Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GumidekCZ

  1. null The LAU-116/A guided missile launcher is a reusable launcher of the F/A-18 aircraft suspension and launching system for the AIM-7 Sparrow missile. The launchers are mounted internally in the fuselage structure. They are self-contained, gas-operated mechanisms, capable of suspending and ejecting the AIM-7 Sparrow missile. Ejection force is supplied by two CCU-45 impulse cartridges ignited by an electrical impulse applied by the missile firing switch. The rapidly expanding gases actuate the ejector pistons and release the missile from the launcher. Power is applied to the missile guidance control system through the umbilical plug. An actuator-operated safety device prevents inadvertent firing of launcher cartridges. Very simillar ejection launcher is on F-15C. In DCS AIM-7 released from LAU-116/A at 20°AOA in ACM combat against MiG-29 => Resulted in miss, of course (green vector = actual flight direction): The missile should be just pushed by force away from fuselage and in very quick succesion ignite its rocket motor. All this with its nose pointing at the same direction as it was mounted on fuselage. Same moment from different angle: Same action with F-15C: Real Life fuselage ejected AIM-7:
  2. From what I found, proportional navigation was implemented to not only "late" models, but "F" version also: AIM-7F_Sparrow_CS_-_January_1976.pdf AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf @GGTharos Please, I have a question about Autopilot of "M" version (source https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html): The autopilot enables the AIM-7M to fly optimized trajectories, with target illumination necessary only for mid-course and terminal guidance. And also about radar uplink of "P" version: The AIM-7P features improved guidance electronics and on-board computer, has a new radar fuze, and has an uplink to the autopilot for mid-course guidance updates. Which I guess resulted in "P" ability of target necessary illumination only for terminal guidance. (I think that I have red somewhere, that R-27ER have something simillar.) These two major improvements make totally sense to me, and actually this can be an answer how the designers of the missile make late models deadlier in comparison with early models - shining on enemy RWR just from the moment of leaving the rail. The 1976 Kub-M3 (SA-6) with its 3M9M3 missile have also this ability required CW ilumination only on terminal phase. ("M" become operational at 1982 and "P" at 1987 as per Wiki)
  3. What? Did you really watched the Trakc/Tacview BUG_3-4?: nullMe and hostile nose to nose under 6 nm with 4 AIM-7 hostile reflection still in its FOV of seeker. Non of them intercepted! Not even the 5th released AIM-7 at range of 4,5nm. Same behaviour can be seen on my Acmi file:AIM-7_BUG.zip.acmi This time targets are above terrain reflections to seeker.
  4. Was originaly a BUG Report, but as position UPDATE is by Hornet manual "NOT IMPLEMENTED" **not even TACAN update** Im forced to create only wish post. Correct description is in detail described in *********-000 manual. AUTO Update - wp/oap overfly When next waypoint is selected and selecting position AUTO update mode - TDC depress when overflying it will not update position in POS/INS or POS/ADC. AUTO_position_update_overfly_BUG.trk Designation (DSG) Update - sonsor designated wp/oap When next waypoint is selected and sendosor (radar used in track file) is pointing on correct position of the waypoint, than the DSG update button press works -wrong- as overfly waypoint. Will not measure bearing and distance to it and compute position correction. DSG_POS_Sensor_update_BUG.trk
  5. Can you please give me is single explanation or evidence of why that? According to me, when AIM-7 have no reflected energy detected, it fly straight forward, but than if any target emerge in FLOOD cone and reflect energy back into missile seeker FOV, missile will start to guide on it (if battery still provide energy 90 sec for P variant). Just to be sure, this whole report is about Hornet FLOOD /(F-14 BORESIGHT) mode.
  6. There it is: Tracks and Tacwiev files have number added which points onto bug presented there. AIM-7_FLOOD_2-3.tr AIM-7_FLOOD_2-3.zip.acmi AIM-7_FLOOD_3-4.trk AIM-7_FLOOD_3-4.zip.acmi AIM-7_FLOOD_3-5.trk AIM-7_FLOOD_3-5.zip.acmi AIM-7_FLOOD_6.trk AIM-7_FLOOD_6.zip.acmi I can make some graphics, if some of my points are not clear.
  7. 6 Bugs related with AIM-7 now: 1) Undesignate button dont leave FLOOD mode back into RWS as described in manual. Undesignate now function as LTWS target designation/switching between more radar contacts. 2) AIM-7 is not guiding on target even at close distances or in 2g TURNS. (Edited: My note which may be not connected to this bug: There should be no notching efect by target on FLOOD mode released AIM-7) DCS Manual: FLOOD mode can be a useful mode in a dogfight when you cannot gain a radar lock. 3) AIM-7 unable to guide on radar energy reflection, when released more than 7nm from target. DCS Manual: "This is effective out to 10 nm." 4) FLOOD mode released AIM-7 unable to guide on radar energy reflection when on direct heading to target, even if distance between emitor and iluminated target is under 10nm. ( Missile released at range of 12nm, missile will fly-by headon target at 8nm without sensing the energy reflection). 5) FLOOD mode released AIM-7 is not guiding itself to the strongest reflection in FOV of its seeker. At same range AIM-7 choosed to guide itself to MiG-21 with RCS=3 rather than on Su-25 with RCS=7 (more than double). 6) When AIM-7 is released in FLOOD mode when target is outside of big circle, missile will not guide on target even if target will fly into big circle & in FOV of the missile seeker. Unfortunately I need to go now, will attach tracks later this evening. RED = Edited
  8. "P" version same as previous "M" or export version "MH" have the same chaff resistance factor as R-27R: ccm_k0 = 0.5 The "P" version differs from its predecessors only by implemented radar midcourse guidance - so far I was unable to recognize the benefit of this in fight May be some more educated from ED can explain to us, please.
  9. My new Czech #3367 skin (airframe in active service in CZAF) made on basis of my previous Czech #3361 - both Tiger Meet camouflages. Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3323159/ The link to the #3361 Tiger Meet livery: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3318237/
  10. Do we have any progress here? We are still missing azimuth steering L/R on radar page by pressing TDC depress short in empty area on radar screen.
  11. (Some howitzers type have the Time to open fire showed in Combined arms control panel, some of them not.) But worst off all is, that even if you stop fire and than just press button to open fire just a second after on the same coordinates without any changes to setup... the counter to open fire will start all over. This is a huge nonsence, which equals to be a DCS CA Bug, @BIGNEWY If track Really needed, will add later, no problem.
  12. I crop the images to have same resolution as my screen have, but with result of smaller file size to not cross the ED forum size limit. Smoke is visible on original pictures above the tree tops.
  13. My test mission: Ai_sniper_skill_test.miz First two pictures from AI gun sight before I let him to shoot my Abrams behind sluster of tree. If you really focus, there is visible on track wheel under the black aiming arrow. sorry, no it was just a leaf. Yes even this is enough for AI to be able to see you and shoot through the trees. This really need some AI adjustments! Second two pictures after I have been hit and Im burning. Here the same wheel is Last picture with red dot place, where my Abrams is burning.
  14. I just finished another round of testing and I must appologize for designating this as significant bug. Its seems that its not at the end. Exactly as @rcjonessnp175wrote... "amazing loophole finding abilities" - any part of my tank visible through just smole hole in the trees (no matter if just tree cluster or forest) to hostile tank sensor point, and he will start engaging me. Problem with AI unit now is, that mostly only small part of your tank visible is enough to AI to recognize you. To human player this is almost imposible, or would take much more time than to AI times (AI seek time is also dependant on target bearing from unit 12 oclock). This results in very very unfair fight if you put human and AI and couple of trees in the middle. If you want to play Combined arms as ground unit, I highly recomend to set all unit to max only GOOD skill - not higher. This way you will set some inaccuracy to AI gunners and you will have at least a chance to recognize that you are under attack. ... but in most of the time if you are not close to cover... this will still endup in you death, because we are lacking any efective smoke screen defense deployed from turret capsules or by main gun smoke granade.
  15. Hi @Apocalypse31 and @Livers After small quick test in Combined Arms, I can confirm this bug. Im suspecting and need to be tested, that only trees which makes forest are blocking the sight. Any other cluster or couple of trees or bushes can by visible through by AI, not by human player of course. I have quick test mission where my Abrams is hiding behind big cluster of tree and shot from T-80 can make it trough the trees without exploding and it is blowing up my Abrams every time. This is very significant bug affecting most of ground operations. This diserve to be fixed ASAP. I also found these lines in old Detection.Lua code (DCS OB , 2021-02-10): visual_detection = { terrain_LOS_test = true, Earth_curvature_LOS_test = true, objects_LOS_test = true, trees_LOS_test = false, trees_LOS_test_T4 = true, I must admint, that I cannot confirm, that when this code was actual, the tree masking was working correctly. But I wonder, why the trees_LOS_test was set to "false" and what is "T4" Im also wondering if rule of vis detection like this one: recognition_distance_ratio_threshold = 0.25, --target will be recognized if ratio between the distance and the maximal detection distance is less than this value is somehow overiding above mentioned tree LOS test. I will try to add here test.miz with track later today.
  16. Right now? The issue is here for a very long time, and what I have heard, even before I did my test with many vehicles 2 years ago (I forgot to include track file there): https://forum.dcs.world/topic/234725-reporting-humvee-unable-accelerate-against-slope This is Combined Arms control problem, because AI unit can drive against the slope, but when you hop in certain vehicles, you are not able to climb same slope as AI can. When I did my test, I was surprised how steep slope can some of the vehicles climb, like Russia APC Tiger, Humwee on the other hand have problem same as above mentined M60 and others. Someone from ED need to check ALL the player driven vehicles if they can drive a same slope angle as given by Lua value for AI unit.
  18. SA_N_12_9M317 missile performance not according to public available data and other wrong Lua code values. Some of my information sources: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html https://www.deagel.com/Defensive%20Weapons/9M317/a003645 https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Buk_missile_system https://alchetron.com/Buk-missile-system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system "Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG) Update 2011" The modernised version of the 3S90m is the 9K37M1-2 (or 9K317E) "Ezh", which carries the NATO reporting name "Grizzly" or SA-N-12 and the export designation "Shtil". It uses the new 9M317 missile. M = 685.0, -- should be 715 kg H_max = 15000.0, -- should be 25000 (improvement) H_min = 5.0, -- should be 15 D_min = 500.0, -- should be 3000 Nr_max = 19, -- should be 24 (improvement) Mach_max = 4.5, -- should be 3.6 (ALL three reported missile have higher max Mach and very short Minimum Engaging Range) Life_Time = 300.0, -- should be max 120 sec, 80 sec is lifetime of DCS SA9M38M1 (SA-11) missile Range_max = 40000.0, -- по верхней границе -- should be 42000 (improvement) exhaust = { 1, 1, 1, 0.5 }, -- should be { 1, 1, 1, 1.0 },
  19. HQ-9 missile performance not according to public available data and other wrong Lua code values. Some of my information sources: http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/hq9.htm http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/052c.htm http://errymath.blogspot.com/2015/12/hhq-9-naval-surface-to-air-missile.html#.YlyR49PP0wE https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hq-9.htm http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-HQ-9-FD-FT-2000.html https://en.missilery.info/missile/hq-9 https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_army_missile_systems_vehicles/fd-2000_long_range_air_defense_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html Overall, the technology and performance level of the basic HQ-9 is between the Russian S-300PMU1/2. Due to the late development of the Hongqi-9 and the use of terminal active radar guidance, it should have more advanced computer software and hardware than the S-300PMU1, and the anti-jamming capability and human-machine interface should be better. However, the range and anti-tactical ballistic missile performance of the HQ-9 should not be as good as the S300PMU1/2. mass = 1200.0, -- should be 1300.0 kg M = 1200.0, --missile mass in KG -- should be 1300.0 kg H_max = 35000.0, --maximum flight altitude -- should be 27000.0 m H_min = 5.0, --minimum flight altitude -- should be 14.0 (able to engage Skiming missiles alt 15m), 5m height not given by any document Diam = 340.0, -- Must be 470.0 mm (Dekas 3D model is 460mm - almost as it should be. Strange is why Deka is intentionaly decreases Lua diameter to reduce missile drag, do the ED supervising team know about that?). D_min = 800.0, --minimum launch range -- should be 5000.0 m (5km) Mach_max = 5, -- should be 4.2 M H_min_t = 10.0, --minimum target height -- should be 25.0 m ccm_k0 = 0.15, -- susceptibility to bait by CHAFF -- should be slightly better than DCS LRS (DCS S-300PS ccm_k0 = 0.5, DCS Patriot ccm_k0 = 0.5) l would expect value ccm_k0 = 0.3 exhaust = { 1, 1, 1, 0.5 }, -- should be { 1, 1, 1, 1.0 }, burning engine produces thick white smoke
  20. HQ-16A missile performance not according to public available data and other wrong Lua code values. Some of my information sources: https://www.eastpendulum.com/nouveau-sam-hq-16b-entre-service http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/china-vls.htm http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/china-sam.htm http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/052d.htm https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-threat-and-proliferation/todays-missile-threat/china/china-anti-access-area-denial/hq-16/ https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_army_missile_systems_vehicles/hq-16a_ly-80_ground_to_air_defence_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/next-gen-weapons/india-vs-china-military-balance-air-defense-part-1-chinese-sams H_max = 35000.0, --maximum flight altitude -- should be 10 or 15 km depending on soruce H_min = 5.0, --minimum flight altitude -- should be 13 (engaging skiming missile flying at 15m) Diam = 160.0, --diameter -- Really? DEKA devs cant recognize the difference between Diameter and Radius? Must be 340 mm (same as Deka 3D model) D_max = 40000.0, -- maximum launch range at 0 height -- should be 42 km or less (denser air > more drag = less Range) D_min = 500.0, --minimum launch range -- should be 3000 m Mach_max = 4.0, -- should be 3.5 Life_Time = 180.0, -- should be max 120 sec, 80 sec is lifetime of DCS SA9M38M1 (SA-11) missile Range_max = 50000.0, -- maximum launch range at maximum height (HHQ16: 45km) -- should be 42 km ccm_k0 = 0.15, -- should be around 0.3-0.4 (Original Deka value 0.5 DCS OB, HQ-16A based on Buk-2M SA-17 'Grizzly' missile design with some improvements exhaust = { 1, 1, 1, 0.5 }, -- should be { 1, 1, 1, 1.0 }, burning engine produces thick white smoke
  21. Also want to join "big thank you" for an planned update. Also I hope, that fixing of RWR issue with picking Lock(SPIKE) from AI engaging other off-azimuth target and also adding the correct fuzes to CBU Mk20 and CBU-99 will tak place in future.
  22. Problem with all modules Ind DCS is, that the players don't have access to transparent list of BUGs (to solve and already fixed), updated list missing features and W.I.P. thing's. With the Hornet, I think that 99.9% of customers who payed their money for these products, they don't know what state of product now they flying and what will some sunny day the product look like. Without these updated lists, players are by no chance able to keep track of the state of the modules. This very frequently results in huge frustrations, when they found missing or not working things by flying their lovely MP or SP missions and campaigns. I recommend, that if you have important mission planed, try to fly it day/hour before just to check if everything is OK. Yeah, that's an idiotic advice and you also need to make sure that you will not make DCS Update in mean time
  23. No I dont have proof for this, and I was not serving at any artilery battery.
  24. Will do if. Strange that AGM-84H can do that. Seems that ED have the proof for much modern missile. PROOF, PROOF, PROOF, PROOF, PROOF, PROOF, ... if you dont have it ... dont bother admins. I will have that in my mind. Sorry, but Im sick of searching PROOFs for any idiotic DCS Bug. I you still need it, I will rather spread any DCS issues among the players comunity, than reporting it to be fixed.
  • Create New...