Aim-120 Range - Page 10 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2020, 02:16 AM   #91
Max1mus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighthawk2174 View Post
The biggest issue now is guidance not that drag is still most likely high. But fundamentally guidance issues made the drag issues worse, especially the high lift induced drag. The biggest improvements to the amraam will be the addition of:

[...]

- Kalman filters
- Reworked chaff
- High prf search
- Medium PRF tracking (significantly smaller notch than high prf)
- Proper INS guidance (no more magic ins - note may have already been fixed)
Its off topic although you started it, but this list is incomplete.

- Smaller radar cone
- Difference in chaff resistance when supported in STT (properly) and unsupported (i.e. the thing not magically tracking everything, but possibly more like some SARH missiles that just go unrecoverably ballistic vs a barrel roll+chaff)
- Different active seeker detection range, i.e. the missile never even finding the target if not supported with STT in some cases + missile going for chaff while looking (Su-27SK guide quotes difference in seeker lock on range between 40km for hot high bomber vs 1.5km for cold, lookdown, low RCS target).


The way ED models chaff resistance from all i have seen is just an estimation, where Multiplayer or AI (programmed by ED) PK stats are used as evidence. The things you listed may make it overall more realistic, but if the 120s become undefeatable silver bullets you will see ED adjusting the other ECCM features like chaff accordingly to represent what they think are accurate hit chances. If you think that the missiles will somehow become more effective at doing the work for you, i am very certain that this will not happen as long as such changes are applied to all DCS missiles.


I agree with previous posts pointing out things much more important than missile ranges. This 10-20% change in range that ED dedicated resources to has not changed anything major as far BVR combat goes, except that it has elevated 2 missiles (-7,-120) to a different standard, which for example makes all russian flyable fighters incapable to even fight back at all until ED adresses the russian missiles similarly. To name a few features DCS is missing that i consider much more important:

- Finishing the missile API so that Deka Ironworks/HB can make their SD-10 (secondary boost stage)/54(seeker/F-14 radar support) more realistic and thus more in line with the simulator.
- More MODERN russian/chinese AI air units to counter the 2000s DCS modules/missiles.
- More MODERN SAM AI units along with better AI, overall organization to make JSOW/JDAM less of a point and click adventure (latter can currently not be shot down at all!) and require things like saturation attacks + SEAD to be used effectively.

Last edited by Max1mus; 02-23-2020 at 02:35 AM.
Max1mus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 07:32 AM   #92
falcon_120
Senior Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 1,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighthawk2174 View Post
From my own comparisons DCS is on the right track IMHO it is still to draggy as placing the thrust values from DCS into 'that other sim' results in



(C3 - Standard 'that other game' values)

(C5 - DCS thrust)



The biggest issue now is guidance not that drag is still most likely high. But fundamentally guidance issues made the drag issues worse, especially the high lift induced drag. The biggest improvements to the amraam will be the addition of:



- Optimal control theory

- English Bias commands

- A more variable PN structure that can take altitude into account as it does on the AIM-7E/D



- Kalman filters

- Reworked chaff

- High prf search

- Medium PRF tracking (significantly smaller notch than high prf)

- Proper INS guidance (no more magic ins - note may have already been fixed)



Note AIM-7 doc is called "Summary of Navy Study Program For F4H-1 Weapon System". From August of 1960. It was declassified and made unrestricted in 1966.
Hey nighthawk, it'd be cool a comparison with the latest 2.5.6, it seems Aim120c has improved range significantly.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Last edited by falcon_120; 02-25-2020 at 08:05 AM.
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 11:48 AM   #93
nighthawk2174
Member
 
nighthawk2174's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 540
Default

In terms of improvement, 30K ft M1.0 launch

Very old VS 2.5.5 VS Latest 2.5.6

TAS VS TIME

- 120C
- 120B

TAS VS DISTANCE

- 120C
- 120B
nighthawk2174 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 02:15 PM   #94
falcon_120
Senior Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 1,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighthawk2174 View Post
In terms of improvement, 30K ft M1.0 launch

Very old VS 2.5.5 VS Latest 2.5.6

TAS VS TIME

- 120C
- 120B

TAS VS DISTANCE

- 120C
- 120B
Thanks! Your data shows data the difference is marginal, even non existance on some regimes. I guess the biggest improvements that could emerge from the new lofting logic are not well reflected here (these are no lofting shots right?)

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2020, 02:33 AM   #95
nighthawk2174
Member
 
nighthawk2174's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 540
Default

Yeah I tired over and over again to get the in game missiles to loft but they refused to so I gave up after a while, I may try again here at some point.
nighthawk2174 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 02:48 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.