Jump to content

Ракеты в DCS


Chizh

Recommended Posts

Hello, what GG said and to add, Over-G Limit and Sparrow Loft range for Eagle. 


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Thanks 2

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Hi Chizh, lots of threads and documentation has been provided for very bad radar range inaccuracy for F-15C, Su-27, MiG-29 (all underperforming), F-18 and F-16 (both seriously over-perfoming).   I hope that you guys take care of this, because radar range is probably the easiest thing you can fix right now.   It's so easy I can do it myself, so it would be nice if it could be done quickly.

We have recorded a bug about the shorter detection range of the MiG-29 and Su-27 radars to the lower hemisphere in the tail.
It will be corrected.

 

Цитата

For the Su-27 in particular, a functional wingman datalink is desired for MP.

Not in plan.

Su-27 is simple aircraft LOMAC class. 

F-15C has not datalink at all in DCS.

Я не смотрю телевизор

ЧИЖ

 

Вакансии в ED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 минут назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

Hello, what GG said and to add, Over-G Limit and Sparrow Loft range for Eagle. 

 

Do you have track or link to track with F-15C over-G issue?

Я не смотрю телевизор

ЧИЖ

 

Вакансии в ED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chizh said:

We have recorded a bug about the shorter detection range of the MiG-29 and Su-27 radars to the lower hemisphere in the tail.
This will be corrected.

 

Keep in mind that also high alt looking at target more then 2000m bellow are also affected. let's say 12000m looking at the target 8000m for the MiG it will pick it up at ~42km... instead of 60-70km as per RLE. 


 

22 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Do you have track or link to track with F-15C over-G issue?


Here is track of me pulling a constant 11.2 g turn (I am not that skilled in Eagle, people more skilled than me can do this all day) with full loadout, and then intentional pulling 14g pick up and blacking out, plane doesn't overstress, or any systems fail. I would propose to add a flag if somebody pulls 10 or 11g limit for more than few seconds to trigger radar or random system failure. 

F-15.trk


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 1

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 минут назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

Here is track of me pulling a constant 11.2 g turn (I am not that skilled in Eagle, people more skilled than me can do this all day) with full loadout, and then intentional pulling 14g pick up and blacking out, plane doesn't overstress, or any systems fail. I would propose to add a flag if somebody pulls 10 or 11g limit for more than few seconds to trigger radar or random system failure. 

F-15.trk 158 \u041a\u0431 · 0 скачиваний

 

The ultimate load factor for aircraft designed for 9g must be at least 13.5 g.
I did not notice g-loads of more than 13.5g in the track.

Я не смотрю телевизор

ЧИЖ

 

Вакансии в ED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

We have recorded a bug about the shorter detection range of the MiG-29 and Su-27 radars to the lower hemisphere in the tail.
It will be corrected.

 

There are also problems with the F-15 range (too short for both aspects, like MiG-29/Su-27),  and F-16/18 have far too much range for their little radars.  They pretty much behave like APG-63s.

 

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Not in plan.

Su-27 is simple aircraft LOMAC class. 

F-15C has not datalink at all in DCS.

 

I understand (I wasn't expecting one for F-15C, it didn't get one until after 2008 anyway).   However in Su-27 the fighter DL works for the player and his aircraf tin the same AI group, could this not be extended to MP?

  • Like 3

[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

Is the difference in ability to notch a supported and unsupported missile currently simulated?

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A missile that receives information via missile datalink from the launch platform.    Some missiles will process this information even when terminal homing (AMRAAM for sure, probably the SD-10 and R-77 and many SAMs), increasing resistance to ECM, chaff, and helping to continue tracking a target through the notch or split-S (split-S countermeasures were already implemented in AIM-7E - it has no datalink but it has a little search mode to help with this).

[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

Yes, but the notch makes no sense if you're not illuminating.  There's no target, basically.

[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

8 hours ago, Chizh said:

Alfa,

what is supported missile? 


Exactly what GGTharos said.  I feel that supported missiles should be less likely to notch since of the two radar angles, unsupported should be easier to notch due to small and weak radar (I know some ppl will disagree with me). Also, missiles fired in TWS should be less accurate then STT due to TWS inherent inaccuracies (especially in vertical where it can be off thousands of feet) 

Contributing factors to this way of thinking, we can see that per example Swedish air force train to support the Fox 3 till impact.


Also historically based on pilot accounts all the Aim-120 were supported till impact (also a great quote, missiles miss, that is why the called missiles) 

 

 

 

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Is the difference in ability to notch a supported and unsupported missile currently simulated?

Yes, there is a difference. The supported missile overcomes the notch more easily.

After the missile has locked the target of its seeker, the support is terminated.

  • Like 1

Я не смотрю телевизор

ЧИЖ

 

Вакансии в ED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Search mode? With what could it search?

 

A target that will fit its doppler, range and angle gates within a certain amount of time.   In very simplified terms, it performs a mini-raster waiting for the target to fly out of the clutter line.

[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

A few questions:
A) For proximity fuzes: Could it be possible to define essentially a "bubble" for every aircraft representing its approximate dimensions and then that value is subtracted out of the distance from the missile to the target?  That way you don't get missile missing because they didn't pass within 10ft of the pilots head?  
B) is it possible to make the target's computer a primary simulator of what is happening? Thus, if the missile is aimed at a target in the MP, that person's computer will process the simulation of what is happening as if it were in the SP updating the server with its calculations. I think the most important thing is that the target has an accurate idea of what is going on. If it turns out for the launch plane that the missile is a little laggy, in my eyes is an insignificant issue compared to the target having an accurate idea of what is happening.

C)

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Yes, there is a difference. The supported missile overcomes the notch more easily.

After the missile has locked the target of its seeker, the support is terminated.

Is this just a percentage chance or will the targets position actually be continuously updated?  And lets say the missile is notched then re-acquires it doesn't stop receiving updates then does it?  As it should continue to receive them so long as the radar sees the target.

 

Would be nice also to incorporate lag into this, essentially if the radar passes over the target and sees it then the missile gets an update.  Not just continuously would make tws a bit less reliable at getting the missile through a notch and STT a lot better at this.  Although tbf for the amraam if its getting datalink updates couldn't it just throw open its vgate and re-acquire with the range gate?  Especially if in lookup or at a significant distance from terrain?

 

D) Will the amraam get MPRF and HPRF modes simulated?  As far as i'm aware, partially based on what i've seen in mace, they should have different sized notches, detection ranges, and fov's.


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Exactly what GGTharos said.  I feel that supported missiles should be less likely to notch since of the two radar angles, unsupported should be easier to notch due to small and weak radar (I know some ppl will disagree with me). Also, missiles fired in TWS should be less accurate then STT due to TWS inherent inaccuracies (especially in vertical where it can be off thousands of feet) 

 

I don't know if it would make much of a difference. If you notch the missile, you will very often notch the aircraft radar as well anyway (which has a wider notch gate). Still it would be interesting to see.

 

But for a proper implementation, DCS has to rewrite the radar memory mode mechanic from scratch. Right now memory/memery mode will receive the actual position of the aircraft for X seconds after losing the lock, which would result in the missile being 100% notch-proof for X seconds.

Instead the radar should actually extrapolate, and its track should deviate from the actual target position, especially if the target maneuvers.

 

Also, INS inaccuracy of the missiles has to be considered. The midcourse corrections work so well, because the missile activates its seeker quite far from the target, where the angular error is quite small. If it would now lose the target and fly by INS + midcourse correction for another while, then it might be that at the target location received from the datalink it will not find a target, because the position of the missile is off due to INS drift.

 

 

So it would indeed be nice to see this implemented, but ED has to be very carefull not to make it too simplified, as this would make it more powerfull than it should actually be.


Edited by BlackPixxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

But for a proper implementation, DCS has to rewrite the radar memory mode mechanic from scratch. Right now memory/memery mode will receive the actual position of the aircraft for X seconds after losing the lock, which would result in the missile being 100% notch-proof for X seconds.

Instead the radar should actually extrapolate, and its track should deviate from the actual target position, especially if the target maneuvers.

Our radar (in ED aircraft) actually extrapolates the target position. If the target is maneuvering at this moment, the position extrapolated by the radar will differ.

 

2 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

Also, INS inaccuracy of the missiles has to be considered.

In the plans.

 

  • Like 2

Я не смотрю телевизор

ЧИЖ

 

Вакансии в ED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Our radar (in ED aircraft) actually extrapolates the target position. If the target is maneuvering at this moment, the position extrapolated by the radar will differ.

 

The radar might show the correctly extrapolated track, but the missile itself will not go towards the extrapolated position. The missile guided from a radar in memory/extrapolation mode of the radar will fly towards the actual target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how much do you think these INUs drift?   Out of curiosity I found the part number for the 120's INU a couple of months ago - it's going to drift so little over the useful time of the missile that it just doesn't matter when you're activating a thousand times further than the size of the possible error.  Yep, drift is a thing but not quite the way people are thinking - in fact; given the accuracy of the instruments it's hard to tell how drift is a problem without knowing more, especially vs a singleton in a clear sky.


Edited by GGTharos

[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

16 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Just how much do you think these INUs drift?   Out of curiosity I found the part number for the 120's INU a couple of months ago - it's going to drift so little over the useful time of the missile that it just doesn't matter when you're activating a thousand times further than the size of the possible error.  Yep, drift is a thing but not quite the way people are thinking - in fact; given the accuracy of the instruments it's hard to tell how drift is a problem without knowing more, especially vs a singleton in a clear sky.

 

I think radar accuracy is more of issue, they are not laser beams. And seriously degrades with distance especially when trying to figure out altitude, TWS is most effected. 

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, at the engagement ranges we're looking at, only a very old radar would have a radar cell that is particularly large.  Even with TWS, the sources of error from TWS itself, which are not modeled, are far larger than the INU drift.   While these INUs can have an order of 10deg/h of drift for some of the worst of them, the longest you can expect a missile to fly without any guidance is 60 seconds, so the drift is 1/60th of that value.  Pretty much any drift you compute will be tiny and you need other things to help the missile do things it shouldn't.

 

You're better off counting on breaking a TWS track  because of timing (ie. making a move at over 6g would likely make it unable to correlate) but then the attacking fighter can go to HDTWS and negate that.  Nowhere in here is the INU error large enough to cause enough problems in an obvious (to me) way, and that's assuming that the flight is completely uncorrected from launch to missile search.

 

I certainly don't understand how and why INU drift enters into the picture here, and I'd like to know.  Do you know?


Edited by GGTharos

[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

23 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

IMHO, at the engagement ranges we're looking at, only a very old radar would have a radar cell that is particularly large.  Even with TWS, the sources of error from TWS itself, which are not modeled, are far larger than the INU drift.   While these INUs can have an order of 10deg/h of drift for some of the worst of them, the longest you can expect a missile to fly without any guidance is 60 seconds, so the drift is 1/60th of that value.  Pretty much any drift you compute will be tiny and you need other things to help the missile do things it shouldn't.

 

You're better off counting on breaking a TWS track  because of timing (ie. making a move at over 6g would likely make it unable to correlate) but then the attacking fighter can go to HDTWS and negate that.  Nowhere in here is the INU error large enough to cause enough problems in an obvious (to me) way, and that's assuming that the flight is completely uncorrected from launch to missile search.

 

I certainly don't understand how and why INU drift enters into the picture here, and I'd like to know.  Do you know?

 

INS rounds get CEP to ~50m for 60 sec flight and that is new tech and biggest INS error producing part is path change that is more present in A to A missies than arty round. We are not talking about two static points with exact positions to start with. There is a good reason why you do INS correction after take-off SID is done. Is the accuracy still good enough, yes, but error is not neglectable. 

https://www.army.mil/article/111566/new_guided_munition_sensors_are_greater_than_sum_of_their_parts


Edited by FoxAlfa

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...