GumidekCZ

If ED will stick with E-2C version, than they still need replace old AN/APS-138 for newer AN/APS-145 (40% improved range) which was introduced together with JTIDS and Link 16. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V23-N2-3/23-02-Sunday.pdf "In the early 1990s, the Group 0 and Group I aircraft began a transition to a new Group II configuration. A new radar, the AN/APS-145, increased target detection range and further improved tracking capabilities. The MC, the main combat system in the aircraft, was upgraded to increase speed and functionality, and operator displays were improved. The Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) data link provided an enhanced capability to communicate with other members of the battle group and joint forces, and the Global Positioning System (GPS) improved aircraft navigational accuracy." https://digilander.libero.it/humboldt/pdf/ANAPS-145.pdf

E-3A virants were upgraded to AN/APY-2 AESA radar, so the designation of Sentry model doesnt really matter. https://sciendo.com/downloadpdf/journals/bsaft/25/2/article-p103.xml https://www.airvectors.net/ave3.html "The E-3 has evolved considerably over the decades. The original 24 "Core" E-3s were, as mentioned, upgraded to E-3B standard under the "Block 20" program, which featured an improved AN/APY-2 radar, with a basic maritime surveillance mode -- as well as CC-2 processor, plus addition of five more SDUs, for a total of 14 operator stations. The first upgrade was redelivered in 1984. The nine "Standard" E-3s, the E-3Cs, were the same, but added "Have Quick" secure voice radios. " On top of that, try to prove here, that there was E-3 with AN/APY-1 able work with Link16 datalink ... Link16 was installed after 1990´s and therefore that E-3 already equiped with AN/APY-2. Link16 service: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/comms-through-the-aerial-layer/ "The Link 16 data link debuted in the 1970s with large terminals at ground stations and aboard AWACS. Air Force F-15Cs then acquired the links, and by the 1990s, Link 16 reached a range of US and NATO fighters and airborne battle managers like JSTARS, Rivet Joint, and the NATO alliance’s own AWACS aircraft." This is E-3A before upgrade: Its easy to recognize that this old variant with AN/APY-1 is missing something, that we have on model in DCS. Boeing E-3A 61606 at Tinker AFB Oklahoma, November 1981

I REALLY DONT WANT to read, what I shall do. I know that MEM thing. I WANT this bug to be fixed by ED! THIS IS A BUG REPORT, not a kind ask about help. EDIT: What a stupid thing, to change MEM setting every time you change PRF - this isnt really helping pilot to reduce his workload. I would bet, that INTL mod had something special setting already set in avionics IRW. If ED have different data to confirm this weird radar MEM INTL thing, that it is Ok as it is. Hope that this theory ED have also confirmed but some RL Hornet pilots. Sorry guys, I didnt wanted to be rude. My apology. But I really hate this stupid INTL mod feature.

I re-run test mission from this topic: in DCS 2.7.1.7029 Open Beta, And I found that Hornet radar have BUG now in loosing contacts very frequently, many times lead to AIM-120 unable to be supported (AIM-120 now have also BUG in onboard INS not working at all - unable to fly to predicted impact point after loosing D/L support). AN,APG73_loosing_BUG_.trk

Me and my friends, we think that Hornets radar AN/APG-73 is now underperforming and we are searching to any kind of proof, which can help us to create bug report about it. I searched for similar topics about AN/APG-73, but didn’t found any, may be due to my stupidness PLEASE, if you have any materials, RW data, DCS testing ideas which can confirm current radar not performing like it should. Please post it here, I would be very thankful to you. But be careful with what kind of material are you posting here, we don’t want to trigger some forum poclicy issues here.

Northstar98, all types of decoys and defensive maneuvering would be great, if the ship can angle itself to bring as many weapons against the threat with minimising any possible damge by enemy missiles/projectiles. But this would be very long run for ED team I think. This topic is about Phalanx system, so lets stick with it

Thanks for support, I hope that somebody from ed will soon take closer look on not only US phalanx system. At the same time also improving Russian Kashtan/Kortik and it's 30mm gatling gun having same problems. Together with improving accuracy and sensors of RIM-166. US fleet will finally have a chance to defend self through the mission, not only for single attack and after that being just floating piece of scrap metal.

Phalanx have now on current OB three major issues which make it just garbage on the deck: 1) Phalanx never realoading - IRL can be done from 5 - 10 minutes. 2) Phalanx not counting any turns of the target into its lead angle calculation - it never can hit poping missile, until it fly straight before impacting hull of ship. 3) Phalanx start to shoot from 3NM distance, which is IRL max WEZ. This range is unfortunately totaly inefficient, because at collision point with missile, bullets will have such huge spread, that chance of hit is just pathetic. Range of WEZ like 1,5-2NM have much more sence and is much more efficient in term of used ammo to kill incoming missile. Currnet Phalanx state in DCS can be nicely depicted looking on following picture, where only single missiles was hit Phalanx in range of 2300ft from targeted ship (CG-47) , 2 missiles hit by SM_2 (RIM-7) Seasparrow, 1 hit by RIM-166, 1 reached the hull of ship. Again, Phalanx cant reload, so one more attack like this, and Phalanx is out of ammo till the end of mission.

I dont have any of AD 2.19 charts, all I have is this: https://ais.airport.ir/69/-/document_library_display/UtmuerbUoVOY/view/67925061?_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_topLink=home&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_delta1=20&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_keywords=&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_advancedSearch=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_andOperator=true&p_r_p_564233524_resetCur=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_cur1=1 And all points I have mentioned above are true. Except the JASK one, it already has the NDB 349 in DCS.

Flappie, I did Re-Run of your test mission, with only single RIM-116 missile hits taget. RIM-116 really need some love and boost, otherwise its just piece of crap launched with some smoke. RIM-116_Pk_LOW.trk Also, RIM-116 have less smoke than in game, as you can see in vid. In DCS it has solid rocket motor - full smoke, no transparency. Something like exhaust = { 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, 0.5 }, (half transparent)

There is no timeline in DCS. Look at some of ED naval or ground assets or compare this E-2 with Dekas KJ-2000 or JD-17. Change of some values in script is very easy a to single ED dev will take no more than one hour to do this.

Same wrong RWR indications with SAM units locking others, my plane within roughly -+40° azimuth. FA-18C_RWR_BUG_SAM.trk

REPORTED in 2019, Today in DCS OB 2.7, year 2021, bug still presented Same BUG with RWR in F-16C. Please ED, correct this BUG ASAP, THX! FA-18C_RWR_BUG.trk F-16C_RWR_BUG.trk

Found, that in scripts DCS have defined older E-2C with APS-138 UHF doppler radar, but 3D model and information in DCS Enycopedia shows E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, which should be equiped with AESA AN/APY-9 radar. Remove old APS-138 for newer AN/APY-9 radar with estimated perfomance of modern AESA radar.

Reporting, that we have in DCS E-3C Sentry 3D model (C-variant also mentioned in DCS Encyclopedia), which was equiped with AESA AN/APY-2 radar and should have at least same performance as Chinese KJ-2000 AESA radar. Altough some E-3A was also equiped with AESA AN/APY-2 radar. Remove old AN/APY-1 for newer AN/APY-2 radar with estimated perfomance of modern AESA radar (or same as KJ-2000).

I would like to report very long known bug in DCS about Flare rejection system of IR seekers in DCS. Now the flare rejection is more than anything else dependant od distance/time to reach target, rather than ccm koeficient defined for each IR missile in Lua - together with amount of flares ejected by defedning aircraft (now after new patch, also with FLARE type (bigger/smaller)). I did attached 5 files, 2 missions: FLARE_TEST.mizFLARE_TEST_9X.miz - everybody can try to use flares as shown in my 2 tracks (one with Early FLAREs and one with Late FLAREs -dumped all I had): _IR_BUG_EARLY_FLARE.trk _IR_BUG_LATE_FLARE.trk - both flown on IDLE power! LATE track shows, how only single pair of FLAREs or two can confuse IR missile just after its release... even the mighty X! 5th file PL-5EII_always_first_to_shoot.acmi - shows, that DEKAs Chinese PL-5EII is always first to be released - thats very strange, I would expect to be launched as a last one - but this could be topic for another bug report. MiG-29 dumped all 30 flares to finaly end up in fire, same as Hornet with all 80 2x (5F x 0,25s x8) small flares - both hit by AIM-9M at that time. My next try, it was R73/R550/PL5E.. so it doesnt matter what missile it was.

Hello uboats - THIS BUG IS NOT FIXED - only partialy - PL-5E II (exhaust = tail_solid1;) SD-10 NOT FIXED!!! boost = { smoke_transparency = 0.05, }, march = { smoke_transparency = 0.05, Values need to be changed to value at least 0.5 to have proper smoke effect. smoke_transparency = 0.5,

Real Official IRAN charts: https://ais.airport.ir/69/-/document_library_display/UtmuerbUoVOY/view/67925061?_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_topLink=home&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_delta1=20&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_keywords=&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_advancedSearch=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_andOperator=true&p_r_p_564233524_resetCur=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_cur1=1

Reporting missing or wrong data of navigation aid systems. Somebody from ED have to check and correct every airfield on PG map, to match real world data. Four examples, probably can find more. Bandar JASK missing NDB beacon. KISH Tacan in DCS is 112X - reality 121X which is used in DCS at Lima AFB - not found any evidence of such Tacan code for that airfield: LAR missing Tacan 126X: KHESHM missing Tacan 118X: Official IRAN source of charts: https://ais.airport.ir/69/-/document_library_display/UtmuerbUoVOY/view/67925061?_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_topLink=home&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_delta1=20&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_keywords=&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_advancedSearch=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_andOperator=true&p_r_p_564233524_resetCur=false&_110_INSTANCE_UtmuerbUoVOY_cur1=1

I did setup Notch practice mission with AI in exact angle to be in notch, than I start easy turn into bandits to keep RWR indication in exact beam possition to be in notch. My FL100, hostiles at F200 and FL300. Su-27, Su-33 and J-11 can found me even if i tried my best, even I lowered my speed to around 250kts. Than I meassured closure speed and bandits ground speed. This two speed was almost equal and certainly in limit of radar for these planes. Many AI planes are still able to track me. I know about AI able to calculate my posittion and fly also to this calculated possition if radar contact lost. ["N-001"] = velocity_limits = radial_velocity_min = 210.0 / 3.6, relative_radial_velocity_min = 150.0 / 3.6, ["AN/APG-73"] = velocity_limits = radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6, relative_radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6, RADAR_SPEED_LIMIT_BUG.trk _Su-27-33_RADAR_SPEED_LIMIT_BUG.trk

Hello ED?? reported with track as you asked for. Did you noticed this? Did I used transparent ink? Is this real?

Hello ED & NL and BN, Very often ED is wondering why the community is more less unhappy (that's the weak word) about DCS bugs and how ED is working on debugging of any modules present in game. Look here at this Dhafra ILS report, now MORE than a YEAR without any notice by forum Admins or ED devs, People paid their money (sometimes hard earned) for your product which is still partialy broken, with not a sign of any notice even if reported by the community. Will not discuss here role of ED of using its own paid people to get rid of bugs like this one - which is more and more questionable with every stupid bug appearing in game: It really feels like NO-body cares about some modules with ED "Low" priority, even if ED say that's not like it is. Edit: this post is not about spreading toxicity, but about commenting things how they are now. No offence to anyone.

Dhafra ILS frequencys are corretly shown in editor. NOT in F10 map info when Dhafra selected!!! In MSN Editor, there we also missing important info, that ILS 31L is actulay on BACK COURSE of ILS 13R (localizer only, no glideslope). I checked the uncrypted part of PG map scrypt Beacons.Lua to check this issue. So again, ED hello!,... you didnt reacted to this problem, but somebody must have done it for you, by reading uncrypted LUA file!!!

That how it is, we cant do much about it, our best hopes are now in hands and minds of ED. I think that we all can enjoy DCS without mods for some time, till the solution is find. I really hope, that they will find smart way how to solve this without harm to anyone contributing to the DCS gameplay by any good way (reporting bugs, creating great mods). Fingers Crossed If they dont, than Im afraid that many toxic post will be written by the DCS commnity. (not here on forum - censorship)

I would like to ask DEKA developers at the same time as ED developers if somewhere in future the smoke opacity will be affected by released height (bellow or above condestation layer).