LetMePickThat

I suspect that the AI isn't tightly controlled during replays, and has some leeway it shouldn't have. This causes errors compares to the original flight, errors that will propagate with time, leading to vastly different outcomes.

I stumbled upon this very thread after facing a similar issue multiple times with the MiG-29A, so I'll share all the data I saved here to keep everything in the same place. Flying a simple 1v1 dogfight between my MIG-29A and a M2000C, I found out that the track diverges very rapidly, to the point that there is nothing in common between the original flight and the replay. I've tested this multiple times, and the outlook of the combat sometimes changes dramatically. The AI in replays completely ignores the flight path and actions it took during the real flight, and develops a mind of its own. A coherent dogfight turns, in the replays, into a mess where my plane still follows the original trajectory, but is fighting against (and firing weapons at) thin air, whereas the target is now actively trying to get a shot out of my plane. This is repeatable for each flight/replay combination. I've seen multiple instances of the 2000C shooting me down in the replay whereas I won the fight during the flight. For testing purposes, I flew a 1v1, which voluntarily kept long to generate data, and won in the end to illustrate the change in outcome that often happens in replays. I saved a bunch of files for diagonistic: ORIGINAL_TRACK is the track saved immediately after the flight. Logically, it should show me winning the fight (it does not). REPLAYED_TRACK is the the track produced (and saved) by playing ORIGINAL_TRACK (it should show the issue, and have me not winning - but it's unreliable anyway). Because neither tracks can be trusted - that's kind of the problem - I also saved two Tacview files: ORIGINAL_FLIGHT_TACVIEW is the Tacview file produced during the original flight. Because of the track bug, it's the only file that is trustworthy when it comes to how the flight was actually performed. It shows me downing the 2000C at 095858. REPLAYED_TRACK_TACVIEW is the Tacview file produced during the replay of the flight. It has nothing in common with ORIGINAL_FLIGHT_TACVIEW save for my trajectory and weapon employment, and I can be seen fighting ghosts in it. At 095858, I'm shooting at nothing whereas the 2000C is closing in my 6, and tries to shoot me down at 095902. As one would expect, the longer the mission, the larger the difference between the replay and the OG flight. I've had very short dogfights (sub-30s) replay most the time the same, because errors and changes don't have the time to propagate. Still, even on such short flights, sometime the difference is massive (for instance, I had a frontal gun engagement turn from a complete 2000C destruction in the OG flight to a single flaperon loss in the replay. In that replay, the 2000C shot me down afterwards because I flew a straight line - there were no ennemies anymore to worry about in the OF flight at this point). Longer dogfights never replay correctly. As it stands, tracks are unusable as a mean to save a flight. Tacview is the only tool that can store trajectories and results in a reliable fashion. Yeah, the problem seems to be markedly worse when maneuvering. ORIGINAL_FLIGHT_TACVIEW.zip.acmi REPLAYED_TRACK_TACVIEW.zip.acmi ORIGINAL_TRACK.trk REPLAYED_TRACK.trk There you go. You now have two example of the issue. Note that this isn't Spit-specific, it's a sim-wide problem. I could replicate that with any plane and the two examples provided include the 109, the Mosquito, the 2000C and the MiG-29A.

It is possible to get the system to give zero warning. I've included such a feature in one of the early versions of HDS. https://youtu.be/c9Z9S228Pcg?si=Q_YFxV2IeANqhTyj

That's hard to say, because I was pretty close and at a shorter than burnthrough range. I did not see any ECM strobe on scope while closing in, but the F-14 has been using EW on and off in this scenario over multiple runs so it's possible that it was on this specific time and that I simply didn't notice. I am aware that the R-27ER has an HOJ mode, but that doesn't seems to be the case here since I locked on a pure radar target, and not a strobe. Unless I misunderstood how HOJ works - which is possible since I've only used it a few times, and exclusively on the Su-27.

There's no active SAM scheme currently in the game, so every mod/asset pack adding ARH SAM have to use SARH or TVM.

Flying the MiG-29A, I encountered a situation where my R-27ER continued homing and destroyed an F-14 after I had been shot down by said F-14. At first, I suspected a lucky balistic flight, but the missile is actively pulling Gs and correcting even if target illumination stopped because I was hit by the Phoenix. R27_autotracking.trk R27_autotrack.acmi

As someone said above, it's closer to the IR tracking bases used for some VR headsets - it's the same technology. TrackIR also uses IR tracking (shocker !), but it does not rely on mechanical tracking. See this high framerate IR video of an HTC Vive (= Steam VR) tracking base.

The VL MICA shares no commonality with the SAMP/T. If nothing else, it would make more sense to add the MICA to the Currenthill Asset Pack's IRIS-T SLS.

Yes, they're spinning prisms scanning the cockpit volume, looking for the helmet.

Hi all, I have looked for information on the forum but didn't find anything conclusive, do we know yet how the FF module will stack up in terms of sensor and platform performances compared to the FC3 29A ? From what I gathered here and there, the IRST is probably over performing in FC3 do to a larger FOV, but what about the radar (range, sensibility to ECM, etc) ? Same question for the plane itself: it's stated that the same EFM will be used, but was the engine modelling tweaked for instance ? Do we have to expect different aerodynamic behavior in some configurations ? Overall, can we expect the same kinematic capabilities as the FC3 module ? Thanks !

Yeah, I'd be still updating the mod if life hadn't kept me away from my computer for extended periods of time. It is what it is. I am happy that other people are stepping up and getting things done. That is up to you, it is your fork after all. My take on this is that the A15 is completely irrelevant as a ground based missile (which is why it doesn't exist and was never considered), whereas the Block 2 is an interesting what-if unit. I wouldn't lose sleep over the removal of the A15, but that's your decision to make. I'll see what I have @home. Yes. The ME (Module d'Engagement) is more capable than the ECS ever was; it basically combines the features of the ICC and ECS in a single vehicle. The MC is a command post for planification and multi-system coordination, it is not required to link the SAMP/T to L11/16/JREAP/ATDL-1 as the ME already has the required HW and SW.

Thank you for putting in the work that I wasn't able to. A few points: I don't know who added the Aster 15 to my SAMP/T, but there's no such thing as a land-based Aster 15. The SAMP/T is designed to use the Aster 30 Block 1 only. The SAMP/T NG (the upgraded system with the GF300) can use both the Aster 30 Block 1 and Block 1NT. Aster 15 is a purely naval missile. The Aster Block 2 project has been cancelled years ago, and it never flew. Its role is to be fulfilled by the Aquila interceptor somewhere in the 2030s What is the issue with the 9S32 ? In any case, I can look if I still have the original model. Otherwise, perhaps ERO, aka @Strigoi_dk, still has it somewhere. IRL, the purpose of the MC is *not* to add a TLD. It is not an equivalent to the ICC and the ME already has all the bells and whistles TLD-wise, from L16 to JREAP including legacy TDLs like ATDL-1 or L11. Cheers.

Hi Max, I know that the mod has been broken by the last updates. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to take a look at it due to real life commitments. I hope I might be able to go back to it someday, but I can't give you a solid date as to when this would happen. Sorry.

Diffusion of technical documentation in the Soviet Union and most Warsaw Pact nations was spotty, to say the least. A Czech pilot told me that when Czechoslovakia got its first MiG-23ML, the manuals that came with the planes were those of the earlier 23MF. Some systems were thus not documented properly, if at all, and it took month for the corrected manuals to be sent to the units.

I have been looking into this issue for quite some time, but I wasn't able to find a way to solve it.