Viggen's RB-75's vs. A-10's AGM-65's

[ac5]

The Viggen’s RB-75’s (all variants) seem to lock to the targets from further away and more easily than the AGM-65’s (all variants) of the A-10C, regardless if the TGP is used to target and then the maverick slaved to it or not.

 

Moreover, the image from the Viggen’s RB-75’s head in the cockpit is far clearer and sharper.

 

Either is the Viggen too “easy” or the A-10 too “hard” or are the suedes better at it or I am doing something wrong here? :cry:

 

Missions included, (identical, only the plane changes).

RBSandAGMS.zip

[mattebubben]

The Viggen’s RB-75’s (all variants) seem to lock to the targets from further away and more easily than the AGM-65’s (all variants) of the A-10C, regardless if the TGP is used to target and then the maverick slaved to it or not.

 

Moreover, the image from the Viggen’s RB-75’s head in the cockpit is far clearer and sharper.

 

Either is the Viggen too “easy” or the A-10 too “hard” or are the suedes better at it or I am doing something wrong here? :cry:

 

Missions included, (identical, only the plane changes).

 

The lock range is most likely still WIP

since the AGM-65A and AGM-65B (RB 75 and RB 75T are based on the AGM-65A and RB 75B is a fictional designation for a "Swedish" AGM-65B)

had the worst Seeker lock ranges (Against Vehicles sized targets) of any of the Maverick variants

(as they were the first variants).

 

When it comes to a clearer and sharper picture (dont know if i agree that its clearer and sharper but =P )

it might be due to the fact that the AGM-65A and 65B use a different type of Seeker,

as they have Electro-optical TV seekers where as the Later AGM-65s use IR seekers (D/F/G) or CCD seeker (H/J/K)

so that might explain the difference in picture.

 

The Seeker on the RB 75s should be very vulnerable to bad weather conditions though (Mist,Fog,Bad light/Night conditions etc)

where as the later seeker are much more All Weather capable

(which is a primary reason why the A/B variants where replaced in US service).

 

This is still early days so seeker lock ranges etc are bound to change.

(to become more realistic)

 

Though the RB 75/75T especially still have some significant (and realistic)

disadvantages compared to the AGM-65s on the A-10s as they have no zoom (where as the AGM-65B/RB 75B is zoomed in only) and they are pretty prone to lock something other then the target,

and due to the lack of zoom its very hard to tell if they have locked directly onto the target or onto something a few feet from the target.

 

So against smaller targets (especially if they are close to wreckage or buildings etc) its not uncommon to waste missiles by locking / launching at something right next to the target.

 

I also dont know how the DCS engine handles the TV lock ranges (if its dynamic depending on target size or if there is a set range limit no matter the target type).

 

Since where as the AGM 65A and AGM 65B had relatively short lock on ranges against vehicles like a Tank or Truck etc against a larger objective like a Building or small ship the

lock on range was much greater.

 

So unless they are able to give them dynamic lock ranges depending on target size

i hope they are a bit generous on the target lock range,

though i agree that atm the seekers are able to get locks on smaller targets at longer ranges then they should be capable of.

Edited February 14, 2017 by mattebubben

[Ramsay]

The Viggen’s RB-75’s (all variants) seem to lock to the targets from further away and more easily than the AGM-65’s (all variants) of the A-10C, regardless if the TGP is used to target and then the maverick slaved to it or not.

RB-75's are WIP, they appear to over perform ATM. The real lock-on range depends on target size and contrast, while DCS appears to use a black and white colour filter for the TV and range tables.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=182015

 

Moreover, the image from the Viggen’s RB-75’s head in the cockpit is far clearer and sharper.

Leatherneck have optimised the TV display for 1.5 while the A-10C was optimised for 1.2

 

It's hard to judge if it's realistic as the A-10C, Su-25T, etc. TGP/Mav TV image quality has been 'broken' for a while and especially so in 1.5.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153308

 

There are work-arounds: replacement ground textures, colour TGP mod or revert the 1.5 ground 'noise' filter to 1.2/2.0 levels.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2620174&postcount=70

 

Either is the Viggen too “easy” or the A-10 too “hard”

Both, the Viggen locks-on too soon/easily, the A-10 Mav camera is almost useless in 1.5 but will 'lock-on' to a framed target anyway.

[ac5]

Hi all, thank you for your comments.

 

mattebubben, you comment mainly about AGM's A's and B's,

though I used for that mission AGM's D which I find lock better

and from a further range.

 

Ramsay, indeed, since 1.2 the image on both the A-10C TGP AND maverick

has worsen, as one can confirm by the many threads / posts about this matter in this forum.

Though I don't wish to mod them, it suffice that ED is aware of that (is it)? and hopefully

this will be corrected in a near future... 2.5?

[mattebubben]

Hi all, thank you for your comments.

 

mattebubben, you comment mainly about AGM's A's and B's,

though I used for that mission AGM's D which I find lock better

and from a further range.

 

Ramsay, indeed, since 1.2 the image on both the A-10C TGP AND maverick

has worsen, as one can confirm by the many threads / posts about this matter in this forum.

Though I don't wish to mod them, it suffice that ED is aware of that (is it)? and hopefully

this will be corrected in a near future... 2.5?

 

AGM 65A = RB 75 (though The Swedish version had a modified seeker to better suit Swedish light conditions

though i dont really know if that had any effect on lock on range etc)

and AGM 65B = RB 75B (Fictional Designation as Sweden Never Acquired the AGM 65B).

 

So when i talked about those two i was talking about the performance the Mavericks on the Viggen should have.

 

And since this is in the Viggen bug section The missiles the Viggen has are more relevant (and if their seekers are to good or not)

then the performance of the AGM-65D or the other Variants used by the A-10 (as the Viggen can not carry them).

That is why i focused on the AGM 65A and AGM 65B (RB 75 and RB 75T)

(since they are the relevant seekers and they are proven to be overperforming against small targets which is what you where taking note of to start with).

Edited February 15, 2017 by mattebubben

[UVPMechan]

The Viggen’s RB-75’s (all variants) seem to lock to the targets from further away and more easily than the AGM-65’s (all variants) of the A-10C, regardless if the TGP is used to target and then the maverick slaved to it or not.

 

Moreover, the image from the Viggen’s RB-75’s head in the cockpit is far clearer and sharper.

 

Either is the Viggen too “easy” or the A-10 too “hard” or are the suedes better at it or I am doing something wrong here? :cry:

 

Missions included, (identical, only the plane changes).

 

Discard A-10C A flying machine Viggen better !! :-)

[ac5]

Discard A-10C A flying machine Viggen better !! :-)

 

Never.... The A-10 C is the main plane in DCS for me.....

Only the TGP and the Maverick displays should be go back to

1.2 quality levels.

[ac5]

AGM 65A = RB 75 (though The Swedish version had a modified seeker to better suit Swedish light conditions

though i dont really know if that had any effect on lock on range etc)

and AGM 65B = RB 75B (Fictional Designation as Sweden Never Acquired the AGM 65B).

 

So when i talked about those two i was talking about the performance the Mavericks on the Viggen should have.

 

And since this is in the Viggen bug section The missiles the Viggen has are more relevant (and if their seekers are to good or not)

then the performance of the AGM-65D or the other Variants used by the A-10 (as the Viggen can not carry them).

That is why i focused on the AGM 65A and AGM 65B (RB 75 and RB 75T)

(since they are the relevant seekers and they are proven to be overperforming against small targets which is what you where taking note of to start with).

 

Understood.

[milit]

Also we have to mind that, as Chizh said, LNs took an old script model of AGM-65 for RB-75, but A-10c uses advanced physical one.

 

Отправлено с моего GT-I9082 через Tapatalk

[ac5]

Also we have to mind that, as Chizh said, LNs took an old script model of AGM-65 for RB-75, but A-10c uses advanced physical one.

 

Отправлено с моего GT-I9082 через Tapatalk

 

Chizh? Advanced physical one ?

[milit]

Chizh? Advanced physical one ?

Yep.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3051735

 

Отправлено с моего GT-I9082 через Tapatalk

Edited February 15, 2017 by milit

[QuiGon]

Also here, a statement from Cobra about missile code in response to chizh: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3035207&postcount=487

[amalahama]

Sorry for destroying wet dreams here, but I think Chizh statement is only Flight Model related.

 

Regards

[ac5]

Whatever...

 

Important is that ED and LdN are aware (Are they?) of this discrepancies

I pointed out....

[Eldur]

Moreover, the image from the Viggen’s RB-75’s head in the cockpit is far clearer and sharper.

 

Can't confirm that at all. Both the EP-13 and the radar scope are extremely not sharp, and the EP-13 even features fuzzy color artifacts in the whole bandwidth of the light spectrum (guess it's an engine feature, had this on other optical systems as well in certain areas of the Caucasus map, even with 2 completely different graphics cards; one AMD and one nVidia).

 

Even though it might be fun to fire the RB-75 at high ranges, it's ridiculous. In the A-10 I can't lock on Strelas less than half a mile in front of me, almost crashing into them and in the Viggen I get them at like 25km. On the other hoof I don't get why the RB-75s just explode in midair after ~10-12km of travel even though they still have plenty of energy left. I shoot AGM-65s in FC mode at ~11nm from the A-10C without that happening at all.

[ac5]

Can't confirm that at all. Both the EP-13 and the radar scope are extremely not sharp, and the EP-13 even features fuzzy color artifacts in the whole bandwidth of the light spectrum (guess it's an engine feature, had this on other optical systems as well in certain areas of the Caucasus map, even with 2 completely different graphics cards; one AMD and one nVidia).

 

Even though it might be fun to fire the RB-75 at high ranges, it's ridiculous. In the A-10 I can't lock on Strelas less than half a mile in front of me, almost crashing into them and in the Viggen I get them at like 25km. On the other hoof I don't get why the RB-75s just explode in midair after ~10-12km of travel even though they still have plenty of energy left. I shoot AGM-65s in FC mode at ~11nm from the A-10C without that happening at all.

 

My Viggen EP-13 is far sharper than the maverick (AGM 65D) display on the A-10C, at which resolution do you sim?

Never had a RB-75 exploding in the air.

I agree on this : "In the A-10 I can't lock on Strelas less than half a mile in front of me".

Anyhow, as I said, one of both is wrong. Fact is that the A-10C displays were better in 1.2,

can't remember the locking.

[Eldur]

Actually I haven't re-checked the Ds in the A-10C, but if my memory serves me well, the image was better in there. It definately had no artifacts.

 

I run the displays at 512 every frame setting. I'll try 1024 and see if it's better then.

[Corrigan]

I don't know it it's realistic, but that's chromatic aberration and it looks great!