GumidekCZ

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.

Finaly I found old Lua scripts, where I can search reason for such miss. Its about AI skill in deed! And I found, what variables are in account to wind aiming error. I suppose that these values didnt changed. I will set A10C AI skill to EXCELENT and watch accuracy of CBU drop. I found strange thing, that there is not variable of SKILL which will give AI ability to stay out of SAM/AAA WEZ - detected or just expected in the tgt area. SKILL AVERAGE --AIMING [WIND_PARAMS_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.6, [TARGET_VELOCITY_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.6, --BOMBING [BOMBING_ALONG_RUNWAY] = true, [BOMB_AIMING_ANGULAR_ERROR] = 2.0, [STATIC_COLUMN_ATTACK] = false, [MOVING_COLUMN_ATTACK] = false, [COLUMN_ATTACK_REQUIRED_BOMB_QTY_CALCULATION_MAX_ERROR] = 1.0, SKILL GOOD --AIMING [WIND_PARAMS_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.4, [TARGET_VELOCITY_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.4, --BOMBING [BOMBING_ALONG_RUNWAY] = true, [BOMB_AIMING_ANGULAR_ERROR] = 1.5, [STATIC_COLUMN_ATTACK] = true, [MOVING_COLUMN_ATTACK] = false, [COLUMN_ATTACK_REQUIRED_BOMB_QTY_CALCULATION_MAX_ERROR] = 0.6, SKILL HIGH --AIMING [WIND_PARAMS_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.2, [TARGET_VELOCITY_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.2, --BOMBING [BOMBING_ALONG_RUNWAY] = true, [BOMB_AIMING_ANGULAR_ERROR] = 0.7, [STATIC_COLUMN_ATTACK] = true, [MOVING_COLUMN_ATTACK] = true, [COLUMN_ATTACK_REQUIRED_BOMB_QTY_CALCULATION_MAX_ERROR] = 0.3, SKILL EXCELENT --AIMING [WIND_PARAMS_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.0, [TARGET_VELOCITY_MEASURING_ACCURACY_IN_AIMING] = 0.0, --BOMBING [BOMBING_ALONG_RUNWAY] = true, [BOMB_AIMING_ANGULAR_ERROR] = 0.0, [STATIC_COLUMN_ATTACK] = true, [MOVING_COLUMN_ATTACK] = true, [COLUMN_ATTACK_REQUIRED_BOMB_QTY_CALCULATION_MAX_ERROR] = 0.0,

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 },

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

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 2.5.6.52437), 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

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.

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

Just may be this should be moved into whish list, not a bug. Sorry

No I dont have proof for this, and I was not serving at any artilery battery.

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.

AI not correcting its CBU/bomb drop to the wind speed and direction. In my example scenario A-10C dropped CBU-97 right on TGT and due to wind, it misses almost all vehicles. There needs to be some random function connected to AI skill setting w hen it comes to correcting wind for any weapon use. AI_CBU_drop_not_correcting_winds.trk

Howitzers (possibly even mortars) need to recalculate whole long aiming time, even if TGT positi on changed only by just 1feet. Would be also awesome to have some number of predefined precalculated target points - able to quickly select and open fire in much shorter time, than in case of brand new target. Howitzer_Aiming_time_stupid.trk

When SLAM is released off heading to target... its autopilot cannot steer missile back on target. I dont know, why SLAM or SLAM-ER need to steer right on course marked at time of release, why the missile not just steer on HDG to TGT? Almost any steering of AGM-84E will cause dramatic decrease of speed (rising AoA) ... due to its autopilot and at high alt also due to poor aerodynamic performance - missile will never achieve to gain speed back and will fall to ground. This dumb behaviour can be observed with any height profile. AGM-84E_Off_Course_ReL_BUG.trk

Glad to hear that, but I would like to return topic back to asking ED about systems simulation ... random/scheduled failures or without them, we are now expercing failures caused by enemy fire, and we would like to know, what is or will be simulated, to be able solve emergency situations nowadays same as later in future.

I know I can report something, Im aware of that rule. But this topic/post is not about BUG for now, its about getting an info about state of Hornet systems simulation level!

Hi @BIGNEWY / @NineLine ! I would like to send a question to ED team with hope to get an answer at the end. Its about Hornets vital systems: FUEL - HYDRAULIC - ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY - ENVIRONMENTAL - FLIGHT CONTROL - AVIONICS systems and backup systems. Many enthusiast interested in DCS Hornet flying have their copy of Hornet NATOPS Flight Manual downloaded and some of them also did study some of the topics like Hornets performance, procedures and how the systems works and how to operate them (including emergency procedures). I did that also, with in some limited extend of chapters I found interesting. After some quick testing and system failures set in ME. I found that DCS Hornet systems/subsystems (depends on which one) works only roughly or some not at all like described in NATOPS FM. I will not go here to the details of what I have found wrong or incorrectly simulated, because I really don’t want to make this topic to go off topic just after created. So my key question to the team is: "What is the current state of Hornet FUEL, HYDRAULIC, ELECTRIC, ENVORONMENTAL, FLIGHT CONTROL, AVIONICS systems, or how accurate are these system modeled, when compared to Hornets NATOPS FM, and what is planned to fix / add in future of this great DCS module? What are the player possibilities to solve emergency procedures according to NATOPS flight manual if being hit in mission or when player made his Hornet systems failure setup in mission editor to practice emergency procedures." "Will there be any EMERGENCY Guide made by ED for the Hornet module in future? Fuel Motive Flow Feed, Transfer, Gravity with its valves and pumps (depicted in NATOPS A1-F18AC-NFM-000 Figure FO-11. Fuel System (Sheet 2 of 3)) Fuel Motive Flow System with its valves and pumps (depicted in Figure FO-11. Fuel System (Sheet 3 of 3)) Hydraulic system with its valves and pumps (depicted in Figure 15-5. Hydraulic Flow Diagram) Control surfaces affected by hydraulic system malfunction (depicted in Figure 15-6. Hydraulic Subsystems Malfunction Guide) Flight Controls (depicted in Figure 2-12. Flight Control System Functional Diagram) with its backup control 2.8.2.10 Mechanical Linkage (MECH) Avionics systems (depicted in Figure 2-20. Mission Computer Functions and Multiplex System (Sheet 4 of 5 and Sheet 5 of 5)) Electrical power system (depicted in Figure 2-9. Electrical System (Sheet 2 of 2)) Environmental Control System (depicted in Figure FO-12. Environmental Control System)

ED, ... any response? Thanks

Size not always reflect the efficiency. If we are talking about MTV flares, it still can be same chemical compound => same peak heat radiated per steradian, but in half of time of big flare. If IR seeker is narrow FOV (many modern IR seekers, like SA-18/24, FIM-92C) with aim to reject flares, longer time of burning outside of seeker has no effect on survivability. As this academic PhD thesis says, the effectivity of small versus big also depends on target aspect. Only Beam aspect fully utilize potential of big flares. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/6935 (flare type 218 = big flare, 118 = small flare)

Thing is tho, that as in real world, even here in DCS there should be more than two sizes of flares. Right now the Hornet have the small ones, same as F-16 which is unrealistic. Would be nice if this proposal would be submitted for investigation to ED team. With may be result of FiX of Hornet flare effectiveness together with all DCS current or future US NAVY assets.

Hi @BIGNEWY, can I ask about F/A-18C flares? MJU-8A/B, MJU-27A/B or MJU-38/B - the circular ones with 36mm diameter (1.42 inches) and length of 148mm (5.8 inches) This type of flare sits roughly in the middle of BiG MJU-7 and small M206 flare, MJU-27 almost equal to MJU-7. Its not perfect to compare flare effectivness by flare mass, but we have no other public data available other than size. I think than mass is giving us better estimation, how much heat is stored inside of it (I know that is not exactly true), but for estimation it is good enough. M206: 190 g (DCS "small" with half effectiveness) MJU-7/B: 380g (DCS "big" with full effectiveness) MJU-8A/B: 270g (also used by F-14) MJU-27A/B: 360g (also used by F-14)(flare made from Pyrophoric material) MJU-38/B: 280g More info about flares here: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Flare_(countermeasure)

Any news of any map mod to any DCS plane with map in cockpit available (F/A-18C / A-10C /AV-8B) ?

And I am the only one, who likes to play with pixels? Did you also take in mind, that the view on dispencers is here partialy obstructed by some parts of fuselage or something? May be because the buckets are sinked a littile into the fuselage. On top of that, your drawing in the red squeare is not simillar to any known dispencer. And if you would like to play with pixels, than what is this?: Can you see that? That the lower row of empty holes in bucket is thinner - very likely due to already mentioned sinked postition in fuselage. Post without a single exlamation mark And the pixle battle can go on ...

OMG, really? The BLACK means, that the flare is not there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Open Your Eyes! All pictures post by both of you AGAIN just confirms, Dekas correct texture! Thanks you guys for not high detailed pictures with only poor resolution, but it is still enough to support my Bug Report and Yes, close this toppic as "Reported".

All pictures of JF-17 Block 2 what I have ever seen shows poorely with low resolution that Dekas texture is correct. Picture of dispencer posted here proves nothing as it is not mounted in Block 2 version plane at the year Dekas JF-17 is simulating. Somebody would have to do good job in Photoshop This pcture of two different dispencers only show us the size shape of countermeasures and its buckets, which are clearly NOT interchangeable. You cannot ignore simple math, FLARE maximum number is wrong and needs to fixed.

I don't know what your personal attitude is towards Deka or JF-17, or if you are a "biased" nationality, but you have to learn to find or check the truth, not believe everything you are told. You can't ask me your question, but Deka company or real JF producer. So far, I do not see a single piece of evidence that would allow countermeasure buckets to be interchangeable, and I wonder if anyone will present such evidence here.