PE_Tigar

Had the same problem, and the issue is that the mission in the original campaign packaging was faulty. SorelRo has already issued a hotfix, you can pick it up here.

On your first question - yes, it is suitable, it will run DCS just fine (how much you can go crazy in the settings will depend on how many pixels that 34" monitor has - I'm playing on 34" 3440x1440 with pretty high quality settings, and this configuration matches or exceeds what I have in the box). What I would add to that configuration is just one thing - more storage space. My installation of DCS is ~250GB, so with only 500GB you'll run out of space for other things pretty fast. I bought an M.2 NVMe 2T SSD just recently because I was running out of space for ~400US - you can probably get it cheaper than that. In any case wouldn't go for less than 1T of storage total - 2x 500GB, or a single 1T, whichever you please. Oh and I do remember Falcon 4.0

I've found some errors near Shiraz-Marvdasht Hwy (approx N29.746, E52.608) 1. "Phantom" tunnel on the highway - it also causes problems for ground units, which get stuck in it, or pop through to the surface. 2. Missing railway tunnel 3. Missing Soleymani Hwy (ends in the middle of nowhere in DCS) See pics for details.

That part is correct, but I have serious doubts that needing to switch UHF Radio Function Selector to ADF to get the signal is "as intended". As others pointed above, manual says you should get ADF bearing with UHF Radio Function Selector on Main or Both; UHF Radio Function Selector ADF position should be non-functional.

I couldn't get ADF to work either way - I was trying to tune ATC UHF frequencies on airports on Persian Gulf map.. nothing with either NAV Mode on DF, UHF function selector on ADF, or both. Am I doing something wrong? EDIT: I actually got it to work, but it's as described in the original post, which is very impractical - since there needs to be some kind of transmission on the frequency to get ADF bearing, I need to set the radio to Main or Both, ask ATC something, then quickly switch to ADF to get the needle to show the direction for a short while... I'd say this is not "as intended".

It's like saying "there's no evidence that 2019 model car has automatic air conditioning if 2018 model has" - from the point of pure logic you theoretically could be right; most likely you're wrong. Here's why: Without going into detail - if you look at major radar system components it's (very roughly) transmitter, receiver, antenna, and indicator. Range gate is logic, "built into" the indicator part, i.e. it incurs very little weight, space or cost penalty to implement for modern electronics. The more modern radar is, more sophisticated the software, more features it packs - if you have the algorithms, know-how, etc. - space, power and compute capacity needed are all reduced each year following Moore's law. The only advantage AWG-9 can have vs. AN/APG-68 and similar is the size of its antenna and consequently raw detection range. DSP etc. - miles ahead on newer radars. That's why, BTW, AWG-9 was replaced by AN/APG-70-based AN/APG-71 in F-14D - the newer AN/APG-70 was - naturally - seen as superior.

Ah, but now ED will claim that the video is too recent :)...

Bearing search.

It's not that the missile is crappy or not, it's trying to maintain altitude with practically no wings in dense air - hence quite high energy bleed. That's a normal behavior when shooting a low and fast target - aerodynamics 101. I don't know how much, or at all, S/A missiles are supposed to loft in these scenarios. But if they don't loft and try to fly more or less horizontal trajectory to the target, they have to bleed a lot of energy. If they don't - like HQ-16 - it's a suspect behavior.

It most definitely looks off - but may I suggest starting a separate thread and attaching a track or Tacview file to the report? This one is related to a specific issue with a specific weapon.

Thanks - good to know. Fingers crossed this happens soon.

Agreed. Also, the point of my post was not to count SP/MP - the point was to ask for a proper bug tracker for open beta. Since we have portions of half-baked code and early-access products in OB, it's only logical for ED to use this sizable OB user population to acquire some meaningful information. A more organized bug tracking process would certainly result in more usable feedback for ED.

Correct - I'm comparing SA-11 (Buk-M1, missile 9M38M1) with HQ-16 missile (fired from HHQ-16 VLSs on 054A (Jiangkai II) frigate). HQ-16 is derived from 9M38M1 with the help of Almaz-Antey, if public sources are to be believed (Jane's for example). My point is that HQ-16 behaves very oddly, especially when compared to the similar 9M38M1. 5V55 should be compared to HQ-9, of course. And - incidently - the charts shown are not "my results" but missile telemetry plots from those same tracks I attached, anyone with DCS and Tacview can redo the analysis.

What is your criterion for defining "better implementation"? I can only talk about HQ-16 and compare it against 9M38 it's derived from/similar to. Currently they act very differently, especially when it comes to HHQ-16s apparent lack of drag. It seems to me that DIS didn't take air density into account at all when modelling this missile, making it able to reach its max engagement distance under any conditions. This does not seem to be the case with other missiles in the game, SFM or not. Please see the attached tracks - 054A and SA-11 battery shooting at the same target, same altitude, same speed. The main problem - as I see it - is HHQ-16 being able to reach approximate target position close to its max range with very high speed. That's very optimistic. SA-11 in the other track looses speed very quickly after its motor burns out - as it should. In the attachment please find some TAS charts for both missiles, in scenario described above. Tracks also attached. SA-11 AJS37 test 1.trk 054A HQ-16 test 1.trk

Well, since most of us are indeed beta testing, maybe ED could consider giving us a more structured way of reporting bugs and issues. Doing it through forum threads is not only inefficient, but demotivating as well, as most input is left without official response, instead attracting off-the-cuff remarks from people usually too busy to properly read the reports.

Happens in MP as well, that's how the missile reacts when losing the target in notch momentarily.

I can second Takacoon's observation about the 120, and also confirm ED is using 80 seconds for AIM-120C. My reliable sources tell me that's "about right". As for SD-10 - I've only been on the receiving end and can confirm that the missile triggers my RWR long long past it ran out of energy.

The speed of the missile in shots 3 and 4 is quite a bit higher than the speed of the target, #3 is actually the fastest missile. Suggest you look at Gs that the missile is pulling - you can actually see the turn start with Gs increasing when the target leaves the "basket". Goes for shots 3 and 4 as well. My point is that the missile should not maneuver so the target leaves the basket due to missile's maneuver itself, and when it loses the target, it should turn back to target to reacquire - not away from it.

It doesn't. AI somehow "knows" about the launch, every time. And it also knows that you're launching on him, not at his wingman. When launching against AI, make sure they don't have the default (empty) loadout, because they will not have countermeasures loaded either.

@QuiGon: Is that so? Oh well, I guess they never told me anything about IAS and CAS at ATPL course. So, again, for the attention impaired: 1st shot: CAS 712 - 580 (lost tracking) - 390 end of recording 2nd shot: CAS 745 - 560 (lost tracking) - 580 end of recording 3rd shot: CAS 1080 - 858 4th shot: CAS 760 - 585 5th shot: CAS 700 - 400 All speeds CAS, in knots. Which is, you know, nautical miles per hour. I used Mach numbers just for convenience - didn't expect people to latch onto that, and certainly didn't expect a lecture about IAS and CAS - especially not from people who didn't take time to watch the 4'40" video.

None of the shots in the video has AIM-54A traveling at 300kt - in all shots the missile has between 1.3 and 2.2 M less than 5 nm from the target. Energy bleed while performing bugged "re-acquisition maneuver" is a part of the issue. None of the missiles goes for chaff at all. If you really want to contribute something you should take a closer look at the video, not just skim.

Thanks for explaining this Holton - modelling the weapon as a part of the launch a/c is quite unusual.

On guidance - I did that many times, and the missile guides to target as if it received mid-course guidance from the launch aircraft. But that doesn't mean it's active, since it doesn't, for example, lock on to targets it encounters along the way... I don't think you know what active guidance really means, but that doesn't matter, devs know and it's up to them to fix it. As for the tracks - I see what you mean, but that's only one of the issues with the missile. Plus, the AI notches the missile perfectly - I've rarely seen humans able to pull that off.

Well, maybe you know something I don't, but I haven't seen any other weapon "fire and forget" weapon in the game act like that. Why do you think it's ED's responsibility?