Chaff & flares
-
This is an example of source modeling that we could envisage
and ideally, we could make those enveloppes aircraft dependant since the size and shape modify the signature from one aircraft to the other
but IMO overkill as well
Yes, partially models current code this. The IR āstrengthā is the 6 o clock max. value and the aspect modifier is the same for air aircraft. The IR āstrengthā is also RPM dependant in current model except the surface temp. of the airframe. The current āhackedā modeling consider only the plume as the modeled source and the turbine itself.
-
hey ho molni, just to be clear and i want to say it publically (this is what i was saying to DJ on TS a few minutes ago)
i would love to work with you. you are very valuable mine of information and dedication, asbolutly no doubt about it and i value your research very much;
the problem is that i am not sure you and I can work as a team ā¦as we have difficulties to understand each other
Yes, I have head many times. Maybe you are right this is why I positioned myself into ādata supplyā role because of two or more issues.
1. Free time. Days are gone when I had hundreds of hours to MOD/develop + test with testing. (Without really flyingā¦) I spend my free time with doing other activities.
2. Regardless what I was able to achieve in my MOD likely in many cases changes were not most elegant and āsustainableā. I mean hear the DB changes. I know what I did worked but without knowing what happens exactly because of the code.
3. What you mention. Teamwork. In my job I work almost always in team as a process engineer but somehow in other areas I cannot reach the same ācompatibilityā. I do not know why. (My big book was also made with Teamwork.) Maybe the language barrier.If we want an even more detailed modeleing, then we need to add wabelengths as parameters, since heat from friction is different from heat from engien etc etcā¦.but that would be overkill IMO for our simulator
Yes, it would be very likely. Iām very curious what model could be use to replace the current which is better, more flexible from database wise but it remains still computable.
-
Yes, partially models current code this. The IR āstrengthā is the 6 o clock max. value and the aspect modifier is the same for air aircraft. The IR āstrengthā is also RPM dependant in current model except the surface temp. of the airframe. The current āhackedā modeling consider only the plume as the modeled source and the turbine itself.
Read my post about current modeling
Current modeling lacks the elevation aspect big time ,
and for the all aspects seekers , the source is considered isotropic !! (this is a major mistake which is not MPS fault but came later in dev process )
The idea would be to include a better source modeling , background effect and environmental modeling without changing the basic data of our current seekers
The data could be altered as we could work on a more realistic base upfront
-
Read my post about current modeling
Current modeling lacks the elevation aspect big time ,
and for the all aspects seekers , the source is considered isotropic !! (this is a major mistake which is not MPS fault but came later in dev process )
The idea would be to include a better source modeling , background effect and environmental modeling without changing the basic data of our current seekers
The data could be altered as we could work on a more realistic base upfront
Oh, so only the azimuth is modeled but elevation is not. This is a big flaw because in dogfight this can be big factor.
-
Oh, so only the azimuth is modeled but elevation is not. This is a big flaw because in dogfight this can be big factor.
yepā¦so a target seen FRONT but 45 deg up angle is similar as FRONT zero up angle => oops
so with the flag ārear onlyā => you canāt shoot, while in reality the seeker can see the big plume ā¦
-
Yes with perfect contrasting
so to summarize
apart from the philosophic / coding point of view,
the MPS + RP coding :
Do not take heating of leading edges surfaces into account with speed
Do not take the aspect in the vertical axis
Do not take into account the plume in the aspect (i mean the signature vs aspect is similar in Idle/ MIL / AB , but the plume is extremly important geometrically speaking as it is not masked)
Do not take into account background
Do not take into account Clouds and fog => included in BMSSo, some love would be needed in the code to handle the source and propagation, before we could improve and set up more accurate seekers capabilities
Roger thatā¦!
-
yepā¦so a target seen FRONT but 45 deg up angle is similar as FRONT zero up angle => oops
so with the flag ārear onlyā => you canāt shoot, while in reality the seeker can see the big plume ā¦
Is this why I sometimes get shot in the face when I think it should not have been probable ?
-
ā¦I donāt know why anyone would think you canāt shoot someone in the face with a heaterā¦OTOH, which heater you shootā¦
-
9X does a great job of it. Even the 9M does a decent job against non flaring targets. IRMD (heat management through engine settings) doesnt seem to do anything in BMS, at present, but against lower tier missiles, flares does.
-
IRMD definitely does something in BMS from my experience. Looks like it even reduces damage if opponent was able to launch F-2.
-
Just a stupid thought.
How about using a 3d model like the tree models which are actually an asterisk of planes. Add to this a vertical plane.
Now those planes can have alpha channel. Create a set for each speed step like Mach 0.5 Mach 1 etcā¦
Use the reflection of those alphas for the infra seeker. Even first use the clouds transparency (alpha channel) then the heat 3d model, in between u can set a variation for weather conditions like rain wind etc to reduce or enlarge calculations.Obviously those 3d models will not be visible to the user.
Just a simplistic thought, which must be hell to code. But something like that (logic) happens with Maverickās?
Maybe physics could be used from vga to reduce performance impact.
Ī£ĻĪ¬Ī»ĪøĪ·ĪŗĪµ Ī±ĻĻ ĻĪæ MI 5 Ī¼ĪæĻ ĻĻĪ·ĻĪ¹Ī¼ĪæĻĪæĪ¹ĻĪ½ĻĪ±Ļ Tapatalk
-
9X does a great job of it. Even the 9M does a decent job against non flaring targets. IRMD (heat management through engine settings) doesnt seem to do anything in BMS, at present, but against lower tier missiles, flares does.
In Falcon universe even AIM-9M is close to 100% jam resistance as the R-73 which never was good for my ātasteā. During Desert Storms flares literally every time jammed the AIM-9M7 if were dropped about half a dozen even it was launched rear aspect against a MiG-25PD what used full afterburner.
This is Falconā¦
-
9X does a great job of it. Even the 9M does a decent job against non flaring targets. IRMD (heat management through engine settings) doesnt seem to do anything in BMS, at present, but against lower tier missiles, flares does.
Which is another reason nobody rages into the merge a the āspeed of heatā.
-
In Falcon universe even AIM-9M is close to 100% jam resistance as the R-73 which never was good for my ātasteā. During Desert Storms flares literally every time jammed the AIM-9M7 if were dropped about half a dozen even it was launched rear aspect against a MiG-25PD what used full afterburner.
This is Falconā¦
Su-25ā¦shouldnāt have an afterburner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Overview
And thatās WAY too many flaresā¦
-
-
Su-25ā¦shouldnāt have an afterburner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Overview
And thatās WAY too many flaresā¦
Is does not have and I flew less the 90 RPM which is makes easier the jamming. This is how OP and over modeled the AIM-9M as well as R-73. The flare chance values sadly does not follow the evolution of the AIM-9 family.
-
Iām doubting that the number of flares carried on that Su-25 as viddied isnāt modeled correctlyā¦think heād have BINGOād after the first salvo at the rate he was chucking them. Which is why more = better.
-
Iām doubting that the number of flares carried on that Su-25 as viddied isnāt modeled correctlyā¦think heād have BINGOād after the first salvo at the rate he was chucking them. Which is why more = better.
1. It does not matter for the test.
2. The point of the test was to show the modeling issue.
3. As I can remember the flare/chaff qty. is good for Su-25. It has so many cartridges. Not only the A-10 can carry lots of decoysā¦
https://books.google.hu/books?id=oYmHCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT84&lpg=PT84&dq=su-25+flare+dispenser&source=bl&ots=9CC2Wc-xIU&sig=ACfU3U3nHe5HUtWaZHR4cNrmfYgDnJz3rg&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL9-rkm7zhAhXlwYsKHRRxB8kQ6AEwBnoECC4QAQ#v=onepage&q=su-25%20flare%20dispenser&f=false -
It actually does matter to the modeling - just as you can over-model the missile you can over-model the countermeasures. Then the whole scenario is off on both ends. Iād have to do some digging through model kits to see just how many expendables a Frogfoot carries, but Iām still doubting itās this many.
EDIT: Well that was an interesting noodleā¦I manged not only to find some decent pictures/refs, but also just whatās on the jet -
http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/aviation-means-of-attack-and-defense/aso
The Su-25 mounts four ASO-2/V beams on top of the aft engine nacelles; 2 per nacelle. Each beam holds 32 expendables, for a max total of 128 items. So - given that the jet is likely configured for combat with a mix of chaff and flare (depending on mission) the number of flares available will be something less than 128ā¦probably something like 64, say.
So - the Frogfoot in the video should be next to IR defenseless in only a few bursts, if heās going to salvo as shown. If this is how the AI has the bogey behaving, I should think it should be revised to something more ārealisticā.
-
Will depend on variantā¦ā¦the Su-25A originally had 4 dispensers with 128 flare capacityā¦during Astan in the 80s they scabbed another 4 onto the nacelles doubling the capacity to 256ā¦some of the SM3s still have those dispensers today. Other export types may vary but donāt have the info.