DSplayer

I mean if you look at the files and see what was changed, you'll see that all the values that were changed have no real bearing on actual performance. While it does say that the FM was slightly adjusted, it does seem that the FM performance didn't make it in since nothing relating to the FM actually changed.

I would say that the "statcard" values got changed which has no real impact on performance, including the Rmax, Rmin, etc. computed by the JF.

The changes done in this patch are only to the encyclopedia entries basically with no real bearing on the actual FM or motor. API didn't change either.

Unfortunately, it's a limitation and you'll have to slow down to jettison your tanks. Max speed is roughly Mach 0.9 iirc.

Hmm, I'll have to look into this then.

I meant you can't mix weapons on the same station. So while on the Apache, for example, you can have 114Ls on station 3 and Ks on station 4 but you can't have 2x 114Ls and 2x 114Ks on the same station.

Probably fixed internally and earmarked for the next OB patch.

I think you can't mix two weapons on the same pylon btw. IIRC its a DCS limitation.

Yes, unfortunately, the pylon is incorrect in the mod but that's because they're not a separate model that I can use on the F-14.

Unfortunately, that thread never got an official ED response regarding the incongruencies between our motor values and those listed in the SMC.

While the R-27ER would be cool, the R-27R was the only one to be mounted on the jet with photographic evidence that it was mounted. I want to keep this mod at least a little bit grounded to earth.

Version 1.0.1 has been released since JDAMs have been added officially to the SE. Includes other fixes to be made compatible with the latest OB version.

The current Sidewinder code in the Viggen's weapons.lua do not currently do anything as they are not declared/defined there anymore.

Yes but the change you will be doing is uncommenting the section that defines the Sidewinders on the Viggen. It's all commented out now so only the ED files dictate the AIM-9s.

Hmm you're right since the GAR-8/AIM-9B code they posted is for the new 2.9 stats with the better CCM and PN_gain while the Rb 24 code seems to be from the Viggen's weapon lua (which is now commented out) with all the special notes.

I assume OP might be on Stable which still has this problem.

Those are a soontm item!

A key factor in IRL weapon performance/reliability is weapons handling and maintenance. In DCS, we should have "perfect" missiles that should have perfect reliability. So if you launch within parameters, they should track. The variants of AIM-9s we'll see appear to be the AIM-9B, 9J, 9P, 9L, and 9M. And the AIM-7 variants we'll see are the AIM-7E-2, 7F, and 7M.

Last I checked, shipping was actually free for me (USA).

While most instances of the jittery weapons and aircraft were fixed in 2.9.0.47168, they appear to still happen in the latest OB patch, specifically only when viewing weapons using the new cinematic camera (RCtrl+F2) to track them.

Just gave it a test and it seems like it still doesn't do anything. I still lost track at the same point against the same target parameters when using the WIDE and NORM.

Hmm I never saw any patch notes related to it and like you said, there isn't any specifics on what parameters it changes.

Just checking in after the Phase 2 update for the F-18 and F-16 radars. The F-16's APG-68 received its Moving Target Rejection (MTR), which is the speed gate equivalent, implementation when both radars received the Phase 1 update in August. When will the F-18 get this feature implemented? Image from the EA guide for those who don't know what I'm talking about:

Looking at this again, like what Default said, all these missiles use an extremely old version of the missile API without any model data for drag and other important bits standard to missiles in DCS. The way that was seemingly fixed for the Patriot was the addition of a ModelData section back in May. Really hoping they actual add them

Sort of looks like the SA-10 targeting the launching F-16 and not the AGM-88s. I would maybe suggest ejecting so the SA-10 doesn't target the aircraft. EDIT: Nvm it is trying to target the HARMs but it's hitting the max G of the missile (15-16Gs) and it can't turn enough to hit the HARMs. Maybe at a steeper HARM profile it'll get intercepted but this specific case seems like it won't get intercepted due to the flight profile.