Mad_Shell

ED said it would take some time, but 5 months and still counting to answer a Q&A is kind of crazy...

I don't know, irl civilian traffic seems quite oblivious sometimes

No, in the NATO procedure the JTAC has full responsibility of what weapons to use. Of course there is a discussion with the pilot(s), but final decision is made by the JTAC.

Yes it's normal. The FCR basically searches for big chunks of metal, and tries to classify them based on the radar return. A destroyed tank is still a big chunk of metal that has about the same shape as a non destroyed one, the radar has no way to know if it's destroyed or not. Pretty happy that ED included that.

This guy (Tutu) just released a video showing that the ballistic calculators for the F-15, F-16 and F-18 show very different ranges (Raero, Rmax, time before activation, etc...) for the AIM-120, while flying at the same speed and altitude. The video is in French, but with the automatic subtitles translation I think it's understandable. I can translates the bits you don't understand too.

It's modelled on the new seeker model. Now I don't want to sound rude, but I would like this thread to remain on the specific initial topic here, which is the effect of the ccm_k0 parameter for the new seeker model.

It's true that imaging seekers don't equal total flare immunity, and some specific tactics combined with some types of flares (different models of flares are not modelled in DCS sadly), have a chance to defeat them. However, what we witness in DCS is that flares can quite easily defeat even an AIM-9X, without any particular maneuver, if the target is a few kilometers away.

@Маэстро I redid a few tests, and I don't know what's going on with the coding behind the scenes, but for the IR missiles using the new infrared seeker model (Mistral, Igla, FIM-92C) the ccm_k0 parameters is defined two times. And in my tests, the 2 values had an effect on the flare resistance! I don't know if the code takes the mean value of the 2 values, or if it's something else, but for example defining ccm_k0 = 0.5 and ccm_k0 (the second one) = 0.5, had different results than ccm_k0 = 0.5 and ccm_k0=0.00001, which also had different results than ccm_k0 = 0.00001 and ccm_k0=0.00001. And I don't know what's going on with the RIM 116A missile, this one has 2 different seeker sections ("seeker" and "IR-seeker"), and ccm_k0 is defined only once...

Uh, to me it seems to demonstrate that there is a problem with the pilot damage model. Several of your shots were directly on the pilot, at point blank range with a 12.7mm. He should have been dead on the spot with the first direct hit. My own test show that pilots are way too resistant to damage. For example with 25mm HE rounds aimed directly at the pilot, I need at least 2 shots to kill him. He should be dead at the 1st one.

We don't know what happened there. Maybe the missile had a malfunction, maybe it was the flares. Not enough info to conclude anything. That's why I refer to the video of the trials, because we have a better understanding of the various parameters.

It is impossible to put infantry in buildings in DCS, so the "armed building" AI is sometimes useful for some missions scenarios. Unfortunately, the AI immediately identify the building as an enemy. This shouldn't happen, as the building hasn't opened fire yet, no way to identify this building as hostile. 2 tracks attached, demonstrating the problem with both air and ground units. I also want to point out that a single shell from the T-90 was enough to destroy the building. The Mi-24P needed 3 ATGM to do the same thing. Seems something isn't quite right with the damage. armed building spotting.trk tank_armed building spotting_and damage.trk

thanks Flappie. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't going unnoticed in the depths of the forum. I know you're doing some heavy lifting for reporting and testing bugs, thx again for that.

The AH-64D blk II AI is equipped with a MWS, but doesn't react to missiles launched from a large sector behind. This behaviour is normal for an aircraft without MWS, but this aircraft (and others with MWS) should immediately detect the launch and react accordingly. cmws_not_working.trk Apache_CMWS_not_working.trk

bump, since I don't see the tag "reported" on this thread.

I know that the 9x is a potent missile in DCS. But, and no disrespect here, the goal of my testing was to go beyond the feels, and have some standardized test somawhat similar to the real life trial, and we can see an absolutely gigantic difference.

The Aim-9X has an imaging infrared seeker, giving it way mor capabilities to discriminate flares from targets compared to previous IR seeker generations. You can find an example of real life trials here: In the 1st case, the missile flies for more than 10 seconds, and hits the target while it's against the ground clutter and releasing a large number of flares at very high rate. I did some similar(ish) test in DCS, with a similar flight time, against a flaring, non maneuvering, non afterburning F/A-18C flying straight level at co-altitude (so no ground clutter, which is not modelled in DCS anyways afaik, contrary to the irl test). Track file attached. The results: Terrible hit rate of about 10% percents at best, with the missile going for flares almost every time. That seems very unrealistic, especially compared to what we see in the video of the trials. I found that instead of the current ccm_k0 = 0.2, a way lower ccm_k0 = 0.025 gives a hit rate of about 60-80%, which seems reasonnable given that in the real life trials the missile manages to hit despite a higher flares release rate and ground clutter compared to my test. Moreover in the "Apache over Libya" book, there is an engagement in which the Apache has difficulties defeating a MANPADS with flares, barely surviving. In DCS, even the Aim-9x will very easily be defeated by an Apache launching a few flares. 2 or 3 flares are enough for any MANPADS in almost all cases. That also suggests that the resistance to flares of the Aim-9X, and possibly other missiles, is too low in DCS. 9x_IRCCM_effectiveness.trk

bump! Ships, including carriers, often operate with almost all lights off at night irl to limit detection. As mentionned previously it would also be great to have ways to turn off cities and airfield lights, either with triggers, or by destroying power plants.

Here are 2 tests I did, with ccm_k0 = 0.0001. In the 1st test, against a flaring, afterburning and non maneuvering F-16, I have 4 hits out of 19 missiles. Over several tests, I obtain between 20% and 25% hit rate. In the 2nd test, against a flaring, non afterburning and non maneuvering F-16, I have 1 hit out of 20 missiles. Over several tests I obtain between 0% and 10% hit rate. With a ccm_k0 of 0.0001, which equals almost absolute resistance to flares, the hit rate should be about 100%. I also want to point out that both the Igla and the Igla-S use the same missile in DCS, while they should have vastly different capabilities. I don't know which one you're trying to simulate, but having 2 different missiles for these units would be great. Igla_0.0001_AB.trk Igla_0.0001_no_AB.trk

@Маэстро Hi! I allow myself to tag you again on this thread, because I just ran a few tests with the Igla MANPADS. I modified the ccm_k0 in the C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\tech\TechWeaponPack\Database\Weapons\manpads_missiles.lua file, and set its value to 0.0001 (almost absolute resistance to flares). However when I tested it in DCS, it changed absolutely nothing. The Igla was still going for flares most of the time. I think that the ccm_k0 parameter is not being taken into account for missiles with the new IR seeker model (the ones with the "simple_IR_seeker" block in the lua). It seems they all have the default value of ccm_k0 = 1 instead. That makes the Mistral, the Igla and the Stinger especially poor against flares. I would be grateful if you could take another look at this issue.

Very nice white paper about the radars. However, one important point is not adressed. In real life the RCS of a target varies with its aspect and the ordinances it carries. Are those effects already implemented? If it is planned for phase 3, why are such important items not mentionned? Thanks.

Bumping this issue, because it seems ED has changed some underlying code for SAMS: a limitation in DCS has always been that for any SAM, a launcher could only fire missiles at a single target. As a consequence, a SAM site could never engage more targets than its own number of launchers. This has changed with 2.9: the S-300 and Patriot sites are able to engage several targets with a single launcher. I checked the NASAMS and it is still unable to engage more than 1 target per launcher. Since it seems that the code now allows it, I bump this issue so ED can take a look again. It's very possible that other SAMs should see changes on that front too. On another note, the NASAMS is still missing its electro-optical tracker vehicle, allowing for passive engagements.

I did a simple test, in which the vast majority of AI helicopters instantly spot a Shilka which is located behind and bellow them. They should not be able to spot it, as it is in their blind spot (no visibility possible from the cockpit or with sensors). Of the helos I tested, the Mi-24P and the Ka-50 III didn't spot the Shilka. The OH-58D, the AH-1Z, AH-64D, AH-64D blk II, Mi-8 TV2, etc... all spotted the Shilka. version used for the test: DCS open beta 2.9.0.46801. And the track file from my test. Helos_unrestricted_FOV.trk

I listed a few inaccuracies with the new C-RAM unit: - the rounds in DCS seem to disappear after 3 seconds (their life_time is set to 3 seconds in the lua file). There is also "silent_self_destruction = false" in the lua file but I don't know what that means. In real life, the M246 rounds self-destruct after about 3.8 seconds according to the document Dillard2.pdf I attached here, which is in agreement with various videos we can find online. - inability to engage mortar rounds. I guess it will come later once those have defined RCS too? - the C-RAM also has an infrared camera in real life, as a backup way to track targets, and to allow operators to identify a target. It doesn't seem to be present in the lua files. dillard2.pdf

I still think there is some problem here. According to Killshot's testing, Tor will intercept the GBU 38 (500 lbs), but not the GBU 12 (500 lbs), GBU 16 (1000 lbs), Mk 83 (1000 lbs), CBU 105 (1000 lbs). It seems pretty weird it is able to intercept some bombs, but not others 4 times heavier. I've looked in the lua files, and it appears the RCS is defined for some bombs, but not for all. It may explain some observations.

mmmh, that doesn't explain why it will engage some bombs, but not others with a similar size. It also doesn't explain the Skyhammer's observation in this thread about the difference in detection capability between AI Tor and human controlled Tor.