okopanja

I think ET would need DL support to be useful in LOAL scenario and/or a seeker that actively searches for anything it can find it's gimbals limits. Under present state we have to assume the seeker remains fixed, which means FOV is narrow and therefore probability of lock is limited but not totally impossible. Also, I read the whole topic, and it appears some confidently made statements from 2-3 years ago proved to be premature. Just my 2 cents do not really stand great against your tax dollar.

Assign hotkey. Hint: RCTRL+M. Also: if you do not move, the on and off picture are identical if blades do not spin. My friend thought he can not toggle on/off until he performed startup.

Just to add: You still get the visual and audiable warnings in 2022 version. They are indicated with yellow arcs on ABRIS.

Here is the daylight reproduction. So improvement here was that I enabled toggling of mirrors. The BS3 shows picture 120 degree to the right instead of directly behind. Ka-50_identity_crisis_day.miz Can you please check yourself what do you see?

Hi Flappie, This is very interesting, I was wondering what are your data source here? I gather it's: Topograhical map + town.lua + ...? Are you doing this manually?

Ok, I think I just found a culprit... I asked the other dude to confirm himself: he used to have black mirrors as I did. And it turned out he never toggled the mirror, since it was not assigned. I just assigned mirror control and guess what: the mirror showed up, and I could in fact switch between flanker and "normal" mirror (I will explain later quotes). Now what I noticed was that after I cycled window to reply to you and getting back, that stopped working! I could not toggle. I compared background of helicopter with mirrors, and there were building lights in one of them, which I could not see when using F2. I started helicopter, and noticed I do not see the rotation in mirror. Then I toggled again and I could see blades spinning. Toggled again, back to static picture. Back to spinning... I briefly moved helicopter to have building in the back. And initially I though it was fine until I noticed that mirrors actually do not show the back behind helicopter, but are actually directed 60-90 degree to the left (need to find better setup to confirm this. I think mirrors on BS3 do not work properly.

Just did it now. I know it is hard to believe, but I still see the flanker there...

Results of testing: 4. removed meta shaders 5. installed only BS3 Rerun prior steps to reproduce. Result: BS3 strongly feels flanker inner self. I am thinking about uninstalling DCS completely and reinstalling it, need to check when I can do this... I do not find it in dcs.log anymore...

1. Removed BS2 and BS3 2. No leftovers 3. Installing the hotpatch... Will report in few minutes. Can you point out which ones?

Soon...

No, if I got it right during the DL guidance, missiles receives updates, the updates are used to extrapolate path.

world.removeJunk(volS) is world.removeJunk(volS) doing what I think it is doing?

@BIGNEWY here is reproduction: Mission: Flanker_broken_DL.miz Track file:server-20230421-001939.trk

As far as I know this was largely the same platform, but J-22 carried/carries mavericks. Do you have any information on what was used on IAR-93?

I think this can be easily reproduced with Instant action: Su-27 Bomber Intercept. Lock the right F-5 Wait for LA Launch R-27ER F-5 will continue flying toward, until at certain point it starts defending to his left side (our right) Radar should not loose lock, but there is distinct moment when missile goes limp, and simple stops tracking

The issue is connected with high number targets. E.g. it was also observed when certain group of players launched high number of TALDs. This occurred on GS server which typically has 64 players all the time. E.g. 64-100 flying targets should be more than enough to trigger issue reliably.

Here is the exempt form the book: "F-15C Eagle vs Mig-23/25 Iraq 1991", Douglas C. Dildy & Tom Cooper, ISBN: 978-1-47281-270-4 page 27, paragraph 4 Below is the picture showing both versions of missile hanged on left side wing, R-40TD inner pylon, R-40RD external pylon. The sidenote of the picture also mentions the salvo, and provides information on ranges (dependent of aspect) for this firing mode. The source of the picture is listed as [Foxbat Files], but as far as I can tell the picture is provided on commercial basis, so I decided not to include it. I did read in more than one places, about this practice, but I hope it is sufficient to provide one example. I would also recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of F-15C and Mig-23/Mig-25.

LOL, not a necro poster (read the PS while answering). Lots of things about medium to longer range missiles in DCS is guesswork to smaller or greater degree. So pretty much what follows is also guessing. The R-27 (E)[R|T] missile family were supposedly modular with ability to change seeker/motor section. In case of ER/ET with only the seeker being being a difference, and I believe you are talking about missile section that was common for both ER/ET. As for the location of rear antenna, it was also probably in one of the common sections. Now if this was used for ET guidance or not I really can not tell. From what I can tell about these seekers in DCS at least, they are slaved to either: radar, EO or the HSM, so therefore chance of getting a random reflection was less, but still there remains a question weather these seekers could be cued with DL updates accurately enough to for terminal guidance when the heat signature as perceived by the missile is stronger. Again soviet doctrine called for 2 missiles to be launched. So if ER and ET were fired at the same target, one would expect that ET would either need to have lock from the start or means to acquire lock at later time. I think we also concluded at some prior topic that the source of power was common with non-E and E versions, thus limiting the maximal guided flight of the missile to 60 seconds. I do not know how much is this true though, since it sounds like a really stupid thing from engineering point of view but actually smart as cost reduction in production.

Thanks for sharing this. I am aware of these lectures in form PPTs floating around, sadly often google translated into techno gibberish. So from this Ukrainian text I got a bit better translation, which indicates that side lobs are used to prime the missile during launch sequence (3-4 years later google translate is getting better, but still far from perfect). Other than that I did not quite understand how the updates really worked. E.g. timing and what the increments really applied to. I am pretty sure I would have asked professor additional questions, but perhaps students had access to more comprehensive material.

Sorry for further digressing, but I came into possession of a book written by the ex-crew member of the 3rd r.d. 250th r.br. ("Pad noćnog sokola" - author Slaviša Golubović), but I really have to provide small update on this: In both cases as well as in majority of launches, two missiles were fired. As you may know the SNR-125 has 2 guidance channels, enabling 2 missiles to be launched and guided. The second channel on SNR-125 did have hardware malfunction that was very subtle, and could not be discovered in field conditions, but which did lead to 2nd missile failing to acquire the target on each launch until they replaced whole block. They fired on both F-117A and F-16CG with 2 missiles each, with second missile going ballistic from very start. The book actually provides unprecedented level of details, so each action is covered with signed testimonies of crew members at different stations, including those that were off duty observing the launches. E.g. F-117A climbed and flared, which indicates the pilot thought he was targeted by short range IR system. This gap in SA also indicates that certain devices that typically increase RCS were not present. They made at least 2 more launches with same problem, so their score could have been even better, since with 2x0.7 they may have been even luckier. In fact the final score of this unit might take several decades to confirm, since nobody will publish the hits they could hide from public (plenty of lighting strikes that year, taking off tails ). As for SA-6 (covered in another book "Three fingers of death", by group of authors all again real SA-6 operators), they were more hampered by low radar coverage ceiling, which meant that SEAD/DEAD teams had the liberty of behaving much more aggressively than with SA-3. This forced majority of SA-6 launches to be TV guided, which reduced probability of kill against aircrafts with high angular velocity. In addition to number of missiles fired, one has to note that both sides fired hundred of missiles with no tangible results (e.g. SA-3, SA-6 but also HARMS). While vast majority did not cause direct kills, they managed very much to limit the amount of damage on the ground (forcing enemy aviation to keep flying high), which means that in a way they largely achieved their mission. In short: ED SAMs, being of Soviet or Western origin are insanely simplified and do not allow to model the encounters that happened IRL.

I think this is not the same use case. We are talking about following use case for SARH missiles: launch in STT with intention of hitting specific target loose lock for whatever reason (e.g. notch) re-lock in STT the target once the conditions permit provided that the seeker can still catch reflections resume guidance toward target locked under 3 So not really switching toward strongest return...

IMHO: this is out of topic, so lets keep it out of it. At least russian EWRs provide information to flankers over DL. Possibly they make SAMs a bit more aware, but I am not sure about that. If you need more please create new topic.

This was indeed great article about french airplanes in second world war, but I disagree that there were just few of them. In fact they were numerous and although played less prominent roles role both on Allied and Axis sides, I would not go and say they are to be ignored. Their presence would certainly make it possible to produce some rather interesting scenarios. From commercial point of view, I am pretty sure that our french community would certainly prefer them to British or German airplanes.

Still these aircrafts did exist at this time and were operational in other theaters, and btw majority of the missions does not actually follow the historical lines eitherway. Hence: could we get at least a single french airplane, and what would be the best candidate?

Now that Normandy 2 is here, and we have seen some videos, it feels really odd to see the BF-109 in promotional video flying over Paris. Why there are no French World War 2 airplanes in game?