GumidekCZ

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.

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.