planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/5/2017 4:10:02 PM

marksi10

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline

Sorry if this has already been requested/discussed, but I wasn�t exactly sure of the terminology, so it was difficult to search for it. I would like to suggest that increased speed of launch aircraft=increased range for missiles launched from that aircraft. This seems to be an important factor in the real world, I recently saw a quote about the Raptor�s supercruise adding up to 40% to the range of the AMRAAM. When I tried it in game, speed did not seem to affect the range of missiles.

While I�m here, I have another query...Is it just me, or are the L-band radars on the Su-35 a real game-changer against stealth? In the Bear and the Dragon, I was losing a J-20 for every Su-35 I shot down. This could have been because I was in range of GCI radar, but then the Mig-31s did not seem to be getting any advantage from this. If it is the L-band, could it really be expected to be this deadly? The more knowledgeable-sounding types on F16net.com did not seem to think much of it, and the suggestion seemed to be that it would mainly be an early warning system rather than any help in getting a firing solution.

I�m not asking for the second thing to be changed, who knows how powerful it is in reality, I�m just curious as to whether the game just treats this as if the Su-35 had a large L-band on it.

Anyway, I don�t want to sound ungrateful, I just thought that, since the game designers have gone so far towards making things realistic, the added range to missiles seems like something they might want to look at at some point (if they haven�t already).

Post #: 1

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/5/2017 4:31:52 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

it's a very large factor, though the supercruise of the F22 does not help as it will likely sprint before launching at anything anyway.

there are people here probably more knowledgeable than me, but L/X band is better at spotting stealth AFAIK. detecting something though is not anywhere close to the same as detecting it well enough to build a track and enable accurate missile guidance. again AFAIK, but these EWR types can't generate a fix with anywhere near the accuracy to hand it off to a missile and expect a hit.
you can know that somewhere from 120-160 degrees there is a metal object moving somewhere at between 50-500 knots. but that's about it.

(in reply to marksi10)

Post #: 2

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/5/2017 6:12:25 PM

CCIP-subsim

Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline

I'm actually a bit skeptical about the 40% number, although I'm sure there is some increase - and as mentioned by Cik, too, typically launches at the extremes of a missile's range are made at dash speeds anyway, where the F-22 isn't actually faster than most fighters.

Looking at the DB, the F-22's supercruise is modeled in a rather funky (but I suppose fair) way in CMANO - the cruise speed setting is the same 480kt as most aircraft, but the top speed of 1000kt is reached at Mil setting rather than AB. As with most "exotic" aircraft, it's basically got its own tweaked fuel consumption model, so it is still in "virtual afterburner" when it's at 1000kt - but will consume a lot less fuel at intermediate speeds between Cruise and Mil, in certain altitude bands, compared to the average fighter. By comparison, the F-16 has the same 480kt cruise setting, and tops out at 925k in afterburner. So, that's a pretty small 75kt difference.

The bigger factor is launch altitude, which as far as I can tell CMANO does account for. I don't think this is represented in the range circles - but with fast-moving air targets, the range circle is merely a "suggestion", and the AI evaluates launch parameters relative to a target and its closing rate etc. This is also influenced by things like Doctrine/WRA settings and OODA loops - pilots are generally reluctant to launch out to maximum dynamic range, and unless you specifically set them to do that, they'll usually hold until well inside the max range circles. Wisely, too - if my recent experiences with are anything to go by, even then the shots the AI take by default are pretty optimistic, leaving a careful enemy with plenty of energy to turn tail and pull an AIM-120 to a point where it starts losing speed and can be dodged more easily. Not a bad thing to force an enemy to turn back if you're facing a swarm of modern fighters, but against a lone MiG-21, it can really be a waste!

My experience with launching AMRAAMs is limited mostly to latter-day versions of Falcon 4.0 (hey, at least I admit that

). There, my method for making the most of the missile's range against targets at medium altitude was to climb at max rate while the contact was still some distance away, then just as the contact was getting near the dynamic range limit, I'd hit full afterburner, reduce my climb to about 10 degrees nose up to pick up a burst of speed, and then nose up to 20 degrees or so just before launch. By then the target would be pretty close to the no-escape zone (and, assuming it wasn't doing the same thing as me, would be at an energy disadvantage, meaning I probably wouldn't be launched at first). Seemed to work pretty well!

< Message edited by CCIPsubsim -- 5/5/2017 6:23:41 PM >

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 3

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/5/2017 6:28:37 PM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim
...

Looking at the DB, the F-22's supercruise is modeled in a rather funky (but I suppose fair) way in CMANO - the cruise speed setting is the same 480kt as most aircraft, but the top speed of 1000kt is reached at Mil setting rather than AB. As with most "exotic" aircraft, it's basically got its own tweaked fuel consumption model, so it is still in "virtual afterburner" when it's at 1000kt - but will consume a lot less fuel at intermediate speeds between Cruise and Mil, in certain altitude bands, compared to the average fighter. By comparison, the F-16 has the same 480kt cruise setting, and tops out at 925k in afterburner. So, that's a pretty small 75kt difference.
...

Supercruise is not the same as an aircraft's cruise speed (ie most fuel efficient over distance). The F-22 consumes significantly more fuel when traveling at supersonic speeds than it does at subsonic ones, though it does not require an AB to supercruise. The strange thing to me in Command is that there is no AB throttle setting on the Raptor instead of it not going supersonic on cruise throttle.

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)

Post #: 4

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/5/2017 6:42:43 PM

CCIP-subsim

Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

quote:

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim
...

Looking at the DB, the F-22's supercruise is modeled in a rather funky (but I suppose fair) way in CMANO - the cruise speed setting is the same 480kt as most aircraft, but the top speed of 1000kt is reached at Mil setting rather than AB. As with most "exotic" aircraft, it's basically got its own tweaked fuel consumption model, so it is still in "virtual afterburner" when it's at 1000kt - but will consume a lot less fuel at intermediate speeds between Cruise and Mil, in certain altitude bands, compared to the average fighter. By comparison, the F-16 has the same 480kt cruise setting, and tops out at 925k in afterburner. So, that's a pretty small 75kt difference.
...

Supercruise is not the same as an aircraft's cruise speed (ie most fuel efficient over distance). The F-22 consumes significantly more fuel when traveling at supersonic speeds than it does at subsonic ones, though it does not require an AB to supercruise. The strange thing to me in Command is that there is no AB throttle setting on the Raptor instead of it not going supersonic on cruise throttle.

Ah yes, I do realize that!
I'm not sure what the exact reason is that CMANO does that, but I've noticed it on pretty much all the other "exotic" aircraft that have operational speeds outside the "vanilla" range - must be some sort of program quirk with the way fuel consumption gets calculated between different speed bands.

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 5

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/6/2017 1:56:33 AM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

there are people here probably more knowledgeable than me, but L/X band is better at spotting stealth AFAIK. detecting something though is not anywhere close to the same as detecting it well enough to build a track and enable accurate missile guidance. again AFAIK, but these EWR types can't generate a fix with anywhere near the accuracy to hand it off to a missile and expect a hit.

X-Band (NATO I/J Band) is fairly short wavelength - it's actually what you'd expect most FCRs to be. It's this band that tactical stealth aircraft (F-117/F-22, etc) are optimized against. Longer wavelengths like L-Band (NATO D Band) can exhibit improved counter-LO detection due to the ratio of λ/Target Size. As that approaches 1 - the RCS of the stealth target will eventually equal the non-stealth target. Since VHF Radars (NATO A Band) can have wavelenghts as long as 30m, you can achieve this effect even on fairly large aircraft. Here's a chart illustrating this (Snipped from Crickmore's F-117 work, although the quote is from Kopp...oh well) These radars will produce lower quality returns, but with modern signal processing it's getting better. I think Command models these radars fairly well at present.

As for missile kinematic range - I highly recommend you check out 2DZAP. It's a simple AAM simulator that's been validated against NASA data. By playing around with some values you can see the huge difference lofting makes to range, as well as the effects of launch speed. The important thing to note is that increasing launch speed is most effective when the missile is lofted; this enables the missile to get higher (into thinner air - less drag) with more energy. This translates to a significantly longer Rmax - increasing from 480 KTAS to 925 KTAS can result in a 50% increase in Rmax and a 60%+ increase in Rtr. A better missile kinematic model is something the devs have said they're working on, and it's something that would really improve BVR combat (as would better missile evasion once the kinematic model is introduced).

< Message edited by ExNusquam -- 5/6/2017 1:58:23 AM >

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)

Post #: 6

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/6/2017 2:06:53 AM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

relatively recently there was relatively huge changes to air warfare and i imagine this stuff is on the table eventually.

exactly how much it will change in command especially is hard to say. since every aircraft sprints at about the same speed, it might not change much as the effects should be pretty similar on both blue and red.

granted i guess ROPT/RMAX increases will allow quite a bit more ballistic range against non-maneuvering support targets (transports, AWACS, tankers) etc. though it should improve the situation of more modern fighters relative to their older counterparts, theoretically as modern fighter radar / jammer combinations can suppress first shot opportunities even if kinetically they are in WEZ, while the modern fighter can get a track and fire at a farther range (up to the kinetic max of the missile)

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 7

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/6/2017 10:58:01 AM

marksi10

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline

Glad to hear it�s on the minds of the developers. As to how much difference it would make in the game, I think it should make a big difference in the following situations: fast vs slow aircraft (including when a cruising aircraft hasn�t detected the attacking aircraft, which would be in AB); aircraft already supercruising versus aircraft loitering/cruising (yes, aircraft normally release their missiles at their top speed in the game, but the supercruising aircraft should be able to reach top speed faster and thereby gain an advantage. The aircraft in this situation would most likely not have detected each other until they were within BVR range); high vs low aircraft (if it doesn�t already. In the second instance, perhaps a supercruising aircraft would be able to reach a higher altitude faster too).

With the Raptor/T-50, I wonder why they didn�t just model it the same way as they modelled the Eurofighter, with a supersonic military speed and then afterburner increasing the speed further.

< Message edited by marksi10 -- 5/6/2017 11:09:44 AM >

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 8

RE: planned adjustment to BVR game dynamics? - 5/6/2017 11:12:57 AM

marksi10

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline

I agree about the different bands of radars being modelled well in the game, with the very elegant solution of dividing them into two groups: L-band and below, and the rest. If the effectiveness of the L-band wing radars on the Su-35 is just a function of the above, I don�t think it would be worth changing, but perhaps the range of the radar should be reduced somewhat.

(in reply to marksi10)

Post #: 9