Alex_Weyland

Hey! That's not necessary since you can do that in Saved Fames folder which won't be overwritten each update. Path is the following: C:\Users\yourusername\Saved Games\DCS\Config\F-15E\ALE45_PRG.lua If there is no such file - create it or copy from main folder in Program Files. You can also put NCTR table there.

Hi, I have an issue that is connected with JDAM settings for GBU-31s with penetrators - both v3/v4. Settings were set through ME. Few cases: 1. F-16, 2 GBU-31v3/v4, FD is 180ms, 1 ammo depot. Successful hit with 2 bombs; 2. F/A-18C, 2-4 GBU-31v3/v4, FD is 180ms, 1 ammo depot. All the hits went through ammo depot with no damage or very small e.g. 3-4%; 3. F-15E, 3 GBU-31v3, FD is 180ms, 1 ammo depot. Same outcome as #2; 4. F/A-18C, 2-4 GBU-31v3/v4, FD is 120s, 1 ammo depot. Depot destroyed. 5. F-15E, 3 GBU-31v3, FD is 120ms, 1 ammo depot. Same outcome as #2; 6. F-15E, 3 GBU-31v3, FD is 60ms, 1 ammo depot. Depot destroyed; Question is - why do the settings work now differently for different airframes? A patch ago it was pretty much OK and 180ms worked for every single platform. I've noticed the following block in .lua: ["settings"] = { ["NFP_VIS_DrawArgNo_55"] = 0.1, ["NFP_fuze_type_tail"] = "FMU152AB_LD", ["arm_delay_ctrl_FMU152AB_LD"] = 4, ["function_delay_ctrl_FMU152AB_LD"] = 0.18, }, was replaced with ["settings"] = { ["01_prfx_arm_delay_ctrl_FMU152AB_LD"] = 4, ["01_prfx_function_delay_ctrl_FMU152AB_LD"] = 0.18, ["NFP_PRESID"] = "MDRN_B_A_PGM_HTP", ["NFP_PRESVER"] = 2, ["NFP_VIS_DrawArgNo_55"] = 0.1, ["NFP_VIS_DrawArgNo_56"] = 0, ["NFP_fuze_type_tail"] = "FMU152AB_LD", ["safety_delay"] = 11.35, }, Does it affect anything? Tracks are attached for both F/A-18C and F-16 cases. imp_pent_f16.trk imp_pent_fa18.trk

Cheers! Yeah, now it is much better but still required a lil bit of tuning. Appreciated your work!

Cheers!

Hi! There is no proper functionality for radar seat that is available by pressing RCtrl+F10 or 3. Pantsir's one doesn't work. Tor-2M's does but can't lock the target. Kind regards

Hi! For some reason Pantsir's gun doesn't have a sound. Track is attached. Second issue is missiles wobbling trying to hit cruise missiles. 3 simultaneous shots, the first missile was wobbling heavily. Thanks in advance! sa22__excellent_4thts_1.trk

Many thanks!

Opened another one in CH thread. This one can be closed.

Hello, Tracks are attached. Same scenario - 24 launched BGM-109 from 4 ships coming towards SA-22/SA-15. SA-22 does look like it can't track them properly and basically switching from one to another. SA-15 is capable to shoot 4 missiles simultaneously. SA-22 according to official public sources must do the same. But it rarely shoot 2 at the same time. Another problem - should skill level affect automated systems like SA-15/-22? There is a difference between amount of time between launches and amount of targets attacked. E.g., "average" Tor-M2 managed to launch only 3 missiles simultaneously. Can you please check this? Kind regards sa22__excellent_4thts.trk torm2__excellent_4thts.trk

Bump.

A little bit more I shall add: It can shot down lofted munition from 1 nm distance. Instant launch. So, lofting isn't the solution either. However, Tor-M2 can be destroyed by setting impact angle for JDAMs up to 80-85 degrees. It will penetrate successfully and hit the radar dead zone. Requires to drop from 42000+ ft though.

Hello everyone, Tracks are attached. Same scenario - 24 launched BGM-109 from 4 ships coming towards SA-22/SA-15. SA-22 does look like it can't track them properly and basically switching from one to another. SA-15 is capable to shoot 4 missiles simultaneously. SA-22 according to official public sources must do the same. But it rarely shoot 2 at the same time. Another problem - should skill level affect automated systems like SA-15/-22? There is a difference between amount of time between launches and amount of targets attacked. E.g., "average" Tor-M2 managed to launch only 3 missiles simultaneously. Can you please check this? Kind regards. sa22__excellent_4thts.trk torm2__excellent_4thts.trk

I don't think the topic of this discussion is about ED and RB relationship as it was mentioned earlier. Topic must be closed now once answers are given already.

Well, we aren't talking about adding a single or multiple lines for missing emitters. I want basically 1 file being excluded from IC check and being editable for any Mudhen user. So, no support from ED or RB needed. And looking at EULA it shouldn't interfere with anything except that Mudhen is paid module which shouldn't be altered / edited / reverse engineered etc.

First of all, this topic isn't about RB and ED consensus achievement or resolution. This one is about a minor issue that, probably, doesn't require any significant changes and discussions between ED and RB as well. Stay on course. Secondly, @BIGNEWY, could you please share a comment regarding the possible solution in this case? E.g. ED team can add very particular file in exclusion to avoid IC being compromised once that file was edited. However, that will allow users to maintain RWR library on their own and add whatever signature they have, both vanilla and from mods. As I mentioned earlier, we already have F-4E as "UK" on TEWS page. If that's not possible - it is what it is.