near_blind

Hey, sorry. I've been busy with IRL stuff. It was reported.

Mach 5 gets tossed around in a number of secondary sources. Have you ever seen a source specifying that an actual AIM-54 hit Mach 5 during an actual flight?

The C will always go active. The A will only go active if fired in TWS with the target still tracked at the time the radar calculates the missile should activate it's seeker, or if fired active at launch. The A will not go active if you fire it in PD-STT, if you turn away before the active signal is sent, or if the distance between an extrapolated track and the actual target is too large. The C also has better countermeasure resistance for whatever that's worth in DCS these days.

Funnily enough, I actually ran into this last week with an over built HAWK battery. So definitely confirmed.

How many tracking radars were there per group?

Any SAM in particular, or all of them?

~13 of those liveries are unique, full aircraft liveries that have full files. The rest are simply changed tail flashes.

I'd say the mission maker was unkind to give you 1960/70s vintage missiles versus 90s vintage fighters. The AIM-54C will probably provide better results against countermeasures.

The AI is not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it is functional aight_bet.zip.acmiaight_bet_2.zip.acmi This is sadly a DCSism. In real life the rotor blades create a pretty massive doppler return that a radar (depends on the radar) interpret as a steady contact. IRL the first air to air kill of the F-15E was against a Hind they hit with a 2,000lb laser guided bomb, but they _found_ it using the air to air radar. In DCS the rotors return is ignored, and it only considers the speed of the fuselage which is usually within the doppler notch of most PD radars.

Playability is subjective. Some people say the F-14 is unplayable because it doesn't have a pilot model for VR. Others say it's unplayable because it doesn't display air speed in the HUD. Others still because the AIM-54 is no longer a missile for all targets, in all seasons. You're shooting the oldest version of the missile with the least robust guidance capabilities in a situation where the greatest limiting factor (the radar) is going to struggle most and create the greatest potential for the missile to do a stupid. Lo, the missiles are doing a stupid. I can't find a real life example where an AIM-54 was used in such a situation, so I can't say with 100% confidence whether the sim is following reality or not. Given what I know about the AIM-54A, it looks about right. At that range, I'd opt for STT, or better yet, a Sparrow. Maybe even try the -54C On the other hand, examples of the missile matching actual test shots have been provided somewhere beforehand. This is what DCS is supposed to do. You match the sim to performance you can prove, and refine if and when new information becomes available.

That’s antithetical to DCS’ whole spiel.

I don't believe any Russian ships in game are equipped with land attack cruise missiles, the Kuznetsov, Kirov, and Moskva have cruise missiles, but they're all defined as anti shipping missiles and can only be used against other ships.

Poor shot mech on the part of the AI, but the AI gonna AI. Nice kills I guess.

Off the top of my head, is the ACM cover up? Are you in A/A mode?

I would argue it's the opposite. In the R-27 the USSR had finally achieved something approaching parity with the AIM-7. Without spending a page droning on about BVR, the tl;dr is you never want to fight on an equal footing if you can help it. The AIM-54C could help maintain the stand off advantage US aircraft had enjoyed since Vietnam until the AIM-120 and AIM-152 could be completed, so they'd use it. It's a shame history didn't quite work out the way they expected.

How fast were you going, and were all three SAS channels enabled?

Remember that QEyeball =/= Direct Head Control. Direct Head Control is for steering the crosshairs on the VDI. QEyeball is like using a JHMCS and selecting something on the ground outside the aircraft. Jester isn't going to move the crosshairs to what you're seeing on the VDI, he's going to move the crosshairs to whatever is on the ground behind the VDI out the nose of the jet. Qeyes will always be a small circle, DHC will be a dot.

All three F-14 AI units use the same radar definition which is controlled by ED. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/db/Sensors/Sensor/ANAPG-71.lua

Two Weeks

I would think you're going to see variability in the simulation of difficult to verify aspect of different aircraft made by different corporations in different countries with different design philosophies recreated by different, wholey unrelated software engineers decades after the fact.

Any missile will benefit from being launched in a high/fast configuration, being higher and faster can only help. If you look at the extremely long ranged tests of the actual missile, the aircraft were supersonic and in the 40s. You will not always be able to maximize the kinematics of your missile in a tactical situation, that's just life. Aircraft might CAP in the 30s, but fighters can and do get into the 40s or even 50s on their commits if they have enough time to do so. As for what actual pilots were taught, you'd have to talk to actual pilots, but my understanding of the community at least ~1999, ~30K was considered the minimum altitude to use the AIM-54 effectively in a BVR context.

The bars change as well. TWS must complete its complete sweep every two seconds.

Multiple iterations of the -1 are out there floating about, but it's not enough to actually make a module

Zwei Wochen