MaverickF22

Thank you very much "Robin" for your time and effort to gather this data as it goes in our simulator! Now all it remains is to modify some missile's performances in it, in order to reflect the real data or as close as possible to it, where only ED knows how it should be done. Let's hope that in time, those values shall be corrected.:book: Have a good day!:thumbup:

Roger that..., thanks a lot Tharos, so that explains it better now:thumbup:! Respect to ED team! Good day.

So should i understand that only the Tunguska has this ability, as it is the only SAM system to do that in our sim? Thanks.;)

Hi there, It seems that for a while, at least since the 1.2 version of DCS World has started..., the F9 key which was usually preset for viewing available ships, works only once, meaning that it shows you only the first ship that you click from the F10 map or the first random ship that you can view, and then if you turn your view to anything else (pressing F1 or any other view function) you won't be able to view any more ships by pressing F9, unless you want to travel to one using the F11 capability:joystick:. The F9 seems to work like a one use only function per mission start.:mad: I don't know if i'm the only one having this issue as i'm using a laptop (Asus with 4GB of Ram, I5 processor, GT 540M video card) which has a HD aspect ratio (1.77778 or 16:9) with a maximum resolution (which i use) of 1366x768, which is indeed not a pretty nice one, but i'd really want to know if is there anyone else having the same problem on viewing ships. Thank you! Cheers, Mav.

Regarding Tunguska's capability to lock and track very low flying aircrafts in real life, seems to take place at a higher altitude above the ground, than for a TOR (for which is 10m AGL) as an example, as it says: "The mechanically scanned target acquisition radar for the Tunguska-M1 offers a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and can detect targets flying as low as 15 m", but in DCS we can find that tunguska is able to keep track on a target that is as low as the ground itself, way lower than 15..14 meters..., so it's like tunguska is guiding it's missile with a laser beam or through an optical sensor, because the radar can't keep a track like that. Have a good day!

You've got that right...

Good work for testing this Robin..., so to avoid a TOR, you'll need at least 24500AGL feet, but that also depends on your speed, you've done it with Su-33, thus with an A-10C (tested by myself), you'll need at least 26000AGL feet, but anyway..., these heights are way higher in our sim, than they are in reality, so something must be changed, eighter by increasing the total air drag coef of the missiles or reducing their thrust (of course, if this is possible without reducing it's top speed achieved when launched vertically, compared to real life, cause that won't help) or by mixing the total drag coefficient and thrust levels/times until the missile achieves a realistic top speed and maximum range/altitude, as that's what we want..., so these would be my quick personal suggestion, although maybe not giving the maximum accuracy, i didn't yet take all the other variables into account! Have a good day, Cheers.

Of course i took that into account, i'm sorry i didn't write down, it was AGL, not MSL! Cheers, Good day.

In DCS's encyclopedia we can see that only the maximum horizontal ranges are told, and indeed they match those from wikipedia..., although, when being engaged by an SA-15 or Tunguska, their missiles reach far higher altitudes than those that are told by wiki, so something isn't right.;) I trust ED will take the time and change the missile's drags or thrust levels so they could only reach realistic altitudes and/or horizontal ranges. Have a good day, Mav.

15 maybe not..., like tunguska's, the TOR sam system has a height engagement limit way lower than the ceiling of fighters like the F-15, or even the A-10's! I don't know where do you guys get your data from, but it seems wikipedia always knows something else, so i'd also want to know the truth if you have it better! Here are some maximum horizontal (depends on more aspects, like speed/direction) and vertical ranges (generally less affected by target aspects like speed/direction) limitations, of 3 known mobile sam systems in the sim, as they are given by wikipedia: 9K22 Tunguska: Maximum Horizontal (best case): ~8km Maximum Vertical : ~3.5km height Almighty TOR: Maximum Horizontal (best case): ~12km Maximum Vertical: ~6km (6000m) 9K33 Osa: Maximum Horizontal (best case): ~15km with the latest 9M33M3 missile Maximum Vertical: ~12km with the latest 9M33M3 missile

And for a little bit of entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_RhmgsJWH4 The Mig-21's weight was appreciably of at least 7 tons

Thank you very much for the video example ED Tester;), but as you can see, the ground was soften enough by the atmospheric conditions (humidity) and i'd say that it's pretty good for how much it sunk and didn't go further, as that Lightning would weigh about 3-4 tons at least in those given conditions. Our ground attack aircrafts like A-10A/C and Su-25's weigh a lot more..., especially in a fully loaded condition, as you've mentioned, but in the sim, the A-10 especially, seems to fully sink it's wheels into a tough/dry ground so much (would require a monstrous amount of contact pressure for that) that there isn't any possibility of using the engine's thrust as an option to get out. You could let these sinking/ground friction values as they are for a wet condition, they might be just right..., but for a dry ground they can't be this way!;) So i'd suggest having to sinking models for each plane, one for dry conditions and one for wet! This would again increase the realism we're looking for! Also about the grip..., now all the planes seem to have a lot much higher grip and friction coefficients for soil/grass terrain than for usual asphalt/concrete terrains, and this is manly due to the fact that the game might simulate the sinking effect of the wheels into the ground, so this thing happens to P-51 as well (even if it is the lightest of all), making the P-51 run like on rail tracks over grass/soil terrains with no skidding at all, which requires a careful (small error margin) usage of the rudder while rolling (unless you like fireworks), yet on asphalt you can do some nice drifts and have only a 50% chance to fall on a wing. Thank you for your reply!;) Cheers.

Thanks Buzpilot and good job with the video link! Nice review of the Jaguar!:D Let's hope they'll do some changes for this manner in the future;)! Cheers.

Hi there, I want to discuss a little about an aspect which is intriguing me for some while, about the way the aircraft's tire grip/friction force is simulated for both concrete/asphalt/road and off road/grass conditions. Now i know that the aircrafts like A-10 and SU-25 are creating a huge amount of normal force over a given contact area between the tire and the ground, with it's corresponding distribution (main gear and nose/tail wheel), which creates a given pressure, which might be quite high for the aircrafts in question, if we'd want to relate them to a heavy truck or something else..., but even so, the difference seems quite too high. I'm not putting my hand into the fire saying that the main gear wheels of a more or less loaded A-10 wouldn't sink a bit into the off road terrain, but how much would that happen to be as to have it completely stuck even with full throttle? The same thing can be seen with an F-15 which has a full afterburner thrust of 1.5 times it's own weight, yet still it's so stuck on an off road terrain like it would be completely buried. The Su-25's nose gear's grip on asphalt is almost as double as for snow:P, but not for asphalt..., and after that it also blows up for whatever reason or from an exaggerated high friction effect at high speeds, when cornering too much. So, some things seem exaggerated to either sides: grip is too low on asphalt, but tire blows up easily. And as for off road or grass, the Su-25's tires seem to love it, it's like driving on rails for the grip that it's given. Also, the P-51 seems to be able to do some nice drifts on asphalt with those tires, but on a dirt/off road/grass terrain it has the same grip as Su-25 and A-10 (on rails), which is absurd once more. Now these conditions exactly as they are now, are most probable for a rainy day..., if not perfectly simulated for that, where the asphalt/tarmac and concrete provide a less grip then for a normal day, while the earth/off road terrain or grass might get very muddy and increase the so called "grip" to almost 100%, but only if the tire would actually dig in..., otherwise it should be more slippery than for a wet asphalt. I'm not saying anything out of everyone's knowledge, but..., i think it's time to try and modify these grip parameters for every situation, because the way it looks now isn't pretty realistic;), and we want realism, aren't we? To give you an example, that planes should normally (in a sunny day with rock hard terrain) be able to operate/travel on an off road (i don't mean bumpy;)) terrain without so much sinking/digging effect (except for a wet day of course), i'll remind some of you guys, an example with a Boeing 737 from TACA Airlines which was forced to land on a patch of grass after loosing both engines, and that plane had a higher tire pressure on the ground than a loaded A-10C..., yet still (even if it started "digging in" a bit) it was able to takeoff from the same grass it landed on. Watch from minute 31, unless you don't need the whole story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnX1u5vp1J4 Let's make some changes..., only if time allows it of course;)! Have a good day, Cheers.

My opinion is to let the guys at DCS acquire the real aerodynamic polars and derivatives, as it is very hard to obtain that realistic data for a good simulation. Otherwise i doubt that DCS could have let important files to be manually edited, especially for aerodynamic data..., as we could do with FC2 for example!

The artillery vehicles from the blue side won't follow a preplanned route from the mission editor if that route is off road. Only if a player will re-task a route manually after the server is started or in single player, using the "path: command available on F-10 view, otherwise they are standing still.

It's good that things have become a step more clearer now after the last discussions. So now we know what those countdown seconds were standing for, and other further details. Have a KAMOV day, Cheers.

Thanks for sharing this also, it might be helpful sometimes. The A/A mode might've turned on for me automatically when i was trying to lock for the sky initially, just to bring up the range indication on the shkval before scanning the ground, which gave me a constant range calculation..., so it's just my mistake for not knowing how it actually works. Thanks for all the tips once again, Cheers.

So the A/A mode, which sometimes turns on by itself (probably when you point to the sky rather than the ground as you fire the laser) does continuously lase the targeted point. That is also useful to know. Thank you for the replies, Cheers.

Yeah, i know you have a lot of time between the engaging of targets on the SU-25, compared to a standing helicopter which can rapidly switch to the next target (thus giving the laser much less time to cool down), but now i understand the big difference..., although i'd love to have the laser be modeled realistic (or as close as possible) for the Su-25's as well, just for the sake of DCS levels, but it's only my wish! Thanks for the reply! Cheers.

Thanks very much for the info PhoenixBvo, now i better understand it's limitations and working functions, so i should not have it burned so quickly afterwards. Thank you all for the replies.

Thanks for replying! This should mean that only i only have 10 tries (160 seconds = 10*16) before it burns out?:doh::joystick: ! Of course giving the condition that i let it cool down for 5 seconds after each use. This would be such a lame for the KA-50, because this is the most vital precise targeting function for this helicopter. Don't know what kind of laser technology did the russians had at that time, but i don't see the Su-25's and Su-25T's facing the same problem when using laser (where it has infinite usages, of course, with the giving period of cooling refreshment:smilewink:), so either ED hasn't simulated the same effect for the Su-25's, or it really is that good on the 25's and differs from the helicopter's laser type. Someone knows the truth there anyway. So sad to learn that after the laser burns out, the awesome KAMOV becomes a HUEY type hunter in no time!:huh: Cheers, Mav.

The problem reported by Mike Busutil with those weird numbers appearing to the right of the flares program, i've had also, but only after i've rearmed my KA-50 from an aircraft carrier! So only if rearming the KAMOV from an aircraft carrier will get you that thing, otherwise the flares work fine even if that appears.

Thanks for telling about these aspects regarding the laser's limitations on the KA-50, but i'd like to know a little bit more about what does the manual tries to tell at page 454, when referring to these limitations. It only tells: -Laser rangefinder operation mode for one flight, series: the value is 5 -Each serie consists of 16 cycles of 10 seconds with 5 sec interval between the cycles. So i'd really like to know what would it mean in the end! Do i have only 5 x 16 (80) usages of the laser (with 10 seconds of lasing) before it becomes unusable? Or what would those limitations refer to, if any other than maximum seconds of lasing before it would damage? If the laser has a limited number of usages, that doesn't sound good when you need to lase many targets without getting close to them. Thanks.

I didn't say anything about trying to use MK-82 AIR as a precision bomb..., so i didn't want to be misunderstood! The reason why i dropped it from such altitude was to show that there is something going wrong with how the bomb's trajectory evolves since the bomb is released. So the only thing..., that i wanted to make clear is that there is something wrong, because instead of having a 0 (ZERO) horizontal speed after the bomb has finally settled to a 90 deg dive..., it continues to move horizontally at a steady, constant speed of about 6-7m/s in a random (always different for each bomb release) direction and so it goes completely off course every time. A real MK-82 AIR drag bomb has no reason whatsoever to go sideways after being launched, and even so..., if it rests at 90 deg of dive then it means the drag had diminished any possible horizontal airspeed component which may act on the bomb, so these two things..., the fact that the bomb is on a -90 deg pitch attitude and there is still movement in the horizontal plane (or sideways), don't add up.:book: Also in the video, i've shown that even other dumb bombs, like MK-82 and MK-84 have a habit to be pointed in another direction then the one they are traveling on, but this doesn't seem to behave the way it does with the MK-82 AIR, because they will always hold the correct flight path, on which they were launched, so this isn't such a big issue, except for the fact that it looks bad! So, i'm not willing to drop drag air bombs from high altitude and expect them to be precise..., but i want them to follow a real, predictable path, that's it!:pilotfly: I just want to help make DCS better, that's all! And that's one of the main reasons why i want to buy all their products every time and tell when i find something abnormal, because i'm both a pilot and an aircraft engineer, so i don't want to be arrogant, but i know how things should happen in certain cases. Cheers, Maverick.