GumidekCZ

Ultimate answer from anybody of ED, give us publicly accessible official document. I have been scanning DCS Lua code for some time, found many unrealistic things, some of them already reported, like AWACS and Hawkeye vertical scan limits. But these are OK-AS IT IS? Let's calm down and start to behave reasonable. ED team, I DON'T WANT module based on official documents only. You will NEVER find all these data to every system to every plane, ship, vehicle in game. This is simulator game! SA10 missile rocket engine burning time based on launch video of damaged missile? This kind of proof material is good? Really? t_acc = 25.0, -- Corrected by https://youtu.be/7i-UMYNKwcU video And those who post screens from videos of US TGP are .... ? Think about it.

Reporting BUG not only connected to, but will use it as an example. HUMVEE unable accelerate against more than 20% (10°) slope from stop. According to available data HUMVEE have a 60% (31°) slope climbing ability, and can operate on 40% side hills. Only method is to accelerate perpendicular to slope or drive downhill to the flat area, accelerate there and than climb that 60% slope. In script is defined correctly: max_slope = 0.5, -- in radians Other vehicles like Russian Tiger with similar capability can climb steeper slopes, but still suffering from same issue.

Forgot to put note there, that was at night time. Update: I think I forgotten to switch one 3rd ground power switch to B , not A.

I don’t know how you, but I’m still having difficult times when trying to read symbols from AMPCD, when MAP is ON. I tried to click every (SYM) button so many times and turn every knob (Brightness) to any position, but still I need to zoom all the way in to be able read something. I’m writing about day condition, but at night mode, its even worse. This problem is from the day the Hornet was released, every time in cockpit of Hornet, I need to turn map off. :doh: Can this be caused by graphic card, or DCS graphic settings like antialiasing settings?

Im missing IFEI indicator, when battery ON. Is that correct that my IFEI turns on only after first engine is running? I dont think so.

Hello? Is there anybody out there?

I'm still waiting for someone writing here: "don't put any ship into your mission, otherwise you will see incredible stupid things and wait for any part of ED team to fix all these sophisticated systems and DM, when they are able to find time for it." ED can we help you any way with it? Btw: in RL ground based Phalanx able to shoot down mortar or artillery shells.

If you search the code, you will find a Life points for each of vehicle, ship in DCS and than equation how much damage the weapon can deal to it on basis of warhead type and weight. Very simple and easy way to deal with damage, but totaly unrealistic, especialy with floating ship and any unit with fragile system on it (SAMs). Luckily this is WIP and we will see new system in future... when? Never ask this question! Note: The ship are lacking any kind of damage model taking in account the hull of the ship and structures above it. You can hit structures and take out all of hit points and ship will sunk, even if the hull stays intact.

NOT [AS IT IS] Found it, wrong elevation limits values (only -15/+10 degree) in DCS Lua code, and found more things are wrong in code, like missile sensors FOV defined as full 180 degree. In real world, E-3C and E-2D have ground stabilized AESA radar in all 3 axes, so standard turn bank angle is not a limit. AESA radar have ability to set almost any elevation angle (like -70/+70 degrees). Even wings cant obscure target, because the radar array is much wider than length of wing profile. On top of that both E-2D and E-3C has an ability of detecting cruise missiles at long ranges. https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=72 APS-138. This variant introduced the low side-lobe antenna (Total Radiation Aperture Control Antenna (TRAC-A)) first delivered in late 1982, and was designed to track cruise missiles at long distances (150 nm). Also I think, that E-2C in DCS should be equipped with AN/APS-145 radar, intstaled from year 1991. Now found, that in scripts DCS have defined E-2C with APS-138 UHF doppler radar , but in game and in Enycopedia it shows E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, equiped with AESA AN/APY-9. One small note at the end: Russia A-50 AWACS have in DCS defined vertical limits by -30 and +30 degree (vs E-2D and E-3C with only -15 and +10 degree)!!!

Still bugged, even if someone thinking opposite. Posting link for same bug report. Forgot, that I already reported this in past. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4298474#post4298474

Will do little spam here, where questioning Razbam devs about Tarawa defence systems: So I would like to use same questions here, except the different fire control system than SSDS Mk2. Adding here question about implementation of Mark 36 Super Rapid Bloom Offboard Countermeasures Chaff and Decoy ... (abbreviated as SRBOC or "Super-arboc") Edit: Why some advanced automatic aiming systems have in lua script defined same sensor accuracy as much older or simplier systems like Shilka and Vulcan? The numbers defined there are good for these two, but we are lacking much percise sensor defined in new WSN_9 for advanced guidance systems. No wonder that Phalanx can hit cruise missile only due to HUGE bullet spread (already reported as a Bug to ED). (Chinese DEKA CAP antiship missiles not able to be destroyed by bullets now).

Please I would like to hear answers to my questions fro Razbam devs, if they are ablo to. Dont want to read, how I need to put another 2 or 3 Perry or Ticonderoga class ships around Tarawa to protect it.

What about RIM-166? When it will be included? How much targets can be engaged simultaneously? How the ship AI decides about target priority? What type of radar guidance Phalanx (CIWS) uses? Why the bullet spread is so high? What is the reload time for all these defensive systems? What about AN/SLQ-32 and Mk36 decoy defensive systems?

In Carrier modul description is mentioned following systems: Which systems will be completed when SC released? Is there any detailed info about these systems? version of system, abilities, reload times, ranges, guidance, ext...

Can we get info about current state of Tarawa class defensive abilities now modeled in DCS or planned to be added/fixed??

If you see that in DCS code (not RL), than that is one way to look at it. Second way is that both are wrong now - I think Still there should be some joined ED command checking all 3rd party sensors, weapons, DM, performances, before released even into open Beta. The game needs improvments in many ways, but still we need to have compact game with same physics applied to every weapon/sensor. UFOs are not tolerable (neither FM like old Lockon French Matra Mica has now in DCS :doh:). For example when online campaign CAP units are added, than whole US/RU equation is trashed by one nation asset pack. Both sides arguing what is correct and how it should be, mostly leads into early end. Is that what we want in DCS? :joystick:

-Rudel- again Im sorry if I made rash on you, but I was first one with it, when expected just a small appology for 2 years delay with "please" at the end of your message. I knew that you said that will be done when you have time for such visual not important think. But still, you know... expectations :music_whistling: Somebody can say that request for small appology and "thank you" word is blackmailing or dark soul in me, may be it is :helpsmilie: Your model is almost 1 month before we made final shape (final is 24.06.2018 ) Will send you download link by PM this evening. And my apologies again, things get passionate every time even if you dont want to.

Im more than 100% that these are from mid development phase. Look at that shape of the tail and fins. Ok -Rudel-, contact me with PM or at DCS Discord, I still believe, we can make this correct. I will not require any money or module of you. If you think that your 3D model is ok, or you think that Im very bad person that you cant get agree with. Im sorry for that.

At first, Im very sorry for my last post written in not good manner, will try to behave better next time. Reporting, that almost all CAS missiles (especially those fired from ships HHQ-9 and HHQ-16) has almost none of drag causing to be able maintain great speed over large distances without almost no speed loss when compared with Russian missiles which these are derived from (SA-10 and SA-11 systems). Also when compared with other missiles implemented in DCS, these Chinese missiles not loosing speed when at higher Angle Of Attack (when turning or when flying stright at slow speed). These is big mistake made by Deka but without known reason to me, why did they released missiles like these into DCS. Why Deka didnt compared its missiles with those already implemented (Russian ones) and made similar ones? uBoats, can I get an reasonable answer please?

Of course not correct one, these are correct ones: This is job done by me and SVKSniper. He helped me allot with 3D modelling. Thanks to him once again. It was quite a difficult task to build correct shape of the tail without any official drawing, only from pictures taken at museum. At that time I was in good mood with MiG-21 and Magnitude 3 LLC, but these time are all over now. Why should we provide our many hour job, just beacause somone wants to improve his product? -Rudel- will have to make some effort to get it now. It will be easy for him I suppose. If he will do so, you all will se new 590l tanks when Magnitude have time to implement these. But when this will happen?? Im a bad person now, sorry for that, but have my own personal reasons.

Still wonder, why so many player have different aspect ratio, than other. Everybody is talking about 3:4, but if you measure KB page from picture bellow, you will notice that it is actualy 2:3! All KB pictures I have with 3:4 are distorted at my screen. Create your own KB pages with both aspect ratios and with big circle in center. Upload into DCS and than measure and compare width and hight of the circle. The aspect with equal dimensions is your proper KB aspect ratio.

Also investigating this F14 formation Thing, scanned almost whole internet for any other sources of proper formations, but without any luck. Also every picture of F14 taken from RIO position (not good visual references) and at the same time non of these where even close to those desribed in NATOPS (only 1 or 2) It seems to me that except the Diamond formation for public show, the wingmens fly as they wanted a feel safe distance to avoid MAC.

Reason to be equiped with DL pod for AGM-62 is because of you dont need to have initial lock when wpn released, but with DL commands you should have the posssibility to acquire the TGT when AGM62 in flight. My problems in track are intentional to depict the problem the DL guided Walleye now have. Without this working correctly, how would be able to hit any TGT from longer range (24nm) or to switch nearby targets for higher value TGT. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-62.htm Not very reliable source, but still... Try to drop it to general area of TGT presence from longer range and try to hit any contrast target there with switching current TGT for nearby TGT - for example 10-15 seconds before impact (with enought speed and time to steer the bomb).

Thank very much and to team for quick response. Can we get an info about every AWACS in game with its vertical limits? I mean the vertical angle he can scan. This IS VERY important thing if you are planning (in ME) your mission and radar coverage. This is last thing you want experience as a fighter doing advanced tactics, than suddenly loose your DL contact due to turning AWACS.:helpsmilie:

Created simple mission with M2000C (can be any a/c type) at HOT ascpect on AWACS (E-2 or E-3), alt 6000 feet. AWACS active with range from hostile around 65nm. Me monitoring SA page. At first DL contact appeard, but suddenly around 56nm, DL contact dissapeard. It took quite a time to reappear. I have absolute no clue why. I admit, that I dont know if this is AWACS bug or F/A-18C. FA-18C_SA_DL_BUG.trk F18_AWACS_DL_BUG.miz