GumidekCZ

Supercarrier manual: So this is not true anymore? @BIGNEWY do you think this is ok?: Persian Gulf FA-18C Case I Carrier Landing.miz: Carrier WP0: 25kts WP1: 5kts - Carrier slowing down as player try to land. Headwind: 5kts Hornet 1989-OCA.miz Carrier WP0: 18kts WP1: 18kts Headwind: 12kts (20° Starbord side) Result: Carrier with WOD 28 knots, not bad, but wrong carrier course results more starbord wind than desirable for safe landing procedure. NAVAIR 00-80T-104 : 8.4 EXCESSIVE WIND-OVER-DECK OPERATIONS 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. WOD question is now answered to me by reading following document. So I will no more report any slow WOD if not slower than 3 knot for Hornet. NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71 : 8.2.1 SPEED DEFINITIONS 8.2.2 APPROACH SPEED 4.2.2.2 Performance Capabilities

Wind over deck and recover speed would be 25-30 knots in direction of landing axis. Not in BRC direction. I need to say, that I didnt checked the campaign missions, only single and quickstart missions. Persian Gulf FA-18C Case I Carrier Landing.miz: Carrier WP0: 25kts WP1: 5kts Headwind: 5kts Result: Carrier slows down I player try to land with insuficitient WOD. Persian Gulf FA-18 Strike Fighter.miz: Carrier WP0: 11kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 4kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 15 knots. FA-18C_IA_PG_Flown the Coop.miz Carrier WP0: 21kts WP1: 21kts !!! TAIL wind: 3kts !!! Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 18 knots. FA-18C_IA_PG_Missile City.miz: Carrier WP0: 0kts WP1: 27kts Headwind: 7kts Result: Carrier with WOD Overspeed 34 knots. FA-18C_IA_PG_GOPLAT Defense.miz: Carrier WP0: 17kts WP1: 17kts Headwind: 4kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 21 knots. FA-18C_MAR_IA_Hot Start.miz same as FA-18C_MAR_IA_Cold Dark.miz same as FA-18C_MAR_IA_Free Flight.miz: Carrier WP0: 17kts WP1: 17kts !!! TAIL wind: 4kts !!! Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 13 knots. Caucasus FA-18C Aerial Refueling.miz: Carrier WP0: 11kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 7kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 18 knots. C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-COLD NIGHT START same as C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-COLD START.miz and C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-LAUNCH.miz Carrier WP0: 10kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 15kts (45° port side) Result: Carrier with WOD 24 knots, not bad, but wrong carrier course results more port wind than desirable for safe landing procedure. Caucasus FA-18C Carrier Takeoff.miz Carrier WP0: 11kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 7kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 18 knots. Hornet 1989-Alert 5.miz Carrier WP0: 20kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 5kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 16 knots. Hornet 1989-CAS.miz: Carrier WP0: 20kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 12kts Result: Carrier with WOD 23 knots - could be little more, but almost ok. Hornet 1989-OCA.miz Carrier WP0: 18kts WP1: 18kts Headwind: 12kts (20° Starbord side) Result: Carrier with WOD 28 knots, not bad, but wrong carrier course results more starbord wind than desirable for safe landing procedure. Caucasus FA-18C Case III Carrier Final Approach Landing.miz Carrier WP0: 25kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 5kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 16 knots. Caucasus FA-18C Carrier Cold Start.miz Carrier WP0: 11kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 7kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 18 knots. Caucasus FA-18C Case III Carrier Landing.miz Carrier WP0: 25kts WP1: 11kts Headwind: 5kts Result: Carrier with insuficitient WOD 16 knots.

When fighting against low bad guys, you have to think about this current limitation. I hope, that they will improve look down scan radar model as soon as EDs free human resources will be available.

DCS 2.7.6.13133 Open Beta I would like to report, that Hronets radar can only follow airborne contact when in STT to its vertical low angle limit of - 60°. When in RWS , TWS (MAN or AUTO), the contact will just dissapear with zero chance of detecting it bellow - 27° When compared with F-16 radar, it behawe same way. Nevada map: APG-73_low_scan_RWS.trkAPG-73_low_scan_TWS.trk Marianas map: APG-73_low_scan_TWS_Marianas.trkAPG-73_low_scan_RWS_LS_Marianas.trkAPG-68_low_scan_RWS_SAM_Marianas.trkAPG-68_low_scan_TWS_Marianas.trk

@BIGNEWY please can you reopen this issue and try to find a reason from ED team, why the range for larger RCS (30sqm and larger) is not following calculations?

I'm not sure, but according to my calculations and DCS detection measurements the ED is using Signal to Noise Ratio (S/N) which is defined somehow somewhere in DCS together with some detection range cut range for larger RCS aircraft. For Hornet and Viper that is around 77-78nm. Both radars now have very similar S/N ratio. Somebody would like to argue about Hornets radar performance needs to be according to available data 10-20% better. I don't have thrust worthy source of this info. But Vipers radar was smaller, that's for sure. Other hardware and software differences ... I didn't know, but expecting that it also does matter.

As erported here at my last post and can be seen from posted screen, the BRAA is always in TRUE no matter if you switch MAG/TRUE. Now not only BRAA value is not MAG but also radar off centre angle value at AZ/EL page.

Ahh, ok, BRAA is NOT affected by seting MAG/TRUE in A/C page...it show always in TRUE. Is this also a bug?

There is another bug in AZ/EL page other than I already reported (not accurate elevation scan borders - they show more than scan is). Now the bug is about two or three things: 1) radar look angle values on top left corner of AZ/EL page. It shows wrong elevation when radar is in STT lock. When is RWS, TWS(MAN/AUTO), elevation value is correct. On picture you can read 61°D (down), but reality was as radar shows exact 30° down. 2) Azimuth value on top left corner of AZ/EL page shows 23°R (right), but as radar screen (and its azimuth scale marks) show, the target was only like 10° off nose of my Hornet. This error is homehow connected to BRAA value, because as you can easy calculate: 347° - 325° = 22°Right - and thats wrong. 3) Third and less apparent bug is hidden in AZ/EL contact mark, which is not exactly matching 30°down mark as can be seen on radar page, but is approximately 5° up of 30°mark (25°Down from nose). APG-73_low_scan_STT.trk

Thanks, didnt know that. Now when compared tables ... its ok. Disregard this topic than. Just if you tell me, why these faulty values I reported are in the Lua and if used, than where are used?

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 Russian AL-31F: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31 AL-31F wet thrust 123 kN Chinese WS-10A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_WS-10 Development: A full-scale WS-10A engine was first seen at the 2008 China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition. In 2009, Western media claim that the WS-10A approached the performance of the AL-31, but took much longer than the AL-31 to develop thrust. Furthermore, the engine reportedly only generated 110–125 kilonewtons (25,000–28,000 lbf) of thrust. In April 2009, Lin Zuoming, head of AVIC, reported that the engine's quality was unsatisfactory. In 2010, it was reported that reliability was also poor; the WS-10A lasted only 30 hours, while the AL-31 needed refurbishing after 400 hours. The quality problems encountered with the WS-10A reflected the state of the Chinese aerospace industry. AVIC initiated a general effort to improve quality control throughout its production chain in 2011. The WS-10A reportedly matured enough after 2009 to power the J-11B Block 02 aircraft.

Searching for any doc about it, but in mean time found this in J-11A.Lua script: thrust_sum_max = 15200, -- J-11A 51.2 kN thrust_sum_ab = 25000, -- J-11A 84.6 kN Why the devs put note there with only 1/3 of thrust - assuming been meaned for single engine. Did the J-11A version used weaker export version of engines, or some kind of Chineese weak copy? The values suits to Klimov RD-93 turbofan engines. Weird thing is that same values at note was found at JF-17.Lua script, that plane is using RD-93 engines. - But AI unit have wrong thrust values for AI JF-17 - I made Bug report about it:

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: