GumidekCZ

RAZBAM, hello, ... wake UP! Can you please tell us what protection systems on Tarawa we have today and when we can expect to other RW defence systems like RIM-116 and mK 36 decoy launching system will be implemented? https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-1-up.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile

Ability to achieve with MiGs delta wing as much as 20 degree according to real pilots, not possible. Maximum is around 15 degree which is even less than F-5 without delta. We want this fixed more than any other bugs or external 3d model or textures. Edit: Delete this post, found how to achieve such high AoA without big problems.

This is true only as your speed is decreasing. Initialy after touchdown, there should be ground/cushion effect present. As far as Im aware of most of DCS modules, no one simulates this effect and if, than incorectly (example Hornets inverted ground effect which will drag you down into ground). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)

I admit that I added to list some points Im aware of (like point 16 - RCS changing through different angles), but someone else may appreciate to know the answer. :smartass: Im not sure about exact answer, maybe with near introduction of SEA radar, different angle of ship (changings ships RCS) will result in different contact range. If you know details (that are 100% valid for current stable DCS version) about how actual system works, you can write about it here or make a vid about it. :smilewink:

Of course that improving Electromagnetic Warfare in future of our virtual world would be great, some systems really "must have". But before our rocket will liftoff into deep space, I would like to have clear idea of what we already have available at our space center and how its simulated. Today situation even for veteran DCS player is unclear with quite many questionmarks? Not talking about new players having absolute no idea whats going on behind EW curtain in DCS. They will than ask veterans, but even they mostly dont know. Its like a racing game with many many car tuning possibilities without knowledge of its effect on car performance. Simple answers from devs could bring day light into it and the game could be than much better. And that is the goal we all aimming for, hopefully :)

Discussion is always nice, but what I’m looking for are true answers to my points (graphics, tables, diagrams can be added). Bear in mind that everything in DCS World and all modules including, are unclassified data, therefore we can have access to it. Everyone wants to know how the game works. So many years some of these points are covered with shadow cover. Sometimes I seemed to me that this is purpose of ED devs, less data and explanation give us less topics to argue about or to demand updates/upgrades. My last experience was for example when I kindly ask to for explanation of simulation AESA radar on DCS E-3 AWACS and its scan limits angles (didn’t receive it yet, if ever will). I hope, that may be this time, someone from ED will be more generous and will share the knowledge with all of us.

I have an question for ED or DCS knowledge specialist. Why? Because many toppics mention down here are covered in kind of shadow in DCS to me. Or explanation of these will bring the light for some of new commers or anyone who had no idea of such physics/system/sumulation. 1) What is the current or near future (1 year) planned state of DCS Electromagnetic Warfare? 2) Which sources of electromagnetic spectrum are detectable, how they can be detected or jammed. 3) How the radars now emits energy? Is scanned azimuth (L/R, narrow, wide) and selected number of bars affecting EM emission of the waves? 4) How big are STT cones are how far can RWR detect other radar emissions and hard locked STT cone energy? 5) Can the RWR detected energy even when located inside of enemy radar limits, but outside of currently scanned azimuth and elevation? 6 ) Are the same rules applied to AI as are for human controlled units? 7) What kind of JAMing do we have in DCS? (Noise Jamming, Deception ECM -range/angle) -added __7a) How the Radar burnthrough range is calculated and how ECM effect detection range? -added __7b) Is communications systems JAMing planed to be implemented to DCS in future? -added 8 ) Which modules simulates negative effect of being jammed? 9) Which modules or assets can JAM others? 10 ) If ECM is used in DCS World, is here simulated limited JAM direction or adjustable JAM direction by advanced JAMing systems? 11) Are all these EM warfare things scripted same way for any of the module - FC3 including 12) Are all these EM warfare things scripted same way Human controlled machine, and for AI? 13) How is in the DCS World simulated the difference between AESA and Doppler radar? 14) What platforms together with what missiles can now shoot HOJ? 15) How is the RCS calculated for any of DCS world unit and how it affects its detectability? 16) Is the RCS value changing by different reflection angle of the unit? 17) Is in DCS World simulated equation between RCS and distance for all radar equipped units? 16 ) Do the DCS players have access to the detecting limits Range vs RCS, or will they some day? 19) How the Pulse Repetition Frequency is simulated? Is the some heavy equation mathematic thing or just simple multiply by an given coefficient. 20) How the Doppler gate is simulated? If I hang my a/c on tail pipes - almost sitting in the air, does it mean that I will be invisible to doppler based radars? 21) Does the Notch maneuver and slip through Doppler gate also in effect when flying in vertical? 22) How Chaff countermeasures effectiveness are calculated in DCS World? 23) What effect have the amount of Chaff released, how the release interval can affect its effectiveness? 24) Is Chaff corridor planed to be implemented to DCS in future? (Such a curtain can so confuse radars that they are unable to locate the real targets within the chaff cloud. Chaff drops so slowly that it normally takes many hours to reach the ground.) -added Little bit off topic, but since we have TV/IR sensors also involved in search for targets, I would like to post here also the question about it: 1) Are the optic sensors presented at any of the modules (CF3 included) affected by smoke or humidity presented in line of sight or just simply the size of the target? 2) Can IR guided missile guide itself thru the cloud (falling snow at winter) or can be confused by any burning (not smoking) ground fire?

+1 More shallow ramps and complete overhaul of Combined Arms human controlled vehicles. Some of them can climb mountains like Mountain Goats, some of them can accelerate against even slightest slope...(Reported but still without any comment from ED side). https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=274211 Will not talk here about different surfaces and its friction properties under different weather conditions (dry/wet, snow, sand, rocks).

I thought, that this toppic would create more discusion and interest, but apperently not. So I would like to move this toppic by admins into BUG report, because I think, that: Bullet explosions not following tracers. Missing 30mm round tracers. Ballistic drop of both weapons not following trajectories as drawn at attached diagram above.

Here is my test mission, download it and try it for your self. What a pitty, that Fw190D cant shoot at ground. Bf109K_balistic_tr_check.miz

I admit, I have difficulties to unzoom to long distance and decrease FOV angle still focus on towers, but still... I have some results. Unfortunately the picture shows something BUGy with Bf109 projectiles. Tracers (both colors white & yellow) we see on picture belongs to only MG131 projectiles. 30mm MG108 dont have any tracers in DCS. If shooting MG131 only , there are no bullet explosions. They emerge only when shooting MG131 and 108 together, on top of that the explosion are located on two areas. Question here is, if all bullet explosions belongs to same type of projectile on not. According to this graph, its clear that MK108 falls more rapidly than MG131 rounds (lower muzzle velocity,...).But if you see the little explosions from last picture in my post above..there it opposite - expolsion near last TV tower with high explosions rate belongs to MG131 and the most left ones to MG108.

For someone this could be an old thing, but I noticed this just 2 hours ago a looking for explanation why it is done this way, or is it a bug?-Me personaly I really hope it is and some day will be fixed. In Honet by pressing TDC directions buttons you are commanding TGP sight to move UP/DWN or L/R, but only if TGP is aimed more less 45° from axis of plane. More you go abeam with sight, more the TDC directions commands make no sence and behaves strange. If you are looking with TGP around >80° (to sides), here Im almost unable to control the TGP sight to directions I want. Operating F/A-18C equiped with TGP as a FACA pilot estabilished in Wheel over target area...Im screwed! When compared with A10C, there is no such weird and mad sight direction control behavior. Edit: I would like to post here a YT video depicting my problem with TGP axis control, but unfortunately I have bussy weekend with my family.

Thanks very much for some RW info. But I'm still more interested in how it's modelled in DCS. Did someone compared RW data with ballistic trajectories we have in DCS now?

This makes map little too dark. Bright green latters and symbols easyer to read, but not solving the problem with very thin black outlines. Working AMPCD cockpit adjustment buttons without bugs and black outline thickness separate sliders option in Hornet special setup for MFD and AMPCD could solve our problems once for all.

I searched briefly forum and manual for values of ballistic drop over the travelled distance, but found nothing about it. Is here somewhere any research and table chart I missed? Also are the MG 131 mounted in plane axis? Was Germans able to adjust its elevation angle? Why I need this? Would be nice to know how much milirads I need to aim above to be able to hit target from longer ranges (200m-500m).

The name of this toppic is really funny now,... should be renamed to "sooooo good only for someone". It would be nice to have kinda chat with ED dev responsible for Hornets displays and try to solve together, why its so difficult to make all displays visible for everyone. The rest of malfunctions are just ordinary bugs I hope.

Why you all are so happy, update before AMPCD was fine to read, first in DCS Hornet history. Now its back into sh..... unusable with map again. The black outlines of symbols are to thin... like micro thin, because of that symbols are blended with colors of the map. I wonder why many of us like what other hate about symbols setting ED is trying to tune down and up every update. Wouldnt be smart to create special setting for Hornet symbols, so everybody can adjust symbols to his best? This is why I se after last patch.... NOTHING

Old thing, https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4382547&postcount=1 Sadly without any response what so ever. I need to check locked target symbol jumping from a/c to a/c. But not expecting miracles.

Wonder why we have Ju-88A4 variant with camouflage and weapon loadout used for antiship mission in mediterranean sea. Another antiship missions flown with this version but in much different camo from Norway airfields against ship convoys in North Atlantic and North Sea. Im not an expert to WWII, but I think that somebody just picked popular camouflage without thinking, what maps we now have in DCS. Bomb is MUST HAVE for Ju-88: SC-250 SC-500 SC-1000

Your texture is blurry, small marks and circle are barely visible. When compared to RW photo, seems this texture is what I gues I would see if I have 6 dioptries on both eyes. No offense, everybody likes more less different shapes and textures, our ladies are proof of that Current DCS Revi16 is fine to me.

Yesterday I did my WT stick keybind checkride, and I found some of very useful keybind missing in DCS, like radio, NVG brightness, normal and NVG cockpit lights toggle... would be very nice if RAZBAM will add these. But this is not the biggest problem I had, it comes when I tried fly at night and adjust green, white flood lights - when turned ON, already too bright. HUD brightness can’t be tuned down to be comfortable to read with NVG. NVG cockpit lights toggle button turns off all cockpit lights, but PCA, Autopilot, Radio frequency, some more lights remain same brightness, also this switch has no effect on HUD what so ever - is this as should be? At the end, I didnt found any way how to adjust NVG brightness :helpsmilie: Did you find same problem as I did?

I wish that also, with this speed, it wouldn’t be a problem to catch escaping Tu-95 Bear targets at quick training missions. Once you close on them fire your first burst, they will defend themselves by accelerating to speeds 109K can never reach even with boost. Someone from ED team should revise these missions.

Reasons why will not buy? Flat terrain bothers me, but what I really luck is authenticity when looking out of cockpit to have the same feel when I see WW2 aerial photos of Normady...now the map features just some well detailed major towns and airstrips. Rest of the map feels like random generated treelines and feelds without streams, irregularities, small villages, lonley houses,...and many more >:( This for me is another example of not finished product selled for price not worth of it. Therefore will not buy it only because some WW2 servers run it. I really hope that Ugra will put more effort into Syria map. This isnt suppose to be some kind of troll or hate post, but small push for devs from customer who thought about to buy the map, find things may be other potentional custmers move away from same reasons.

Gathered thrust values for some of flyable DCS aircraft from wiki (I know I know what you want to say). I think that thrust is best scale for DCS aircraft, how IR signatures can be adjusted according to to following table: IR signatures now in DCS:

Such answers putting me in deep doubts about intelligence and IQ of the author. Please avoid suchlike, if you don't want be considered as fault of our education system. For others, Let's presume that I am not only thirsty jet in the air at the MP mission.