Nerdwing

I agree, its 100% cheating and not something anyone should play with seriously. But changing those options illustrates that there is indeed an ECM-resistance modelled.

Thats due to a setting in each of the SAM vehicle's radars, IIRC. Or maybe the missile itself. Each has an ECM modifier which is probably a flat divisor to its acceptable lock-on range. With most SAM's (even older ones) this is something like 0.8, meaning it has 80% of its normal range supposedly. Changing that value to something like 0.1 and performing tests lets you fly extremely close to a SAM without it firing, as long as you continually engage the jammer properly.

Any speculation on what the Bombcat will be able to carry, A2G wise?

Argh, so it isnt going to be 6 PM EST anymore? I came here with 10 minutes to spare thinking it was about to be announced! :(

I've used the ECM pod several times now to "SEAD" Osa-AKM batteries. To do so, I'll fly at em, wait til locked, and pop the jammer to screw with them. I'll normally break the lock unless I'm at too close a range (but I've fired a Maverick before then, God willing!) However, there's a weird "lingering" effect from the radar source that continues even after the radar was jammed. Can anyone explain what exactly is going on here? Why is there a weird delay post-jam? Is that meant to be the SAM operator going "Well crap, we're jammed. Try and reacquire target"? Is it due to the range-gate trickery of the A-10's jammer, and the emitting source "technically" shining on your A10 even though it... kinda also isnt at the same time?

With regards to SAM's, namely IR SAM's, have any issues been noted regarding the altitude at which they engage their targets? I'm taking shots well above the stated ceiling for many of the systems, and looking at the game files alot of them dont seem to have their maximum altitude stated. Are they just outright using their horizontal range in a straight line, and shooting at the target? If so, doesnt this lead to some very-exaggerated ceilings for MANPADS in particular?

Did a bit of research today, and screwed around with game files. ECM_K is the value of interest here. I BELIEVE it means that the tracking radar is only able to achieve a solid track at roughly 65% of its normal distance, if the target is jamming when acquired (using the A-10's jammer at least). The issue here, is that the Buk etc can often acquire you from beyond their maximum range, missile wise. I experimented today by changing the ECM_K of the Kub's Straight Flush radar to 0.3, and it was only able to acquire and engage me from 5.5 NM out. This is compared to its normal 12-ish miles. I've no idea whether this is an accurate approximation of the jammer's ability (because its 0.65 by default for the Kub as welll, and 0.5 for the SA-3 even... you'd think it'd be a bit higher (or lower, numerically in this case ;) ) for old radars, rather than just sort of scaling as it does at a flat-ish rate) So my theory is that for most TELAR systems, the tracking range is reduced on its current lock by the amount specified in ECM_K. So the A-10's jammer makes it "reroll" whether its able to acquire the lock it formerly most-definitely had. Keep in mind the radar's max lock-on range may very well be beyond that of the missile's range as well! Honestly, it seems to me that older SAM's are too capable vs the A-10's jammer while new stuff (S-300, Buk) are a bit too vulneable (0.5 modifier for the S-300 and Patriot just seems a bit underwhelming. Its the same as the HAWK, which was jammed pretty damn soundly in the Iran/Iraq war) I'm not sure how the MPS-410 compares to the A-10's jammer pods, so forgive me for any outright falsehoods in my statements. Rest assured, this post was made with the best of intentions :P Even glancing at the files is an absolutely eye-opening experience and gets alot of respect from me to the devs simply due to the level of detail to which so many of these systems are modeled!

So Area Life would be the equivalent of HP for a ship component then? How does the M1 work, if not like the ships? Just a HP pool it draws from? Do the different areas have a modifier to the amount the HP pool loses? I assume the latter, but not sure.

Sure would be a shame if somebody... flicked it on ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M129_grenade_launcher Is there any chance in the future to see the M129 mounted in some way on the UH-1H? Or has this been ruled out?

The M1A2's are also incorrectly modeled sight wise. You should have 50x digital zoom (I think? It may be 100x, havent installed SB Pro on this machine recently). Not sure about the other tanks though. IIRC the T-80 has a 12x as well irl? You also get the weird box for one of the magnifications, as with the Leopard 2's. Have you noticed anything weird with the gun dispersion for the Leopard 2? I noted on another thread the M1A2's is way too high, seeming more akin to the 4km dispersion when engaging targets at 2km.

Well the M1A2 improved in a few ways (better optics, can zoom a bit but not near as much as RL), but the AP round dispersion at 2200 meters is ridiculous, shooting well outside the inner reticule during test shots. Anyone else experiencing similar? Dispersion at 2km is akin to what it'd be at 4km in Steel Beasts. Plus the LRF still cuts-off at 4km range...

Having the same issue still as well :( A friend DLed off the site and it worked just fine though.

I'm unable to active the installer it appears? After choosing an installation path and commencing install, it tells me DCS_Updater.exe cant be found?

At 2 miles, how many runs does it take to guarantee a BMP kill? It seems to be about 50:50 with me. I generally get damage on target at least. I can get kills, I'm just wondering about my efficiency with regard to rounds spent. If I fire at 0.5, I can get 80-90% hit rate easy. Hell at 1 mile I can get kills almost always. But at 1.5, things get a bit sketchy.

Really? I just use Mavericks against SAM's and only resort to the gun if all heavy ordnance is expended. Against modern armor, the GAU-8 (though it does damage) just doesnt seem very efficient. CBU's I use against any grouped unit, generally convoys or FARP's etc. Had no luck tonight improving my Ammo:Kill ratio. Still at a hundred or so rounds per BMP-2 killed. Here's hoping tomorrow yields better results! :) What kind of ratios are you folks getting normally in combat vs BMP's/MTLB's?

Very well, I'm going to try and be more ammo conservative then. I'm down to 120 rounds average vs BMP-2's, and in 24 kills I was only hit once. Hope to get it down to <100 rounds, and not be hit at all :P 1979 trials put average burst length at 0.69 seconds, and firing range versus tanks at roughly half a mile. I... guess they were a bit optimistic about counter fire from the vehicles, to say the least!

Thanks for the tips, guys! So is 1.5 to 1.1 enough range to assure a BTR wont hit me with its 14.5mm? Is 2 to 1.5 enough for a BMP's 2A42, or too far even?

Hello there :) I've been trying to improve my GAU-8 accuracy recently, but have had a few problems that have resulted in less-than-stellar performance. I've been told to employ high angle shooting (25-30+ degrees) when engaging tanks, but am curious if I should employ the same techniques versus the hated BMP's, and the (slightly less feared) ZSU's, BTR-80's etc. I generally will roll in from 9k feet at minimum, when the target is at most 3 miles off my side. I then attempt to line up a shot and fire from 1.4 miles, to 1 at most. This is dangerous, as you can expect (think I'm supposed to use 1.7 to 1.4 for Shilkas, I dont remember). Throttle at idle, no speed break etc. Should I be employing the steep-dives versus all targets, or just tanks? Dispersion is tighter at these angles of course, but since I have to hold TAB to initiate PAC-1, and then my stick trigger to initiate PAC-2, I'm finding I can stray a good ways off target. How far out do you guys normally use PAC-1 when you're engaging light armor like the BMP, BTR etc? The reason I'm hesitant to engage from that king of angle is the risk of entering the firing envelope of the enemy, as well as the very real risk of over-G'ing my airframe as I break. Having to both roll out and employ some vertical maneuvering after firing raises raises alot of concern, and I routinely pull 5 G's (at most 7!) while rolling out. I only use the gun aggressively when I'm out of ordnance of course, to reduce the risk of airframe damage. So yeah. Versus ALL targets, is it best to employ the dive attacks at higher angles? Or is that something unique versus tanks? If it is indeed the best general tactic for gun-runs versus single targets, what ranges do you all find best to cease the attack and begin the roll-out to best limit the chance of enemy return-fire hitting you? Namely 14.5mm and 30mm threats. How much ammo do you expend versus one of these targets? I can do 200 rounds versus a BMP to assure a kill, but thats some long-ish range shooting. At $20 a round, I figure I'm still well below the price of the BMP-2 at least! Sorry for the overly verbose post :(

So awesome to finally have a confirmation in some form :)

This sounds baffling. If the thing is blinking, it should be ready to go I thought. 5 miles is well within optimum range. And holding the button, yet nothing? I cant blame you for being confused, this seems just bizarre. Only thing I can suggest is making sure you're using the proper button to fire, without any modifier etc. Once the crosshair is blinking, the Maverick should be biting-at-the-bit and ready to fly. You've got em selected in the DSMS page, I assume? You've flipped the Master Arm switch down below the left MFD? This really seems like a bizarre situation, so sorry if my suggestions seem mundane.

On the topic of the shilka, shouldnt it have the radar-scanning thing like the Gepard etc, rather than just a ranging-type of radar/reticule like the PIVADS does? Like the green circle with "blips", I mean. I always thought it had literally that inside, but that may be old Operation Flashpoint confusing me :P

Earlier, I made a brief mission with 4 flights of 4 F/A-18C's striking a Kirov. The Kirov was moving straight West to East at 11 knots. The Hornets from the rough South inbound at 400 knots, 1200 off the deck. The issue is the AI Hornets releasing both Harpoons simultaneously. This means that they become closer to one-another as they near the target. As a result, up to 60% of the missiles were intercepted by their partner missile, rather than CIWS or enemy fire! Within 5 miles or so of the Kirov, the missiles collided with the damage log reading "AGM-84A Harpoon Hit 0", due to the collision. Am I missing something in the waypoint-generation process, or is this a bug? I imagine they should drop with about a second between each shot ideally, to prevent this sort of issue. I can attach a .miz file if there are issues reproducing the problem, or if I wasnt thorough enough :)

M1A2 will be fantastic, even though it hasnt been 100% confirmed (if I remember right) :( On top of that, I'd love to see a Tunguska M1 perhaps?

I'm pretty close with the Eugen dudes who made Wargame (community rep/Marshall over there on the forums), and I can assure you that realism takes a backseat to alot of other things in Wargame. Please dont use that title as an example for realistic vehicle behavior! :P Steel Beasts Pro is a much better example.

AH-1W would be a first day buy for me, and me spamming friends who dont even own DCS to encourage them to get it. It'd be freaking amazing to fly the W!