Aircraft and missiles potential energy

[Figeac]

Hi guys,

I haven't played Command for a long time and I'm now giving it a go. I've just discovered the new way missiles range and speed are calculated, I've read some stuff on the foruns and I think I'm getting the point.

I know that despite the complaints, many are saying that this new formula is more realistic, but in fact there is something from the real world that is disregarded by the game and that makes this new mechanism a little unrealistic: potential energy.

Both planes and missiles gain speed when they lose altitude (and vice versa). Therefore, a higher-flying plane has an advantage over a lower-flying one during a dogfight, for example, since the one with the highest altitude can transform it into speed and, therefore, into energy, and thus, it will enter combat with a great advantage. On the other hand, the plane flying at low altitude would have to climb to engage the other, and then lose speed and get there with little energy (if it makes it at all).

The same applies to BVR missile engagements: a plane that fires a long-range missile at a target at a lower altitude will have much more chances of hitting it than the other way around, since in addition to the fuel itself, the missile will transform its altitude in speed, which will effectively increase it's range and reduce the target's chances of dodging or evading.

As it stands now, and as far as I know, the game engine considers altitude and speed of planes and missiles to be two separated and completely unrelated parameters. That is, it is common to see a missile that has already burned its fuel losing speed, even if it is aiming at a lower target and also losing altitude, which is totally unrealistic (unless it has a parachute).

I don't know if this has already been discussed here, but anyway, I would like to know what you guys think about this subject.

Cheers.

[Dimitris]

What you are observing is realistic. Missiles pick up speed as they descend from high altitude (this is most evident right after the loft hump), but subsequently lose speed in the dive due to the increased drag.

It's also part of the reason that orbital kinetic bombardment is impractical (unless you drop from GEO altitude).

The atmosphere is a harsh mistress.

[SeaQueen]

What you are observing is realistic. Missiles pick up speed as they descend from high altitude (this is most evident right after the loft hump), but subsequently lose speed in the dive due to the increased drag.

It's the same reason that orbital kinetic bombardment is impractical (unless you drop from GEO altitude).

The atmosphere is a harsh mistress.

To elaborate: Here's what's happening. The missile starts to descend in a low-density atmosphere. The terminal velocity (the speed at which the force of drag counterbalances the force of gravity) is high. As the atmosphere becomes more dense, the terminal velocity of the missile decreases. That results in an unbalanced force on the missile, and in this case, a deceleration.

There's lots of "it depends"-es, that the observed behavior needs to be couched by. Missile ranges are highly sensitive to their flyout profiles, because different profiles suggest different energy management. I haven't really looked at the extent to which Command allows one to shape the trajectory under the new model, however, that might be an interesting thing to look at. There's some pretty hard core aerospace engineering that goes into all that, though.

[thewood1]

download.jpg (11.7 KiB) Viewed 311 times

[thewood1]

Thought this was a good video from PGat...