jubuttib

White just means contact/track, by default the radar doesn't know whether it's a friend or foe without doing an IFF interrogation. The reason the green "goes away" is because the radar symbology goes on top of the DL symbology and covers it. The two don't combine into a single contact, they stay separate, F-16 in-game doesn't do sensor fusion like that.

It absolutely is not detailed, it's very generalized and rudimentary. But happy to have been of assistance.

That doesn't really matter, because it takes about 5 of them to kill the average AI helicopter anyway...

EDIT: This is very rudimentary and lacks a <profanity>ton of nuance on purpose, but if there are any clear inaccuracies, please let me know. Basically it just means that the radar wavelength is in the scale of millimeters to a centimeter, around 25-40 GHz, while for example the Hornet APG-65 and 73 radars operate in the 8-12 GHz region, the wavelengths being more in the few centimeters range. Theoretically the higher the frequency/shorter the wavelength, the more resolution and bandwidth the radar scan can provide (with LOTS OF CAVEATS), but tends to have lower range and penetration capabilities. (EDIT2: Once you start getting into the hundreds of terahertz range and hundreds of nanometers of wavelength, you get visible light, which as we know has pretty damn high resolution capabilities, but penetrates poorly, hehe.) This is why millimeter-wave 5G phone signals can be blocked by a piece of paper, but potentially have really fast transfer rates, while ground penetrating radars often operate in the megahertz ranges, rather than the gigahertz ranges. Similarly early warning radars often use longer wavelengths that don't really get attenuated by the atmosphere, but their resolution isn't enough to actually guide missiles to the target, which is why tracking and guidance radars operate at higher frequencies. As a crude example the SA-10/S300 system's Big Bird early warning radar operates in the 3 GHz range, the Clam Shell target identification and tracking radar operates in the 8-10 GHz range, and the Flap Lid guidance radar operates in the 10-20 GHz range, each tending to go down in range but increasing in resolution and fidelity. So in the Apache case the millimeter-wave radar offers enough resolution for the radar returns to contain enough data to have a decent chance of guessing WHAT the thing being targeted is. It might not know if it's an Abrams or a T-90, but it can be pretty sure it's some form of tracked, armored vehicle. Massive ranges aren't as desirable as this kind of capability to find and prioritize targets automatically. In consumer applications millimeter radars are useful for example in scanning and mapping purposes, and can be used for example in cars to detect nearby vehicles, structures, people, etc., where they can fairly easily see through things like fog and spray that would make cameras and lasers almost useless.

Agreed. I often see it just bouncing left/right on its own, neither maintaining a heading nor staying on the ball. I try to keep things steady on my end, and the yaw channel just develops its own oscillations, as if it was a rookie pilot causing pilot induced oscillation. I've started to turn the yaw channel off completely as a part of my startup procedure. It's perhaps a bit more sensitive to pedals like that, but at least it's a lot more predictable and doesn't do things on its own. Shame that it disables the attitude and altitude hold modes... As for why the Apache is hard to fly vs. the others, for me it comes down to two or three things. One is that yaw channel, as mentioned previously, the other is the tendency of the SAS to _amplify_, not damp your inputs near hover. I've recorded myself multiple times and watching back on the controls overlay you can see how I nudge the cyclic to the left a tiny bit, and the autopilot pushes it further than what I intended. This can make near hover behavior very twitchy. The third is the AFAIK confirmed to be exaggerated lateral push from the tail rotor, which causes the helicopter to crab enough that the canopy structures block visibility forwards when in aerodynamic trim. BUT overall with the most recent updates it's actually really not that bad! It's very easy to fly and handle when going at anywhere from 30 to 120 knots, it's really only the near hover stuff that's twitchier than I'd really like. Sedate the yaw channel, reduce the lateral push, and maybe* stop the near hover exaggerations of the AP and there'd be nothing to complain about really. Even now it's by no means uncontrollable near hover, just very sensitive, and the yaw channel is hard to predict. Oh right, there is one other thing... I need to check whether it's still a bug that exists, but last I checked all trim modes EXCEPT "return to center" had a HUGE effect on how fast you could move the cyclic around. The no-trim and instant trim options caused the maximum speed of the cyclic to be really sluggish when you just moved your stick around, while in center trim mode it responded MUCH faster. This made the helicopter a lot easier and more responsive to fly in center trim mode, but I use an unsprung cyclic so it's not really an option that I can use other than for testing...

Important to not that this doesn't apply to Jamsheed with his RPG-7, he is perfectly happy shooting helicopter going completely perpendicular at 90 knots, and hitting it... Huh, I thought a lot of them used wire guided ones. Learned something new today!

GPMG is more of a role than a specific gun (you probably know this but explaining in case someone who doesn't stumbles on this), where the same basic machine gun is used to fill various roles, like a bipod utilized LMG, a tripod mounted MMG, or a vehicle mounted gun on a jeep, a truck, an APC/IFV, a commander's gun on a tank, a helicopter door gun, etc. The M60 and M240 (an FN MAG variant) have both been used as GPMGs, on the Russian side we have the PK/PKM line which is also featured in-game (Hip rear gunner IIRC). They're most commonly using a battle rifle cartridge like 7.62x51mm NATO or 7.62x54mmR etc. If you specifically mean the L7A2 GPMG the Brits use, that's an FN MAG in 7.62x51mm NATO, should basically behave ~identically to the M60 or M240 from a damage perspective. Yeah they should be plenty to cause damage, and the M134 minigun certainly should fairly easily take out most unarmored vehicles with just a light burst. In-game though it tends to be really damn hard to get anything swept up with them, even with the ridiculously accurate door gunners. The Kord or the M2 on the other hand absolutely clean house. For funzies, here's an M60 in 7.62x51mm NATO going against a simulated cinderblock wall with tracers. Fun times. EDIT: Searching YT a bit, eventually found a video of 7.62x39mm (so way less powerful intermediate cartridge) taking down a piece of cinder block wall filled with concrete. Did take a while, but under 100 rounds still...

Would definitely love any kind of .50 BMG (or a nade launcher), unfortunately the 7.62mm guns just seem to underperform against vehicles. I know it's not a very powerful cartridge as such, but even the M134 spewing out a torrent of lead is lacking in impact. Meanwhile the Kord gunners on the Hip and Hind absolutely DEMOLISH things. Love those guys.

My favorite plane module in the game, just so damn good and interesting. Shame about some of the recent bugs, but it happens.

This. By default the steerpoints don't really sit on the ground neatly.

Yup, the Hornet was the "biggie", and the center-of-stick vs. start-of-stick logic could well be an air force vs. navy thing, the important point though was that the Hornet hits where aimed even at low altitudes. And the 3rd party planes aren't your business, but at least they're there to show that no-one else is modeling their CCIP systems in such a way that at low altitudes the impact point is closer than where the pipper appears to be. I'll test the A-10A and A-10C too just in case. EDIT: OK I now tested the A-10A, A-10C and Su-25T too, none seem to have this issue, it looks like it's just the F-16C. Also as a sidenote w.r.t. the mission I made to test this: I have the BTR-80s in the mission set to the following actions: 1. Hold 2. ROE = WEAPON HOLD 3. Disperse under fire = off 4. Engage air weapons = off 5. Interception rage = 0 6. ALARM STATE = GREEN state 7. Restrict targets = ENGAGE GROUND UNIT ONLY Yet they still shoot at me when I come in, and disperse after the bombs hit. How in the everloving heck do I get them to STOP SHOOTING and dispersing?

Testing some of the other planes now: F/A-18C works differently in that it STARTS the stick where the CCIP pipper is, but the first bomb lands where I'm aiming. Side note: The ballute retarded bombs slow down so fast, that ~500 feet above ground the pipper is below the HUD, so I'd argue these should be dropped lower than that. JF-17 same thing, starts the stick where the pipper is, but hits where aimed. F-15E uses the center-of-stick method like the F-16C, and works perfectly well at 100 feet. Mirage 2000C uses start-of-stick, and hits accurately. EDIT: Also tested flying the F-16C in slow motion at very low altitude, immediately after pressing pickle diving down and to the side to better see where the "designated" point ends up being, and it's clearly an above ground point, very close to the plane, even when providing laser ranging that should put the spot at the correct distance. It puts the aiming spot in the air regardless of what altitude you are at, but obviously at higher altitudes it matches up better with the intended aiming point.

How much is "slightly" here? I tested up to 600-700 feet in radar altitude and was still hitting a bit short, circle was near the 2/3 point of the stick. Being higher up does help, but the point of these weapons is the ability to be low down, surely? EDIT: I also hear you about parallax, but the existence of parallax would to me suggest that the target isn't being placed where the pipper is pointing, even when using the TGP and actively lasing for distance confirms that the center of the circle was the thing being aimed at.

After a failed strike mission I made a quick test mission to see why our bombs (tested both SnakeEyes and ballutes) weren't hitting their targets, and saw that they were landing well short. At low altitudes, where I want to be when making these strikes, the last bomb dropped hit roughly over the targeted spot, when the targeted spot is supposed to be the center of the stick. At higher altitudes it was closer, but even at 500-600 feet the center of the stick was well before the intended aiming point. The reason for why the impact point changes seems to be related to the CCIP pipper not actually being "on the ground", but somewhat above it, aiming at a spot in the air. So when you come in low, the point targeted ends up being much closer to you. As you fly over the target, you can see that the marker that's supposed to stay on where you dropped doesn't stay on the target you were aiming at, instead it's clearly closer. This happens both with and without active lasing using TGP, as well, there's no effect on accuracy. The targeting point was set near the BRT in the center of the circle. Included are some images, videos and tracks from my testing. Tracks.zip

Ah, so it's trivially easy, as long as you have the E2 Mavs. Thanks.

If you have the LMAV selected, and select the TPOD, the LMAV gets unselected, and goes to STBY, so you need to wait for it to get to RDY again after selecting it. If you start lasing with the TPOD, and select the LMAV, the pod stops lasing, laser goes to safe as well. This currently makes it impossible to self-lase Mavericks from what I can tell, because you can't have both "turned on" at the same time.

This is a common issue with DCS modules, you can tell which targets are live or not by trying to lock them up with Mavericks, and IIRC the Shkval on the Su-25T, maybe the Ka-50 as well, do the same, only locking up on live targets.

Have a like for "minute-of-tank", though I guess "tank-of-angle" would be more accurate, hehe.

Ooh, good stuff, thanks! FWIW I would expect that if they're indeed trying to simulate a capability discrepancy and not blufor jamming or something like that, they'd be doing it with the assumption of RED = Russia, so using GLONASS, and wouldn't currently be able to separate the JF-17, which would more likely be capable of using Beidou, into its own bucket. I.e. I think it's a redfor/blufor thing, not a per plane type/nation thing. Heck, when I tested the accuracy between red and blue, the JF-17 on the red side was a USAF Aggressor one, i.e. a US plane...

Good stuff. To add, from what I've read Beidou by comparison seems to provide the highest accuracy in "developing nations and 3rd world countries".

I use direct always, since I can just drop them whenever I want. AUTO wants me to fly way too close, hehe.

From what I can find online, GPS has marginally better accuracy than GLONASS (the Russian equivalent of GPS), and European GALILEO is supposedly even better, and in a war situation they'd probably try to interfere with Russian's ability to use American GPS satellites. I'm guessing that's the reasoning. Though AFAIK BeiDou, the Chinese system, is probably the best and most dense currently.

FWIW, I tested blufor vs. redfor accuracy with otherwise identical Jeffs, and these were the results (posting from another thread): 4xLS-6 250 + 2xLS-6 500 per plane, so six bombs per plane. All 6 from blufor hit inside the blue ring, redfor hits landed around the area. Both were aiming at the same ME assigned PP. Did the test multiple times, all results were similar, some times blufor even just made two overlapping craters. Huge difference in blufor vs. redfor accuracy.

It's also possible that it's trying to be a GPS vs. GLONASS thing.

Did a separate test with a BLUFOR and REDFOR Jeff starting from the same point, managed to get the PPs set in ME to be pixel perfect in the same location too (the co-ordinates will read the same for multiple different positions, but in-game the groupings will hit a different spot unless pixel perfect). Loadout was 4xLS-6 250 and 2xLS-6 500, total 6 bombs per plane. Hopped into blufor and dropped the bombs, waited until they landed, set up an F11 camera there, then changed sides to a redfor and dropped, and hopped to the previously set up F11 view. All blufor bombs hit inside the blue ring. Redfor bombs hit in the red rings. Redfor is at a massive disadvantage accuracy wise, a blue Jeff lobbing LS-6 bombs should only rarely miss (assuming GC alignment, HNS on INS+GPS and proper weapon alignment).