GumidekCZ

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

How do you know? Are you Hornet pilot? or Boeing employee? Even small kid playing with plastic models knows that C and E/F have different dimensions between pylons (E/F has less space between = more interference drag), but can be good data when compared with C version.

Im not a programmer, but if all these available, should it take so long to fix the drag of all pylons, adapter, weapons? Yeasterday I just use script scanner to search whole DCS about any script mentioning LAU-115C adapter and its drag. Found nothing. Its a mistery how ED scripted drags for all these. FA-18C sample drag index calculation: same can be found for FA-18E/F sample drag index calculation: Missiles: Adapters: store drag interference: These can be found for any weapon/adapter for Hornet (doc for C version not all interfrence data filled, but for E/F version..all is there). When DCS F18C Hornet almost clean configuration, it can be fast as it should be according to this chart: But when anything carried under wings.. its like to fly with aerobrake out. No wonder that other DCS jets can outperform Hornet so easily.

Reporting bug, where after some short time (10-20sec) of flight, AGM62 goes mad and not following any of my command via D/L. AGM62 than tryes to flatten its trajectory, still responding to my commands, but very chaotically - unable to aim to any target. Track file: FA-18C__AGM-62_BUG.trk

Reporting two bugs: 1) TWS BIAS altitude change work only after cyceld with RWS and back. When you go to BIAS from AUTO TWS - altitude change NOT working. 2) When returning back from TWS to RWS, the radar scan angle, azimuth is stuck in non-centered postition and can be reseted only thrue cycleing all azimuth scales values, not even RESET button helped. Didnt found the axact pattern how to reproduce this bug :( Track: FA-18C__BIAS-ALT__RWS-Azim-Stuck.trk

After release of AGM-62 w/o a solid target track, but via D/L, the Walleye is reacting to input commands (by steering whole bomb) only for very limited time. After few second, control surfaces of bomb stuck in any possition of last command. Than you can steer only the TV camera without any control of guidance, even with highly contrast target in center of it. Simply said, if bomb doesnt acquire contrast target before this strange "ghost mark time" , it just chunk of steel falling from the sky.:mad: If target is not highly contrast, but you still want to hit and you aimed bomb impact point for that... now after "ghost mark time" the bomb will try to pitch up its nose and glide, without any possible control by pilot. AGM-62 is very old weapon, but still can be handy even now in DCS. BUT NOT with this state of D/L guidance and its Glide thing.:doh: Will add track files later, in mean time, you can try this by your own. :joystick:

I dont use any VR, I have single monitor 24" 1920x1200 resolution (MSI GTX 1070 GAMING X 8GB). Using last Nvidia drivers with clean instalation. Every export via lua scripts results in unreadable letters. Can DCS graphics settings have an impact to this issue?

This whole thing is [REPORTED] BUG at 2019, nothing happened since then.

Blurry export already [REPORTED] at 2019, nothing happened since then.

Checked yesterday both Mk20 and CBU99, both released around 540ft AGL, not 1500ft - causing small ground print and effect area. If anybody else can test it, please report this as a BUG. I wonder, when ED will give us proper fuzes and setting of fuze. Now neither of them behave as it is in RL or proclaimed by ED (fixed fuze proximity dispersion at 1500ft).

F-4E? WHEN ??!!! :D

Please ED, can you speed up fixing on little texture there, we cannot see, what is in front us!

I just red that report (didnt know it exist), but everybody is writing there about distance from locked plane. So seems to me as same bug, but mine report showing, that this is not a bug of AI radar use, but bug of RWR on each of aircraft here in DCS (dont have Harrier and Vigen, F-5), because when switched planes in this test, I get different RWR readings. What I know that no one of the rest of western planes has BUG-less RWR. Best RWR by HB F-14B - the NAILS there can be result of not correct radar search energy radiated by some DCS radars (dont know), ED has to investigate this. Tested on example with Su-27 and I was able to read indication on RWR at any position possible in scan zone capability of that radar, despite it can track in azimuth only 1/3 of its limits and in vertical only 10° angle(do not mislead this with scan limits). At the track file Su-27 is scaning area around F-16. So even there there is little bug I think.