Ракеты в DCS

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 minute ago, Chizh said:

By and large, it doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not. I will not prove anything to you.

If you will not substantiate your claims with evidence how do we know you are striving to create a realistic simulator?

 

Are we supposed to just 'take your word for it' when you probably don't even have the right credentials to speak authoritatively on the subject?

 

Might I remind you, until recently you were completely unaware of the existence of the RMD-2 until it was pointed out to you.

 

For this reason I'm highly skeptical of anything you say unless you have a source to back it up on these matters

[Chizh]

25 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

Are we supposed to just 'take your word for it' when you probably don't even have the right credentials to speak authoritatively on the subject?

You can believe it or not. It is your right.

 

Цитата

Might I remind you, until recently you were completely unaware of the existence of the RMD-2 until it was pointed out to you.

You are confusing something. I have known about this modification of the missile for a very long time.

 

Цитата

For this reason I'm highly skeptical of anything you say unless you have a source to back it up on these matters

It is your right.

 

PS

https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/20_a_6420965.shtml

https://www.wing.com.ua/content/view/28941/38/

[Маэстро]

On 6/15/2021 at 11:26 PM, Max1mus said:

@Маэстро

Hello,

 

What are the plans for development on the R-27? They fail to achieve the numbers on the official charts at 1.000m, and as i showed in DM they even fail to do so at 10.000m of altitude.

This is now especially worse due to the range reduction at low altitude mentioned in your recent newsletter.

On the non-kinematic front, there is of course the bug with the missile maneuvering when lock is lost. It would be interesting to hear about the progress on that too.

Thank you in advance.

 

Hello, I'm not in charge of development plans.

Regarding R-27ER range... we already say that unfortunatley chart quality is not very good. There is no any chace to perfectly match this charts with any realistic drag and thrust values. Say, if we adjust missile to match chart at 5km rear hemisphere it wont match all other points! Current drag values for 27ER/ET is good compromise to be close to all chart  points at a time.

Here another one chart with new/old 27ER performance comparison. As you may see  missile achive official numbers at least at 10km altitude
 

[Max1mus]

5 hours ago, Маэстро said:

Hello, I'm not in charge of development plans.

Regarding R-27ER range... we already say that unfortunatley chart quality is not very good. There is no any chace to perfectly match this charts with any realistic drag and thrust values. Say, if we adjust missile to match chart at 5km rear hemisphere it wont match all other points! Current drag values for 27ER/ET is good compromise to be close to all chart  points at a time.

Here another one chart with new/old 27ER performance comparison. As you may see  missile achive official numbers at least at 10km altitude
 

But the AIM-120 overshoots its chart everywhere... By as much as 20-30% up high, 6% at medium altitude. What is the problem of assuming the same thing for R-27ER?

Do your marks take into account the 150+ m/s and 2-3G energy provision in the terminal conditions?

And why does R-27R now match its graph, but not the ER?

Edited June 18, 2021 by Max1mus

[GGTharos]

8 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

But the AIM-120 overshoots its chart everywhere... By as much as 20-30% up high, 6% at medium altitude.

 

It overshoots a chart made based on assumptions, not 'its' chart.

 

Quote

What is the problem of assuming the same thing for R-27ER?

 

1) Because it's not an AMRAAM, so why should you assume that the same would happen?

2) What assumptions would you like them to take into account in the CFD?  Magical rocket motor ISP increase?  Magically reduced skin friction coefficient?  There's a reason why I say 'magical', there are ranges of these parameters which are known to be physically feasible.   Even with the best combinations thereof (which maybe are already chosen), this missile will struggle to match the chart - there's just not that much wiggle room.

 

You keep saying these things but it's like you never stop to consider what would need to be done physically to make things match.

Edited June 18, 2021 by GGTharos

[Max1mus]

There is literal proof that the missile radio fuze needs AT LEAST 540 km/h to even work. And the Su-35 guy said that it should have a 2-3G energy reserve on top. I dont know what to say, it doesnt even reach the numbers ballistically, without the energy reserve.

A little consistency would be nice.

[GGTharos]

11 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

There is literal proof that the missile radio fuze needs AT LEAST 540 km/h to even work. And the Su-35 guy said that it should have a 2-3G energy reserve on top. I dont know what to say, it doesnt even reach the numbers ballistically, without the energy reserve.

A little consistency would be nice.

 

Right, and those things literally tell you nothing about the missile's flight.  There absolutely is consistency, the CFD is a huge point of consistency ... ie. physics.

Edited June 18, 2021 by GGTharos

[Max1mus]

21 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Right, and those things literally tell you nothing about the missile's flight.  There absolutely is consistency, the CFD is a huge point of consistency ... ie. physics.

 

I doubt ED ran any software. They just adjusted the values to match that Mid-2000s chart at high altitude. Meanwhile, they ignore the only source for lower altitude launches (reminder, this is where all the kill shots happen), and nerf the crap out of the ER there, to the point where the AIM-120 will even match it in terms of Rear Aspect NEZ. Which is absolutely not supported by any real life pilots, from both sides of fence.

The difference is absolutely noticable when flying, by the way. The R-27Es are much less deadly missiles now.


PS: The russian and soviet air forces have significantly more resources than ED when it comes to knowledge about their own missiles. ED telling us that their charts are wrong, and making the missile in game even worse, is laughable. We are lucky to have proper documentation on these missiles publicly available, yet ED chooses to ignore them... Why, is unknown. Apparently because they cannot recreate the results with their software and in-game atmosphere?

Edited June 18, 2021 by Max1mus

[Ron]

Writing here in English, you made a mistake in the forum thread - here the language of communication is Russian (it is specially written with a capital letter). Be so kind as to follow the rules of good manners, and don't go with your tired to someone else's monastery. Or is it different, but moderators?

[Max1mus]

7 hours ago, Маэстро said:

Hello, I'm not in charge of development plans.

Regarding R-27ER range... we already say that unfortunatley chart quality is not very good. There is no any chace to perfectly match this charts with any realistic drag and thrust values. Say, if we adjust missile to match chart at 5km rear hemisphere it wont match all other points! Current drag values for 27ER/ET is good compromise to be close to all chart  points at a time.

Here another one chart with new/old 27ER performance comparison. As you may see  missile achive official numbers at least at 10km altitude
 

At 10km, the missiles in DCS are only a few seconds away from running out of battery life (60s).

It is absolutely reasonable to believe that the real-life 10km values are limited by battery, not energy. That way, you can have consistent results at 1000, 5000, and 10000 meters, taking into account the necessairy energy reserve for the missile to work reliably.

[GGTharos]

30 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

I doubt ED ran any software.

 

They literally said they ran a CFD on it, so where is this coming from?

 

30 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Which is absolutely not supported by any real life pilots, from both sides of fence.

 

Nothing is supported by real life pilots.  They'll flat out never tell you.   I know because I've spoken (and still do, regularly) with real life pilots.  I don't care what anyone posts on the forum, they'll never give you a detailed answer.

 

30 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

ED telling us that their charts are wrong, and making the missile in game even worse, is laughable.

 

No it isn't.  They're not the first charts that have been found to be wrong, and not on the Russian side alone either; both for missiles and aircraft.

 

30 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

We are lucky to have proper documentation on these missiles publicly available, yet ED chooses to ignore them... Why, is unknown. Apparently because they cannot recreate the results with their software and in-game atmosphere?

 

Or maybe you should stop ignoring the real elephant in the room and run a CFD of your own to confirm/deny whatever you're saying.

[Max1mus]

I think the russian and soviet air forces knew their own missiles. If ED wants to artificially nerf them to help their casual playerbase, which its looking like more and more by the way - then might aswell go all-out crazy with it. Why keep pretending.

The new changes on the AMRAAM have been going in that direction too - they ignore chaff more and just have a straightup random chance of missing, treating the ground like countermeasures. Its very beneficial to players who wish to be able to defeat missiles, without wanting to learn how.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Max1mus

[nighthawk2174]

@Chizh according to the sam sim guy in his history of EO missiles (sourced with Russian documents I haven't been able to find) the RMD-2 has a larger motor and a dual band seeker which was first seen flown in 1997.  Was it just never purchased? 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

9 hours ago, Chizh said:

You can believe it or not. It is your right.

 

You are confusing something. I have known about this modification of the missile for a very long time.

 

It is your right.

 

PS

https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/20_a_6420965.shtml

https://www.wing.com.ua/content/view/28941/38/

I do not understand, the Ukrainian source gives conflicting information with your other poster, and your Gazette source says it is a dual band seeker since the USSR era.

 

How does this prove me wrong if anything it proves me right.

 

17 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

@Chizh according to the sam sim guy in his history of EO missiles (sourced with Russian documents I haven't been able to find) the RMD-2 has a larger motor and a dual band seeker which was first seen flown in 1997.  Was it just never purchased? 

It was purchased, a RuAF pilot says that in his entry to service he hardly ever saw the RMD-1 and worked almost exclusively with the -2

 

The dates I've also seen are that it was put into RuAF service in 1995 and brought to the export market in 1997

This post and like 3 pages prior and after talk a bit about it

 

 

[TotenDead]

13 часов назад, Chizh сказал:

Ukraine is the developer of the seeker this missile. The original seeker is called MK-80, it is single-spectrum from 1980th. The modern Ukrainian modification 2017 is equipped with the MK-2200 seeker, but is not supplied to the Russian Federation.

 

Учитывая, что есть РВВ-МД с двухрежимной головой не ясно к чему ты тут о поставках с украины в рф написал)

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

It overshoots a chart made based on assumptions, not 'its' chart.

 

 

1) Because it's not an AMRAAM, so why should you assume that the same would happen?

2) What assumptions would you like them to take into account in the CFD?  Magical rocket motor ISP increase?  Magically reduced skin friction coefficient?  There's a reason why I say 'magical', there are ranges of these parameters which are known to be physically feasible.   Even with the best combinations thereof (which maybe are already chosen), this missile will struggle to match the chart - there's just not that much wiggle room.

 

You keep saying these things but it's like you never stop to consider what would need to be done physically to make things match.

 

Tovarish Palkovkins findings and insights point to ED not having all the facts on the missile, the preliminary CFD helped with drag but they still had their issues by a good bit leading me to believe their model might be wrong (like the uncertainty around how much and how it's motor burned).

 

ED still fails to take into consideration the provisions that go along with the graphs provided and similarities and parallels with other similar Russian missile studies.

 

They could be making a more accurate CFD is what he is saying.

[Max1mus]

 

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

It overshoots a chart made based on assumptions, not 'its' chart.

 

Or it could be illegally aquired by KGB intelligence. Chizh said its of unknown origin, but it surely didnt just appear on EDs desk one day. It has to come from somewhere. And infact, the CFD AIM-120 matches it up until 5.000 meters, with an energy provision. So it clearly cannot be that wrong.

 

The R-27R and R-27T also now match their charts.

 

So why not the ER and ET?

 

If ED is concerned that a properly modelled ER will be too dangerous, i can assure you that it will still be pointless against AIM-120C without a more modern radar, with better gimbals. The AIM-120 will still have a better initial engagement and will be more dangerous around the no-run-zone, since it is an active missile with a more advanced seekerhead.

 

Your imbalance is safe.

 

Please make the missiles behave consistently with eachother, and dont make one undershoot the chart, one match or overshoot it, just the way you like it. Only with such a consistency can you live up to the standard of high fidelity, close to reality simulation.

 

Interpreting charts differently to create an artificial (im)balance is a well known trick used by certain less realism-oriented games with an inferior systems modelling.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Max1mus

[GGTharos]

So, how fast does it take the missile to reach the target, head-on, in each of the 1,5,10km shots?   Anyone know?

29 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Interpreting charts differently to create an artificial (im)balance is a well known trick used by certain less realism-oriented games with an inferior systems modelling.

 

There's really not much left to interpretation with a CFD.  I don't see you doing any math to try and reconcile the existing chart problems or looking to perform a CFD to validate any results, you're just complaining that one missile is too good based on charts whose source we don't even know.

 

Could you actually put some effort in and at least do the back-of-the-envelope math?

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, Маэстро said:

Hello, I'm not in charge of development plans.

Regarding R-27ER range... we already say that unfortunatley chart quality is not very good. There is no any chace to perfectly match this charts with any realistic drag and thrust values. Say, if we adjust missile to match chart at 5km rear hemisphere it wont match all other points! Current drag values for 27ER/ET is good compromise to be close to all chart  points at a time.

Here another one chart with new/old 27ER performance comparison. As you may see  missile achive official numbers at least at 10km altitude

 

Hi Maestro, looking at these charts I have a question to ask:   Is this R-27ER operating on the old, polynomial-based FM, or has it moved to the new Cx/Cy table FM?

 

If on the old one, I would suggest - actually request - please tweak it to match LOW altitude performance, and don't worry about slight over-performance at higher altitude.  It's going to be slight.

 

If new FM, I would suggest lower low/mid-mach Cx, then increase high mach Cx a little - but from looking at the chart I suspect you're on the old FM.

[Chizh]

16 часов назад, Max1mus сказал:

I think the russian and soviet air forces knew their own missiles. If ED wants to artificially nerf them to help their casual playerbase, which its looking like more and more by the way - then might aswell go all-out crazy with it. Why keep pretending.

 

Leave your speculations to yourself, please. This is a warning.

 

16 часов назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

@Chizh according to the sam sim guy in his history of EO missiles (sourced with Russian documents I haven't been able to find) the RMD-2 has a larger motor and a dual band seeker which was first seen flown in 1997.  Was it just never purchased? 

There are many fairy tales and myths on the Internet.

 

[Chizh]

15 часов назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

I do not understand, the Ukrainian source gives conflicting information with your other poster, and your Gazette source says it is a dual band seeker since the USSR era.

 

How does this prove me wrong if anything it proves me right.

MK-80 seeker is single band. Dual band seekers are MK2000/2200, but it not supplied in Russia.

 

15 часов назад, TotenDead сказал:

Учитывая, что есть РВВ-МД с двухрежимной головой не ясно к чему ты тут о поставках с украины в рф написал)

Мы говорим про Р-73, а не про РВВ-МД.

Прежде чем писать, учись читать.

 

15 часов назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

Tovarish Palkovkins findings and insights point to ED not having all the facts on the missile, the preliminary CFD helped with drag but they still had their issues by a good bit leading me to believe their model might be wrong (like the uncertainty around how much and how it's motor burned).

 

ED still fails to take into consideration the provisions that go along with the graphs provided and similarities and parallels with other similar Russian missile studies.

 

They could be making a more accurate CFD is what he is saying.

You're wrong. We use all possible nomograms to understand and find out what really is there. Unfortunately, a some of nomograms are inaccurate and in some cases do not correspond to reality. In any case, we try to make it as accurate as possible.

 

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, Chizh сказал:

 

Мы говорим про Р-73, а не про РВВ-МД.

Прежде чем писать, учись читать.

 

 

Мы говорим про версию р-73, что у нас представлена в игре, украинские поделки тут ни при чем. Ты же, видимо, решил набросить на вентилятор

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, TotenDead сказал:

 

 

Мы говорим про версию р-73, что у нас представлена в игре, украинские поделки тут ни при чем. Ты же, видимо, решил набросить на вентилятор

ГСН ракеты является украинским изделием, с производством на заводе Маяк в Киеве. И тут мы говорим про реальную ГСН и реальную ракету.

Учись читать.

[TotenDead]

Да, занятно, конечно, что тебя так задело, что я тебе указал на оффтоп, что ты мне 20 баллов накинул -_-

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

9 hours ago, Chizh said:

MK-80 seeker is single band. Dual band seekers are MK2000/2200, but it not supplied in Russia.

 

Мы говорим про Р-73, а не про РВВ-МД.

Прежде чем писать, учись читать.

 

You're wrong. We use all possible nomograms to understand and find out what really is there. Unfortunately, a some of nomograms are inaccurate and in some cases do not correspond to reality. In any case, we try to make it as accurate as possible.

 

Then why did one of your sources say this

 

 

"

Покупатели российских самолетов могут в ближайшее время остаться без ракет ближнего боя Р-73, которые «догоняют» самолет противника за счет инфракрасной головки самонаведения. Эти ракеты работают по принципу «пустил и забыл» и остаются одним из самых грозных средств поражения авиатехники. Самые свежие модификации ракеты (РМД-2) имеют всеракурсную многоплощадочную головку самонаведения с двухдиапазонным охлаждаемым фотоприемником, чувствительность которого вдвое выше базовой версии. Эти устройства, которые называются МК-80 «Маяк», еще с советских времен производит киевский завод «Арсенал»."