Azrayen

No I meant tuning the code of the aircraft = not something you or I can do, it has to be Razbam (if need be). This is part of the beta process ;)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(jeu_vid%C3%A9o) 1er lien sur Google avec la recherche "qu'est ce qu'un mod ?" :)

Did you look at your controls list, in games options, per chance? ;)

No, I'm on Caucasus mostly. But sure, if you use Nevada, it still hasn't got the update that fixes most of the issues related to lock. And what is the bandit doing, then? Notching/beaming? Are you above or below him? Are you familiar with doppler limitations? Let's please (all) describe better what happens. As far as I saw it, it's never "random". And again: if your target is beaming you, or if its relative speed is ~0, then a doppler radar will have problems. How much remains to be seen, but unless you have a different scenario, it's theorically logic, and as such I see this as intended.

As a side note, about the INS/GPS modern systems: This is what happens when implementation got it wrong (and is "too much" confident about GPS signals): [ame]http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/GENOT_7110_711_EMB-300.pdf[/ame] System should have detected GPS problem and reverted to INS source "only". Didn't. Woops. = = = = = I'm not sure M-2000C's INS is "modern" enough, though.

Take care ;) (I share your pain)

N = 49%, that's ground idle :detective: IAS = 0 VS = 0 ... :smartass:

blast, I share some of your concern. There is a remaining bug with PID/TWS. This one is known, but fix doesn't seem easy. About PIC/STT, perhaps the doppler filter needs tuning? I can't tell for sure, because I haven't had the time to fly dedicated tests missions. Indeed so far, I saw radar unlock (or even contact lost on RWS) only when: - target is beaming - target relative speed is ~0 Both cases are logic, and intended. Now for the fine tuning part...

mattebubben, don't worry about people (in general), worry about Razbam guys. And you got an answer: :) Let's sit tight while Zeus is doing the INS, and see what happens next, shall we? ;)

Well, the product page reads: (my emphasis) So rest assured you won't be extra-charged for any of the feature listed. They will come with no additional charges when they're ready. And when all of them will be there, then the "early access/beta phase" of the module will be over :) ++ Az'

Mine is not...

Did you ever try an FC fighter? If yes have you been fired at by an enemy using Fox 1s? This is not accurate. The emitter is the aircraft's radar, but the radar receipter is on the missile. If all guidance was made by the shooter, and none by the missile, you would have a "teleguided" or "command guidance" missile (such as the SA-2 SAM for example), but not a "Fox 1" (SARH). NB: this is not the reason why Fox1s should trigger a RWR alarm. You're right to think the missile seeker (passive radar antenna/receipter) cannot be detected by the RWR. But there are other ways ;) A MLWS or MAWS (that is the system you refer to) doesn't care of the guidance type (on the nose of the missile). Indeed it "sees" the exhaust plume of the missile engine (on the rear). The infrared seeker of a Fox2 cannot be detected per se (it's purely passive).

I'm absolutely not saying that. Jojo got it right: there were 2 sentences in blast's post, I answered sequentially each of them.

Hi Zeus, My 2 cents on those 4 points: - no comment - not exactly: there exist a feature in the INS that "learns" from errors (over several flights) and includes an "auto-correction" feature; as such a feature does exist, then it is proof the drift is not really random. OTOH, it can't be predictable precisely either, so positions update are still needed. - yes - this is not exactly true; GPS isn't "smooth" enough to be used as a primary "alone" for all the features an INS provides (provided); the real deal today is a hybrid INS/GPS system, with the INS as primary (still), and GPS as an aid; this has all the advantages of the INS (precision in real time, lots of inertial parameters) without the main disadvantages: 1/ initial position is obtained automatically from a GPS fix (no more typing, slow and error-prone) and 2/ intertial position is updated from GPS fixes all the time without having to manually do that from a known landmark (it's more precise, works everywhere...) => essentially reducing the drift to zero. ++ Az'

Hi blast 1. Not available at this time; you can refer to F-15C manual, but there are a few differences. 2. Indeed. No. 3. No. Yes (but it won't be the RWR anymore, as there is no radar on a Fox2).

Hi, This would be the right direction: ++ Az' PS: there is a dedicated sub-forum for M-2000C related topics ;)

En principe c'est là.

^^ this!!!!!!!

Hi azm, My personal opinion on the matter (I'm in no way speaking on behalf of anyone except myself): - is this annoying? yes (a little). - is this simple to reproduce? yes - is this simple to understand & fix? probably not - is this high priority? No! there are many other features needing attention: PPA (coming soon), INS (coming after), probably some other bugs too... I understand you asked a simple question. The issue is: answering it is probably not as simple as that ;) My 2 cents, Happy flights, Az'

OK, so it's not news... I forgot to include a link earlier. This is how it should have been written: Problem is (I guess), definition of normal conditions. According to you, it's what happens on the 104th server. According to other, it's different. This is why I ensured to be as specific as possible. ;)

It' not random, really. The remaining TWS bug (broke lock) appears when you roll sharply. While waiting for a fix you may, as a workaround, roll slower or use STT. Depends. 1-1 vs MiG-29A? It can. 1-1 vs F-15 or Su-27 full load? Not really indeed. It's a M-2000, not a M-4000 (read about it here). 1-1 vs light load (2xF1+2xF2 missiles) Su-27 or F-15? It can. And 1-1 is not the only way to do it... Equal numbers will give ~ same results, but 2-1, 4-3 will get things interesting. It's all about knowing when to "go for it" and when not to. Finally, 104th style flying is not the only way either. Kill is not the only way to win. ;)

Balance is not what is wanted with DCS-level modules. Accuracy is. So no MICA. I disagree. They are more or less comparable. Some pro & cons, as always. That would require a GBU-38, not a GBU-12. And a GBU-38 has not been tested with the M-2000C + it would need a GPS fix from the aircraft before release... and the M-2000C has no GPS. The price is for the module; it happens it's still in beta, but you won't pay more to get the full version. Yes; and it's normal/intended (given the history and the modelization). No they haven't. So: No it wouldn't. And again "fairness" is not the goal. ++ Az'

OK... much confusion here :) Let's try again: IRL: The M-2000C is not equipped with MWS; it has provision (switch + probably some wiring) to do so, though. Other variants (specialized in A-to-G tasks) such as the M-2000D for example, are equipped of MWS. MWS sensors are mounted on the rear of the "Magic" pylons (longer pylons). In DCS: The M-2000C is not equipped with MWS today. Razbam has said it will be equipped with MWS eventually (justification is above, IRL if need was there, FAF could quicky mount the longer pylons and off you go; perhaps some chips to enhance too, not a true "plug & play" thing, but not far from it) When is "eventually"? My guess here: after other functionnalities are finished. I mean, the M-2000C could be declared out of beta without the MWS. But not without the INS. Think of MWS as the cherry on the cake ;) ++

"Courbe perso" plutôt ;)

IP in English :)