Zahnatom

just make the oniks fly a ballistic flightpath and you're 95% there

maybe a 6 TALD + 1 HARM + 2 GBU-32 loadout could be good. i dont take the F-16 anymore for SEAD or DEAD as it lacks good standoff weapons (tbh its kinda dead to me in general rn) Instead, at least on 4YA servers, i take the hornet with 2 harms and 6 talds, make the sa-10 run out and then strike the sa-15s with my HARMs and come back later with the f-15E to finish the job

no

If resources are limited, why not expand the scope of this product in order to attract more customers? After all, it's trivial for a mission creator to restrict weapon loadouts compared to avionics. It's their responsibility to set restrictions to whatever is appropriate for the time of the mission, not yours. Adding these systems is nothing but an insignificant annoyance to those who dont want it, compared to a rather big issue for those who do. You could also let modders model these so it doesn't take up your resources but according to statements from ED staff, that's undesired as well. Citing resources as a reason to not do this specific weapon is laughable. This weapon would require maybe 4 man hours to implement as the models and code are 90% there already anyways (AGM-154A as the model and AGM-154C for the code).

this is out of context but just to give my 2 cents: i'd rather believe HB's statements than ED's

was some sort of dcs bug idk, its gone now. however i noticed that none of the anti ship cruise missiles make it over ground anymore... YJ-18, MST, SPEAR 5, NSM, etc all hit the ground hahaha i take it back this is a core game spaghetti code ED issue

when it comes to mods they have a weird opinion. they seem to like vehicle or plane mods but despise weapon mods. they dont like them because they cause issues here and there and users end up complaining to ED here on the forum. i think its a weird double standard as other mods can cause the same problems, not just weapon mods. but oh well, thats their statement. hell, they wont even let 3rd party devs make their own weapons anymore. they dont appear to want to give users better tools for making better mods. IMO they're actively sabotaging us by introducing changes to the core and then hiding the new values

with inert warheads? there were no explosions

theres a similar analysis https://github.com/rafal9820/9M723-Iskander-missile-trajectory?tab=readme-ov-file a bunch of osint guys did some calculations from some videos (and apparently there was a statement from patriot operators), those seem to suggest between mach 2 and mach 4 for both the iskander and kinzhal

found this analysis here; mach 4 for impact speed is definitely too high https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/09/missile-sim-performance-evaluation-for_14.html

well tbf all of the ballistic missile stuff is currently borked... thanks! ED maybe someone can figure out a way to jerry rig the Scud-B onto a Tu-95

and it should also not have that high of a terminal speed. should be more like mach ~3.5

re-create it in a single player mission like we cant help you unless you provide a track file. i tested it yesterday and it was fine. single dropping and even dropping all 8 at once

no problem make sure that you download the newer versions though, those that you quoted are outdated

Brighter PAPI lights dont matter when the ATC doesnt turn them on because ED messed up the ATC and hasn't fixed them in, what, 6 months now? Somehow I feel like ED is completely overwhelmed by the massive amount of issues and bugs, to a point where they dont know where to start. though i'd be happy to be shown (not told) how my assumption is incorrect

please provide a track file of this happening

too bad ED is also very keen on keeping that to themselves while sabotaging mod weapons

thank you i think a big part of the glow is fog which i dont think is implemented properly or at all right now unfortunately. maybe @BIGNEWY can tell us about the state of fog

they should glow at night and you can find the tamir fix in this thread here I'll be back to work on this again next weekend; maybe i can find a way to increase the brightness idk. but with existing mods / core game assets you can make pictures like this its a very tedious problem, you essentially have to record a video at high fps (or low fps but with a slowed down game) and then export each frame to overlay them over each other. the streaks look kinda dark but thats a DCS game limitation and you'll have to ask ED to fix that or implement this as a core game feature.

right now: Stunner.lua I'm quite happy with this variant, seems realistic. maybe a bit fast in the terminal phase when shooting at aircraft at max range (about 2500kph) it deals with Scuds quite well and thats really all that matters because there's no other ballistic missiles to be intercepted in dcs right now

i have a hard time believing that... the booster only burns for about 5 seconds (as evident from launch footage). maybe its possible if they boost it really high but idk anyways: turns out ED didnt put any checks in to make sure that the rocket motor fuel flow rate doesnt result in a negative mass of the entire thing... the more you know

whats with the choppy vertical camera mouse movement while (especially noticeable when zoomed in)?

acceleration and top speed and range i guess. my uneducated guess is that it would perform similar or slightly worse than a pac-3 baseline interceptor against ballistic targets (no attitude control motors so it'll have worse high altitude performance) currently it has like 48 kilonewton of thrust for 8.5 seconds followed by 29050 newton of thrust for another 40 seconds. thats bs.... i'm trying to model this in relation to CH's pac-3MSE variant and whatever i can find online (and i dont believe that mach 7.5 max speed figure to be particularly accurate)... the official details for this system aren't the range of the system but the range (and i think speed in this case too) of the targets that it can intercept (for example "300km range ballistic missiles", not "Stunner can fly 300km")

it might work but the performance seems ridiculous

yeah this is gonna need some fixing