM, nightvision and RWR. More things will be added to that list as we work on the bugfixlist. Providing ED updates will not break any of the new features and bugfixes.

Good job guys. Look forward to the release. Best of luck in all of your future endeavors.

Personally I love the Gazelle and tidying up these flaws will make it even better. On a commercial level getting the Gazelle to the highest standard possible and keeping it there makes so much sense. Customers will often judge whether to purchase new offerings based on the feedback of current owners of older modules. Really looking forward to the improvements, great news from Polychop.