GumidekCZ

@BIGNEWY We "Hornet community" would like to kindly ask of any proof from ED side, that INR at ATFLIR have different behaviour from LITENING pod. (F-16 DCS manual): INR (inertial rates). In INR mode, the TGP maintains its LOS on a position using only inertial integration. Good vid about usage by WAGS.

It doesnt matter which tracking INR/SCENE/AUTO you use, all three continuosly updating distance even without TDC depress = WRONG, No Laser measurment should be done. No one on battlefield wants to shine targets by laser unless necessary for getting accurate coordinates or wpn delivery. This make AUTO low level delivery (CCRP) or LOFT attacks after ATFLIR target designation almost impossible. ATFLIR_INR_Range_BUG.trk

now ATFLIR SNOWPLOW mode can be initiated ONLY from INR tracking mode. When AUTO or SCENE tracking, and you press UNDESIGNATE, you will be in INR (no tracking) from which SNOWPLOW cannot be initiated by pressing UNDESIGNATE second time = BUG If you press UNDESIGNATE twice quickly, you will go to VVSLV and for a split of second you will see the SNOWPLOW cross. ATFLIR_SNOWPLOW_ONLY_from_INR_Tracking.trk

ATFLIR IR mode - when AUTO (gain/level) adjustment unboxed, but picture is still automaticly adjusting exactly same as in AUTO ATFLIR_IR_AUTO_OFF_still_adjusting.trk

Any progress here? @BIGNEWY this drift is huge all hornet owners HATED issue when operating ATFLIR and the drift make no sence to IRL usage.

It depends on seeker design and processing unit software (generation of IR missile), or if flares are just very old ones or more recent multispectral or even more recent with small fins and own propulsion. On the IR vid from show, there is sadly no plane with engine at idle to compare with MIL.

May be some of you already noticed my other report about FLAREs and IR seekers, ingnorign FLARE untill the missile is launched: @BIGNEWY You said: "when deployed effectively", what I was out of burners all the time, I poped 80 Flares and turned hard into missile to increase aspect and hide my engine exhausts. I could have done different evasive maneuver, but the result would be almost the same. I know that FLARE program, release timing, maneuver is matter of IR guidance sensor performance (generation of IR seeker with it technology) but even me, Im not expecting to be modeled in DCS any time in future of DCS sim. But just simple airplane aspect, IR emission coefs for Gate/Mil engine setting, size of flare - all packed up by just some dice rolling chance of success - I thing that sim game like DCS deserve more than that.

I would like to report Doppler gate BUG. Doppler gate relative radial velocity value of radars are frequently ignored, which results in some case to double of the Gate speed (attached F-15C Tacview files), or on the other hand, Su-27 able to track and launch R-27ER even if you are in almost Perfect Notch. (In Tacview you can choose to view the closure speed between two selected objects - I have very good corelation between RWR indication position and Tacview closure speed). (relative radial velocity = closure speed – ground speed of interceptor) I also tried to notch in different co-altitude with interceptor, which resulted in even more weird results: I was able to notch F-15C up to 25 kft (from Tacview calculated that notch made with double size of DopGate speed), At higher altitude of 30kft, the DP speed limit decreased from double to almost “zero” => unable to notch even if relative radial velocity lower than 10 knots (roughly 5m/s). When same test done with Su-27, even though the N-001 radar have 1/3 bigger doppler gate (less sensitive), the Su-27 was able to keep lock on me, when I was at almost perfect notch at 20 kft. I suspect, that DCS Su and MiG can use its OLS-27 and KOLS infrared sensor to keep lock on you and guide the SARH missiles = that would be big BUG, because cant be done in real this way. OLS-27 and KOLS can only help slew seekers of IR missiles on target and measure distance up to max 6,5 km by laser ranging. I highly suspect that this bug is not limited only those two airplanes with its sensors, but most of the DCS sensors with defined relative radial velocity minimum limit. F-15C AN/APG-63 radar velocity_limits = { radial_velocity_min = 27.777777777778, relative_radial_velocity_min = 27.777777777778 – m/s converted to knots = 54 kts Su-27 N-001 radar velocity_limits = { radial_velocity_min = 58.333333333333, relative_radial_velocity_min = 41.666666666667 – m/s converted to knots = 81 kts Su-27_fire_R-27ER_when_tgt_in_notch_.trk F-15_30kft_unable_notch_AIM-7_fired_in Notch.acmi F-15_20kft_double_notch_Gate.acmi

My last experience with very similar inputs(only gentle) to my controls as seen in real carrier landing (mission adjusted for similar estimated wind speed). Aimed little high ball, but than I was smashed by invisible elephant on deck = sudden nose high, than huge nose down which ended as 2 wire, 3 point landing. Very Poor simulation indeed. I'm still waiting for ED response with plans to fix it -ASAP.

Bumping up, admins, please report. Thanks. OLS-27: Translated: The OLS-27 sensor is placed in a spherical fairing along the axis of the aircraft in front of the cockpit. The range of detection by the OLS heat direction finder of an aerial target of the "fighter" type from the side of the rear hemisphere reaches 50 km, from the side of the front hemisphere - 15 km. The search field of the OLS is 120x75°, the field of view is 60x10°, 20x5° or 3x3°. The range of measured ranges with a laser rangefinder, which is part of the OLS, is 0.3-3.0 km when working on air targets and 0.3-5.0 km when working on ground targets. The accuracy of the measured coordinates reaches: in angles - 5', in range - 10 m. With the help of the NSC equipment, the optical-electronic sighting system provides the pilot with the ability to visually search for a target in the area of ± 60° in azimuth and -15° +60° in elevation, as well as measuring the coordinates of the line of sight while tracking the target at the speed of the line of sight up to 20°/s. KOLS: Translated: The airspace coverage area by means of KOLS is ±30° in azimuth and ±15° in elevation, the detection range of a fighter-type air target in the rear hemisphere is 15 km, the range of stable tracking is 12 km, the range of the laser rangefinder is 6.5 km.

In DCS - ALL RADARs (Airborne/Ship/Ground) CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY CHAFF AT ALL, there is no ccm_k0 value in Lua code in any radar in game. CHAFF vulnerability factor ccm_k0 only present in missile Lua codes. Because of this, any radar in game will have you "locked" (not literally), except you notch him or fly out of its limits. - THIS IS WRONG! Because of various foil stripes length packed into single chaff, it has an effect on most of the radar frequency ranges and will affect both missiles (active or passive) and radars (search or tracking) - generating tracking errors or a radar break-lock. DOPPLER RADAR: Against Doppler radars, self-protection chaff is most effective when dispensed at or near the beam, relative to the threat radar. Doppler processing radars will continue to track the aircraft unless it also has a relative velocity of zero. This occurs when the aircraft is abeam the radar. Even Doppler radars can have problems with chaff, doppler effect during foil translation can generate inside of the could reflected radar waves with phase shift recognized by Doppler radar as high relative radial speed - which is not filtered out by doppler gate. Considering Chaff cloud as just falling cloud of metallic foils is very inaccurate assumption. SAM RADAR TRACK WHILE SCAN Chaff employed against a track-while-scan (TWS) radar is designed to put multiple targets, with an RCS greater than the aircraft, in the resolution cell of the horizontal and vertical radar beams. Since the tracking loop tracks the largest return, the TWS radar will automatically switch to the chaff. After dispensing chaff, the pilot can maneuver vertically or horizontally to move the aircraft out of the resolution cell. SAM TWS is not the same as airborne TWS, which also use Doppler filter to filter out most of chaff effects. In DCS some late cold war/modern SAM systems able to search while tracking multiple targets. CONICAL SCAN RADAR - very vulnerable to chaffs. Burst chaff dispensing, employed during the final phase of an engagement by air-to-air or surface-to-air weapons, can generate tracking errors or a radar break-lock. The most dominant factor in chaff effectiveness is the radar cross section of the chaff compared to the airplane at the time when airplane and chaff are in the same resolution cell (angular and range). Chaff cloud have largest RCS reflection when viewed from the side of flight direction and smallest from the front and aft. Aircraft lowest RCS reflections are roughly around 45° off the nose or tail of the aircraft. Aspect is important when developing self-protection maneuvering and chaff dispensing tactics against threat radars. Since the typical fighter aircraft RCS varies between 1 and 10 square meters, depending upon frequency and aspect, the RR-170 chaff cartridge should provide a sufficient RCS to mask the aircraft RCS. In DCS some active radar missiles and older SAM systems. MONOPULSE RADAR - also vulnerable to chaffs.Chaff employed against a monopulse radar is designed to put multiple targets in at least two of the tracking beams. This generates errors in the azimuth, elevation, and range tracking circuits. Multiple chaff targets continue to generate azimuth and elevation errors that can eventually generate a break-lock condition, as the radar transfers lock-on to the chaff. Chaff is most effective against monopulse radars when employed on the beam in order to create the maximum angular tracking error. In DCS some active radar missiles and late Cold War SAM systems. (some of above mentioned informations comes from "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals 2000" book, some from "Characteristics and experimental study of radar scattering foil")

Yeah, IR seeker in DCS IGNORES FLARES before missile is launched. Above mentioned BUG proved to be an issue to all IR missiles. IR_seeker_IGNORE_FLARES_BUG.trk

But there is huge huge difference between up/downdraft which make you sink or raise and some invisible pitchup force which changes your AOA violently. Even if you have this wake effect off, there is a reported -long time unfixed effect of sudden nose down effect just before touchdown (even on airfield, confirmed no so long time ago).

IT IS A MESS, I hope somebody from ED team will look at it and fix it, at least till the end of the this year hopefully.

DCS Flare rejection simulation is still BIG FAIL to me. Im glad that I can hear birds singing when standing be a tree on ground, but the simulation of DCS countermeasures - by which I mean all three of them Flares , Chaffs, ECM ... it is on level of other fighter planes simulations, may be even worse. For example the simulation here is so simple, that it even doesnt matter if your engine are at IDLE or MIL(Buster). In attached tracks I used all of 80 Flares in one single program to decoy IR guided missile ( I was out of burner and pulling into a missile or close to a beam aspect to create high angular speed to missle seeker ), but without success. I tried more variations of released Flare time sequences, but it didnt have any noticable effect. null 80-FLARES_not_enough_1.trk 80-FLARES_not_enough_4.trk 80-FLARES_not_enough_3.trk 80-FLARES_not_enough_2.trk

When aircraft is releasing flares as pre-emptive countermeasure, all IR seekers in game shouldnt be able to lock on the aircraft, unless most modern seeker I assume, and even after seeker locked, it should have a chance to be decoyed before launch (for human controler in CA, AI units fire missile with ZERO delay after seeker lock). AI units will everytime fire a locked missile and just only after that the well known DCS Lua seeker value ccm_k0 = 0.5 comes to play. null My example of how it shouldnt work with me controling SA-13 equiped with 9M333 missile, engaging F-16 and F-14 defending itself by pre-emptive released flares. They will both be hit by IR missile because of this BUG. If pre-emptive flares are in the FOV as the seeker locks-on then they represent an immediate target in addition to the aircraft. Pre-emptive countermeasures are robust, even against more advanced MANPADs with counter-countermeasure (CCM) capabilities. DCS_PRE-EMPTIVE_FLARES_FAIL.trk

Are you sure that you don't have wake turbolence effect turned off in mission editor or gameplay tab settings?

The Burble Effect is WRONG - my comment to it in link bellow:

Like in already mentioned thesis, somebody responsible for small flares found, that even the small have good performance at least under some conditions and they found, that using small flares can be benefitial. In DCS, the FLARE rejection simulation is so simple, that can Not simulate such physics and the benefit of small flares is "Zero" in DCS. See the results of RedKite YT vid, not even 2 flare program matched the results of big flares. So in mission with IR threat, you need to use roughly 3x more flares to negate same threat as before. ED needs to change flare DEFENSIVE and PRE-EMPTIVE rejection simulation and create different flare profiles for each type used in DCS. Now the small ones M206 (for F-16/A-10) share same parameters as the MJU-8A/B, MJU-27A/B used in F/A-18C Hornet. M206 = explosive 130 grams / 195 grams total MJU-8A/B = explosive 154 grams / 270 grams total MJU-27A/B = explosive 240 grams / 360 grams total (almost weight of the "big" flare MJU-7A/B - explosive substance 261g / 370g total - https://www.tara-aerospace.com/MJU-7A-B)

I have just played a little with that mission last night in DCS editor a found some issues - but not single one related to mission scripting. 1) helicopter Search and engage in zone is broken somehow in DCS, at least for French army Gazelle / UH-1. They both didn’t found anything to open fire on. 2) helicopter AI is just dumb! AI helicopter was engaged by AAA, as soon as beyond the range of AAA, he will turn back in attack run on less threat ground units and will be shoted down because AI needs long aiming time and forgot that he almost died few seconds ago. In test I also noticed some suicide behavior of AI when attacking - diving on target with rockets like German Stuka smashing into ground and his wingmen colliding with civil building after he just evaded AAA fire. If the AI will not engage ZU-23 on first attack run ... they are DEAD! Strange thing is, that in first attack run I had at least partial success with UH-1 Huey unguided rockets, Gazelle cant hit anything, not even pilot with skill set to ACE by default in this mission. AI needs to see the ZU-23 from direction of first attack heading, if is hidden behind building or wall, helicopters are practicaly dead. I almost forgot, than Gazelle have some glitch in mission, not showing the arm - holding unguided rockets. After just setting same weapons in ME, the arm show up correctly.

Coup D'Etat #3 And I have to say, that I was quite disappointed with the comms I received from E-2 AWACS. not calling NEW PICURE, but "heads up" BULLs call called like: Zero-Six-Zero-Four-Two-Six (060426) - there much better way to call it used by US pilots and C2: "Zero-Six-Zero TwentySix" calling BULLs format but target direction of flight given as "HOT" and not as "TRACK" with cardinal direction. HOT used mostly with BRAA call, which I miss there because of ED script limitation I expect. mentioning 2 groups, but not the relative position of those two groups ("RANGE" with nm value). missing information about number of contacts in each bandit group - VERY important for such task to ensure, that there is none untargeted/non monitored bandtit posing major threat. call to MONITOR is just for to keep radar tracking of those groups - could be done on very long distances. It does not imply the readyness to open fire when declared as HOSTILE. Yeah you can open fire right away after HOSTILE declaration , but only when eqiuped with long range A-A missiles. not this case with just MAGIC missiles. The communication could be called like this: "Chvalier, heads up, picture, 2 groups tracking South, range 5, South group bulls 060 twentysix, tweleve thousand, bandit, North group twelve thousand, bandit." "Chevy 11, Chvalier, mission VID South and North group, South group (-BRAA call script-) 2 contacts, North group single contact." "Chvalier, Chevy 11, copy, mission VID South and North group" ("Chvalier, Chevy 11, contact BULLs 0-6-5, twentyfour, twelve thousand, DECLARE" /// "Chevy 1-1, Chvalier, South group there") "Chvalier, Chevy 11, JUDY, standby for VID" "Chvalier, Chevy 11, North and South group, VID Tiger" "Chevy 11, Chvalier, copy South and North group ID F-5s, mission SHADOW both groups, estabilish SHOOTER position North group." From the mission: "Phantom Lead, bandits are almost on us, we are bugging out!" - it seem that AWACS forgot to Retrograde/RTB Phantom group, may be the E-3 crew is bussy right now enjoying fresh hot coffe "This is Phantom Lead, we are taking losses!" - WHAT is this call??? its like from some Hollywood movie E-3 crew will face very serius consequences for not warning Phantom group when bandits reached at least the threat range or Merged if not the Retrograde call. Why the AWACS crew didnt declare both groups as HOSTILE when they manuevered in WEZ possition on friendlys? "Chevy 1-1, engaging Bandits" - Bandits, and which bandits? i expect that by common ROE, if the bandits engaged friendlys - now they are automaticly declared as HOSTILE! so no more Bandit call. Should be like this: "Chevy 1-1, engaging South and North group, both HOSTILE" "Chevalier to all players, bandits are bugging out" - Why AWACS call "to all players"? if he is not addressing the call with any callsing, we all know that the message is for everyone on the frequency. Why the hostile bugging out is call by AWACS? Chevy 11 or 12 should be the first ones noticing that fact and therefore call that for AWACS. "Phantom Lead,copy, Show Phantoms RTB." ?Show? which show? i thing I missed something. "Chevalier, Phantom 11, copy your last. Break, Chevy 11 you are cleared to RTB." - If you need to divide message for more than one flight leader, you need to call it twice! "BREAK BREAK".

Coup D'Etat #3 SA-342 Gazelles not engaging, they just flying around and keep getting punish by AAA. Some of them shoted down, one of the Gazelle lost its tail rotor, but AI was able to RTB safely = not fault of the mission No message about neutralizing AAA received, -> no engagement clearance received

I still wonder where the ED team responsible for this Burble effect on Hornet take the data to make this mess. I know that according to ED, this effect is still W.I.P. but I hope, that soon the will get rid of this attitude change nonsence. I have gone through most of Hornet/SuperHornet carrier landing on YT, but never saw any major or minor compensation by stick done by pilot to fight with sudden pitching up. ALWAYS the Hornet keeps the pitch angle VERY stable. Pilots are mosty just slightly adding some throthle when approaching end of the ship and than reducing it quickly to nominal descend value as it was in the groove.

Yeah, I know, they just have to learn to search if the bug is already reported before the write their own report. Problem is, that there is multiple places in forum, where someone can put the report in, that is why I first try to use forum or Google search. Multiple reports of the same thing is not helping to anyone

I have to agree with you, 2017 version color tint is much more realistic. I wish that somebody from ED can do something with that. And not only with color tint but also with blending real distinctive colors of rock, sand, river wash, bush covered areas into WRONG monocolored texutre as cen be seen on mountain texuture above or at PG map now: