GumidekCZ

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?

I would like to report a BUG, which is connected almost to all missiles in DCS. There is defined max speed for every missile in DCS (you can also read them in DCS Encyclopedia) which are for ideal perfect conditions, where missile fly without any none of un-neccesary maneuver and keep accelerating to less dense air. If missile stais in level flight at low alts, it will never reach its max speed. in this example, missile has its peak around speed in TAS: 4890 km/h which gives us TAS 1358 m/s at altitude of 5247 m. Climb angle of 19° is taken in account in TAS, its not speed vector paralel to Earth surface. When we use NASA calculator in metric units: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/machu.html Result for that alt is than Mach 4.249, which is almost the same what Tacview says (Mach 4,24). As we now, the missile have its max speed "Mach_max = 5," defined in missile script. So there si Mach 0.75 difference (15% less), and that is a lot. I know that some of you starts to argue with me about actual air pressure and temperature... but this will not bring us back that huge amount of extra speed, the missile should have. Some of the missiles have more close speed to its defined max velocity, some of them are even worse than above mentioned 15%. I can follow on with rest of DCS missiles, but it would take very long time to do so. So only one more example without track: SA-6 3M9M missile measured in DCS with max speed Mach 1.9-2.0, in script it defined as Mach 2.2 - which it self is slow when compared to public data of M2.6~2.8 or 900m/s. That not good, really. AIM-120C just quick check with M3.3 measured from M0.98 launched flyght - compare with max speed of Mach 4.0 Do we have is grey slowdown coeficient or am I missing something? _DCS_SLOW_MISSILES.trk

AIM_54 all versions: sigma = { 5, 5, 5 }, (all versions: KillDistance = 15,) R-33(AA-9 AMOS): sigma = { 10, 10, 10 }, (KillDistance = 12,) AIM-7E: aim_sigma = 8, (proximity_fuze radius = 12,) AIM-7F: aim_sigma = 5.5, (proximity_fuze radius = 12,) AIM-7M: aim_sigma = 5.5, (proximity_fuze radius = 12,) AIM-7MH, aim_sigma = 5.5, (proximity_fuze radius = 12,) SeaSparrow (RIM-7): aim_sigma = 5.5, (KillDistance = 12,) Super_530D, R-24R, R-27R, R-40R, R-77: sigma = { 5.6, 5, 5.6 }, (530D: KillDistance = 10, R-77: KillDistance = 15, R-27R/ER : KillDistance = 11, R-24R KillDistance = 6, R-40R KillDistance = 7,) R-3R: sigma = { 5, 5, 5 }, (KillDistance = 5,) AIM_120B: aim_sigma = 7, (proximity_fuze radius = 7,) AIM_120C-5: aim_sigma = 6, (proximity_fuze radius = 7,) SD-10: aim_sigma = 7, (proximity_fuze radius = 10,) Now you can see, that even very old A-A radar guided missiles (R-3R, R-24R, R-40R, early AIM-54, AIM-7F and M, have in DCS same Missile final miss distance value as the modern ones. Considering an article in book mentioned in previous post, there is certainly some wrong values.

Rapier SAM Blind Fire TR radar and optic tracking device unable to sort targets. Both tracking sensors watching same target when more than one exist inside its WEZ. Because of that, the capability of such system is degraded. If only single target in WEZ - its ok if both tracking same. But in multiple target scenario, there must be better script to sort targets. Now both sensors tracking outbound target, when at the same time there dangerous hot target ingressing. Problem of DCS Rapier not end by this, by continue with script system unable to evaluate Pk of close shots and aspects of targets with its speed. What in case of hostile helicopter may seem be nice feature minRange = 400m - this is very very bad idea against every aircraft flying around. The missile just cant steer so quickly and it just waste of missiles (first 1 second the missile fly just streight in 20° up angle and another sec or two it need to get back on commanded LOS). Missiles at this point often fired in salvo of more than 2 msls. Just very few flybys, and system needs to reload entirely. Together with LOW (another DCS bug) max speed of just M1.86 instead of M2.5 ... the result Pk of fully reloaded system is worse than any other SHORAD SAM system in game. Fix issues mentioned above...and it will very nicely scripted realistic SHORAD system in DCS. RAPIER_BUG.trkTacview-20211005-233414-DCS-RAPIER_BUG.zip.acmi Another acmi files to watch: RAPIER_Pk_only_20.acmi RAPIER_Pk_only_25.acmi SA-19 Tunguska performance for comparism: TUNGUSKA_Pk_100.zip.acmi

@Flappie - amaizing work, your are a man of action. Hope that somebody will Fix all that after Apachee is completed ****

Just recently i searched some DCS scripts and found very strange things, which guide my thoughts to search for more RW evidence about missile final miss distance. I found this book: Basic Principles of Homing Guidance - Neil F. Palumbo, Ross A. Blauwkamp, and Justin M. Lloyd There is an chapter: Contributors to Final Miss Distance Page 33. All points are described in more detail there. So my idea is that accuracy and Missile final miss distance in DCS should NOT be based on just wide spread general number across most/all missiles of its class (with some BUG like missiles SA-5, Stinger, Rapier, Patriot), but the predefined miss should be based on technological level of the producer at the time, the missile was designed or upgraded. Question can be laid, if the radius(diameter) should be placed withing Gauss curve or it should be linear. In addition, I added for each missile its Kill Distance radius (fuze radius for the warhead), so you can now make a picture which missile can go closer to you and which missile have bigger kill radius. Some of the numbers are very disturbing and I will report them as a BUG. SAM: S-75(SA-2) 2V755 missile test 1959: sigma = { 50, 50, 50 }, KillDistance = 20 S-200 VEGA (SA-5 GAMMON) 1967 sigma = { 10.81, 10.81, 10.81 }, - only 10.81m!!! - I will report as a DCS BUG. KillDistance = 45, SM-2: introduced in 1970, sigma = { 50, 50, 50 }, KillDistance = 15 HAWK MIM-23B Introduced in 1971: sigma = { 50, 50, 50 }, KillDistance = 12 S-300PS(SA-10) introduced in 1985, sigma = { 50, 50, 50 }, KillDistance = 20 PATRIOTs PAC-2 was first tested in 1987, sigma = { 50, 50, 50 }, KillDistance = 13 PATRIOT, S-300 systems were designed to also kill other missiles, but with sigma 50 its very unlikely, especialy for PATRIOT with just only 13m kill distance. Another example are IR guided A-A missiles - Almost ALL of them from the oldest (AIM-9B) to the newest (except the AIM-9X), all have the same sigma = { 3, 3, 3 }, I will add one more example of impact fuzed warhead SAM missile later toady. Need to go now

Minhad ILS 09 110.70 not working ILS RWY 27 110.75 work like a charm. or from oposite direction as a backtrack but without glideslope. Beacon.lua script seems ok, but Im not an expert Minhad_ILS09_110.70_BUG.trk

Hmmm, today I tried to edit the script to see, if the sigma is the source of the problem. What I have found is that there is another wrong thing hidden somewhere id DCS that makes the RIM-116 to miss almost all the time, when it try to intercept antiship missile at level or only shallow climb. In steeper climb, the missile have almost 100% accuracy as can bee seen from this track. I have put Tu-22 in longer distance, so antiship missiles not fly low near the sea surface. And it works. RIM-116_Good.trk Another problem of this missile in DCS is the speed: The max speed noted in DCS and from many sources elsewhere is M2.5 .... but from track ... you can see that only M2.25 is achieved. Missile is around only M1.0 at half of its max range of 10km, because of this: cx_coeff = {1,2.7,0.8,1.36,1.75}, --this is what can be found on simillar type of well scripted DCS missile: cx_coeff = {1,1.5,0.68,0.7,1.75} --also v_mid needs to be increased from 350 to v_mid = 370.0, After engine burnout, the missile now slow down almost with same deceleration as was accelerating. Also I want to add here that if the missile have max range of 10km, than the missile can be launched when antiship missile is not just exact 10km away, but even before it crosses this line. Now in DCS (to much drag): My result with suggested vaules:

@Flappie I extracted all Dhafra navigation beacon frequencys from BEACON.lua for you. Beacons_DHAFRA.lua

@YukinoTora I had also an issue with CTD with no warning at all. I tried to limit amount of virtual memory file to size of my 16GB RAM on WIN system disc and deleted all other page files (also one from DCS SSD disc) - and it helped ... no CTD so far.

SCUD missiles still missing its coordinates of impact point with even 5 nautical miles (9 km). This is NOT about dispersion... there is BUG. Also SCUD wont to engage group even when friendly unit near by (as source of data for SCUD launchers). SCUD_BUG.trk

RIM-116 RAM missile BUG with to high Sigma value still present in OB version. Fuze setting with distance of KillDistance = 5, No wonder that missile do nothing. Simga vaule have very big problems when it comes with frontal intercept - which the RIM is trying to do against antiship missiles. Now: sigma = { 10, 10, 10 }, Should be per Stinger FIM-92 seeker, which the RIM-116 missile have mounted before update it has sigma = { 3, 3, 3 }, now in script abs_err_val = 4, (same as Igla) Than the chances would be much better. And again: aim_sigma = 20, - that is bad, really bad. I compared Lua file, and found that NOTHING was changed since reported. RIM-116_HIGH_SIGMA_VALUE_BUG.trk PLS @Flappie or @BIGNEWY, can you do something about that? Thanks very much in advance.

Dhafra is broken I guess since release. No-one from ED had even few minutes to just mark it as REPORTED. I found Dhafra bug report which was posted 10th March 2020 - sadly also unnoticed by ED https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/227445-ils-issues-al-dhafra-ab/&ved=2ahUKEwjo4qfyiqfzAhVD-6QKHbagCQ4QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0IH1EHBbVHDiL6i0uZq9X-

Hi @BIGNEWY , me again ,but this time, I will stay short of any source document screens (against the forum rules). The Patriot radar have the ability to rotate to any angle around 360° I suppose, but never to angle to put supporting units into radiation danger (50° example on picture). I studied briefly this document and there much more about adjusting radar azimuth into the threat axis: TM 9-1430-602-10-1 PATRIOT Operators Manual (search for "commnad fp reorientation") My Patriot setup example with course 360° as threat axis - Primary Target Line (PTL): TR 90° -Search zone - correct as in DCS is TR 110° -Tracking zone - correct as in DCS is TR 100° -CW an CCW train azimuth limit for Secondary Target Line (STL) - missing in DCS = BUG TR 50° -Radiation Cut-off zone (no radiation to friendly supporting untis) LN 10° -Launcher able to turn 10° more CW or CCW than both STL. (Launcher azimuth +-110° = 220° in total - correct as it is in DCS) (smallest circle on picture). What I didnt found source for, is if radar was able to adjust its azimuth when in process of missile guidance to target, or if oprators need to wait till no missile guided by radar. I suppose that second option is correct. If needed I will try to put here more evidence material links and references.