Panny

Glad you're enjoying the paint!

Makes sense to me that the weight of the pallets are permanently on

I do have a feeling that API is partially to blame on this one in terms of how easy it is to hold it; It's the same thing that Jester has a godly ability to acquire STT locks on close flying formations that no human RIO could do.

ROE is always a bit of a secret thing so it's speculation as to how it was specifically conducted. Weapon hold can sound cool in terms of only firing until fired upon, but IRL there were different factors/criteria that would be used, with some factors being overriding(i.e. if you're launched on). Additionally, it's a bit silly to ask HOLD when typically you would ask a declaration from a controller who would assess it according to criteria. I know this is weapons tight as such, but in example: ROE met if X of 8 criteria: 1. Origin of threat(where did they depart from?) 2. Formation(fighters only really go in formation, you won't be anticipating a champagne of 737s) 3. Proximity to friendly assets 4. Release of ordnance on friendly assets 5. Spiked(locked) by threat 6. IFF does not return MODE 3 or MODE 4 7. Threat continues to intercept ownship/friendly in spite of ownship manoeuvre 8. Visual ID as non friendly assets TL;DR if you see a fourship of Fishbeds pointed at you very fast, in formation with a very low TA; you can assume they won't be a friend of yours.

This is a quick and rough Tacview I did this morning. Sustained M2.31 in the F-14A. Considering no glove vanes, TCS, sidewinder rails, and tank stubs, this is pretty good, this is pretty damn close to the stated max 2.34 Grumman advertises. Also in a small dive got to M2.33. Only ejected tanks when approx. M1.8. Mission was tested on Marianas on default weather settings. Tacview-20220618-091413-DCS-Drag Race.zip.acmi

Hi there, Bug: ACM Guard has no Influence over Phoenix PD-STT Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce: Follow the four scenarios below. DCS Version: DCS 2.7.15.25026 Open Beta System Specs: Not relevant in scenario Peripherals: Not relevant in scenario Mission file: Can be tested in a simple 1v1 scenario. There isn't clear documentation over every part of the ACM guard, so if this is as intended, then fair enough. I tested a scenario with a friend of mine, to double check whether the missile went active at any point. 1. PD-STT >10nm ACM guard down. Lofts? - Yes LTE - 3 seconds SARH/ARH - SARH throughout Works as expected 2. PD-STT <10nm ACM Guard Down Lofts? - No LTE - 3 seconds SARH/ARH - ARH, no TTI on STT. Target reported ARH on his RWR. 3. PD-STT >10nm ACM Guard Up Lofts? - Yes LTE - 3 seconds including target being within 10° of ADL SARH - SARH throughout It seems more the case that the missile should act as if it were operating P-STT 4. PD-STT <10nm ACM Guard Up Lofts? - At this range it's not easily visible, but the missile doesn't show boresighted behaviour LTE - 3 seconds including target being with 10° of ADL SARH - SARH throughout, including TTI on on STT. Target nevr reported he got an active warning on RWR. I don't have too much of an issue with many of the bugs, but it seems strange you're able to SARH at <10nm when the ACM guard is up, feels strangely backwards! Cheers, Peter

yup, think fastest I achieved was M2.42. Launched with bags, tanked, got to altitude, accelerated to around M1.7 by the time bags were empty, jettisoned them and continued to push aircraft while around 36k feet

Fun thing to try - RWS is also somewhat susceptible to it. If you set a fighter formation that's extremely tight, the RWS will also show it as one contact on the TID. RWS does FM ranging, and has a resolution, but considering its purpose, RWS will just throw out whatever radar return; it's up to the RIO to correlate it. It's speculation on the decisions of the Hughes engineers, but considering TWS needs the view a radar contact once every two seconds to build a track, there's a significantly higher degree or error that's involved, and limited processing to work it. As stated earlier, DCS Hornet and Viper give the impression to people that TWS has an incredible resolution, and somehow instantaneously builds tracks without doing any radar correlation. IRL however, they would use modes such as SCAN RAID to try and pick targets out due to TWS' susceptibility of merging contacts. null TWS does have the same range as RWS. The core difference isn't in the AWG-9, but the WCS building tracks off what the radar is providing.

TWS merging radar returns is normal and how the actual radar functioned. It didn't have the same resolution, particularly due to the 2 second scan cycle. More the case that DCS Hornets and Vipers don't have TWS shortfalls accurately implemented which is the problem; after all why have a SCAN RAID function if the radar sees it perfectly anyway?

You can't notch a SAM; and if you think you can, you don't understand how it works. I'll look forward to the tacview showing chaff being responsible for defeating the SAM

Find me a track of you successfully chaffing and defeating a SAM lol

Beyond that, Jester having some innate sense of how you should break in respect to terrain is a bit much. Chances are he just figures from the TA of the missile what's the shortest turn for you to get away. Which, in fairness, Jester is an absolute god at spotting missiles from up to ten miles away and gives you a huge defensive advantage by a long way; you'll notice it when you go in other aircraft. Additionally, Jester being reluctant to countermeasure? It would be tough since the use of it is very subjective. Flares are easy enough and should be domain of pilot typically. Chaff, only do it in the notch, and never against SAMs. You might get lucky against an enemy SARH missile but you're rolling the dice over (depending on the missile) notching, or covering your bases and kinematically defeating it That said, via the Jester countermeasure wheel you can tell him to set CMS order to chaff programme(meaning he'll run a programme every time it feels necessary), and then you can set the particular chaff programme you want to run

If you know the anticipated threat you can change the flare mode switch from pilot to norm. This will change such that when you press DLC extend/countermeasure dispense you can dispense chaff rather than flares

Keen to try multiplayer and get engaged with a thriving community? VF-31 Tomcatters is taking on more pilots and RIOs to join the squadron. Our flying times: Training – By personal appointment with our five excellent instructors. Ops – Every Thursday, 1830BST(1730Z) At its core, DCAF (Digital Coalition Air Force) takes pride in our excellent training platform and culture, thanks to BATS and our instructors. No matter your skill level, if you’re looking to be part of a great community, this is the place to go. Additionally, we offer in house servers, missions, and instructors tailored to your experience. Want to find out more? Message me either here, or on Discord - Panny#2973 Email: dcafrecruitment@gmail.com Check out our website: https://dcafoc.wixsite.com/home Check out our Discord and meet some of us: https://discord.gg/dcaf

Keen to try multiplayer and get engaged with a thriving community? VF-31 Tomcatters is taking on more pilots and RIOs to join the squadron. Our flying times: Training – By personal appointment with our five excellent instructors. Ops – Every Thursday, 1830BST(1730Z) At its core, DCAF (Digital Coalition Air Force) takes pride in our excellent training platform and culture, thanks to BATS and our instructors. No matter your skill level, if you’re looking to be part of a great community, this is the place to go. Additionally, we offer in house servers, missions, and instructors tailored to your experience. Want to find out more? Message me either here, or on Discord - Panny#2973 Email: dcafrecruitment@gmail.com Check out our website: https://dcafoc.wixsite.com/home Check out our Discord and meet some of us: https://discord.gg/dcaf

Keen to try multiplayer and get engaged with a thriving community? VF-31 Tomcatters is taking on more pilots and RIOs to join the squadron. Our flying times: Training – By personal appointment with our five excellent instructors. Ops – Every Thursday, 1830BST(1730Z) At its core, DCAF (Digital Coalition Air Force) takes pride in our excellent training platform and culture, thanks to BATS and our instructors. No matter your skill level, if you’re looking to be part of a great community, this is the place to go. Additionally, we offer in house servers, missions, and instructors tailored to your experience. Want to find out more? Message me either here, or on Discord - Panny#2973 Email: dcafrecruitment@gmail.com Check out our website: https://dcafoc.wixsite.com/home Check out our Discord and meet some of us: https://discord.gg/dcaf

Keen to try multiplayer and get engaged with a thriving community? VF-31 Tomcatters is taking on more pilots and RIOs to join the squadron. Our flying times: Training – By personal appointment with our five excellent instructors. Ops – Every Thursday, 1830BST(1730Z) At its core, DCAF (Digital Coalition Air Force) takes pride in our excellent training platform and culture, thanks to BATS and our instructors. No matter your skill level, if you’re looking to be part of a great community, this is the place to go. Additionally, we offer in house servers, missions, and instructors tailored to your experience. Want to find out more? Message me either here, or on Discord - Panny#2973 Email: dcafrecruitment@gmail.com Check out our website: https://dcafoc.wixsite.com/home Check out our Discord and meet some of us: https://discord.gg/dcaf

Hi there, As far as I understood, on the BDHI small inward pointing arrows were placed at 45° increments around the BDHI. However, the arrow around the 10 o'clock position is 55° rather than 45° from the upper arrow. I've tried looking at pictures of the actual BDHI and it seems this is out of place, but I don't have a high resolution picture to hand so I could very well be wrong. Is this how it's meant to be, or just a small bug that crept in. Cheers, Peter

Very odd

nullHi there, please see the picture below. Unless I'm missing something, but is it strictly necessary that the MK83 on the glove pylon use a TER when it only adds extra drag? Cheers, Peter

nullSeems there may be a disconnect

Yup, not by much, but the C is heavier which impacts it a little

This sounds more like user error than anything else; without specific information hard to guess what went wrong. That said, it sounds like the track became extrapolated