GumidekCZ

It has been long time and Im out of patience. I thought It has been already reported. Thing is that Hornet RWR is indicating radar lock even when hostile locked other a/c. This false alarm happens in any point of enemy radar search azimuth scan area. Altitude also doesnt matter - same bug, but in vertical. Problem is not only that RWR is indicating lock aimed for another a/c, but that is indicating signal at all. If any radar is Locked (not TWS), it narrows in both axis its radar beam into slim cone. Therefore nobody in scan pattern at any altitude of the hostile radar shall have SPIKE (or even NAILS) other than locked a/c and other a/c in close formation or directly behind locked a/c. There you have both track, one at same alt second with large altitude difference between locked a/c and me. Third track is from Heatblurs F-14B, which is most acurate simulation of western RWR. It behaves almost as it should, except that NAILS also indicated even when vertical scan patern of Su-27 radar is not high enough to cover low dlying F-16 and me at very high alt at the same time. FA-18C_RWR_BUG.trk FA-18C_RWR_BUG_ALT.trk F-14B_RWR_almost correct.trk

The BLUE SD-10 shall be for training purpose? (RF proximity sensors over painted), (but why to have FoX3 training missile, Fox2 - IR sensor here for simulation of BFM fight, but Fox3??) More likely, for public show. Last minutes of video is just computer rendered fake. :doh: Im happy that we have here again to argue about something, because someone wanted best of the world (even not in real service) for his product at time of the release and on top of that we all are just full of true knowledge about everything. Look at DCS F-16C, it will have AGM-154B which was never produced and therefore never in service. Am I mad about it? a little, but rather than to be crazy, I will get my glass of whiskey and watch some good movie.

Any reply from ED side?

+1 Absolute true. PLS BigNewy, tell ED they need to correct all these mentioned above. We dont want to endup with every possible jet in DCS but still throwing only dumb wooden sticks on each other. Only because of ... we all know.

Can confirm, devised same procedure last night on my own. Funny to read the same here.

I noticed same thing when testing bomb lethality and blast effects with F/A-18C nad than when practising HADB and POPUPs. With CCIP delivery it always impact short of target like 6-15m. Without blast and fragments affecting target, I would like to se this fixed. Yesterday I was able to blast S-300 FLAP LID acquisition radar (huge fragile surface) with Mk83 from 15m distance, not even bit of reducing its life bar (full green) still able to guide missiles against me. :doh:But thats part of another hot bug report.

What exactly is SOFT skin? Why not include everything? Mk82 can penetrate 32mm if in ideal distance and angle. What thicknes than can Mk83 an 84 penetrate? Still glad to hear that somebody will try to improve something. Thanks Good point.

BIGNEWY - You written: Really ??? Why I didnt saw any sign of smoke than? only alive or dead? Where are you info from? PLEASE, I dont want to be angry even little bit, lets try to slove this in peace. :angel: PLEASE, convert my track into *.miz files and try to fly it as I did, aim for centre fo vehicles row with 120ft ripple setting. take all three type of bombs na with MBT you can aim just behind them (in back, where the engine is situated). You will see couple of absolte unrealistic results, like vehicle with just tiny bit red strip of health still able to drive. RU SPA, BVP and some more not affected by blast even from 16m blast even bit. In real life fragment dont even need do destroy vehicle, just injure badly its crew, and work is done. PLEASE in sake of bright DCS future, we need revision of ground units health -all of them, escpecialy SAM systems with fragile structure on top of its roof, all vehicles when hit from back - engine damage, wheel and track after hit by blast unable to move the vehicle anymore. MBT assumed as dead when near hit by 83 or 84 bacause of in RL it would roll the tank around on its roof (couldnt be modeled in DCS). We need combinde pressure and fragments density when two bombs explode simulatenously. How you want to fight against medium / hardened vehicles when all these effects are poorly or not at all modeled in DCS??? I really hope that this IS constructive criticism.

There are the tracks, couple of Mk82/83 and two Mk84 on tanks. BOMB_LETHALITY.zip

Mk84 on MBT: All three of them was able to drive away!!! In RL they would be rotated around any of its axis more than 2 times.

I did checked F10: this was result (only BM-21 GRAD was destroyed completely): another Mk82 run, Sorry not 82 but Mk83 you need to turn picture 180° (view from North)

I need to report serious BUG with HUGE negative effect on bomb lethality. DCS 2.5.5.38756 Open Beta I started when i practiced HADB with Mk82 with impact distance of 15m from SA-13. Result was not even scratch. So I search for Mk82 lethality and found this attached document Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf which says: My test: Than I made my SP test mission with majority of Russian made armour, SAM, BVP, SPA,... with distance 100ft between each other. Than I dropped Mk82/83/84 in the middle of them to have result in shorter time. Thrue the process of testing my jaw just hang down on my face, I could believe what I saw. Mk82 did "NOTHING", Mk83 was weak version of RL 82, and 84 behived like 82 with improved RL version. But even Mk84 was not able to harm T-55/72/80 from behind from 10m. Sorry I dont have a track from my test only like 15 screenshots and ACMI file. 8x Mk82 (100ft spacing) With the results of my test it is clear, the DCS doesnt simulate combined effect of simultaneous bomb impacts. Explosions in DCS needs to follow basic physics depicted in following picture. I suggest DCS will need to look on Blast lethality and its (combined) effect on personels, soft targets and armoured target as well. At this time, you need percise munition or very!!! close dumb bomb impact to destroy or damage ground units.

Official says: "Development of AGM-154B is complete and production has been deferred." https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=300&ct=2 What make me curious, is why ED introduced "B" for F-16C ??? if it was produced and other source says: "This program concluded development but the Navy decided not to procure the weapon when the Air Force left the program" more source: "The USAF pulled out of the AGM-154B program because it selected the CBU-115/B WCMD-ER (Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser - Extended Range) as its future standoff anti-armour weapon (the CBU-115/B can carry ten BLU-108/B compared to JSOW's six), and the Navy couldn't afford to fund the AGM-154B on its own." http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-154.html Also would like to ask ED dev about "C" infrared seeker: "The AGM-154C incorporates an uncooled, long-wave imaging infrared seeker with autonomous target acquisition algorithms for precise targeting." Source from first link.

Im so happy that I read all these GOOD news. Many Thanks :thumbup:

Thanks for info! Questions: 1) Will the new MiG-21 3D model in time of release include new 490L external fuel tanks, we gave to Rudel? 2) Will the PSD tamplate released also with the new 3D model? 3) Will old user created skin be usable? What adjustments the old skin will need to be used on new 3D model? 4) Will it be possible to have different bort number color for Left/Right side?

I would like to start discussion about visibility of lights (size, distance) during the all 24h of the day. It is big issue mainly during bad weather, dusk, night and sunrise time. It has been long time ago, when was complaining about plane and airfield light range visibility. Since then, almost nothing happens; I know I know, many other more important stuff needed to be done. I’m glad that DCS is being improved continuously month by month, year by year. With this in mind, I would like to point out this problem of DCS, which is creating huge problems every night flight, where planes are closer than 7nm (example). I will not comment here all the problems, which lack of light visibility distance is creating to me and my friends. It would be great improvement if somebody from ED team will try to fix this.

Many thanks sk000tch, this is what I was looking for everywhere. Now I believe in ED adding these features more than ever before.

There is bunch of more, usefull things like TWS AUTO scan centering. Functions of first and second detent trigger:

Found this in RW document RADAR THEORY T-45C: MOST IMPORTANT: Hopefully Hornet ED team will found this true and will add this feature with realeasing TWS scan. For info: Virtual Mission Training System (VMTS) The Operational Flight Trainer (OFT) "Systems that emulates a mechanically scanned radar system such as the APG-73"

I found this for T-45, I wonder if same will be available for our C version. "Full action trigger squeeze in blank space: Moves antenna train angle to focus radar on different vector." Edited: For Legacy Hornet it means TDC depress in blank space on radar screen. This is something I miss in Hornet desperately now. Would be great improve beside TWS and Expand and other Radar features.

This is exactly mistake of most ED customers. They have some kind of weird idea of paying for module - giving them possibility to fly module in Mid/Late development steps and at the same time they think, that the exact money they payed will come to paycheck of developer team, providing them more hours spent on that module. Absolute nonsence. ED company is employer and dev team are employees, they will work on that thing, ED will think its important now and for future of the company. What they think about modules already bought by many community members, still in some mid-phase of dev., I dont know. But what I know, that 99,9% of the companies have priority in business, thus money. Someone, not me, said: "More modules, more people interested, more money on company bank account." There is something on that.

I dont have to be an expert on brevitys to recognize that the pdf have many code described in not best way, sometime even missleading description. Examples: "BOGEY DOPE: Request for target information as briefed/available." what about BRAA? "MILITARY POWER: The maximum possible thrust from the engines WITHOUT afterburner." - NOT CORRECT - its "BUSTER" call Best is to seek for non DCS(other sim) player edited version: For expample this unclassified pdf doc: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a404426.pdf

On TGP MFD Up Right corner slect LTRIG, you can then fire laser if you press your trigger. Laser must be LARM.

Glad to hear that. I have to admit, that my last post was not appropriate and I want to apologize for that. I’m sorry for being such a bad person and I know that nobody here is responsible for replying to every question or request posted here. But all family members and my friends have a good habit to response at least with something in couple of hours or 2-3 days. If somebody not responding and you know that he red it, than its telling me "you are not worth of even typing few words", "but thank you that you bought my product". That’s all. And I’m also sorry that didn’t noticed that (as always): https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3986560&postcount=9 "Gumidek OVER".

Ed know from many forum post (and not only from there), that have a mess among many things flying in the air (drag, lift, aerodynamic stability, weapon guidance,...) I know that these things are very complicated and even more if you want to implement these in sim correctly. But good dammed, ED! do something. I want to be a virtual fighter pilot! not to throw up every the missile do something ridiculous. And don’t tell us you don’t have any good paper with missile guidance, aerodynamic equations. Particular missiles abilities are known and unclassified, only the data are classified. I swear, if you make some good progress with drag, guidance, aerodynamics,… I will never post such biting post like this one.:angel: Edit: Interesting reading here, which describe (for instance) how complex calculations are needed. And these not involving guidance equations. LINK