GumidekCZ

DCS 2.7.6.12852 Reporting Bug, where Chinese AI JF-17 have more engine thrust than it should have, almost twice as much. JF-17 use single Klimov RD-93 Russian engine used in pair for MiG-29, so we can say that JF-17 should have almost exact half thrust of MiG-29. General public stats for RD-93: 49.4 kN (11,100 lbf) dry thrust 84.4 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner Pair of engines at MiG-29 give us: 100.0 kN dry thrust 162.0 kN with afterburner Now watch and compare stats for AI unit of JF-17 and MiG-29: JF-17.lua: thrust_sum_max = 9335, -- JF-17 51.2 kN thrust_sum_ab = 15569, -- JF-17 84.6 kN The note created by dev team of this AI unit knew about thrust, but still put wrong numbers here. Why? MiG-29A.lua: thrust_sum_max = 10160, thrust_sum_ab = 16680, We can clearly see that JF-17 have almost twice thrust than it should have, almost same thrust as MiG-29 with two engines.

After lastest patch I measured distances a compared them with predicted range based or above mentioned equation with use of S/N number (Signal to noise ratio) gained from median (average) shorter range detections (S/N=1,064E-06). From table bellow, you can clearly see, that from RCS=30 and more, the DCS Hornet is loosing its detection range more than is probably should have. Latest patch with adjusted F-16 radar performance --- 5% avarege less detection range than Hornets radar --- . it have only 1nm shorter detection range (can be because of F-16 interleave PRF) for RCS=100 ... we can say, both radar with 5% det diff have both trimmed max range to same limit. And thats very weird - another sign supporting the idea of this Bug report. (Hornet measurments done with smallest radar search area and HPRF).

What I was trying to say, that goal should be to achieve maximum realism, but keep in mind that this is just Holly grail, which never can be achieved fully. I never said a word about balancing. What I want to see is maximum radars and weapon systems throughout the DCS and all modules, where somebody(specialist) controls performances of such systems and compare available paper data with what could be physically achieved at RW. One example, already done, and controlled is SD-10 Chinese missile...I hope that someone will check more systems in near future.

Realism? For radar performance? You are just kidding where you want to find realistic data, if the DCS radar core calculation (RCS, aspect, materials, weather,..) is not properly simulated... I'm aware that this can't be done by just thinking about hardware we have available. Show me one single radar in DCS which have published detection ranges for exact RCS at given PRF by its manufacturer. Trying to keep performances close to what is publicly know is good thing. Also thinking of compare each radar and it's limits is good thing for wide base of multiplayer community, which is growing every day.

On the other hand, any radar performance change should be done across whole DCS, or at least among most user popular fighter planes. Experiencing one or more radars OP while others are "tuned", - I'm not saying fixed, it's not good for anyone. I hope that fixing JF-17 radar will come next patch . Oh, I forgot, that it's performance is based on some Pakistani pilot talk - I'm just kidding , or not?

DCS 2.7.6.12852 Open Beta AN/APG-68(V)5 detection and tracking ranges have been adjusted/reduced to match publicly available data. @BIGNEWYMy question: where are these "publicly available data" from? I assume, that ED or you, have no problem with showing us the source of it. Thanks very much. These are values for V5 version of radar - I found publicly available: APG-68 V5 (F-16 C/D) For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 6~7 km+ For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 18~22 km+ For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 32~40 km+ For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 50~60 km+ For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 60~72 km+ And these values are now in DCS- approx 45% better: For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: ~9,6 km (5,3 nm) For RCS 0.01 m2 class target: ~30 km (17 nm) For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: ~54 km (30 nm) For RCS 3.0 m2 class target: ~71 km (40 nm) (JF-17) For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: ~81 km (45 nm) For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: ~96 km (54 nm) For RCS 100 m2 class target: ~140 km (77 nm) .. should be 95nm - but some magic knife cut max range same way as for APG-73 at Hornet, with same max detection range for RCS 100 m2.

Last night I tried instant Mi-24P mission "Border control". I attacked couple of vehicles behind the wired fence, but than I realized, that fence cant be damaged by 30mm rounds and non of bullet went thrue. This bug can be problem to much more fences on the map...

CBU-99 and Mk-20 weapons exists with Hornet almost from day 1, nothing new. Admins and ED devs know about this fuze thing, but every topic about it is left unresponded... some of them so long, that I assume, they simply dont like to mess with it any more. I hope, Im wrong about it. https://navyaviation.tpub.com/14023/css/Bomb-Cluster-Mk-20-Mods-And-Cbu-99-And-Cbu-100-Configurations-51.htm https://navyaviation.tpub.com/14023/css/Mk-339-Mods-0-And-1-Mechanical-Time-Fuze-53.htm Same problem: RAZBAM - AV-8B N/A Mk 20 Rockeye:

Admins, please move this topic into DCS World 2.7 - AI units bug. Also change the label of this topic to W.I.P. soon please

Admins, please move this topic into DCS World 2.7 - AI units bug Also change the label of this topic to W.I.P. soon please

Same problem here with this map as it is right now with NTTR Nevada map. The texture colors are very weird and is far from what we can see from photos or from satellite images. Look and compare: Orange/Yellow/Brown colour tint of DCS Less saturate colors, more greyish from real wolrd. DCS screen Satellite image with impressive colour variation of snad, rocks, fields....:

Al Dhafra AFB ILS frequencys not working, except the 109,1 MHz for RWY 31R. 108,7 for RWY 13R(back course) and 31L - not working 111,1 for RWY 13LL - not working DHAFRA_ILS_LOC_BUG.trk Also in DCS deafault kneeboard, there are no freq for RWY:

Why the map is looking much more colored and without any trees from above than it should be? It would be lovely to have more greyish rocks and sands and much more greenish mountains. Another comparism. What is the strange DCS yellow/red sand??? What happened to the mountains? It look like someone cut all the bushes and trees and painted rocks to PINK Nice vid showing local nature wildlife from Mount Irish with nice colours:

Soryy Bob1943, we try to post here only quality photos (digital) not the historic ones and color shifted. Yours are pretty, but are useless for our comparism. On the other hand, I think that even these old pictures shows that the terrain shlould not be so much color saturated. Your last picture with DCS F-16 is nice proof of my point here.

The map textures are out of anything I see from quality photos (taken from ground/form air). Compare the picture yourselves: Its not a big deal, not a bug, but because of that I feel like something not correct every time I fly a mission on this map. I my say, that I love this map, some more detailed elevation resolution would be very nice, but as long as you not flying low, it doesn't really matter. It seems to me, that someone who took care of NTTR textures has color shifted display tuned for COLD setting. Picture form DCS and Google picture from exact same spot (similar day time): Edited DCS screenshot compare: This is another compare of 60% screenshot with the original one, and small terrain photo in middle.

REMOVE THE FENCE. There is no tall fence around the airfield in RW. https://momento360.com/e/u/23287f49830d4b108e8efa10ab47fff2?utm_campaign=embed&utm_source=other&heading=-284.00&pitch=-25.00&field-of-view=50&size=medium Real look of airfiled without any tall fences or fences at all. Now in DCS

I guess where you see maximum flexibility, I see totaly unrealistic winds in majority of missions. Where did you get these values? Im very intereseted to see the source. I will send you one of many I found as interesting wind gradient source: http://showcase.netins.net/web/wallio/MZW.html It show very similar gradient, same as other graphs across the internet (with maximum speed around 12000m (~40kft)). Than the wind strarts to slow down, commonly due to shear winds or other atmospheric phenomena. Sadly your provided data dont include speed at higher alt than 12km. Most of DCS players will fly higher than 12km only very sparsely, but ballistic or A-A missiles commonly climb higher than that. ED, please, don’t be forced by anyone to do anything you don’t want. Do it your way as always. Neither me or Ironhand we can’t represent majority of DCS end user community. So explore the costs and benefits for regular DCS player, who use Editor tool, to create his own missions for his friends, or just for himself. If you ED find that Editor dont need any improvement now, PLEASE check your missions and tune the higher winds, to not be the Zero, but something more realistic. Many thanks.

I'm totaly aware of that, expecting to be fixed with fully finished AH-64 Still, you all know, that 1600ft speed value is now connected to 33ft speed. So how difficult can be to connect rest of higher alt speeds all together with some coeficitent multipliers (green numbers at my setup) and add some slider control to be able to adjust the gradient. This solution will cause no need to rebuild weather system in DCS, but only DCS mission editor. Easy to control wind by just one speed value at 33ft and by adjusting slider. The mission wind will be than more realistic, than it is now in many many many missions without zero wind speeds. I hope that we all aim for realism in DCS. This one would need just only "small" rework of wind mission editor.

Thanks, but I same as above, must note here, that this topic is not about speed value at single altitude, but about gradient from ground to DCS max alt possible. See the graphs I send in first post.

Have them all , thanks Where? What suggestion? You mean your claim, that 41 knots at 26000ft is unrealistic? Thank you very much, but you didnt wrote any link to support your claim and on top, values of the wind speed are out of this topic. This is mainly about wind gradient across the DCS altitude. That document you send in link is interesting, but unfortunately for me, I dont have so much time to read it. May be you already did, and provide us with proper gradient values for DCS maps. That action would be appreciated by me.

I understand to what you want to tell me, and I must admit, that its not an ordinary bug. Let say, that DCS editor will allow us to tune amount of sunlight without connection to day time and date of the year. So if it will allow to you to set zero sunlight at noon... is it bug or not? We all know, that pitch black at noon is absolute nonsence, but if it is mission designer choise? Same with wind, 0 knots(m/s) at higher altitudes when wind is blowing on ground, it is same nonsence, but editor now allow you to set it this way. Your 26 000 feet is roughly 7,9 km altitude and speed 41 knots is around 21 m/s. According to chart form Den Hleder - NL, Avarage year wind speed at this altitude is around 23 m/s. I dont know what calculations are you using, but for me, this is not unrealistic, especialy when you compare my wind speed gradient with the first graph on top. Next time when you write about something unrealistic, try to put here some evidence, or rather to not write here at all. * The only idea to solve this I have now, is to connect all wind speed to one value of speed on ground and new wind gradient slider, which would allow you to control steepnes of gradient and thus speeds at higher altitudes. *

Reporting wrong wind speed GRADIENT defined in almost ALL mission across whole DCS and many 3rd party missions. - now in most DCS missions, WRONG! I will not research for ED what average wind speed values for certain map there should be set in ME. I can give only few examples from varios sources from internet, which show that its max speed is around 10 000 meters. There are many many research documents available on internet which shows detailed wind speed gradient near the surface, and how its affected by towns, suburban areas, open country, seas,... This my personal wind speed setup for one of my missions (Im not saying that this is 100% correct, just rough gues, what the gradient may be should look like):

Reporting bug, that (as title of this topic say): Instant action missions F-14A lacking 74X TACAN carrier preset . Its not a major but, thats for sure, but its very annoying if you have to set TACAN code over and over again every mission refly.

Reporting Bug present almost all Instant action missions with Carrier WP 1 speed slow. Initial WP speed 20kts which with head wind of 9 knots give us proper WOD speed (29 knots), but just after start of mission, Carrier will slow down to 11 knots (defined in WP1) and thus WOD will decrease to only 20 knots WOD. This bug is than creating problem to CASE I groove time to be to short and arresting speed for the hook higher than it should be. Edit: This bug may be is present in more than only instant action missions, but I didnt have time to check more than these.

Replying, to be on top of topic list, may be this time devs will answer. This feture was promised since Hornet first release, but didnt show up from devs anywhere anytime to be added soon.