AndrewDCS2005

Eagle Dynamics and partners - you folks absolutely rock, you do outstanding work, you created top-class military flight simulator, and there is great community worldwide which follows your every word. Huge respect and thanks you - especially for memorable moments and bonds created by people across the globe which come together to live in DCS world. DCS came a long way over 15 years with so much done - just look at Changelog and roadmap tracker, there are hundreds and hundreds of weapons, systems, sensors, models, planes and helicopters, and ground units. DCS world is huge. And unfortunately, this scale and complexity has impact on overall quality - there are threads on bugs which are years old, and many bugs exist in the weapons and sensors which are of the core essence to DCS (I will not list them all here, each category has its own bugs subforum). So the question comes - does it make sense to continue pushing out more and more new features, while already released product has these issues? Would it make sense to take pause on new developments and actually make the released stuff work as it should? Poll is created to understand community expectations - please vote!

Syria is amazing. There's so much value in the map, thank you Ugra Media! It is beautiful for joyrides - mountain ranges, valleys, desert, sea and Cyprus with quality terrain mapping is just beautiful. Also with low latitude and sun angles at sunrise/sunset I can spend hours just flying around and enjoying the views. There are so many scenarios possible - Turkey/Greece over Cyprus, carrier ops from the sea towards Syrian and Lebanon coast, north/south invasions, Jordan strikes, Israeli wars, desert hunts, anything. No need for crazy fantasies and make-believe here - everything can be made historically relevant and realistic. It is rich with infra, bases, roads and settlements, nicely detailed and populated.

CBU-99 with FMU-140 is busted - it falls very short in both CCIP and CCRP modes. Tracks attached for both, images show designated target and resulting impact points. @BIGNEWY please ?! cbu-99-ccrp-fall-short.trk cbu-99-ccip-fall-short.trk

Ok I meant CBU-99 in my post above and though that FMU-140 is measuring atmospheric pressure and hence the altitude is in ASL. BTW this is why I asked for fuze documentation from DCS in separate thread. Thanks to folks sharing the links, I stand corrected - FMU-140 fuze has a radar, so it should be using AGL altitude - which makes more sense and is more practical for its use. FMU-140/B Dispenser Prozimity Fuze (tpub.com)

@Northstar98 thank you for response and links! Of course I did some searching on the web, and of course I spent time trying fuze settings and seeing the result. However, this was only part of the point in my request - yes all of us can do this, spend ton of time, get to our own conclusions, and have fragmented and mismatching tribal knowledge depending on the sources and conditions we used. The bigger point is the actual documentation on DCS implementation (and my questions were just few examples, the ask is for everything fuze-related). Yes public sources are nice (though ED often questions these and has its own approach to what is right and wrong), but I need to understand how fuze will actually work in the game, for which only ED can provide docs matching the implementation. I really respect ED for absolutely outstanding work it does, but in this specific case its a bit weird to release a significant change to weapon fuzing (which we all welcome, the closer to IRL the better!), but leaving the community in the dark about how it actually behaves in the sim.

@Raisuli Mk20 and CBUs contain Mk 188 Rockeye bomblets - which is specifically designed as armor-piercing, anti-tank weapon. It is HEAT-only design with shaped charge to penetrate ~200mm of armor - which only works on direct hit. Mk188 hits near the target do mostly nothing as it does not have fragmentation case.

@BaronVonVaderham my understanding is that CBUs are always ASL-driven since they don't have radar altimeters to measure AGL precisely, and are set to atmosphere pressure.

There are two separate issues here. 1. Spread/dispersion pattern of cluster submunitions which depends on several factors number of submunitions (higher number -> higher density of impacts over the same area) 247 pieces of Mk 118 Rockeye HEAT bomblets in Mk 20 Rockeye II 145 pieces of BLU-97/B bomblets in AGM-154A JSOW submunition properties such as weight and drag (BLU-97 bomblet weights almost 3x more than Mk 118) altitude of burst wind terrain It would be interesting to see the exact impact patterns in different conditions - videos from DCS often obscure this as the explosions don't allow to see where each individual bomblet impacts, and tacview tracks don't show each individual bomblet either. I wonder if someone in DCS community has a way to visualize this pattern. 2. Result of the hits directly or close to the target - which also depends on submunition type. Mk 188 Rockeye is specifically armor-piercing, anti-tank weapon which pierces almost 20cm of armor but only on direct hit. Hits and explosions near the target do mostly nothing as there's no fragmentation. BLU-97 on the other hand is combined effects bomblet, which has both anti-armor shaped-charge properties and fragmentation + incendiary effects, so it might do some damage to soft targets with hit near the target. Maybe DCS health bars on units will show that.

Thank you! Understood this is work in progress, hopefully it completes soon and we can employ full power of customizing A2G weapons.

From DCS 2.9.5.55300 (digitalcombatsimulator.com) This is all great! However, where is the documentation please? The video is just few examples, and mostly shows new UI interface operation to change the fuzes. It is really puzzling to see such a significant change for arming/fuzing bombs, and no info on how this actually works. This is marked as work in progress, however what is the FMU-140 ? What is the Mk 339 Mod 1 ? What are the Function Delay PRI and OPT? There are few threads already complaining about CCIP busted for Mk-20 CBUs, and folks trying to figure it out through trial and error and building tribe knowledge via YT videos. Can we have the docs please on each fuze type?

@skywalker22 thanks but in your case there's no DL correlation - you simply have your own FCR in TWS pick the tracks. This works for everyone as expected, no issues. As thread says, the issue is only with DL-correlated tracks, quoting my root post above: To test this, add a E-3 or E-2 to your coalition, and let it provide you tracks over DL/MIDS from further away, before your FCR can detect them (you'll see red triangles). Then after your FCR picks the same tracks, they'll correlate with DL tracks and become yellow squares. Once you have yellow squares, try converting them to system targets with single TMS RIGHT short.

@skywalker22 my DCS openbeta does not see this track file - how it was created (which version/map/etc)?

I never used a single mod, and exclusively fly only clean DCS with store-bought/installed airplanes.

I would argue that full-fidelity high quality F-15C would make A TON OF MONEY for its authors, be in DCS or Razbam or Heatblur or whoever else. I'd speculate it will out-sell all top modules because: - F-16C pilots will fall in love with raw performance, firepower, radar range, and BVR - F/A-18C pilots who fly Hornet for range and A-A armament but don't really enjoy the navy life, with the need to get back to the deck on most of the servers where any sensible range for A/G missions require use of Hornets. - F-15E pilots who bought it with a dream of kicking ass with radar, range and load, but find the perf and CFTs unsatisfying with poor dogfight experience, and continue to dream of kick-ass A/A - F-14B pilots (outside of hardcore fans) who can find more modern speed and angels outside of fleet defense - and many others who'd enjoy dedicated air dominance platform. Heck the above are mostly strike-tuned - yeah Boyd is overrated but he must be rolling in grave for what Viper has become - mostly a wild weasel with 3 bags and HARMs; Hornet is made to deliver GBUs/JDAMs on land targets from carrier, and Mudhen is a near-bomber strike platform for theaters with fixed airfields available. F-15C slots will be taken like hot cakes on many servers online and create lots of pain for red forces.

After more time spent in TWS with DL ON, looks like sometimes (like 1 out of 10 times) TMS RIGHT does something - it picks nearest track target and makes it a bugged target, but does not support multi-target cycling/firing, so TWS is broken anyway. Something is not right here and seems to be specific to F-16 FCR TWS + DL since in other planes TWS works as expected. Potentially many pilots engage multiple targets with TWS and DL - nearly every server has AWACS and I'd expect forums to be filled with bug reports about this. While there are few earlier threads around this exact bug, but otherwise surprisingly quiet.

@Keith Briscoe @Nedum @Tenkom please see this thread - i just accidentally found that with DL ON you need to use TMS RIGHT short 2 times.

This has been bugging me for quite a while, maybe a year. Today I accidentally found out what is happening with F-16 TWS and target management while using datalink/MIDS/TNDL First just a small side note for those who still learn the systems. As famous Chuk's guide explains (huge thanks to @Charly_Owl for amazing work for the community ) in Part 13 section 2.2 on datalink track types, datalink-provided tracks (red triangles) are correlated with FCR tracks in TWS mode and become yellow filled squares as track targets. Transitioning all these track targets to system targets (empty yellow squares) is expected to be done with a single TMS RIGHT short press - this is what is documented in DCS guide, Chuk's guide and so on. But a single TMS RIGHT short does nothing if DL is ON (which is reproducible 100% all the time). All targets remain at track state, and it is not possible to use FCR TWS to shoot at multiple targets. However what works while DL is ON is TMS RIGHT short two times in a row (but not too fast) - track targets transition to system targets and simultaneously the closest target becomes a bugged target. Subsequent TMS RIGHT short will cycle through displayed system targets marking them bugged and allowing to shoot at them while in FCR TWS as expected. I haven't seen this double TMS RIGHT mentioned anywhere in docs or community videos, and wonder if this is a bug or expected behavior? When DL is OFF, everything works as documented/expected in FCR TWS - transitioning targets works with a single TMS RIGHT short. Track attached with repro - first two targets (angels 6/7) where DL-provided + correlated, and single TMS RIGHT didn't work. I used double press few times just to show it works. Then I switched off MIDS/DL and went to next two targets (angels 33) in FCR TWS - first got them as search targets (small solid white squares) then in a while as track targets (bigger solid white squares), then with single TMS RIGHT short transitioned to system targets. Then with TMS DOWN returned back to TWS search and made transitions again, to show a single TMS RIGHT works as expected. F16-TWS-DL-NODL.trk

Another example of AIM-120C missing within 40ft from the target, which it was tracking from the 1/4th aspect. No track unfortunately (hey ED make tracks record by default for last week, the installation is hundreds of gigabytes, few megs from tracks wont hurt). The more I fire at M2000C and see AIM-120 miss very very closely, the more it looks there is some advantage Mirage has, curious what is it. Looks like missile loses lock just a second before it passes by.

@Nuggetz cool! Do you have the track/tacview to check what was the TAS at that point? Also curious what was the weather setup - temp and pressure?

Well DCS F-16C according to DCS: F-16C Viper has F110-GE-129 engine which according to GE https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/datasheet-F110-GE-129.pdf is rated at 29000lb=129kN of thrust. I think this rating is at zero ASL, however this is a normal airbreathing turbofan and its thrust goes down with altitude. Not sure if there is any public data about the thrust/altitude of the engine to see how DCS modeled that. So the thrust:weight definitely goes below 1 at some alt and there can't be unlimited vertical climb - @S can you please share videos of F-16 doing vertical climbs to 30kft MSL?

@razo+r thanks, this is interesting, and actually raises a question how well F-16C is modelled at altitudes above >50kft. Putting pilot/human model aside (temp, oxygen, pressure, etc) I wonder if there are any modeling simplifications or limits which makes high-alt flight behavior different from what would be expected to happen in real world. How do we ask folks in ED team ? @NineLine ?

After many tries the highest I can get in conditions specified above (0 degrees, 760mm Hg, no wind, no precipitation) is ASL 28756m = 94345ft ASL (aka True Altitude) is by definition more accurate than indicated altitude on the altimeter (which depends on pressure and temperature), and in this challenge I only refer to ASL. I usually end up with ~500lbs fuel left at the peak which definitely plays a role - with lower total mass of the plane its kinetic energy is lower and it will not go as high, however the weight is also lower and gravitational force will have less effect so the plane can go higher. There's definitely some balance here, need to play with energy formulas to find out the sweet spot Max speed I can't get more than TAS 607 m/s = 1359mph maybe this is the limit due to aerodynamic drag and pushing beyond that requires modifications to the airframe Side note - wonder why F-16C altimeter stops at 80kft, is this by design or a bug? Can someone from ED or real pilots clarify?

We can have all three goals set to be achieved in one flight in this challenge - max TAS, max ASL, shortest time to both max TAS and ASL Clean plane, 50% fuel, no chaff/flares, no gun ammo, start from runway hot. Also weather conditions matter a lot so I created a mission for this with Caucasus map (which we all have), temperature 0 degrees Celsius, pressure 760mm Hg, no wind, no clouds, start at 10 Oct 2022 08:00 local time out of Kobuleti. See attachment. max-altitude-flight.miz

Cool stuff! Let's use the same units for consistent measurement and comparison - TAS for max speed, ASL for max altitude. Here's my lazy attempt (Tacview track attached): - TAS 607 m/s = 1359 mph; which was achieved as Mach 2.03 at 9920m - ASL 28498 m = 93498 ft f16-93.5kft.acmi

Thanks I read all threads here in AIM120 - the one above seems to be focused on online/multiplayer sync issues. My case is much simpler - offline single-player against AI bot. There seem to be many issues atm with AIM120 guidance, looking forward for replies from ED