Ракеты в DCS

[Chizh]

36 минут назад, Breakshot сказал:

But yea, I bet it would take ED just a couple lines of code to make it work as intended. Its already half way there.

You are wrong.

 

36 минут назад, Breakshot сказал:

Then Chizh saying above that they don't want to fix it because its not fair for F15 which actually should NOT have it (based on proven RL documentation!) is kind of a stab. Where does ED find the historical data from? Lol

There is no need to misinterpret my words. This is a warning.

 

36 минут назад, Breakshot сказал:

I bet you a FF Flanker would sell way more than F16 ever will, and rightfully so.

Have you sold a lot of games? If not, then you should listen to those who know this area.
Western aircraft are sold much more successfully than Russians, all other things being equal.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

5 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Can't you see for yourself that this is a incorrect curve diagram?

No because other cleaner official graphs say the same thing

[Chizh]

1 минуту назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

No because other cleaner official graphs say the same thing

They are reprinted from the same source with the same errors.

[nighthawk2174]

Speaking of FC3 how hard would it be to make it so they can rearm and refuel with their engines on @Chizh?

[Chizh]

41 минуту назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Speaking of FC3 how hard would it be to make it so they can rearm and refuel with their engines on @Chizh?

It is in plan

[falcon_120]

Guys you need to understand that FC3 is a closed product with a defined set of features as per the business decission back in the day. Some features we would all love to see will not make it to FC3, period, only some small bug correction for already existing features.

 

What I hope is that a FC4 or similar it is plan in the future to see at least a better version of the Su27 and F15c. There are several aspects that now start to showe its age: 3D cockpit, damage model... even some lack of features (Link 16 on F15, better datalink in Su27...). I'm quite sure a FC4 version with some new items would sell a lot.

[Breakshot]

3 hours ago, Chizh said:

Have you sold a lot of games? If not, then you should listen to those who know this area.
Western aircraft are sold much more successfully than Russians, all other things being equal.

Which Russian FF aircraft have you sold for comparison?! Give one a try and then maybe I am proven wrong.... I really hope you guys would do at least a 29.

 

Anyway, we are here because we care about DCS and would like basic MP dynamics to be fixed and stable, especially most important factors like missiles, sensors and relative performance of aircraft. Simply because its the MP community that notices those things instantly.

 

No need to take offense. I am sure you have the same in heart. 

 

Looking forward to next patch with EO bugfix. 

1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:

Guys you need to understand that FC3 is a closed product with a defined set of features as per the business decission back in the day. Some features we would all love to see will not make it to FC3, period, only some small bug correction for already existing features.

 

What I hope is that a FC4 or similar it is plan in the future to see at least a better version of the Su27 and F15c. There are several aspects that now start to showe its age: 3D cockpit, damage model... even some lack of features (Link 16 on F15, better datalink in Su27...). I'm quite sure a FC4 version with some new items would sell a lot.

FC aircraft have some of the best FM in DCS which were brought to standards for a reason. Yes lack of systems modelling is a negative (for those who like cold starts), but in terms of combat they are on the same page with FF modules. Also unfortunately we dont have any competitive RED planes in FF yet. We shall see if Razbam can get the 23 across the line, but even then thats not gonna compete with the current F types in the sim.

[Chizh]

45 минут назад, Breakshot сказал:

Which Russian FF aircraft have you sold for comparison?! Give one a try and then maybe I am proven wrong.... I really hope you guys would do at least a 29.

We sold MiG-15 and F-86, Mi-8 and UH-1. I know what I'm talking about.

 

 

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

We sold MiG-15 and F-86, Mi-8 and UH-1. I know what I'm talking about.

 

 

I saw some statistics of the Black Shark module and old A-10C module... They both sold almost equally as well. I think Black Shark even sold better.

Give people good avionics and good weapons, and they will pay you a fortune. In games where developers dont prefer one faction, the Opfor vehicles/aircraft are as popular as, by my experience even more popular than the overly conventional american counterparts.

Speaking of weapons. This (from your newsletter) does not help your case one bit:





You have reduced the range. The old R-27ER could already not match the "well known charts" as you called them, with an energy reserve of at least 150 m/s for the missile fuze to work at all.

Now it cannot match them at all at low altitudes. The missile will not reach a target in the rear hemisphere as shown in the official documents under any circumstances.

This sort of double-standard scares customers away.

[GGTharos]

Coming back to missiles in DCS,

 

  Chizh, would you consider adding a generic structure for all missiles to do a little more than it does today, meaning:

  1) The ability to add seeker types with different inputs and sensitivity to CMs in various ways

  2) A waypoint store

  3) An algorithm store, allowing the missile to use different algorithms simultaneously or sequentially

  4) A logic 'box', allowing the missile to choose which algorithm to use depending on the flight phase

  5) Target 'gates' store, meaning the Vc gate, angle gate, and range gate for the missile to search a target in

 

I know that my description is very vague in fact, because it would be used to describe how these components communicate with each other.   Obviously you already have an FM and autopilot component, and a seeker component - but the interaction between these could be made more complex and it would work for both A2G and A2A missiles.

 

Also, I'm sure you're thinking about things like ECM/ECCM, my suggestion would be to experiment first with two effects of the DCS 'native' ECCM:  Range denial and break-lock.

For range denial, you can deny loft, or choose to use a less-accurate angle-based loft (if/when a more accurate method of lofting becomes available) and in the terminal phase you can deny the Range input to the PN algorithm for example, just set it to 1.  You can quickly see here how a Vc jammer would operate here as well, where you could deny the Vc input - this is assuming that the system knows that it is being jammed (some jammers provide a very nice, clean input with the wrong number).

 

Similarly for break-lock, the missile should attempt to initiate search and re-capture using existing gates and if it doesn't find one, increase the size of the gates and try again.

[Fuerte]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

I think Black Shark even sold better.
 

Maybe because its the only real attack helicopter avaiable ATM. There is no other choice in general when you want to shack armour on a helicopter. Its interesting how will it be when its counterpart is rolled out.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Fuerte

[Vladimir_V_T]

8 часов назад, Chizh сказал:

У меня в этом треке Москва сбила 3 из 4-х ракет. Нормально.

Я так понял, что это от случая к случаю. Но из 4-х ракет у меня одна стабильно долетает, а остальные как повезёт. Видимо С-300 и АК-630 - это не панацея от Гарпуна. Да, кстати, этот трек почему-то поразному проигрывается.

8 часов назад, Chizh сказал:

Но с траекториями Гарпунов есть странности. Запишу баг.

Понял, спасибо. Ещё заметил, что в режимах BOL и R/BL траектория полёта Гарпунов разная. В режиме R/BL с разной долей вероятности происходит то, что в том треке, а в режиме BOL (профиль LOW) ракета летит на высоте ~160 ft до захвата цели, а после захвата цели спускается на предельно малую высоту. А раньше я помню, что высота полёта до захвата цели профиля LOW была 5000 ft. И в режиме BOL ракета захватывает цель но бОльшей дистанции, чем в режиме R/BL.

[Chizh]

1 час назад, Max1mus сказал:

I saw some statistics of the Black Shark module and old A-10C module... They both sold almost equally as well. I think Black Shark even sold better.

Give people good avionics and good weapons, and they will pay you a fortune. In games where developers dont prefer one faction, the Opfor vehicles/aircraft are as popular as, by my experience even more popular than the overly conventional american counterparts.

Speaking of weapons. This (from your newsletter) does not help your case one bit:





You have reduced the range. The old R-27ER could already not match the "well known charts" as you called them, with an energy reserve of at least 150 m/s for the missile fuze to work at all.

Now it cannot match them at all at low altitudes. The missile will not reach a target in the rear hemisphere as shown in the official documents under any circumstances.

This sort of double-standard scares customers away.

No double standards. R-27 missiles now fly even better than they actually are. You just haven't figured it out.

 

34 минуты назад, Fuerte сказал:

Maybe because its the only real attack helicopter avaiable ATM. There is no other choice in general when you want to shack armour on a helicopter. Its interesting how will it be when its counterpart is rolled out.

 

Here Max1mus  wrong again. A-10C has a better sales.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

11 minutes ago, Chizh said:

No double standards. R-27 missiles now fly even better than they actually are. You just haven't figured it out.

 

Here Max1mus  wrong again. A-10C has a better sales.

When does the new patch with the CFD ER drop?

[nighthawk2174]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Coming back to missiles in DCS,

 

  Chizh, would you consider adding a generic structure for all missiles to do a little more than it does today, meaning:

  1) The ability to add seeker types with different inputs and sensitivity to CMs in various ways

  2) A waypoint store

  3) An algorithm store, allowing the missile to use different algorithms simultaneously or sequentially

  4) A logic 'box', allowing the missile to choose which algorithm to use depending on the flight phase

  5) Target 'gates' store, meaning the Vc gate, angle gate, and range gate for the missile to search a target in

 

I know that my description is very vague in fact, because it would be used to describe how these components communicate with each other.   Obviously you already have an FM and autopilot component, and a seeker component - but the interaction between these could be made more complex and it would work for both A2G and A2A missiles.

 

Also, I'm sure you're thinking about things like ECM/ECCM, my suggestion would be to experiment first with two effects of the DCS 'native' ECCM:  Range denial and break-lock.

For range denial, you can deny loft, or choose to use a less-accurate angle-based loft (if/when a more accurate method of lofting becomes available) and in the terminal phase you can deny the Range input to the PN algorithm for example, just set it to 1.  You can quickly see here how a Vc jammer would operate here as well, where you could deny the Vc input - this is assuming that the system knows that it is being jammed (some jammers provide a very nice, clean input with the wrong number).

 

Similarly for break-lock, the missile should attempt to initiate search and re-capture using existing gates and if it doesn't find one, increase the size of the gates and try again.

Something else about jammers don't some jammers like the F-16's also have a limited angle above them?  So that may be something to consider here as well when and if more ECM effects become molded.  That if your above say this jammer is out of parameters to work (or even off to the side as the same jammer only has an arch to the front and rear it works) that range denial stops working.

[Jack1nthecrack]

1 hour ago, Fuerte said:

Maybe because its the only real attack helicopter avaiable ATM. There is no other choice in general when you want to shack armor on a helicopter. Its interesting how will it be when its counterpart is rolled out.

 

The same can be said for a modern full fidelity Flanker like the Su-30 or even perhaps a full fidelity version of the Su-27S we already have ingame. The comparisons between the Mi-8/Huey and MiG-15/F-86 I think are not fair. Simply because the American counterparts are much more iconic compared to the Soviet ones. If only we had an Su-30 to rival the capabilities that the F-18, F-16, and JF-17 have, I think we will see a lot more sales. Enough to show that these red full fidelity aircraft are worth making, I hope ED truly is making the MiG-29A 9.12, it should hopefully change their opinion regarding red full fidelity aircraft.

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

No double standards. R-27 missiles now fly even better than they actually are. You just haven't figured it out.

 

Here Max1mus  wrong again. A-10C has a better sales.

Your testing and your official newsletter say that it flies worse down low. It does not match the graphs it is supposed to overshoot with 150 M/s+.
How much more obvious than this can it be?


Of course with the A-10C II the figures changed in favor of it. Wait for the Black Shark 3 for an objective analysis.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Max1mus

[Chizh]

59 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

When does the new patch with the CFD ER drop?

Update came out in April

 

6 минут назад, Max1mus сказал:

Your testing and your official newsletter say that it flies worse down low. It does not match the graphs it is supposed to overshoot with 150 M/s+.
How much more obvious than this can it be?

 

There is no inconsistency.

 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

2 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Update came out in April

There is no inconsistency.

that was part of it wasn't it? And the next part?

[GGTharos]

20 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Your testing and your official newsletter say that it flies worse down low. It does not match the graphs it is supposed to overshoot with 150 M/s+.
How much more obvious than this can it be?

 

Actually the new graph makes more sense.    The old way of building the drag coefficient was by polynomial function, the new way is a table, and it is a lot more accurate.

That the missile is somewhat draggier at intermediate mach ranges (which is where it will live at low altitude) is expected, because IRL drag curves don't dip the way that polynomial function did.  But the real take-away here is that the polynomial function is really really close and ED did a fairly good job with it for a particular missile shape type.

That it doesn't match the graph is a probably but not really a huge one, simply because we can't get enough information to really explain how the graph data was collected.  The fact is that IRL DLZs were not the most accurate thing in the world, under or over-shooting real values by some amount.   This improved as computers improved, but it may be a factor here.

Likewise, while this basic chart is great for us to have, I bet the air forces that use these missiles have far more accurate charts in the vault along with tactics manuals etc.

So, the chart is great if it's all we have, but a well done CFD will be superior.

We are then left with questions about the graph that probably cannot be easily answered, if at all.

I would wait for a second pass and adjustment of the lift coefficient to get a more accurate picture before rendering harsh judgement.

Edited June 11, 2021 by GGTharos

[Max1mus]

18 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The fact is that IRL DLZs were not the most accurate thing in the world, under or over-shooting real values by some amount.   This improved as computers improved, but it may be a factor here.

It is just awfully convenient that the AIM-120 overshoots its graph by 20+%, while the R-27ER undershoots it. Meanwhile, the R-27R matches it? ...

Edited June 11, 2021 by Max1mus

[GGTharos]

11 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

It is just awfully convenient that the AIM-120 overshoots its graph by 20+%, while the R-27ER undershoots it. Meanwhile, the R-27R matches it? ...

 

Convenient?  Literally yes.  Conspiratorial?  No.   I mean that graph is an estimate based on assumed parameters that we do not know.  Aerodynamics are not trivial.

[Max1mus]

10 hours ago, Chizh said:

They are reprinted from the same source with the same errors.

Apparently ED believes the conspiracy theory that the whole russian and soviet air force was wrong about their own missiles, and that the engineers supplied the pilots with incorrect numbers. All the data about performance under 5 kilometers is entirely wrong, and you just happen to know what it really performs like?

I can´t believe it.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Max1mus

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

 

Actually the new graph makes more sense.    The old way of building the drag coefficient was by polynomial function, the new way is a table, and it is a lot more accurate.

That the missile is somewhat draggier at intermediate mach ranges (which is where it will live at low altitude) is expected, because IRL drag curves don't dip the way that polynomial function did.  But the real take-away here is that the polynomial function is really really close and ED did a fairly good job with it for a particular missile shape type.

That it doesn't match the graph is a probably but not really a huge one, simply because we can't get enough information to really explain how the graph data was collected.  The fact is that IRL DLZs were not the most accurate thing in the world, under or over-shooting real values by some amount.   This improved as computers improved, but it may be a factor here.

Likewise, while this basic chart is great for us to have, I bet the air forces that use these missiles have far more accurate charts in the vault along with tactics manuals etc.

So, the chart is great if it's all we have, but a well done CFD will be superior.

We are then left with questions about the graph that probably cannot be easily answered, if at all.

I would wait for a second pass and adjustment of the lift coefficient to get a more accurate picture before rendering harsh judgement.

 

The only issue is Chizh believes these figures to have no built in safety margin or cushion of extra energy. SME's and other parts of the MiG-29/Su-27 point to there being such a provision meaning, it should ballistically, out fly numbers stated by some margin, doesn't it?

Like slightly overshoot in stern WEZ shots for example

Edited June 11, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Max1mus]

DCS: ER_falls_behind.trk 

The missile should not only hit the target, it should do so with an energy provision. That 150 m/s (540 kph) + extra provisions for wake turbulence and whatever else will cause the missile to potentially not achieve the numbers.