This thread does not take into account the loss of resolution due to digital zoom. If use digital zoom to engage enemies at long range, it will lose resolution. This is the same for the Ka-52, AH-64, and all vehicles.
The CPG will move the FOV switch to the desired FOV position (W [14.3x], N [63.5x], or Z [127x]). The M position will select the wide field of view (WFOV). FOV gates will appear in W and N. The zoom field of view (ZFOV) is actually an electronic underscan of the center 50 percent of the NFOV; therefore, some resolution will be lost. The display processor (DP) processes the video, superimposes symbology in conjunction with the weapons processor (WP), and routes the video to the MPDs and optical relay tube (ORT) for display. The message DTV will appear in the upper left portion of the display to indicate that the DTV sensor has been selected.
Also, the trajectory of AGM-114 in the table is exaggerated for readability, the actual trajectory is similar to the game.
Looking at this trajectory, you might think that the AGM-114 is lofting quite steeply, but this is because the chart’s vertical axis is using “ft” and the horizontal axis is using “km”, which means that the trajectory is significantly exaggerated.
Actual trajectory is shown above, with the red trajectory being the exaggerated trajectory and the green trajectory being the actual trajectory.
The loss of resolution of seekers isn’t modeled in game though, is it? (let alone digital enhancement, or other processing techniques for non-aircraft sights).
If this was considered in WT, only few vehicles in game would have usable (for current standart) optics.
Same goes for pretty much all fire control system, NVG, commander control, smoke launchers, external machine guns.
Theres many things modeled in game incorecctly (or not modeled at all) from IRL for the gameplay sake.
For example human’s wrongs and mistakes, loaders becoming tired, crew not having shocks from injuries and battle, all in game stabilizers overperforming, gunners being able to pin point guns where irl there would be matter caused by many things. Optics not being able to break, as well as inability to use alternative/back up optics. Autoloader failures which would be common for prototype vehicles like maybe Obj 906 and that german 4 sec reloading light tank on Marder chasee.
At least radiators were modeled this year, so yeah.
With all the respect I haveto disagree. Problem maybe not be in the LOFT altitude but where the missile LOFTS.
I made this info graphic to clarify.
This is what I experience in game when whatching ingame replays:
No… its just not, sure if you are within 3-4 km, yeah the dive angle is fine, but at 7km and more, depending on map and terrain, hellfires GLIDE to target , and hit at angles of 5°, sometimes even negative°, as they have to raise their AOA in order to stay in the air. Hellfires feel really watered down in-game
In the game, top attack is performed with a dive angle of 18-22°, which matches the diagram. 30-35° dive angle is too much.
That above is the trajectory as it appears in the game.
However, if you want to replicate the trajectory depicted in most sources, you can manually induce loft in your hellfire by turning off its laser while in climbing phase, and turning it back on when it is at an acceptable height to reach the target.
Under the same conditions as the first test, but this time with manual lofting, my hellfire has reached the target. Better yet, if it werent for the missile exploding after 8km, it would have reached even farther. Below are my tests with manual lofting
This is more than enough proof that the missile itself is fine, but its being held down by how its coded in the game. @_David_Bowie as i have shown here, not only do hellfires NOT strike at 18-22* , but they go even under that at long range. Even if the target isnt exactly 7.8km away, by around 6km, the missile is no longer able to hit moving targets.
I was actually thinking something like high relative angular velocity target, not shooting stationary farming equipment.
Something like:
Lock looks rock solid here.
I was actually thinking something like high relative angular velocity target, not shooting stationary farming equipment.
Something like:
Lock looks rock solid here.
First I’m not sure what you meant with that vid. Dude is comparing ingame missiles and I don’t see any proof that AIM-120 would not reach declared max range 105km, which hugely rely on launch parameters.
Second even DCS does not know drag parameters of the missile, even the guy is mentioning how the 27ER has a low drag considering its dimensions. So if they really have real manuals for the AIM-120, which I quite doubt especially for C version which is not the same lake A/B they would probably find out that under ideal condition AIM-120C can hit something at that range.
Again there are STANAG for everything Its not like manufacturer can fill whatever they like to missile spec. Which parameter they decide to publish is whole different story.
And when you mention DCS they also made extensive breakdown of Hellfire missiles.
@_David_Bowie You closed this bug report on the AH-129D saying
Not a bug, only considers optical zoom.
The values given in the bug report are the optical zoom for the thermal imager (camera). They’re the values in the column on the right. It maintains 1280x1024 res at 1.5 by 1.2 deg FOV
The digital zoom for the thermal camera are in the left column (see the lower resolution but tighter FOV, similar to what you quoted on the Apache ZFOV)
The 27x optical zoom power is for the day cameras, not the thermal imager.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion, either way I picked the highest quality sensor/zoom power since 640x512 is not 3rd gen in the game.
Using day optic zoom makes absolutely zero sense considering we almost only use thermal when it’s available, and obviously it’s also unrealistic. Clearly they realized that the thermals on russian helis were inferior to NATO and decided to use day camera zoom to give russian helis a completely fictional buff.
By placing the sensor select switch to FLIR, the CPG selects the FLIR as the TADS sensor. The CPG then selects the desired FOV (W [1.2x], M [6.0x], N [19.9x], or Z [39.8x]) by moving the FOV select switch. The TEU/M-TEU adds the TADS LOS reticle and IAT gates, if selected. The DP in conjunction with the WP, adds all other appropriate symbology. The WFOV, MFOV, and NFOV are true optical fields of view. The ZFOV is actually an electronic underscan of the center 50 percent of the NFOV; therefore, some resolution will be lost. For target engagements, MFOV is used for target acquisition, and NFOV or ZFOV is used for target recognition and engagement.
by the fact that the paper says “sensors” in plural and by the fact that neither optical zoom or the digital zoom would change the resolution of the sensor
this rule predates the introduction of the ka52 so it has nothing to do with it…
Not relevant to the point I’m making about the fictional nerf on the Mangusta D.
For the AH-64, magnification of thermal was only 19.9x
Alright, so is the idea behind using day optical zoom to provide the best zoom performance to the player while staying somewhat realistic?
If so, this is having the opposite effect on this vehicle, and the policy should take into account whether the day camera’s zoom is better than the thermal camera’s zoom in the first place (since it is unusual for thermal to be better*, as far as i know)
