GumidekCZ

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.

I also think, that the two small round things are just crews to hold the bucket there - can also be seen on chaff bucket. This one sgingle picture is very very questionable and its origin also. We even dont know, if the flares come from that plane. Most questionable is, why there is no flare light effect on vertical stabilizer what so ever. This really could be fake. I found more photos of exact dispencer layout as can be seen in DCS JF-17 (1"x2" flares at the bottom and chaffs at upper side of tail fuselage). There is non of photos or public videos (at least what i have found) that show different layout from that in DCS. The chaff decoys are not size of 1"x1". The shape is more rectangular. Like I estimated before: 1"x1.5"

M206 and MJU-7 are not same performance. M206 is no more than 60% effective as MJU-7. Thats also why even now the A-10C II is using both type flares. M206 in wingtip dispencers and MJU-7 in discpencers behind main gears. Not dierct proof here but usefull data from its sister and brother made by CHEMRING company: Flare CM 218 Mk3 Type 1 - MJU-7 equivalent https://www.chemring.com/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V3/documents/countermeasures/updated datasheets/conventional flares/58500_Issue_8.pdf Flare CM 118 Mk3 Type 1 - M206 equivalent https://www.chemring.com/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V3/documents/countermeasures/updated datasheets/conventional flares/58550.pdf Just how complicated is world of only western made flares is depicted in folling article: https://www.armadainternational.com/2021/09/airborne-deception/

The FLARE seem to be same size as MJU-7 1x2 inch - max total number is 28, no more. Chaff is different size, seems like 1x1,5 inch (according to texture pixel measurement) - max total number is 36, which is correct in DCS editor. Due to different size of countermeasure and very different dispencer, it highly unlikely to have Chaffs and Flares interchangeable. If you find and post here detailed pictures of real JF-17 with its dispencers, you will see tham Im correct.

Simple mathematics:

I would like to add to already reported (MAG show TRUE and vice versa), not fixed bug the addition of Offset point not showing in correct possition on SA page - sometimes showing wrong bearing and sometimes even range. In track bellow mark position on SA page is nicely compared with TACAN radial (WP1 is located at LSV 12X TACAN position). Hornet_offset_BUG.trk

Really? Sorry, I muse laugh . Because you last of your two post just tell us very well known things. Like that Earth have not exact shape of spehre.

You posted nothing new ... just description from same lua script which Im trying to understand. If you want to help, try to explain it in more detail, ... what calculation use these values, how it affect the missile performance, if...

Please, can somebody explain me what v_min and v_mid speeds means in missiles script? Is the v_min stall speed, or speed trigger for self-destruction? v_mid speed? Average speed, what, where? From time of start to hit? Thanks for meaningful reply with good explanation

HQ-16 missile drag not fixed with latest patch , but its performance even more boosted with decreasing LowSpeed limit and improving chaff rejection coefficient. I also wonder where Deka get the missile life time. SA-11 missile in DCS 80 seconds, HQ-16 missile 180 seconds. This with help of above mentioned bug creates total UFO missile able to chase you down to almost 50nm away from ship, if calculated impact point is within its calculated lifetime.

Same here, ... very annoying but. I hope, HB will fix this soon.

Question, which may be rised here ... ,can ED contact JANES, may be pay a little sum and get the information about all DCS radar preformances (including may be new and more accurate APG-65 detections for FC3 F-15C). Or can somedoy do it for ED?

Found this source of interesting radar detection capabilities gathered by JANES: removed link Dont forget to read first 2 pages. (Middle detection Range number is for RCS 5m2 - in DCS equals F/A-18C, F-15, F-5, AV-8B, MiG-29) ALL RANGES ARE IN NAUTICAL MILES! More can be found if you know the name of radar. Sadly, Janes does not mention specific versions for all radars. RCS [sq m]: ( 100 / 20 / 5 / 0.1 / 0.01 ) F/A-18C APG-73 ( 160 / 113 / 84 / 36 / 11 ) in DCS not 84 nm, but only around 47 nm. This is way more than ED giving us. With these values it makes sense of having 160nm radar scale. I think ED intentionaly reduced all radar ranges (NOT the 3rd parties like Deka) with aim of keeping DCS performance high and low hardware requirements. Data comes originaly from this page, but cant be reached for free or are restricted.https://www.janes.com/ I really would like to report this as bug, but I guess, because of above mention reasons, detection ranges will not change, no matter what.