Machalot

Impressive source mining. It's not a guarantee that a general document citing a classified source means the -47 has a slotted grain, but it is an interesting piece of evidence. It would be interesting too if somebody made an FOIA request for that Rocketdyne qual report. It would likely contain recorded thrust and chamber pressure data from hotfire tests at various temperatures.

I've seen this bug several times before, mostly with sidewinders, and I submitted an official bug report for it.

I started digging into the waypoint system. I was able to change waypoints by punching values into the UFC such as 1A (by typing 1 - SHIFT - 1). For some waypoints it has to be 1.A (1 - . - SHIFT - 1) but others lack the dot. Seems like a bug. Update: I've been informed by a reliable source this is not a bug, but a feature to distinguish between steerpoints (without a .) and target points (with a .).

For a long range missile that flies a lofted profile, the rocket nozzle optimization doesn't care about the target altitude, only the missile altitude while the motor is burning. The Phoenix climbs during the motor burn and for some time after burnout, and with its long burn profile it probably has the highest burnout altitude of any tactical missile.

Wouldn't you expect the nozzle to be optimized for high altitudes? Probably higher than any other tactical missile. It should be greatly over-expanded at sea level.

That's new behavior if it's showing 0s. I had previously reproduced this bug when I put it in the tracker along with a track file from (I think) Dec 2022 OB build. I'll send you a DM with the card link.

I noticed this too, the initial alignment of the directional gyro is now perfect, instead of having a small error.

There was no discussion on my question, actually. The day I posted it happened to have a whole bunch of activity about multithreading so it got lost. I bumped it.

Very good points here that I did not consider. And I was not aware of other motors that have the cantilevered cylinder grain, which still seems crazy even though it's apparently flight proven.

While I find your speculation interesting, it seems like you are jumping to conclusions about the aft outer surface being exposed. That would be a highly unusual burnback profile and subject to all kind of structural and aging problems caused by detaching the propellant from the wall and burning a large cantilevered cylinder of propellant while pulling Gs -- especially the risk of fracturing when the cylinder gets thin, which would cause spikes in chamber pressure and send chunks of burning propellant toward the nozzle throat at high speed. In the photo you could simply be seeing a different insulation material for the aft portion that has the longest heat soak. I don't even think it's conclusive from the photo that there is a center perforation, it could be an end-burning grain. In either case, I wouldn't interpret the comment made here about "constant thrust" too literally, I would interpret it as a neutral thrust profile (subject to ignition and burnout transients, and small gradients in surface area and pressure) rather than a designed progressive, regressive, or multi-level profile. DCS is simplified by defining it as constant thrust in the absence of anything higher fidelity.

Something interesting about the two Tacviews provided in this thread is that the RB15s despawn immediately after some other object despawns in the vicinity of the Viggen. In the OP's track, 3 Viggens launch 6 RB15s. Then 1 of the 3 Viggens crashes into the water. His RB15s disappear along with 2 of the other RB15s from a surviving Viggen. In my track, I launch two RB15s and evade an AIM-54. When the AIM-54 despawns, my RB15s despawn. Could be a coincidence but maybe it's a clue.

I just experienced this issue. No sign of enemy activity intercepting my missiles. Here's the Tacview and track file. In the Tacview the missiles vanish at 8:28:28. Hopefully the track file works... Tacview-20230413-232351-DCS-Client-Persian Gulf At War 1.0.0_morning.zip.acmi Persian Gulf At War 1.0.0_morning-20230413-232218.trk

I'm not criticizing you for wanting to balance some unrealism with fun. I'm saying I don't *understand* your statement that realism on the INS breaks your immersion. I'm also trying to provide suggestions on how to relieve your boredom while waiting for the alignment. And how other aspects of the play experience might be viewed as similarly "boring" depending on your perspective, but we all find ways to play through.

You may want to cross post this on the HB discord. I think it's more closely monitored than these forums.

I don't know. This seems backward. If you said you don't care about immersion and you just want to get to the fun part, I might understand even if I value them differently. But you're literally saying realism in the start up procedure is immersion breaking for you, and you'd rather have the developers create an option for unrealisticly rapid startup to increase your immersion. Regardless, we're only talking about a few minutes during which you could review your flight plan, set up your radios and avionics, or take a drink of water. In multiplayer you can chat with your buddies and coordinate your plans, and in single player you can even use time acceleration to achieve exactly what you're asking for if it's really that unbearable. I'm guessing your flight to the mission area is much longer than this and often just as boring. I think it's a matter of perspective.

Not trolling, just a little cheeky, too much I guess. I don't know your level of experience with DCS. You said you want unrealism and fast start up.

That's called Hot Start.

The despawn of your missiles is expected when you crash. But not your friend's. Consider submitting the track and tacview in a bug report.

Looks like a classic Stored Heading alignment just like we have in the teen series fighters in DCS.

I used to see this every once in a while too before multi thread came out. Definitely was not caused by me getting killed, and I thought it very unlikely but could not prove that they were not intercepted. They were still far from the target in broad sea area with no known enemies nearby. I don't know how to reproduce it.

It's not released yet. Not sure why.

Thanks. That's exactly why I asked. There are a lot of variables and no reason the alignment process would be the same between very different systems with different requirements.

Markers should be visible to wingmen. Otherwise they have no way to visualize the route, especially to identify landmarks for nav fixes.

Set the trigger safety to SAFE and then back to UNSAFE to select the next missile. Alternatively you can press IR-RB FRAMSTEGN.

That formula is only a linear approximation of an exponential function, so as the altitude difference grows it becomes less accurate. Use the QFE listed on the kneeboard flight plan if possible.