GumidekCZ

Do the same blind spot appear with KJ-2000 Chineese AWACS with its AESA radar?

FLOOD mode button missing when AIM-7 fired on L&S designated target -> automatic STT lock. FLOOD mode cant be selected on DDI. FLOOD mode button only able to select if AIM-7 fired on STT target. Second part of bug: - In many ocasions, FLOOD mode not guiding missile after selected on DDI or if second AIM-7 fired when radar already in FLOOD mode from previous AIM-7 launch. AIM-7_FLOOD_BUG.trk

with connection to FLARE rejection, I found interesting scientific paper about small and big flare effectivness released from probably idle AMX jet and C-130. On top of that, the facts mentioned in that study just confirms the above mentioned bug. https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/rwn11i/effectivnes_of_big_and_small_flares_in_scientific/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 Seems, that the effectivness of small FLARE as is in DCS (according to tests around 50% of the bigger brother) is unrated. Also according to papers from manufacturer the big one Peak IR output: 20kW/sr nominal and the small one has Peak IR output: 12kW/sr nominal - 60% of the big one. Big: 51.82mm x 24.64mm x 200 mm Small: 24.64mm x 24.64mm x 206 mm

[CHK] Hi @uboats HQ-16 WRONG DRAG MODEL - MISSILE DRAG ALMOST NOT EXIST: Track: HQ-16_Drag_BUG.trk BLUE line HQ-16 - you can see that missile is not loosing its speed due to drag - but only by gaining altitude. Red line comes from SA-11 missile.

Im thinking that legacy hornet can be able to control FLOOD mode same as APG-73 equiped SuperHornet. https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/Air-to-Air_Radar#FLOOD_Mode

Can be real APG-73 target lock fooled by notch above horizon?, when no clutter behind and radar in that upper hemisphere can simply switch filter automaticaly off.

Im wondering, if in real Hornet, there was also none possible way to select FLOOD mode manualy, not just automaticaly after firing AIM-7 without the lock. Was the avionic so "simple", that after lost lock, there cant be FLOOD mode selected as in M2000C? where it is automatic.

Why AIM-7 cannot be guided anymore, after target relocked after loosing it for even just a second?

Thanks, You are True about Target Altitude Differential and Closure Rate values, but RLOFT and AIM-7 Max Seeker Range Cue is still missing.

As name of this bug says - Missing radar information with AIM-7MH (LOFT) selected. I tried L&S selected target or STT but it doesnt matter, it will never show info it shall according to manual. Hornets manual page 415: vs latest OpenBeta 4 - Target Range and Closure Indication 12 - AIM-7 Max Seeker Range Cue. 20 - RLOFT. Maximum range using a LOFT launch. 22 - Target Altitude Differential. Displays the difference in altitude between the target and ownship in thousands of feet.

+1 Like Gizzy said.

@Blinky.ben@okopanjaNothing what should change mine or anyone alse mind about reported RCS. Also this not something I want to discuss. I could use word "Affordable", but its just a game with words, nothing else.

That's a really not good idea, to take absolute different plane RCS class and do the same pixel technique. Somebody told you to do that, or you figured it out yourself? Next time don't forget also to color the radome. (Some new radomes have FSS (frequency selective surface) composite design, which actually absorb outer radar energy, but never by 100%. - I don't know if JF-17BL1 or F-16C-BL50 have it, I just red that JF has dielectric radome. So to be fair to both airframes, I colored both radomes.) I know this pixel technique is not accurate, and did that only to point out the very similar RCS F-16 vs JF-17.... nothing more, nothing less. This not a method for every airframe in DCS, but can lead te better estimations rather than just arguing around.

What ED and all 3rdparties should aim for is a best estimate RCS values across whole DCS sim. Problem is, that there is nothing anywhere written by ED, how did they come to these values. Did they tried co calculate its 3D models from frontal view with static RCS simulation analysis? I guess that not. Is it just base on guess made by some fighter pilot or the module developer guess? I don't know. What I know that if there is something suspicious about RCS difference, we can make simple analysis to back such claim. If my proof is not enough, than this can be done by someone from ED team, more educated (with good knowledge of composite properties, canopy material, coating), equipped with may be static RCS analysis software tool can make much more accurate result.

@Mike_Romeo this is not any proof of 3 sqm RCS for JF-17, this is just even less proof backed nice wish of to guys I didn't see anything from them , what might give us a hint, that they tell us the truth. @okopanjaI know that not all F-16 use the gold, the modern ones use other materials instead of gold. But we have the option in DCS to have the gold tint - so? On the other hand JF-17 is designed as a cheap fighter (when compared with its competitors) and from pictures present all the internet, not even Block 3 have black or gold tint of canopy glass - giving us clue of such feature used. If somebody want to have 3 sqm RCS, than they need for example post here any trustful document declaring use of such technology for Block 1, but according to photos, I still would be very sceptic.

@Mike_Romeo @AnarchyZG Seems you are very happy with RCS of JF like it is now, you making everything to stay it like it is by just trying to disproof any try to correct it. Good job guys, but first before you throw salt next time, try to gather evidence of your disprooval claim. Find better method if you can, or just leave the topic unresponded. Many thanks guys. @Mike_Romeo Not whole airframe is acting as Faradays cage. Every material other than metal (like ordinary plexy glass or composite nose cone) is just open hole to allow radar energy to go through and reflect from anythink behind it. @AnarchyZG Nobody is calculating just frontal area projection, really dont know where you get that. Why the hack you are waving here with F-22 RCS? This plane is absolute different class with astronomic price.

without F-16 HAVE GLASS, it would be just huge hole in airframe with so many reflective things inside/behind it. May be some day, Pakistani will also make one for its JF-17 fighter, if the technology used to made it, will be known to them. https://www.key.aero/article/have-glass-making-f-16-less-observable Another interesting cannopy and RCS info found here starting at page 16 (year 1979): https://aircraftdesignguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/10-Guidelines-for-the-Design-of-Aircraft-Windshield-Canopy-Systems-Chapter-Eight.pdf Please, if any of you want to write down here that JF-17 have to be smaller RCS just because its newer, more modern. Keep this in your mind for yourselves. Heards this many times before with none scientific support of such claim.

Nobody before me has introduced here more scientific method to compare RCS of two airframes, at least what I know. If you know about better one, you can show it to us. Didn't you read about the F-16 canopy Faraday cage RCS effect? Please try to Google it. Beside that, thick or thin line is a factor of sharp or round lead edge. F-16 has sharp to of tail avoinics compartment and JF-17 have round shade, more reflective. I really tried to be not biased to one airframe. I known that if I would be, this post would became just one big laugh to everyone. Materials used are same or very similar for both airframes. Nice to see & learn:

I have been long time suspitious that JF-17 RCS is to small when compared with other fighters. So I take a frontal pictures (DCS compares the frontal RCS, not any other aspect) from DCS model viewer of JF-17 and F-16C with same scale and draw a lines and areas of major reflection sources ( intake area, cockpit, leading edges, probes and sensors, wall behind radome). Than I added guessed reflectivity index in % to some special areas like GoldenF-16 cannopy with Faraday cage effect which reduces RCS, or JF-17 special intakes with same reduced RCS effect). Since DCS model viewer JF-17 is without pylons, I didnt count them. After that I took Zoner Photo studio, selected the pixels from both planes and count them. Result is little surprise to me, I thought that both planes would be very simillar, but this quick simple analysis showed, that JF-17 with all that stuff reflecting radar energy like the airframe wall behind the pilot head (no such thing behind F-16 pilot, just seat with golden plexy glass), the Jeffs RCS is even bigger than Falcons. So with this result in mind, the RCS of Jeff in DCS must have RCS = 4 NOT 3 as it is now. Both pictures are in scale! Once again EDGE pixels include not only any edges visible from front, but also Radome area. Canopy includes its airframe and cockpit back wall surface.

I want to report radar beeing able to detect targets inside of Doppler Filter speed gate (plus / minus 54 kts of my true speed). KLJ-7 relative_radial_velocity_min = 27,777777777778 m/s If closure rate with target is 545 kts na my true speed is 521 kts, everything in speed range +-54 knot of my true speed have to be filtered out, especialy against the ground. So with little math, notch will at this moment filter out anything inside of this speed range: 467 kts and 575 kts. As you can se from track, I was able to find my target and fire a missile on it inside of Doppler filter speed range. Shorty after launch the radar contact was lost, but still, above described error is bug worth of fixing. JF-17_detection_in_notch_BUG.trkTacview-20211204-223118-DCS.zip.acmi

YOU are ablsote True, "slap" ... bad Gumidek, Bad! Sorry for that! Correcting this now.

Bug I want to report here is about misalignment of IFLOLS – ICLS discussed in many topics here. Like this one: I searched for any evidence, how these systems were aligned in RW and surprisingly found these documents, where its described how certification process demanded to align and corelate these system to show almost exact/nearly same glideslope plane – not just angle, to provide pilot “seamless transition from ICLS needle guidance to IFLOLS visual guidance.” This was done through certification process of the systems described in documents down bellow. With this report, I want to mention, that we are still waiting for Eye-to-Hook height manual and automatic adjustment, corelated between these systems to allow to any plane in DCS equipped with hook to hit the deck with hook exactly between 2 and 3 wire or any other place decided manually by human controlled LSO station. Lack of this very important feature was also discussed many time on forum. I almost forgotten to mention here also the missing AN/SPN-46, AN/SPN-41 indication of landing aircraft radar lock on LSO screens for bad weather recoveries. F/A-18A-D Hornet Current and Future Utilization of Mode I Automatic Carrier Landings https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1356&context=utk_gradthes Analysis of the Instrument Carrier Landing System Certification Process for Amphibious Assault Ships (page 24) https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3528&context=utk_gradthes LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (handy document for Heatblure Forrestal class carrier) https://documents.pub/download/lso 4.2.2 Centerline Camera Stabilization And Crosshairs. There is mentioned that LSO PLAT cam was adjusted independently on ICLS and FLOLS by LSO before each recovery by aircraft Eye-to-Hook value. I dont know if the LSO PLAT cam is still adjusted independently at our Stennis class improved PALS system with new IFLOLS and whole new LSO station, when compared with the Forrestal class carrier. Nice feature to have is selectable Reticle illumination; black for day, white for night.

See the last 5 seconds before touch down and watch the "W" mark on HUD and AoA bracket. DCS Open beta 2.7.8.16140 and its ground effect bug, causing roughly 3 degree decrease in pitch. This nad behaviour is also present above carrier deck, causing unwated drop into wires with low AoA, many times graded by carrier LSO by "Landed on all three wheels" aka "3PTS-IW".

What is the angle of the vortex cone behind end of each wingtip. I personaly think, that the angle is to large and you have to fight this if in wingmen position, even if you have pretty large lateral spacing off the leads wingtip. Because the actual cone angle is more than 40°. Can any real pilot witness here, if in parade formation F-16/F-18 they need to compensate the leads vortex?

DCS 2.7.8.16140 Bright backround sky or clouds actualy decreases smoke transparency. The transparency should remain always the same. The only thing will change is contrast effect to our eyes. (All 4 pictures taken at the same moment). Remove the light backround transparency effect. Smoke on dark backround is correct. Cloud vs Sea backround: Bright horizon vs Blue sky: