Update 03/02/2023: ref the issues vs manoeuvring targets, the same happens if the target accelerates drastically whilst the missile is flying. For example, A launched at a target at 60nm flying at 0.7 nm, and by A-Pole, it was flying at M1.6 (MiG-25s are damn fast). The Phoenix almost overshot. This makes sense, as acceleration is a change in the geometrical parameters, just on a different axis, so to speak. So, take it easy with the loft, the increase in Vc helps the missile anyway. --------------------- To minimise the "slideshow effect", I displayed the charts for only a few seconds. I recommend pausing the video to see them clearly. Later, they will be added to a dedicated article on FlyAndWire.com.
Thank you sooo much! I have been away from the tomcat and upon my return I was shocked I couldn't kill any stupid AI at all. Thanks so much, this is exactly what I was looking for and must have been tedious for you, yet extremely useful! Cheers.
The g's in tacview are calculated using the flight path so at the end of the track you will often see weird results for these. Even in scenarios where the missile does not turn that much, if you observe in game the G on the missile it will not show this spike.
I thought it could be that, I reckon the issue came up in another context. I did not count it exactly because I did not see it (yep, I've watched each shot :| ), but I was not certain it was something *I* was missing.
I wonder how much of this is because we gain a slight notch of altitude when lofting, and how much is the missile not needing to correct its trajectory to climb
Hi! I had the same thought whilst doing the tests. Eventually, I realised the impact was minimal: in other videos where the study systematically covers multiple launches, the pitch-up phase lasts between 1.5 / 2 seconds, and the total effect is so narrow it is hard to measure without falling into the acceptable error tolerance. That being said, if the aircraft has energy, the loft phase can be sustained as the crew deems appropriate.
Could be worth investigating the effect of not centering the dot when firing a phoenix. I think it's often neglected, but it will make a big difference since our phoenix was changed from Parallel navigation (which would correct any error) to proportional navigation which will not correct until much closer.
Good point. I think it's neglected mostly in TWSA, as the centroid is not always easy to centre unless the RIO cleans up a bit, but the standard ASE is less of an issue. I wonder if the rule of thumb used for the AIM-7 can help with the new guidance (half ATA in the opposite direction).
@@FlyAndWire Yea there should be an english bias for the missile but I'm not convinced it is modeled in DCS. The english bias would put it on an intercept course straight away.
No. My perspective is (almost) always a standard 2/4 hours mission where fuel matters. For example, when I made the much longer study in 2019, I used ~30,000ft and M.9 as launching parameters because they are easy to achieve. The new '54 loves altitude, but getting over 40,000ft and at M1.5 requires more resources (although you can unload to quickly get over transonic range). I have countless things in my queue and little time, but I'll give it a go. EDIT: there you go mate, cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1059904128698040412/1067031926566817803/image.png
Thank you very much for this testing, I know it required a lot of patience and dedication. Looking forward to the full article on your website!
Update 03/02/2023: ref the issues vs manoeuvring targets, the same happens if the target accelerates drastically whilst the missile is flying. For example, A launched at a target at 60nm flying at 0.7 nm, and by A-Pole, it was flying at M1.6 (MiG-25s are damn fast). The Phoenix almost overshot.
This makes sense, as acceleration is a change in the geometrical parameters, just on a different axis, so to speak. So, take it easy with the loft, the increase in Vc helps the missile anyway.
---------------------
To minimise the "slideshow effect", I displayed the charts for only a few seconds. I recommend pausing the video to see them clearly. Later, they will be added to a dedicated article on FlyAndWire.com.
*You truly do Gods work. Id have to do all of these tests myself without you.* THANK YOU
oooo a fellow Ultrawide user lets go [UPDATE] Just finished watching. Excellent video! Very informative
Great vid! Helps a lot because the last 54 update changed nearly every aspect of the missile
What did they change? Is it garbage?
So much work went into this. Props!
Thanks for doing god's work for us!
God is busy doing gods' things. That's why I do them :D
Thx bro.I love this.I have the courage to enter the PVP arena again.
Np! Keep in mind that this is a tiny improvement. It's nothing compared to using appropriate geometry and employment parameters.
Thank you sooo much! I have been away from the tomcat and upon my return I was shocked I couldn't kill any stupid AI at all. Thanks so much, this is exactly what I was looking for and must have been tedious for you, yet extremely useful! Cheers.
Agreed, same. Have been trashing missiles for a week, THIS was exactly what I needed. Thanks @FlyAndWire
The g's in tacview are calculated using the flight path so at the end of the track you will often see weird results for these. Even in scenarios where the missile does not turn that much, if you observe in game the G on the missile it will not show this spike.
I thought it could be that, I reckon the issue came up in another context. I did not count it exactly because I did not see it (yep, I've watched each shot :| ), but I was not certain it was something *I* was missing.
Thank you very much for all of your work!
I wonder how much of this is because we gain a slight notch of altitude when lofting, and how much is the missile not needing to correct its trajectory to climb
Hi! I had the same thought whilst doing the tests. Eventually, I realised the impact was minimal: in other videos where the study systematically covers multiple launches, the pitch-up phase lasts between 1.5 / 2 seconds, and the total effect is so narrow it is hard to measure without falling into the acceptable error tolerance. That being said, if the aircraft has energy, the loft phase can be sustained as the crew deems appropriate.
Could be worth investigating the effect of not centering the dot when firing a phoenix. I think it's often neglected, but it will make a big difference since our phoenix was changed from Parallel navigation (which would correct any error) to proportional navigation which will not correct until much closer.
Good point. I think it's neglected mostly in TWSA, as the centroid is not always easy to centre unless the RIO cleans up a bit, but the standard ASE is less of an issue. I wonder if the rule of thumb used for the AIM-7 can help with the new guidance (half ATA in the opposite direction).
@@FlyAndWire Yea there should be an english bias for the missile but I'm not convinced it is modeled in DCS. The english bias would put it on an intercept course straight away.
Have you tried max performance parameters yet? M1.5 at 44k feet. I’m curious if you manually loft it will hurt performance not help.
No. My perspective is (almost) always a standard 2/4 hours mission where fuel matters. For example, when I made the much longer study in 2019, I used ~30,000ft and M.9 as launching parameters because they are easy to achieve. The new '54 loves altitude, but getting over 40,000ft and at M1.5 requires more resources (although you can unload to quickly get over transonic range).
I have countless things in my queue and little time, but I'll give it a go.
EDIT: there you go mate, cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1059904128698040412/1067031926566817803/image.png