GumidekCZ

Weak arguments, 1foot? spine? composite? Try to create overlaped picture of all three of them with highlighted leading and trailing edges (pylons including), surface of the wall behind the radar and cockpit visivible through plexy glass - if gold used it helps to reduce RCS (F-16C). Or you can calculate monostatic RCS for all three airframes by any FEM analysis program capable of that. Like here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74yQgEnCW3I If you have the info about where and how many parts are made from composite at Jeff, show us... I never found any info about that. This vid is also handy to understand RCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvLPdtExJ0k

BUG STILL THERE, still radar can NOT detect any target bellow 27° look down angle. This is very important BUG. Please ED Fix it. Even F-16C with AN/APG-68 can in DCS to its limit of -30°, Tomcat can also scan in RWS to its radar elevation limit of -60° as the Hornet should! AN-APG-73_LOOK_DOWN_BUG.trk

Datalink DL-13 with AWW-13 pod described (notice the word about wingmen controll guidance and Datalink-13 range of 200 nm) On Hornet, there is picture from Gulf with AWW-13 carried on station 2 with Walleye carried on station 8. The imbalance was solved with wing external fuel tank carried on opposite side.

Hi @BIGNEWY , we need budy datalink so much. There are couple of good reasons to have it asap. INRL in Hornet manual is described, that any release other than simultaneous (single or ripple) is PROHIBITED for weapons like AGM-62 Walleye / GBU-24 / MK-60 / MK-65. This is due to exceedign maximum authorized lateral weight asymmetry is 26,000 foot-pounds. EDIT: in video posted bellow, there can be seen multiple Hornet Walleye releases with only single drop from stations 2 or 8. I dont know if this was allowed only for testing purposes or not, also it cant be recognized from poor quality video, if it is Walleye I or II (big weight difference) - I suppose it was II (bigger and larger wings - so my next grey text is now not true exactly. We clearly see, that fight with Hornets trim and controls we are experiencing with every signle release form stations 2 and 8 was not alowed to do IRL. This insane flight control battle is result only of lack of Buddy Datalinked Guidance - which was promised to have so long time ago, that I cant even found the post. DCS Hornet MANUAL (page 298): "Pod Antenna Option. The A ANT option selects the aft antenna of the data link pod. It is boxed when selected. The selection allows forward and aft antenna control of the data link pod. This can be useful when self-guiding (aft antenna) or potentially guiding for another aircraft (forward antenna)." This is still not working in DCS Also would be such a great thing to have for AGM-84 SLAM/ER datalink DL13 guidance via AN/AWW-13 pod.

Hi @IronMike, Can I reopen this bug report with one simple question? Why the HB gave us aprox exact over water 100 feet error all the time in every mission, when NAVAIR 01-F14AAP is clear with words: CAN READ and AS MUCH AS. So assume the error could be everywhere between Zero and 100 feet. If this was for example wave height dependant ... than it must be connected with wind speed ( DCS sea wave condition is dependant on it.)

You are true, the mass is used for damage calculation, so it should represent blast power - which is dependant od used explosive type. Many warheads and bombs than need to be revised, because the mass there fits its published explosive weight. Assuming that there is something stronger than TNT. Very nice source of information about warheads, blast power, fragment, chemicals, area of efect and many more: https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/GICHD-resources/rec-documents/Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf

I couple of mission, I noticed that SA-2 range limits was reduced significantly - can be compared with an older SA-2 Desna system. So I went into DCS scritps and compared values there with the real world values for Volhov system with V-755 (20D) missile. SNR_75V.lua (Fan Song TR radar): beamWidth = 1.5707963267949, distanceMax = 100000, distanceMin = 1500, max_trg_alt = 20000, min_trg_alt = 25, S_75M_Volhov.lua (Launcher) ThreatRange = 43000, ThreatRangeMin = 7000, distanceMax = 43000, distanceMin = 7000, maxTargetDetectionRange = 65000 SA2V755.lua (V-755 20D missile) D_max = 40000, - Max Range at min Alt of 100m D_min = 7000, - Min Range H_max = 25000, - Max Altitude H_min = 100 , - Min Altitude KillDistance = 20, Nr_max = 17, PN_coeffs = { 2, 1000, 1, 40000, 0.5 }, Range_max = 30000, - Max Range at max Alt of 25km ccm_k0 = 3, 90° Degree Radar Beam? Wide Beam setting of FanSong radar was 20° Missile fuze was set to standard 100m, or can be set to 300m for large target like B-52. Max speed and overload capability (depending on target altitude): at 300m altitude, 785m/s (Mach2.6), 5.5~6g at 10km altitude, 910m/s (Mach3), 5.5~6.5g at 25km altitude, 1125m/s (Mach3.7), 2.7~3g at 30km altitude, 1230m/s (Mach4), 2.1~2.4g Missile guidance was able to guide via HALF-LEAD (PN=0.5) or LOS (on beam PN=0), never Pure Lead PN=1 Now to Missile limits. Lets say, that roof latitude for DCS aircrafts is 15km (50 000ft), so the aim of accuracy is to suit missile depicted Range limits to this altitude - orange lines. Green lines represent actual maximum limits of the missile with linear approximation between these values. New suggested missile values according to S-75M or V-755 20D missile charts: D_max = 28000, - Max Range at min Alt of 300 m D_min = 7000, - Min Range Correct H_max = 30000, - Max Altitude H_min = 300, - V-755 20D minimum altitude Range_max = 48000, - Max Range at max Alt of 30 km

More to crosswinds (NAVAIR 00-80T-104 NATOPS LSO MANUAL): Winds starboard of the angle also adversely affect recovery conditions. The burble, aft of the ramp, becomes stronger and moves closer to the ship as the magnitude of recovery crosswind is increased. The airflow disturbance requires corrective pilot technique if the recovery crosswind exceeds 7 knots for all carriers. Even with corrective pilot technique, sinking speeds 3 to 6 feet per second in excess of those experienced during normal (no recovery crosswind) operations can be expected. For these reasons, recovery headwind should be maintained as closely as possible to the optimum velocity and the centerline of the landing area. Shipboard aircraft recovery operations with recovery crosswinds in excess of those specified should be avoided. Refer to Aircraft Recovery Bulletin No. 10-10. Informative call by LSO to describe wind direction: “Winds are (slightly) starboard/port/axial.”

Can I ask to have at least fixed missions (Hornet 1989-OCA.miz) where carrier is traveling at recovery time with winds blowing from starbord? Or was this also common WOD direction? Slower WOD speed still can provide safe recover, but some rules needs to be kept in mind. From F/A-18's manual: "With a 30-knot wind over the deck begin the 180° turn to the final approach when approximately abeam the LSO platform." I have from Vincent Aiello confirmed, that at slower WOD speeds, they were used to estimate WOD strength according to ship wake and sea waves, all that to maintain groove time around 15-17 seconds. Here is another WOD info source from Real Hornet pilot Lex Talionis, how important WOD is.

Walleye II warhead have in DCS defined mass of its predecesor Walleye I, expl_mass = 365.6, mass = 365.6, Should be 900 kg (special linear shadped charge able to create multiderctional high energy basts) info about that is available here, and Wiki.

According to these public data : http://cdn.ihs.com/Janes/Sample-content-IHS-Janes-Weapons-Air-Launched.pdf the Dekas missile has wrong data in: Nr_max = 40, - According to data CATIC 2011 should have only 35g limit Damage = 46.75, - according to increased WH weight +1.5 kg, this should be 28.75 (AIM-9M have = 25, with warhead mass = 10) expl_mass = 18.7, - Correct value is 11.5 kg (25 lb) HE fragmentation mass = 18.7, - again 11.5 kg piercing_mass = 3.74 - also need to be lowered

Take a look into my report. There is much more wrong about FLARES and IR guided missile flare rejection inconsistency. Other than throttle setting, it depends on range/time to target - at close range FLAREs becomes almost useles, Why? any real physics behind it?

Neither F-16 or F-18 have damage model simulation completed (like ww2 have). It's something will be worked on. Nobody will tell you when, but I have small whish to be completed at least at Q4 2022.

AI units not sending detected units via Link16. Datalinked contacts show only when AI unit is radar locked to it. If Ai unit ROE is set to WPN HOLD or RETURN FIRE, Ai will not send Link16 data because contact not beeing Locked. No_Link16_contact_not_LOCKED.trk Link16_contact_LOCKED.trk

@ngreenawayis there any doc in your mind I can find for you in my library, that can help you to point at description, which can proove my point of slewing radar to STL when no missiles in the air?

Su-27 OLS-27 and MiG-29 KOLS systems have wrong scan limits defined in sensor scripts. From DCS scripts - for both systems: scan_volume = { azimuth = { -30, 30 }, elevation = { -30, 30 } https://qdoc.tips/airborne-irst-prepares-for-leap-into-uncharted-territory-pdf-free.html KOLS: It provides a coverage of -30 to +30 degrees in azimuth and -15° to +30° in elevation in tracking mode +15° elevation at search mode. OLS-27: Search limits are ±60deg azimuth, +60/-15° in elevation.

Bumping up this bug, to be up in list again.

Bumping up this bug, to be up in list again.

Offset point Bearing value set as MAG shows TRUE and vice versa, TRUE set offset shows MAG. Today I discovered that bug is not only about a above mentioned swapping. But also when BRNG is set to 180° - it results in 175° TRUE and even more 170° in MAG. OS_BRNG_MAGvsTRUE_BUG.trk

Hi @BIGNEWY I have an question for ED devs, if you can pass it to them: Pitbull range now depends on target RCS or ECM power. As far as Im aware of DCS RCS values (the comparism chart for all aircraft is around forum somewhere), some of these values are very VERY strange, like JF-17 RCS only 3sqm when F-16 have 4sqm - so JF-17 is RCS 25% better only beacause it has special engine inlet? Im just thinking: Both aircraft same size, F-16 better slick shape from sides. Both made from simillar materials - considering price and technological level of Block50, JF-17 use less composites. F-16 intake have special shape, so the fan blades can be seen only from very limited angle. I will not take in consider pylons and weapons since DCS code is not calculating with them. ,or when comparing MiG-21 = 3sqm and F-5E = 5sqm. Here the MiG-21 RCS is exact 65% better, how? why? Very simillar size and frontal crosssection area. For example Hornets radar max. detection range with MiG and F-5. the difference is only aroun 6nm. Why they are not detected at same range, by any airborne/ground radar or seeker? I really would like to know, If ED have plan to revise all the RCS values and add partional RCS values also to pylons and weapons - same way as drag coeficients are now counted. Doppler velocity gate speed value - So many radars in game... I gues that only very old ones the values from its documentation can be obtained. But where the ED get the values for all other more modern ones? Are they only guesed based on technological value of the producer at time of design? or its just general number in DCS, like the Sigma (maximum miss radius for missile guidance) for MRSAM or LRSAM all of them regardless on radar type equals to Sigma = 50 meters (Except the SA-5 with only around 14m). Now The AIM-120 AMRAAM with Update mentioned "introduced realistic velocity gate", really. You ED have the source of such data and approved by Raytheon company? Or is only a typo and you wanted to write "more realistic" which can be understood as now being closer to what someone educated in missile seekers guesed as "close to real" value? I would be OK with it

Very old model indeed, but the max speed can be tuned by single script value "v_mid = (speed m/s)". I was able to set correct Mach # for example for SA-6 missile by adjusting this number in matter of minutes. For single skilled dev its a work for signle day to fix all SAMs and one extra for testing. After that fixed, we can wait for brand new FM.

Can be for A-A missiles, but what about SAMs? I can't grab SA-6 launcher or missile alone to 40k alt.

Evidence for what, that Harpoon INS was able to switch between MAG/TRUE? Good try. Try to set course for Harpoon and than switch MAG/TRUE around... you will see that the draw line of Harpoon will be turned into MAG or TRUE heading according to it. But after Harpoon released, its not following the MAG course line! If you watched the tracks, its there. And if not, I can make a new one.

When TOT typed in, than GSPD set and finaly TGT waypoint selected, The required speed goes mad as Im more and more colisng to TGT WP, requiring from me insane speed increase, which results in beeing to early over TGT. At the same time, when pressing WPDSGN button for TOO bomb target designation, the REQ TOT speed is very very slow ... result would be to late over TGT. TOT_BUG_with_TGTdesignation.trk

Still there, I would like to se this topic finaly labeled as "REPORTED", its more than a year without any notice. Again: Me flying MAG 270° (Caucasus map 276,2° TRUE), Harpoon set by UFC to fly MAG 270°, but instead of that, Harpoon fly its TRUE HDG 270° I heard somewhere, that Harpoons will be or shall be at this time already reworked and recoded from the ground. Is there any progress made?