Ракеты в DCS

[Маэстро]

Это уже давно, с самого начала было в их обновленных фм.

[Teknetinium]

Great work on many fronts regarding missiles and visuals, is the EOS bug still not ready for realise or was it missed to get included in update?  

[KBAC]

16 минут назад, Маэстро сказал:

Это уже давно, с самого начала было в их обновленных фм.

Понял. Спасибо. Я уж думал, опять их подкрутили что ли.

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Маэстро said:

I hope so. At least ballistics of AIM-7 matches the real one, ballistics of AIM-120 should be close to real one.

 

Hi Maestro, can you say in which document we can find the ballistic information for the AIM-7?

[Max1mus]

7 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

Great work on many fronts regarding missiles and visuals, is the EOS bug still not ready for realise or was it missed to get included in update?  

Youre overestimating the importance of the EOS bug. Test with a jamming target, your radar will not loose the lock. The ER will still be chaffed 98/100 times. SARH missiles in DCS do their own thing, you dont chaff the radar (and if missile/radar are at different angles, trying it will get you killed!), but you chaff the missile. And that missile happens to have a horrible countermeasure coefficient.

ER with the new update is almost exactly the same as before down low, has a marginal increase up high, and got severely nerfed in terms of acceleration, which really hurts it at ranges close to the no-escape-zone.

So really it got nerfed down low, buffed up high. Nowhere close to the kind of rework AIM-120 got. I assume the full research is still on the way.

[Max1mus]

10 hours ago, Маэстро said:

Aim-7 and aim-120 use new FM which models drag reduction due to thrust. 

 

Is there a specific reason why DCS AIM-7F/M reaches 4.7km in a tailchase scenario, when it should be able to go over 6km at sea level (according to both the american and russian source)? AIM-120 outperforms the only known source. By as much as 23% which i like to remind of.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Max1mus

[Teknetinium]

22 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Youre overestimating the importance of the EOS bug. Test with a jamming target, your radar will not loose the lock. The ER will still be chaffed 98/100 times. SARH missiles in DCS do their own thing, you dont chaff the radar (and if missile/radar are at different angles, trying it will get you killed!), but you chaff the missile. And that missile happens to have a horrible countermeasure coefficient.

ER with the new update is almost exactly the same as before down low, has a marginal increase up high, and got severely nerfed in terms of acceleration, which really hurts it at ranges close to the no-escape-zone.

So really it got nerfed down low, buffed up high. Nowhere close to the kind of rework AIM-120 got. I assume the full research is still on the way.

I want DCS to be as close documentation as possible and get intel on what went wrong with EOS bug, since EOS still turns on automatically resulting in ER-27 losing track.  

Edited April 16, 2021 by Teknetinium

[BlackPixxel]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

ER with the new update is almost exactly the same as before down low, has a marginal increase up high, and got severely nerfed in terms of acceleration, which really hurts it at ranges close to the no-escape-zone.

So really it got nerfed down low, buffed up high. Nowhere close to the kind of rework AIM-120 got. I assume the full research is still on the way.

 

Nothing about the ER got nerfed.

 

Yes, in the first 3 seconds of flight it accelerates slower than before (which is even a plus when you want to hit off boresight targets in close combat).

After that, it accelerates much faster than before.

 

At all altitudes the launch distance got increased thanks to the reduced drag.

So the updated ER performs better than the old one in basically every aspect, both down low and up high.

Edited April 16, 2021 by BlackPixxel

[nighthawk2174]

14 hours ago, Маэстро said:

I hope so. At least ballistics of AIM-7 matches the real one, ballistics of AIM-120 should be close to real one.

What are the current AIM-7 motor statistics?

[dundun92]

4 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Nothing about the ER got nerfed.

 

Yes, in the first 3 seconds of flight it accelerates slower than before (which is even a plus when you want to hit off boresight targets in close combat).

After that, it accelerates much faster than before.

 

At all altitudes the launch distance got increased thanks to the reduced drag.

So the updated ER performs better than the old one in basically every aspect, both down low and up high.

 

I should also add, the ER got a big lift boost. It can turn much more sharply, and turn while bleeding less speed than before.

[BlackPixxel]

1 minute ago, dundun92 said:

I should also add, the ER got a big lift boost. It can turn much more sharply, and turn while bleeding less speed than before.

 

I think lift did not change, it already got the increased lift a few patches ago. The same patch that changed R-77 drag and motor.

[dundun92]

1 hour ago, BlackPixxel said:

I think lift did not change, it already got the increased lift a few patches ago. The same patch that changed R-77 drag and motor.

No there was a change @Quaggles (idk if this is the same one)? on reddit  managed to access the missile file while the game is running and heres what he found:

To verify I ran some tests comparing to the shot profile I used in the post a few months ago about the last changes:

2.5.6:

2.7:

 

The 2.7 ER/ET can turn pretty much as hard as an R-77, at least down low.

 

(for reference, the ET is the 2nd one to be fired, R-77 is first)

Edited April 17, 2021 by dundun92

[TotenDead]

Ну, кстати, что интересно, в 2.5.6 ракеты попали практически одновременно, 27 - лишь чуть раньше, а в 2.7 разница между попаданиями уже в пару секунд в пользу 77

Edited April 17, 2021 by TotenDead

[Hoarfrost]

43 минуты назад, TotenDead сказал:

Ну, кстати, что интересно, в 2.5.6 ракеты попали практически одновременно, 27 - лишь чуть раньше, а в 2.7 разница между попаданиями уже в пару секунд в пользу 27

я понял наоборот, в 2.7 -   р77 раньше попала) 

[TotenDead]

3 минуты назад, Hoarfrost сказал:

я понял наоборот, в 2.7 -   р77 раньше попала) 

Да, эт я опечатался, исправил

[Маэстро]

5 hours ago, dundun92 said:

No there was a change @Quaggles (idk if this is the same one)? on reddit  managed to access the missile file while the game is running and heres what he found:

To verify I ran some tests comparing to the shot profile I used in the post a few months ago about the last changes:

Lift coeffs were changed in august 2020 update.

[Маэстро]

18 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Hi Maestro, can you say in which document we can find the ballistic information for the AIM-7?

 

7 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

What are the current AIM-7 motor statistics?

Hi, you may find many interesting info about AIM-7(referred as missile baseline) in Eugene Fleeman's book Tactical missile design, chapter 7. Here for example original CD0 chart from this book. Triangles denote data from NASA wind tunnel test, x'es with lines is for our CFD data.

[nighthawk2174]

31 minutes ago, Маэстро said:

 

Hi, you may find many interesting info about AIM-7(referred as missile baseline) in Eugene Fleeman's book Tactical missile design, chapter 7. Here for example original CD0 chart from this book. Triangles denote data from NASA wind tunnel test, x'es with lines is for our CFD data.

Rog it matches with what I gave too you a few weeks ago.  iirc he also had a thrustvtime curve in the book as well are these the values used for the AIM-7 motor?

Also is there a difference between the F/M they had different nose cones due to the different seekers.  Also your thoughts on: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/kwxcfx/concerns_about_the_aim120b_motor_data_in_dcs/

[Маэстро]

12 hours ago, Max1mus said:

 

Is there a specific reason why DCS AIM-7F/M reaches 4.7km in a tailchase scenario, when it should be able to go over 6km at sea level (according to both the american and russian source)? AIM-120 outperforms the only known source. By as much as 23% which i like to remind of.

 

The first reason is charts inaccuracy. See attached. SMC chart has a typo on its scale. With account for typo range is 2nm = 3.7km (and that's exactly we have in DCS for Vt+150m/s terminal condition).

Russian chart is not ideal to. For tail-chase case curves for Vmax and Vmin match at low altitude, but there should be no such thing.


The second reason - you cannot just take two different charts and start to compare them(SMC chart gives you 20nm for head-on case at SL, but russian one only 20km, hmm, why?). 
Charts may be drawn for different velocity conditions(Vt/Vf ratio may not equals 1) and different terminal conditions. So you may directly compare two charts only if all this conditions match.
 

[nighthawk2174]

13 minutes ago, Маэстро said:

The first reason is charts inaccuracy. See attached. SMC chart has a typo on its scale. With account for typo range is 2nm = 3.7km (and that's exactly we have in DCS for Vt+150m/s terminal condition).

Russian chart is not ideal to. For tail-chase case curves for Vmax and Vmin match at low altitude, but there should be no such thing.


The second reason - you cannot just take two different charts and start to compare them(SMC chart gives you 20nm for head-on case at SL, but russian one only 20km, hmm, why?). 
Charts may be drawn for different velocity conditions(Vt/Vf ratio may not equals 1) and different terminal conditions. So you may directly compare two charts only if all this conditions match.
 

Concerning the chart this is my observation on the main bold axis there are tick marks every 5NMi in the 6 cell region there are the appropriate amount of cells before the 5Nmi tick mark (2) but after that there seems to have been one extra one added.  As such it seems the error is most likely that the 10NMi tick and axis mark were just placed one box too far.  But it seems that the first tick mark (and hence DLZ) may be correct.

Edited April 17, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Маэстро]

Yep. My mistake, should be 4nm, but typo is still here. Ok, let's suppose chart is correct, in this case new question arises - how this possible? We know that drag is correct(several sources match), motor data is correct too(from Fleeman's book for example), hence missile range should be correct too. It cannot be lower two times.

[Hoarfrost]

8 часов назад, dundun92 сказал:

No there was a change @Quaggles (idk if this is the same one)? on reddit  managed to access the missile file while the game is running and heres what he found:

To verify I ran some tests comparing to the shot profile I used in the post a few months ago about the last changes:

2.5.6:

2.7:

 

The 2.7 ER/ET can turn pretty much as hard as an R-77, at least down low.

 

(for reference, the ET is the 2nd one to be fired, R-77 is first)

 

but the greater the distance to the target, the r27er will fly further and hit first.

[BlackPixxel]

9 hours ago, dundun92 said:

No there was a change @Quaggles (idk if this is the same one)? on reddit  managed to access the missile file while the game is running and heres what he found:

To verify I ran some tests comparing to the shot profile I used in the post a few months ago about the last changes:

2.5.6:

2.7:

 

The 2.7 ER/ET can turn pretty much as hard as an R-77, at least down low.

 

(for reference, the ET is the 2nd one to be fired, R-77 is first)

 

 

They had exactly those lift values with the previous version of DCS already.

 

Close range maneuvernig should still be improved because of the reduced boost thrust. So during the safety maneuver, the missiles pick up less speed and can therefore turn better during the initial turn.

 

And the ET in your second video can maneuver better because of the reduced safety maneuver time. It was 1.5 s, a while ago it got changed to 0.4 s, which is the correct value for the rail launcher.

Edited April 17, 2021 by BlackPixxel

[TotenDead]

Вопрос по ракетам R4M

1) Разве не должна иметься возможность производить залповый пуск этими ракетами? Сейчас приходится отстреливать попарно за нажатие.

2) Корректно ли проходит урон по самолетам? Там в пересчете в тротил около 600 грамм взрывчатки, Б-17 не разваливается даже от трех прямых попаданий (попадал по крылу, фюзеляжу и стабилизатору), хотя там от одного должен настать северный зверек.

3) Посмотрите, в названии указано, что это - УРВВ средней дальности. Это ракета воздух-воздух, конечно, но точно не управляемая) Ну и на счет средней дальности не уверен. Может назвать как-то НАР ВВ.

[Max1mus]

17 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Nothing about the ER got nerfed.

 

Yes, in the first 3 seconds of flight it accelerates slower than before (which is even a plus when you want to hit off boresight targets in close combat).

After that, it accelerates much faster than before.

 

At all altitudes the launch distance got increased thanks to the reduced drag.

So the updated ER performs better than the old one in basically every aspect, both down low and up high.

 

 

An AIM-120 will now outspeed it at 8-10km (or, up to 6km flyout), meaning that when this distance is reached, you have 0 options left assuming equal positioning. That is quite a significant nerf.

19 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

I want DCS to be as close documentation as possible and get intel on what went wrong with EOS bug, since EOS still turns on automatically resulting in ER-27 losing track.  

 

As i said, test with a jamming target where EOS does not turn on. ER-27 will still loose track. Its the countermeasure coefficient of the missile, not the radar mechanic, that is at fault. For the most part.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Max1mus