okopanja

On which bases do you intend to provide SDK to 3rd parties?

Range can be entered manually based on the feedback from GCI. Also if the information is not provided, the pilot is supposed to enter the certain value himself. So trajectories and calculation of trajectories does not have to be entirely the way it is in DCS. My understanding is that 9.12A and 9.12B have the same processor. Later the faster processor combo was created and this was built-in into the later version. At some point these processors were offered as part of the upgrade package that also enabled R-77 and many other useful stuff.

Still plenty of time to wash your T-shirts for tomorrow. Or perhaps not wash?

If additional mass did not go into engine it could go other places: - seaker/battery - guidance - warhead

I would say what matters is intended application, we are not talking here about bombs and ballistic missiles. Common sense: DCS AA missiles are killing mostly in well above trans-sonic. By following this line of thought the are 2 moments where the trans-sonic range penalty matters: - acceleration, during which engine still burns, (can be remedied by passing trans-sonic range with the launch platform first). Not sure if this is modeled in DCS. - de-acceleration when it again re-enters trans-sonic range. However, in DCS this area means a rather low probability of kill even with the AMRAAM. So the question is how does lattice design performs compared to more conventional in super-sonic range. (will do some reading on the quoted paper later).

v1.6.2 Emergency fixes for UH-60L. What's Changed Bugfixes Added conditional loading of towns.lua in #139, related to another issue for Synai map. Fixed UH-60L options initialization in #141 Changes Extracted outside of the official module into Base classes in #143 Full Changelog: v1.6.1...v1.6.2

Add the trk file

Very relevant: if the function does not work in any of these modules you can claim 100% legal bug report for the map. E.g. I have both modules, but not the Sinai. Also, yesterday I added towns.lua info to my own mod, and read about file missing today. I optimistically executed towns.lua without checking for file presence

I also have questions and remarks: 1. with INC/DEC it is possible to select waypoints in range [0-69]. However if the keypad is used it is possible to enter [0-99]. Why? 2. Is it possible to define multiple flightplans? 3. HSI allowes to select heading which is displayed in upper right numeric display. Is this counter mechanical only and can it get the value from doppler nav system? 4. In WP TGT diaplay of AN/ASN-129B, is it possible to reset selected waypoint in second row? E.g. I wish to jump straight to position 3 in second raw. 5. When entering waypoint with long name, e.g. 20-30 chars, the display will overflow and appear merged with other panel to the right. 6. Is automatic waypoint switching possible (e.g. ABRIS/Rubikon in Ka-50)

Small suggestion for manual: upon hidding the manual, remember activa page. Next time the user displays manual, diaplay same page. Do not persist on disk.

Would be interesting to know if place search for NS430/Ka50 still works on this map...

Just saying that ECM is already there in every DCS installation(has to be simulated on radar operator side), missing is the switch in cockpit.

v1.6.1 Important bugfix + first non official module What's Changed Features Implemented UH-60L entry in #136 Documentation: https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/main/Documentation/UH-60L/README.md Display bearing to last waypoint in #134 Bugfixes Ensured that keyboard gets unlocked when clicking on Hide in #137 Update module development documentation in #135 Full Changelog: v1.6.0...v1.6.1 @Tank33Please review the documentation (I did add nearest place for waypoint!), I am not an expert user of Black Hawk. But it appears that HSI bearing wheel is the only way to change the heading.

@Tank33you were right the first line appears to be a waypoint and not the plan, still I wonder why on case can cycle 0-99 and in other case 0-69...

In this case it's an AI. Just to let you know: AI or not AI, the ECM effect is simulated on shooter's side. Your cockpit switch for ECM is just one remote control switch that triggers the effect to be on/off for target X in all other clients. On top of it, this is F-15E provided by Razbam, so technically there should be no difference between it and the cockpit connected F-15E.

First of all I have a working implementation but I am not 100% happy with it: at the moment it utilizes the INC/DEC button to position entry from #1 (after entry it cycles back). If the user cycles himself this will not work properly anymore. BTW: at the moment I did not have the need for textual descriptions (might be nice and useful in Ka-50, but it may reduce reliability of entry). At the moment I will not implement this since it would require changing the UI and make the waypoint list wider. I will check if it is feasible to get nearest populated place for automatic entry instead. I think there are exactly 100 flight plans (0 comes from mission editor) each with up to 70 points, point 0 is starting position and at the moment I do not touch this one. I am not sure but I think that first line might be a flight plan. I will try to experiment today again and based on your feedback check if I can deterministically perform entry even if users plays with waypoint numbers. I might have more time over next 2 weeks, but will not bring hotas/headtracker with me.

I might be mistaken, I still wait for the feedback from someone...

@BlackPixxelI am not at home to try, but I think F-15E does not have a jammer implemented yet. I will ask someone who has it to confirm.

Without dwelling into the politics and being ironical my statement is still factual. As for justifications used 25 years ago and now, I can only say the belong to "pragmatic" politics driven by the flexible ethical norms of respective participants. Clearly different sides may never see it the same way, so I would not go any deeper than that. Still I am glad you liked the piece. The location where it was found is in the region with the 3rd r.d. of 250th missile brigade was operating during the war, however I can not be sure if it was fired exactly on them or some other units. The number of utilized Alarams compared to the HARMs was significantly smaller, likely due to the production volume being significantly lower. One interesting fact is that the Serbian sources stated ~400 HARMs being fired, while the US sources states this number to ~800. One possible explanation is that large number of HARMs was simply not discovered. If you ever travel to Belgrade, I would welcome you to visit the museum as a tourist since it has lots to offer in terms of aviation history(long tradition: Serbian Air Force was founded in 1912) and is conveniently located next to the international airport. Unfortunately the museum is temporarily closed due to the reconstruction works.

I was working on UH-60L entry support. However, I encountered a something that confuses me. On page 60 and 61 they state that the waypoint can be cycled with INC/DEC or entered numerically in WPT DIST/BRG TIME display. However, I found out that in WP/TGT page, while still not in keyboard entry mode I can enter the numerically 2 digits, which changes the upper underlined digit group. INC/DEC changes the lower one. Do you know what is the first digit group used for?

I have to be explicit by conflict I mean NATO aggression in 1999. yes, the hint is at the picture, the first paragraph of museum text explains why the missile is captured intact.

Yes it was used in this conflict, at least one did not explode in impact. SAM crews were more concerned about them, since travel distance/time was potentially shorter. Here is the picture:

Well the answer is simple: you have a lot of them and it is still cheaper than loosing an airplane. Historically the first anti-radiation missiles were much cruder and often did compensate the luck of precision with the powerful high yield warheads. Over the time the precision did improve, so these missiles could be smaller. From high explosive they went to more fragmentation warheads, which could still damage the radar antenna/equipment and possibly kill the crew. In most cases damage made by HARM to the radar is repairable. In this particular case the crew had to be near the the FCR radar (separate from the cabin itself, but cabin had to stand next to it). The availability of these in large numbers did mean that SAMs had to adopt the tactics and become more silent. E.g. in case of 1999 encounter, the DEAD/SEAD package knew rough area where the SAM could be located. The SAM itself could remain silent and turn it's EWR radar only when they were certain that there may be enemy aircraft in the air (this was the first indication that the trouble is there for the pilot). When the FCR radar became active the missile practically already flew. So the choice that the dance will start was made by the SAM crew, and the viper pilot although seeking to provoke the reaction, was actually reactive himself. On modern SAMs you will often see the crew being on remote positions compared to launchers and radars. Still the described events occured 25 years ago => 1/4 of the century.

Reality check: SEAD does pose a serious risk for a SAM and will limit the amount of the damage that it can cause to the strike group, but its effects are often overemphasized: example is unsuccessful DEAD mission with support of SEAD package, resulting in F-16CG being downed. In this particular case SAM did promptly relocate thus ceasing the operation for the duration of transport, so yes the effect is felt. https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/428640/Obaranje-F-16-pad-sokola-u-Zdralovac-FOTO (there is actually a published book with signed accounts from each crew member, including those being outside of duty watching). Hint: on older SAMs the roles and responsibilities are distributed among crew of multiple operators. See the picture from the article. The situation is tracked based on P-18 radar picture. Inside P-18 cabin there is acting commanding officer + additional operator for the whole battery shift and he decides when is the right moment to engage the target. He may receive additional picture from command of the brigade, but in this case they worked independently. In the background you can see the commander of the SNR-125 radar (Major Dotlić), working with radar picture provided by EWR P-18. It is him who transfers the order to FCR acquisition station the target. So at least 3 persons tracking the situation in air very closely. Front are 3 more operators (in picture one is missing). Target acquisition station (basically guy who directs FCR toward target and facilitates the launch) and 2 guidance operators (F1 and F2 channel, one is not on the photo here). The guidance operators can choose between automated track and manual tracking (useful for stealth aircraft and targets carrying decoys). The young dude sitting in front was actually the guy who acquired the F-16CG with FCR. The F1/F2 operators guided each his own missile until the hit (they do know the missile distance from target at the time of explosion). Once the target is hit the Acquisitions states places the FCR into equivalent, meaning the radiation stopped. During the whole encounter the separate team was outside serving the decoy with the same parameters as the FCR, transmitting at the same frequency. FCR was turned off, but the decoy kept transmitting, thus resulting in 2 HARMs missing the target. It should be noted that decoy was also turned off at later point, since it is good to reuse it. Aftermath: DEAD team changed their mind about taking out this nasty SAM crew (did take out F-117 and seriously damage another before this action). BTW: it is typically hot in SNR-125 cabin, and there are high velocity fans in corners of the cabin but sadly with no shielding. The crew is more worried about fans taking out their ears or fingers. More than 20 years ago I visited this very same unit as a student and had a chance to see the ancient equipment these dudes worked with against way better equipped opponent. The visit left me wondering how could have they hoped to survive, but back then they did not tell us how they were doing it. On modern SAMs this is more automated, but even with those ancient SAMs the operators are not really overwhelmed. As said before: technology does rule, but the end the competency of the crew matters the most. In DCS everything was set so the SAMs do not actually pose a huge threat to the average player. To have a really challenge you would need high fidelity SAM (perhaps crewed in CA v2?). Now given the fact that many servers do not like enabling crewing of even SHORADs (people do not like getting hit while they fly low), I can only imagine if e.g. someone simulated a fully blown medium to long range SAM in DCS.