Leaderboard

DCS: AH-64D Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current AH-64D tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Yaw SAS behavior. Improving Vortex Ring State characteristics. Complete Image Auto-Tracking (IAT) and Multi-Target Tracking (MTT) for the TADS. Complete the Performance (PERF) page. Complete the new Pilot and CP/G models 1st person view. Improved Datalink Modem (IDM) that will include LB Net and the ability to share targeting between AH-64Ds. Additional crew radio messages. Additional external model Levels of Detail (LOD) for improved performance. Continued “George” improvements. "Robbie" fuel tank option. Following the above, priority items include: The Fire Control Radar (FCR) and AGM-114L radar-guided Hellfire. SAS collective channel behavior. Radar altitude hold and altitude hold stability when outside ground effect. Adjust SAS/saturation tones. Uncommanded pitch and roll behavior in some conditions. Please note that the above list is not 100% inclusive, but rather the most important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

DCS: F/A-18C Hornet Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current Hornet tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Following the substantial update to the Viper flight model and FLCS, the team is now focused on the Hornet flight model and FCS. In parallel, important changes are being made to the landing gear and how it behaves at touchdown / touch and goes. This is the primary Hornet task. Correcting AGM-84D, AGM-84E, and SLAM-ER behavior. GPS-weapon using TOO engagement behavior. Incorrect Velocity Vector confinement error. New and improved pilot model. Following the above, priority items include: In parallel with the Viper, tuning air-to-air performance including look-down and search to bug target delay. UFC BU page. Please note that this is not a 100% inclusive list, but rather the more important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

DCS: F-16C Viper Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current Viper tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Complete external model Level of Detail (LOD) to improve performance. We are now close to completing the High Drag and Low Drag ballistics and calculations for both CCIP and delayed-CCIP releases for the MK-84HD. This should also improve other general-purpose bombs. The Low Altitude Drogue Delivery (LADD) is being finalized and tested. Correcting some HOTAS short and long press logic. This is also true for jettisons. GPS target coordinate shifting. Radar SAM and DTT modes tracking retention improvement. Adjustments to SPOTLIGHT mode for short press. Adjustments to Track While Scan (TWS) designations. Animated ECS inlets. Following the above, priority items include: Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) Tuning air-to-air performance including look-down and search to bug target delay. Digital Maneuver Cue (DMC) and Loft indications. Further work on Link 16 and adding air-to-air target assignments. Alternate gear handle and animated tail hook. Please note that this is not a 100% inclusive list, but rather the more important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

Wags did not say the module news would be every week, more news will follow in a future newsletter

Miltech-5 / PD (BO-105P update). Pictures in spoiler:

I'm not saying it's impossible, but...

Wing damage model: From Razbam discord

New newsletter SINAI screenshots

I use the Tomcat almost exclusively but I never really used the Jester wheel at all. Right from the beginning it was clear to me that I would love to actually talk to Jester since that would add so much immersion. I basically do everything for immersion, that is the most important part for me. I fly VR or don't at all, if something is wrong with it, I use a seat shaker / Jetseat to bring some life into my "butt meter", I use PointCtrl as a fingertracker, so I actually "touch" the switches in the cockpit. I don't have any keybinds on my HOTAS besides the ones that are in the real thing (with one exception). I did build me a center console and a left side panel (got no room for the right side on my desk) and went thru some length to have the switches and buttons in the position I see them in VR, AND I talk to Jester. Currently I use VoiceAttack with VAICOM AIRIO add on. I think this solution did work reasonably well until now, but it gets kind off wonky, since the VAICOM developer seems to be AWOL and VAICOM (I still hope for the better) will turn out abandon ware. That brings me to the point to ask HEATBLUR if you guys ever thought about going the next step and make Jester, and his brother in the upcoming F-4, voice controlled? You guys went thru so much trouble to bring me the best consumer simulation of an F-14 that was ever made, you will bring me my dream plane (F-4) most probably in a even better recreation (if this is still possible), but even so I fly in in multiplayer outfit, we have rarely enough RIOs to fully men the bird. Now if I could talk to Jester – kind off like I'm used too with VA, VAICOM - but fully integrated into the code and not piggy backed by some smart externals, I think this would gain another level of immersion for your product. I just can ask to give it a thought and hope I'm not alone with this wish.

Not a bug. This is how it is supposed to be.

Ciao a tutti, su mappa Marianas ho realizzato un piccolo poligono per esercitarsi con vari moduli in Air to Ground. Si può effettuare il download qui.

Gents, the two programmers are so busy with the F4U testers, that we cannot dedicate the time needed to fix a lot of the major issues just yet. We've mentioned fixes will be coming, but most are worth redoing as we develop the new MiG-21. We're fully aware of most issues, both graphicly and logically.

Sini map looks good and well advanced, it the only new map im buying as it fits in with the Syria map and I love that map. Wingwing Orion 2 news was old news, ha ha had mine with the damper mod for 6 weeks now. No news on Multicore, Vulcan, ATC, weather (moving clouds and rain) core updates, Ai updates. Its seems to me this has been a slow year so far for DCS with improvements to the game, apart from the AI BFM updates, we only have 3 more patches to go before years end.

For me it's not even about immersion, it's just better. For me to be able to just say "scan sector angels 10 at 20" or "grid center" without having to navigate the cumbersome wheel is so convenient.

A-models were indeed faster, but they had less drag and weighed less. If you load down an airplane with additional weight, it needs to increase it's angle-of-attack at a given airspeed to produce more lift to counter the additional weight. As a result, the higher AoA increases drag, requiring more thrust to maintain the same airspeed and lowering the overall top speed in level flight accordingly. Helicopters must also increase their angle-of-attack, using collective, to maintain level flight at a given speed at higher gross weights. This increases drag on the rotor system and reduces performance if more engine power and rotor lift is being used to maintain altitude instead of propulsion. (Mi-24 is able to offset this with substantial lift production from the wings, retaining more rotor power for propulsion in forward flight) So with the additional drag from the larger fuselage profile (even without the FCR installed) along with the increase in gross weight, the AH-64D is slightly slower than earlier A-models. More engine/rotor power must be utilized for lift versus propulsion, and the increase in frontal drag further impacts the speed as well; although not to the same magnitude as the increase in gross weight. In any case, the addition of the FCR has additional drag and weight impacts, as does going out with a full load of fuel and weapons. It's no different than trying to takeoff in an A-10 loaded like a B-52; reaching 200 knots and 5,000 feet will take an eternity, and your turning radius and maneuverability will be horrendous. Just because you can physically carry all of that, doesn't mean it is tactically sound to do so if you can't maneuver as needed.

If you are willing, I have a VoiceAttack profile for the F14. It is freely available and open so that users can make their own changes if they want to. The link for my VoiceAttack profiles is in my signature. An integrated solution would be nice. ED revealed in a news letter that they want to head that direction. HB also said so when talking about the Eurofighter. I personally worry about the flexibility of such a system.

Тестовая сборка и проверка. Есть кое какие проблемы но в целом все отлично.

So, I've been meaning to sit down and do this for a few weeks and have just now found the time. I'll try to keep it short, but it won't be, so I'll try to keep it dense. I was an Aeroscout from 1988-1993 flying the old OH-58 A/C. Back then, the scouts were unarmed for the most part, save a M-16 jammed across the glare shield and my .38 revolver in my survival vest. For this reason, we typically operated in a scout/weapons team with an AH-1S following as our armament. The Apaches and 58D were just coming online when I left the Army. I'm loving the DCS Apache and am chomping at the bit, but not holding my breath, for the Kiowa Warrior. I've been observing how the Apache is being employed on several servers and very much so on the Rotorheads server. I have some observations to offer tactics-wise that some may find helpful. This will apply to the U.S. attack and utility helicopters specifically as the Russian helicopters are designed differently and for different doctrine and they are employed more like very low level, very maneuverable, fixed wing aircraft that happen to be able to take off and land vertically. Keep in mind, I was in a very different aircraft with very different equipment and very different times, but I think this advice should still hold true. If there are any Apache or Kiowa Warrior vets here that have anything to add or critique or correct, I welcome the input! 1) Here's the biggest thing: I see a lot of folks just hovering at 800, 1000, 1500 feet AGL for many minutes, lobbing hellfires at bad guys. If you are doing this, you are really missing the advantage of a helicopter which is to utilize cover and concealment to survive. You should unmask just high enough to spot and shoot the threats that are in range. In some threat situations this may be fine but for the most part, the longer you are way up there, the more likely you are to be tracked and shot down. It also leaves you with less evasion options especially when trying to evade from a state of zero or low airspeed (-60kts). 2) Too much hovering. You present a more difficult target to track when moving even if it is at just 30-40kts and you have a quicker response for the aircraft to deploy to cover if you are engaged. Also, you will increase the flight endurance by keeping hovering to a minimum. This is also a great way to avoid settling with power. Also, if you are hit, it is easier to autorotate with some forward momentum and it gives you a better chance of getting to a safe landing location. 3) Unmasking in the same spot twice in a row. This is a cardinal sin! I learned this in my first trip to Hohenfels maneuver area where we war gamed with m.i.l.e.s. equipment. On a night scout mission, we unmasked from cover and saw a OPFOR tank nestled in a tree line. We immediately masked but didn't get a good fix on the type and exact position soooo, popped right back up in the same spot and this time, Mr. tank had his turret pointed right in our direction and shot us down (simulated)! 4) More of a courtesy: Calling "rifle" on comms and coordinating laser codes with others to avoid targeting conflicts and other pilots frantically dumping precious flares and diving for cover every time a friendly Apache fires a missile. Along the same lines, I typically set my countermeasures on bypass, so I'm not wasting flares on friendly fire, and I don't carry chaff. If you have your helicopter close to or down in the weeds, radar guided AA should be a non-factor and then you can carry more flares. Also, if you limit your altitude, and a radar guided weapon is fired at you, you can easily defeat it with cover or concealment. If you are still with me here, my typical planning and profile looks something like this; Before departure-I set a start point in the TSD, and alternate, and then note a point that is about 10K from the FEBA with good terrain relief or concealment, trees or buildings, and set a release point there, in the TSD. Load 50-60% fuel and 90 flares plus weapons of choice. If there are preprogramed CM's or TGT's on the TSD, I make note of them and plan for my ingress from the RP to avoid contact. Countermeasures on bypass, Acq to TADS, left MFD to Vid/TADS so I can see what the CPG or George is looking at. During the day, I will jump in the front seat for a sec to set TV instead of FLIR if I have no CPG. If someone knows how to do that from the back seat, let me know. After takeoff-Climb to about 800ft AGL so I can safely get my head in the cockpit for a minute without driving into the ground. If no CPG, I get George set up and WASed on hellfires and have him look ahead at the next waypoint. Make sure all exterior lights are off, countermeasures on, weapons armed, gun WASed. Set direct to RP and note the flight time. I usually use flight time plus 30 to 45 minutes, depending how far away I get from the RP, for my bingo time. When I'm all fenced in, I head down to treetop height for ingress, around 100kts, using terrain features to mask my aircraft. Approaching RP-A click or two out from RP I will pop up, keeping my speed up, high enough to get a good view over the terrain. I have the CPG or George do a quick look at 10, 12 and 2 o'clock. If nothing, back down to the weeds and because I'm expecting enemy contact but don't know where or when, I proceed a little more methodically. 40kts, quick pop up every couple of clicks, quick scan, if we make contact, back down in the weeds and head that way at 60kts, quick pop up now and then while under way until I'm in hellfire range. Targets in range- At this point, come to a hover behind cover or concealment noting the terrain around us as we prepare to engage. Identify ahead of time the next firing position and where it is safe to break to cover and always know the safest egress. Unmask, just high enough to see the target and either fire if it has already been acquired or, spot, lase and store, then immediately deploy back to cover. Don't get fixated on multiple targets and drift higher and higher in a hover and remain exposed. Fixating is easy to do and I'm guilty of it myself. Hard to resist easy pickings but when that Strela shows up that I didn't see before or it spawns in near me and I'm 1500ft in the air with nowhere to hide...bad news. Kill one, back to cover, I reposition laterally (not actually flying sideways but actually moving to positions to the left and right of me) instead of moving forward, below the tree line or terrain feature then pop up and repeat. A lot of times it pays off to bob up to just do a scan from 9 to 3 o'clock and, from close to far, to identify any threats you missed, just spawned in, or are a greater threat than your target group, without engaging. When all targets in range are cleared, I go back down, 40kts, bounce cover to cover and repeat the above until new targets present themselves. In the thick of it- I stay low, like weed top level, and moving 30-40kts, unless I am actively popping up to search or engage then quickly back to cover. Avoid flying over groups of trees and if I have to, always make notes of clearings to duck into or autorotate into if I get hit. I don't want to have to crash land into trees. Pop up only high enough to see and engage targets and don't unmask in the same spot twice in a row. If that manpad, Zeus monster or Strela, sees me and doesn't have time to fire, he surely will get me the next time I expose my helicopter in the same location. Great thing about helicopters is if one gets disoriented or loses SA, one can just scoot to cover, land and get regrouped. Egress-No matter what phase of the fight I'm in, I ALWAYS know how I'm getting the heck outta there! At Bingo (ingress+30 to 40 minutes fuel time) or Winchester, whichever comes first, I get down and fast, staying in low ground. 10ft AGL is a lot of work but it's a blast! 120kts, 10 feet off the ground feels pretty fast. In fact, all this is a lot of work and a few hours of it is pretty tiring. Often my rear end hurts from clenching, working rudder pedals. I probably actually have a higher "fatality" rate from pilot error than I do from being shot down. But the more I fly, the better I get. Night and other considerations-The dark offers a level of concealment that allows to fly a little higher up, 200 to 500ft AGL. Keep in mind though that the dark only protects you from visual acquisition. The Apache is fully capable of operating down and dirty in complete darkness and I usually don't change my strategy. It does require significantly more focus and SA to do safely. I will usually ingress, egress and land using NVGs and then transition to IHADDs when I'm close to the RP. In situations where the AA threat is non-existent, flying and attacking from altitude is fine but it is a good idea to stay moving. I'll usually do orbits, engaging as I approach and then breaking when I'm close to small arms range. This makes it easier to maneuver if a threat does appear, make it easier to autorotate if the need arises and uses significantly less fuel than hovering. Like I said, there may be some new considerations that I'm not aware of due to the ancient nature of the helicopter I flew in. I would love to hear some thoughts, positive or critical, on this from Casmo or other guys that flew Apaches or Kiowa Warriors. And one last thing, if anyone sees me, Aeroscout'88-'93, on a server somewhere, feel free to hop in the CPG seat and we'll go put some warheads on foreheads!

I see many fantastic mods, adding planes. Meteor missles, AMRAAM Ds, fancy radar. But can you decrease ground fire accuracy? Everything fired from the ground be it 88mm flak to AKs have super accuracy. Would be nice if one could decrease it a bit.

Greetings, Would it be possible for you to update the weapons labels for the F-14s to the new DCS standard? I don't think it would be challenging to implement, but I think many would appreciate this change. I have attached the picture to specify exactly what I mean. Thank you so much! Kind regards

So relatively recently the F-16/18 received radar tuning which introduced things like lock delay and look down penalty. ED announced a white paper to explain these things that we're still waiting on. There is another piece of the whole radar puzzle that I'm wondering about though, which is RCS. DCS uses a simple single RCS value for aircraft. Hopefully this will be updated one day, but that is likely a big project. In the shorter term however, how feasible is a review of the current RCS values? This is desirable mostly because the existing values seem to be a bit low, possibly because they only account for clean aircraft which is the exception in a combat situation. This could account for some of the feelings expressed that teen series aircraft radars are under performing, and turning the RCS values up a bit would be a nice temporary fix until we can get advanced RCS modeling.

After tinkering a bit and getting comfortable opening it up and reassembling, i settled on #50 and a #30 on each axis - factory had just one 20 on each axis and with the 20cm extension and clutches loosened the thing was pretty much a noodle lol. I initially had it with both dry clutches tightened about 2 turns from max but have since loosened the clutches a bit and now its good with a perfect oscillation around center. Im using the Avia-S cams. Cant say enough good things about this stick. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks @Moonshine, I will review with the team.

they can start removing SATA from boards like they did IDE

At least they should have ask or informed the community before. Maybe they found ''that fix'' while working on something else, since they have their hands under the hood for quite sometime now. After all that is the purpose of a beta build. But DCS is so bugged right now, the experience is getting worse and worse

Thanks Flappie, interesting info as always ! Tell me if you need an alpha-beta-happy tester...

I had no issue using PT/MT when I took control of your track. 1. Designate a target point near the moving vehicles (TDC depress/action). 2. Select a suitable zoom level to match the target size (too small/large may not track) 3. Move the TPOD so the vehicles will pass though the Tracking Box/Cross Hairs. 4. TPOD PT/MT should recognise the moving vehicle and lock/track it. Tested DCS Open Beta 2.7.18.30348 Comment If using an axis for TDC slews, make sure it doesn't have any drift/jitter and give it a centre dead zone, as any slew input will break the point/moving track lock.

Not an expert either, but according to manual, and as far as I remember, it was best to just leave it in auto mode. The manual mode isn't intended for piloting purposes but emergencies where the auto mode stops working, or something like that. You would need to keep a constant eye in (insert the gauge I can't remember here) and you would have to move it literally all of the time any time you change your speed/altitude, so no humanly possible way to manage that in a full combat environment. I can't recall all the details, but I search it on the manuals just out of curiosity and what I remember after some reading is concluding auto is best and it makes no sense trying to use it manually. At low speeds there's perhaps a couple positions that would work, but not the whole flight if you go high, then low, then high altitude/speeds-Mach number, so in the end it wasn't very optimal trying to manage it manually. Still this is a "game" and perhaps some fellow member have found ways to take advantage of it, but I didn't find them.

Zooming in or out is not the same as moving your head forth and back. But the effect happens just the same, just to a lesser degree.

We will keep your wish in the back of our minds, and who knows, one day it may seem appropriate and feasible to go down that route - but to manage your expectations, currently it would be outside of what we can do time-wise. You can imagine that our plate is pretty full, and thus we need to focus on the core things primarily, maintaining and bringing to release both Viggen and Tomcat, as well as of course continuing with the development of our upcoming modules. Thus I will say, for now, it is rather unlikely.

Thx And we have a high refresh rate in dcs I think, only there is a bug. Inflight members always have a high delay, see video: https://youtu.be/JIE8X0YVOfw

We have reserved some interfaces for other devices to connect to the UFC, so as not to occupy the USB port of the computer.

We can get the OB, but I don't think we will get the Macchino today. October 7 is still one week too far.

That's wrong. It should take you to the action select page, where the task manager is the last option. Direct task manager short is Ctrl+Shift+Esc.

God do you ever stop ? With so many excellent modules to learn and become proficient in you act as if waiting for certain features in a certain jet is the holding you back from enjoying anything in the Sim at all. Maybe try a different aircraft, or platform (Heli's?)or maybe even a different sim ( IL-2 GB is awesome and highly recommended) or just go do something else completely away from your computer. Surely that's gotta by much more enjoyable then just being on here being relentlessly negative and stomping your feet just because the devs won't do what you want when you want it.

Actually the symbols don't seem to change size since their focal point is perceived at infinity but when the glass is further away so the symbols seem to be bigger compared to the glass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display

It is how it works. Here is an example: You can see the same effect as in your pic. The camera is way back looking over the shoulder and you see a big number on the HUD. Then a bit later you also see the camera going closer/further away and the effect that follows.

AFAIK, the F-4E doesn't support monopulse encoding (typically polarisation) on its illuminator that inverse-monopulse seekers require. All of the documentation I have only list conical-scanning Sparrows (even for documentation revised in 1990). I mean, HB have done a radar (or rather a radar mode) that's a lot like what the Phantom has (i.e pulse only), so I've got hope there. However there's still things their radars don't do, that the Mirage does - namely things like altitude line clutter. Though this is before we talk about EW (where the Phantom's radar should be susceptible to inverse con-scan techniques and so should be pretty vulnerable to the DECM systems we currently have). Yeah, fairly certain this is the limiting factor here. I don't think there's any differentiation between SARH seekers beyond things like gimbal limits, ranges, countermeasure resistance etc (which is just a probability, as I'm sure you know) and whether or not its HOJ capable etc. The R.530 SARH seekers are pulse; tracking targets using a range gate - which ground clutter should absolutely cause problems for, especially when the targets range matches the targets altitude (due to sidelobe ground clutter which pulse-seekers can't filter out, unlike doppler types - which should lead to them tracking on the altitude line). I think you're right in that SARH seekers only really care about whether or not a target is locked + the countermeasure dice roll and whether there's somebody jamming (which is just a simple flag as far as I know). All I can say here is that -34s don't suggest as such and only mentions a boresight mode, there's nothing specific for the 9L/M and the only place it's mentioned is in the stores limitation diagram, with the LAU-105 as opposed to the Aero 3/B. Only thing I haven't seen yet while skimming through is a cool switch.

Would love it if they brought their M-346 module over from MSFS along with a few others

It is very hard to animate anybody in this very interesting stuff, even here nobody want to talk I thought R-27ER is rocket of interest here, at least I got such impression. Anyway I will continue with some more words, at least it will be at one place. So now when having Cx f(M ; H) at zero angle of attack and Cy f(M) also at zero angle of attack and some allowable angles, it is good time to use these numbers for cases when rocket is under overload, when angle of attack starts to be involved. This is simplified mathematic but sufficient enough. So let’s take one time moment, 1km and 2M. Cx0-drag coefficient at zero angle of attack Cy0-lift coefficient at zero angle of attack, 1/deg Cx1-drag coefficient with angle of attack Cy1-lift coefficient with angle of attack, 1/deg A-angle of attack, deg Cx0=0,713 ; Cy0=0,5079 ; and for example A=5 deg Cy1=Cy0-Cx0/57,3=0,5079-0,713/57,3=0,495 (1/deg) Cx1=Cx0+Cy0*A^2/57,3=0,713+0,5079*5^2/57,3=0,935

Hi, I created a mount for a wireless keyboard. Cheers John

We have more information and we will be adjusting based on the data we have. thank you

Whatever is accurate or non-accurate, a lot of people love and fly the MiG-21 any way, me included. Let's hope they keep supporting it and/ -or release some kind of overhaul for it, paid or non-paid because it surely deserves it. Great module, warts and all.

I first flew these in the fleet as a nugget aviator in HS-14 "Chargers", CVW-2, USS RANGER CV61. We flew almost exclusively at night in the Persian Gulf after arriving there two days before the start of Operation Desert Storm.`null

The aim120 and aim54 use a different API, yes. 40nm is long range, but not longest range. If you fire on targets at 80nm, the phoenix will win over the aim120. But within 40nm, ofc the aim120 will and should win. The aim54 benefits from many things, mainly range, that is very long range. There are also effective ways to use the aim54, albeit you have to find out and adapt. One of the problems is pitting the aim120 against the aim54 in DCS. This was never a thing in real life. The aim120 was a successor of the phoenix (the newer, more powerful, improved missile), not a threat to Tomcats. If you pit the aim54 against its irl threats, then you can clearly see its advantages. It never was developed to fight against F16s or F15s. It is natural that in DCS this is a thing, but has and cannot have any bearing on the simulation of the aim54. There will be no performance improvements, as the performance is as close as we can get it now, and we have no intentions to change that. Guidance improvements - which are not in our hands - and the transfer to the new missile schema, may give it a very tiny boost, but I would not expect much. F-14s vs amraam slinging F15/6/8 - outside of scenarios like red flag or trainings - is just not realistic. It is a bit like saying "how can the r60 keep losing against an r73?" Well, because the latter is the more modern, improved missile. You can still win against a Viper, Hornet or Eagle, but you have to work much harder for it, just like you would have to if you went with a MiG29A with R27Rs against a Flanker with R27ERs, or let alone against an SU-30 with R77s. The idea that a Tomcat should always win over its more modern successors, is somewhat misguided, if I may say so. It can, but it will be much more difficult than the other way around, which is expected. If however you create historically more or less accurate scenarios with its contemporary threats and opponents, you are pretty much mopping the floor with everyone else.

Is there a reason the targeting pod refuses to track moving targets?!? Perfect contrast, slow moving target still nothing. I've got it to track once for about 100', until I crashed into the target seeing I was a quarter mile away from it before it even started tracking.

Last time i've heard an interview with F-22 USAF pilot. He stated F-16, due to its small size and crosssection and blended wing-body shape is notoriously hard to detect from the front when intake is masked by the nose - even for cutting edge F-22 radar, incomparably more advanced and sensitive than our 35-15 years old conventional mechanical small antenna F-16 and F/A-18 radars. This is obviously classified technology, but older mechanical small size antenna radars were far from perfect detection devices we have right now. With ED implementing more and more phanomena influencing radar operation our radars will have even more limitations then there have right now.

there is a mod coming

Same problem confirmed from my G940.

+1. The source of the rivers is also...well...ugly at the moment...a river grows slowly