okopanja

IMHO: this is useful, it keeps telling you that conditions are still such that you need to de-ice.

In this example S-300 launches on targets 1 and 2, the missiles in following sequence: 1,1,1,1 2,2,2,2 It launched 8 missiles against 2 relatively slow and predictable targets. Better is to launch in following sequence: 1,2 1,2 Note: first interceptors killed both targets 2023-10-29 12-23-52.mp4

Found another issue with S-300 launching logic: if 2 targets are present designated 1 and 2, it will launch 4 missiles per target sequentially: 1. it consumed too many missiles launched 1, 1, 1, 1 and then 2,2,2,2, where first missiles. 2. it should have launched in overlapping mode for greater PK. Better choice would have been 1,2,1,2. This is also better from the point of employing against HARMs

@uboats I recently got the module and are still learning, so possibly I may have also made an error (I know how to load DTC). Can you please comment on PL-12s apparently not working anymore with JF-17 when they are part of payload preloaded into mission? This can be observed on GS server. Note: flankers are still able to utilize PL-12 there. Another question: we have seen improvement in AIM-120C resistance to ECM bug cheat. Were the same changes applied to PL-12 as well?

Ahh, typical Chizh Haiku poetry.

I guess this was in russian part of forum, link? IMHO: before I get accused for derailing the topic for 3rd time in 4 days (LOL) I do believe that we still need full fidelity SAMs and IADS networks. It would be nice if the technical persons reply instead of forum moderators, since I am very sure they know what I am talking about.

Most of the SAMs have different guidance laws that can deployed based on situation. Most common solution is to aggressively gain altitude, and then it can even go toward ground. This is true even for older SAMs that do point their missiles more horizontally. E.g. SA-3 and SA-6 will guide first to the altitude and then to the target. SA-5 in turn will launch the missile at target further than 80km, in steep 48 degree trajectory for full 30 seconds before it turns down toward the target. Consequently with requirement to be able to hit targets at longer ranges most of the solutions are vertically launched or launched at rather high elevations. This is not a coincidence. E.g. you can see the Iron Dome, which launches the missiles high and most of them change trajectory toward the ground to hit the targets. Btw: launching S-300 missile on HARM is not the most economic way of defending against HARMs.

BTW: you will also notice that MFDs are also excluded from DLSS. So nice they did not forget about them.

I tested as well without Clickable-FC3 with same result: this is not ED's issue. Redk0d (author of the mod) did progress with F-15C more than with other FC3s, so perhaps unintentionally the modifications he made did collide with ED's changes.

Added video was generated from trk file. Around 01:04 starts really funny part. I would say he receives multiple 30mm rounds in the left wing and engine. Yet all of a sudden he accelerates and maneuvered as if no hit has occurred. He

In this video I approach the F-16C from the backs. He flies straight. After first shoots fired from too far (which miss and he does not notice) I approach further and start shooting. The battle damage report indicated the hits, yet the airplane accelerated with no hindrance. I am not the best possible shooter around here, but he was flying straight, so even an anti-talent like me should have damaged him. Can you please check number of hits and locations? Why did not any of the fuel tanks ignite? (he was most likely pretty close to full). If he was hit in the engine, why did not he slow down instead of accelerating? The trk file at the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rxax6-s0QufE4FXLlHAa4cs5PhMQskQz/view?usp=drive_link

Same thing with me. I suspect that the hood is now overlayed after the DLSS/DLAA is applied or somehow excluded from it.

Hosting a server in non-interactive environment by invoking the executable from a windows service results in server failing to initialize. At the same time one core will hang at 100% and the server will not appear in server list. In my case I have used github actions as a background service. Attached are dcs.log and github actions. I do believe someone mentioned in another forum topic I was not able to locate it. run-dcs-server-troubleshooting.yaml dcs.log

@NineLine recent update brought RCS oscilations on some of hornet and viper airborne radars. I assume this was done depending on the operating frequency of both radars. Can you please tell us the reference wavelength which was used to to define the corresponding RCS of DCS ammo?

According to the official source, out of 218 Tomahawks launched during 1999 war in Yugoslavia (includes all variants and launch methods), 52 were shot down by PVO, which corresponds to slightly less than 24%. Not a greate efficiency, but consider that PVO had nowhere near full coverage and consisted of legacy SAMs: - SA-3 Neva (for this one we know its capable of detecting and tracking targets with much lower RCS than above) - SA-6 KUB - Giraffe + Bofors. - Strela-10 - Strela-2M manpads - Selection of non-radar directed 20/23mm anti aircraft guns On the other side disproportional number of HARMs were launched with rather modest hit hit rates compared to the number of hit radars. Also I would like to point out that in their good times Soviets were designing and already testing new variants of missiles and SAM while during the initial deployment of original versions. Example of this include: SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, and also SA-10 and S-11, again one of the arguments not to consider that 1970s nuke balistic and cruise missiles was a permanet requirements target. It should be also noted that e.g. SA-6 and SA-11 are interoperable, in the sense that SA-6 launcher can be guided by another SA-11 launcher, on distances exceeding several kilometers. All of this just to give you a hint on how much our SAMs are under-modeled. I would prefer for ED to freeze present SAM situation and not respond to case-to-case demands to tweak parameters, but rather remodel the SAMs one by one (not talking about having fancy 3D models). In this sense I would start with the oldest SAMs such as SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6, since there is plenty of documentation on their features and capabilities that is already available from public sources as well as reliable accounts and testimonies of war time usages.

@BIGNEWYnot sure if you are aware of this?

As a loyal customer I wanted to provide the feedback and not derail this. I hope we all share the desire that DCS should provide as authentic experience as humanly possible. Based on large number of reoccurring topics on SAMs topics, I really do believe that you within ED need to have internal discussion on this topic beyond simple editing of a value. The original author did correctly notice this is a missing value, but I think this will break the game in some aspects. In this case I did state that in my opinion the method of using comparative size/RCS is a wrong methodology. The values seam to be chosen at some point for some weapons are now being augmented with additional information, without considering the actual SAM itself.

Yes but is the reference value correct? You see we have SA-3 SAM which can not hit F-117 (which has a way lower RCS than any of these bombs) even if it gets overflown. So why would SA-15 not be able to hit low RCS target class it was specifically designed to hit? Also I would like to point out that modeling the SAMs with great graphics is sort of superficial when their true internal modeling is on the level lower than FC3. Instead of just modifying these values blindly, and thus possibly disrupting content based on existing values, why not refactor SA-15 to be for a start FF with it's systems? This would not cause 3D modelling costs, but only takes time to figure out true capabilities and implement those. Later on you can just add FF cockpit on that and sell it as a module.

@BIGNEWYWe know the SAMs and their ability to engage targets are not in great state as this topics proves. But is there any white paper that actually focuses on a single SAM, let's say in this case SA-15 that takes into account: - supported modes of operation - known operational parameters and is able to estimated scientifically the minimal RCS/speed/distance/altitude the target has to have in order for SAM to detect, track and guide missile?

check if you got the: dcs_start_options.lua

I used this as github actions runner. Noticed the loading of the core. This came with 2.9

Only if server admin allows external views...

36 is a pre planned (PP) point. 30-35 are RPs, they are totally ignored if you use COO mode, while in MAN mode they will follow exactly the points 30-35 (RPs). I did enter both RPs and PP through UFCP console, not the regular F10 interface with mark points and hand written names.

I made sure that 30-35 were entered, when fired in COO mode missile flew directly for 36. When fired in MAN, it flew the route defined by 30-35 and activated. Does anyone know if entered altitude in 30-35 plays any role?

Switching to DLAA does not remove the blurring for FC3. Sorry got only Viper and no hornet so there is a chance it I am not 100% right here, but I think this is not the same kind of issue. Also online while in game chat people constantly complain about FC3, while I do not see same for FF.