Beamscanner Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) mark my words, half a year later nobody is going to remember this. but when they file their bogus report about how wrong it is that the aim-54 isnt getting them the sure kills they think the history channel promised them, some smartass is going to drag out this paper and point out the guidance deficiencies mentioned within, and half the thread will all of a sudden be in an uproar about the lack of fidelity and how they're mothballing or refunding the module because of it. I think you are projecting. It seems that you have it set in your mind that the AIM-54 cant hit maneuvering fighters. People have just as much a right to be upset about the missile not performing an 18g maneuver as they do anything else in the simulation that does not perform true to form. My stance on it: I cant wait to knock pilots outta the sky with an under performing (7G) AIM-54. If anyone starts crying, it'll be people upset that the missile works. Edited August 2, 2017 by Beamscanner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy_99 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 No one will know what the missile will do until its put in game, Until then were just guessing and speculating, Lets wait until the release :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asla36 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 No one will know what the missile will do until its put in game, Until then were just guessing and speculating, Lets wait until the release :thumbup: But why not gather unrealistic expectations, and bitch about them not being matched by the real thing when it's released, while we can? If HB keep this flow of content up, we will not get bored! Me likey these updates and clarifications. DCS: MiG-23 [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Make it happen, and take my money! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 No one will know what the missile will do until its put in game, Until then were just guessing and speculating, Lets wait until the release :thumbup: If you have a question about how it performs, just ask. I know what the missile does. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I know what the missile does. :) I have a strong feeling it explodes near radar contacts :helpsmilie: :smilewink: Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion213 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I have a strong feeling it explodes near radar contacts :helpsmilie: :smilewink: :megalol: -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmidtfire Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) One solution for the G issues might be to stick with 7G's but IF the seeker goes active/terminal THEN switch to 18G limit. Don't know if that is possible within DCS code, but seems like a good solution. Edited October 9, 2017 by Schmidtfire 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 One solution for the G issues might be to stick with 7G's but IF the seeker goes active/terminal THEN switch to 18G limit. Don't know if that is possible within DCS code, but seems like a good solution. Unfortunately it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimitrischal Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 mark my words, half a year later nobody is going to remember this. but when they file their bogus report about how wrong it is that the aim-54 isnt getting them the sure kills they think the history channel promised them, some smartass is going to drag out this paper and point out the guidance deficiencies mentioned within, and half the thread will all of a sudden be in an uproar about the lack of fidelity and how they're mothballing or refunding the module because of it. It's all part of the experience isn't it? Just look at the prebitching about the "very demanding graphics that will plummet fps everywhere"... Wouldn't expect less from the community,however the work done on the F-14 is an investment in the future and DCS itself. This provides the foundation for more content to be added easier in the future. This is what matters, not little kiddies bitching about unbalanced airquake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) Unfortunately it isn't. I wonder if there could be a workaround to implement this behavior. Would it be possible to make the engine replace the "entire" missile FM code once the seeker goes active? In essence you develop two missiles and then once the missile goes terminal, the engine simply replaces the one missile with the other. It's sort of "cheating" in simulation terms but as long as the results are closer to the real thing, who cares right? Edited October 11, 2017 by OnlyforDCS Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 I wonder if there could be a workaround to implement this behavior. Would it be possible to make the engine replace the "entire" missile FM code once the seeker goes active? In essence you develop two missiles and then once the missile goes terminal, the engine simply replaces the one missile with the other. It's sort of "cheating" in simulation terms but as long as the results are closer to the real thing, who cares right? Nope, can't be done. There is a workaround but the compromise is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Swan Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 As many curves the aircraft FMs have to follow, I'm sure ED will eventually get around to adding some way to have the missiles G limit change. Maybe progressively as they get closer to the target. GeForce GTX 970, i5 4690K 3.5 GHz, 8 GB ram, Win 10, 1080p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDsc0rch Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 good idea though........ i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 As many curves the aircraft FMs have to follow, I'm sure ED will eventually get around to adding some way to have the missiles G limit change. Maybe progressively as they get closer to the target. They have already stated they gonna wait for ED to sort out the missile guidance first, so..... probably not. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Swan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 They have already stated they gonna wait for ED to sort out the missile guidance first, so..... probably not. ... wut? GeForce GTX 970, i5 4690K 3.5 GHz, 8 GB ram, Win 10, 1080p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDsc0rch Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Yeah.. where did they ever say they were going to address guidance? i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Swan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Yeah.. where did they ever say they were going to address guidance? Wags has said multiple times that after their engineer finishes the work he has on A-G weapons, he will see what he can do with the A-A weapons. He said this both in posts and live streams. GeForce GTX 970, i5 4690K 3.5 GHz, 8 GB ram, Win 10, 1080p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 ... wut? Yeah.. where did they ever say they were going to address guidance? I think i may have misread page 3, paragraph 1 of the White Paper: "These drawbacks are due to limitations in theDCS engine for missile guidance and countermeasure interaction. We will continue to work in consort with Heatblur to adjust missile parameters once these changes are implemented." By substituting ED for Heatblur i got the impression that after ED made the changes to the missile guidance, the 54 would be changed to match its original performance. :doh: Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Swan Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I think i may have misread page 3, paragraph 1 of the White Paper: "These drawbacks are due to limitations in theDCS engine for missile guidance and countermeasure interaction. We will continue to work in consort with Heatblur to adjust missile parameters once these changes are implemented." By substituting ED for Heatblur i got the impression that after ED made the changes to the missile guidance, the 54 would be changed to match its original performance. :doh: Ooooh no worries. :) GeForce GTX 970, i5 4690K 3.5 GHz, 8 GB ram, Win 10, 1080p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries144 Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 Can someone please clarify what this G-limit means in terms of performance in game vs performance in real life? i.e. Does this mean decreased performance vs fighters at close range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addde Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 i.e. Does this mean decreased performance vs fighters at close range? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 As a rule of thumb, a missile needs 3x the g capability for each target g. Again, it's a rule of thumb and not applicable to the entire envelope. Can someone please clarify what this G-limit means in terms of performance in game vs performance in real life? i.e. Does this mean decreased performance vs fighters at close range? [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 More sharing options...
Robert31178 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Hilarious "quote" Tharos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc_neo Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) @IASGATG So i have gone through this document and your 2014 report concerning the aim-120 analysis which, as already discussed here, contains the drag analysis for different AoAs. Especially page 28-29 show that high G-loads and thus AoAs can have significant impacts on missile performance/distance. As you state in the aim-54 report, you did forgo this analysis for the phoenix since you were not contracted to do so because the dcs engine won't allow for implementing custom drag curves according to g-load and AoA. On page 4 in this thread, you respond to this dilemma with; "This is where the problem comes in. The coders can't do anything as it's all DCS engine hardcode. It's pointless doing 2 weeks of high cost work that then cannot be used. Whilst I would love to have the drag force for different AoA's at different airspeeds at different altitudes, the fact remains that from a third party dev's perspective, the most they can change is the max Cl at <M1 and max Cl at >M4, the game engine calculates the rest." So, with the missiles being reworked by ED atm, do you think this has changed and this type of analysis would make sense? Correct me if i misread or missed that in the 2014 report; the lofting graphs in the last section; do you recall how many G's and what AoA the missile pulled when climbing to altitude and coming down to intercept, especially against a manaeuvring target? Is that way less than one might think and thus is really is a non issue overall? Edited September 10, 2018 by sc_neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts