Essah

Spotted this screenshot in the screenshot thread and couldn't help but notice the missile looking suspiciously like an Aim-9. I know some of the former Warsaw pact countries that joined NATO fitted Aim-9 to their MiG-21, Romania and Egypt As far as I know. Is that modelled in the game? or what's the deal with this screenshot?

Haven't tested it myself, but Indeed BMP-2 should not be more accurate than a Shilka. BMP-2 seems a little too quick and accurate agains A-10 for example

I'm wondering if anyone is in possession of, or knows if it's possible to find a chart that shows the relation between airspeed, Mach and ground speed at various altitudes (Assuming level flight). trying to wrap my head around it, but it seems very complex.

I always use keyboard commands for Flaps, Gear and lights, rather than reaching over to the mouse.

I was mainly thinking about Soviet use in the period of the MiG-21Bis

Anybody know of some good resources? I'm looking for information on it's service life introduction and withdrawal, when, which units and where both for the MiG-21 in general as well as for the Bis specifically.

"good" here being a very relative term lol.

so for the first time ever I'm having issue starting A-10C. My friend who just picked it up and were learning had the same issue but 2 other friends we were flying with had no problems at all what happens is that during my regular startup routine when I move my first engine (tried both first) out of detent, it starts spooling up but stops at 25% FAN and stays there. I'm doing the routine I've always that that has always worked for me, and just to make sure, I even tried doing the autostart, which yielded same result. engine FAN getting stuck at 25% I have battery, Inverter, AC left and right, APU, apu Gen and the 4 boost pumps on, and of course the autostart does something similar with a little more. neither resulted in the engine actually starting. has anyone experienced anything like this? I'm clueless.

So I realize that ED does not regular or decide which aircrafts 3rd party developers can create but look the split between era's we're gonna end up with World war 2 P-51 Fw-190D9 Korea F-86F Vietnam UH-1H AH-1G MiG-21 (but no F-4) mid to late Cold war is the only well represented era, having basically all FC3 aircrafts as well as fitting in. UH-1H MiG-21 Ka-50 A-10C (without TGP as stand in for the A model) Mi-24 Hind to be developed in the future by Belsimtek Modern day A-10C Wouldn't it make sense to focus on the cold war, or at least pick a single other era to develop for rather than splitting it like this. Trying to integrate a P-51, F-86, MiG-21 and A-10C in the same mission just doesn't work that well. (so don't) - Well yeah, but the whole point of having a variety of aircraft is that fly them together no?

Well duh! what kind of mission is that anyway? You'd never send an A-10 on a mission into an area that hasn't first been cleared of radar SAM by SEAD/DEAD. The A-10 is not meant to survive that. No wonder that makes people upset. It's silly unrealistic mission design. Just like the Multiplayer missions where you're expected to do SEAD with an A-10. Makes no sense, Mavericks is not a SEAD weapon. against Su-25T with SEAD weapons or against fast movers it makes more sense since they have a survival chance and could be sent into unsecured areas. (However, if an SA-6 or SA-11 lights up right below you, the survival chances are quite small, no what what aircraft you're in I guess. Would be cool to have a flyable, or even just AI offensive jammer aircraft like the EA-6B prowler, EF-111 Raven or EF-18G Growler or Su-24 Jammer aircraft (I think that's what the Russians use for offensive jamming)

so you're telling me an AI only helicopter has a cocpit that looks the same quality as a DCS module?

from this video: anyone know where that pit is taken from?

Dogfighting AI is quite bad, don't expect too much from it

Probably already mentioned but couldn't find a post about it Random faults set in the editor to not only work for Single Player but also MP.

bump

could you do me a favor and provide tacview files of this? It's not that I don't believe you but I would like to see it for myself. Just create a scenario that has Aim-120 and R-27ER and record them in tacview. Since DCS now moddels advanced FM for missiles the drag is much higher which is what's causing the problem in the first place and spawned this whole thread. what's the difference in maximum range for the 2 missiles from FC2 to FC3 ? I have never seen this loft trajectory you talk about but would like to. What parameters do you need for it to do this?

the frequencies are in one of the documents in the game folder and you can add your own kneeboard pages in another game folder where the rest of the pages are also stored... However beats me what the actual location of both of that is exactly. have a look around the game files, you'll find something

Did some testing on the latest version of DCS world I had a ACMI track from BMS of a long range lofted Aim-120C shot on a Su-27 and wanted to compare it to DCS so I recreated the moment in DCS and attempted to reproduce the situation to see how the missile flight would differ between the 2. parameters were at the moment of weapon release: BMS: F-16: ASL: 29,063 ft Mach: 1.11 TAS: 657.6 kts 31 degrees nose up for the loft Velocity vector(/FPM) at 24 degrees up Aim-120C 1 second after launch (earliest reading available) TAS: 842 kts Mach 1.43 Missile looking at ~30 degrees nose up at launch Range to target at launch: 24.0 nm Missile flies a high arced loft shot profile peak speed Mach: 4.01 TAS: 2299.4 kts peak altitude: 47,004.0 ft ASL DCS I did several attempts trying to maintain the speed I had in BMS and firing at 24 nm but since DCS AMRAAMS don't fly loft profiles attempting that would skew the results even more since the missile would just attempt to pull out of the nose up attitude and loose speed. therefore peak altitude is also not relevant for comparison. DCS Aim-120 had higher energy level throughout the first and middle stages of the flight due to not climbing in the loft. With a peak speed of 4.14 compared to 4.01 of BMS. 2 seconds after launch (earliest reading): DCS Aim-120 does 1.69 and BMS does Mach 1.48 due to inconsistency with altitude and speed of the aircraft this is more of a source of error added for reference. However should still be able to deduct something from the following speed comparisons At 12nm to target DCS Aim-120 does 3.54 and BMS Aim-120 having just passed the peak of the loft is at Mach 3.13 At 6 nm to target BMS Aim-120 is coming down at 23 degrees doing Mach 2.43 while DCS Aim-120 is doing 2.36 the conclusion to this is that the speed bleedoff for the DCS equivelent is somewhat higher, probably partially due to not lofting and thus not having gravity assist in the final phases. the result shows at impact when DCS Aim-120 is down to 1.17 compared to BMS which still has 1.64 of course the path of the target aircraft also has a lot of influence on the energy states at specific ranges, but in this case they flew fairly similar flight paths doing diving jinking at ~30 degrees angle off. In a lot of cases the missile would miss, the attempt in DCS where I drew the numbers from (last attempt) had the missile miss at some 60 ft without detonating, only the first attempt was a successful intercept, the others the missile would most often seemingly lost guidance temporarily in later phase despite host aircraft still maintaining lock (and thus datalink guidance) DCS missile flew for 1 minute 5 seconds and the BMS missile for 50 seconds from launch to impact which is odd, considering that BMS missile's flight path was longer due to the loft profile, but probably has to do with the slower speed bleed off In conclusion, the missiles (or at least the Aim-120) has been somewhat fixed from the brokenness reported in earlier versions which is good. It is possible (albeit harder) to destroy an aircraft at similar ranges in DCS as it is in BMS and while this might not be completely realistic I'll settle for that, believing that BMS is a somewhat accurate. (without having any evidence handy) What should be done is to implement a loft profile for the Aim-120 to increase the efficiency of the missile flight at long range shots. The DCS Missile does in fact reach higher speed than in BMS but does so at a much less efficient flight profile and as a result ends up with less energy for the intercept resulting in lower Pk. It also has some weird issues with lost guidance despite host aircraft maintaining lock on target. I suspect some lacking or even absent datalink guidance modelling. I would like to hear the results of someone else trying to reproduce the same scenario from the data written in the beginning. should be enough. The engagement took place over ocean so terrain wasn't a factor. I'll attach the tacview files for the BMS flight and the DCS attempt I used for the data comparison. the BMS file is part of a longer BVR training mission I did but it is the very first Aim-120 shot that I used for the comparison. Aim-120shot.rar

+ Netcode improvements + framerate improvements (when firering rockets, or dropping cluster bombs)

I'm sure there are more than the A-10 that are not available to neither Israel nor Russia

I too miss FC2 Come on ED. get your stuff together and your priorities right and fix this right here right now!

Good informative post. something I've been wondering about too. now we're at it, can someone go over CAS (Calibrated Airspeed)?

I would love to believe that EDGE is going to help on the network issues but somehow I'm not convinced. It's as simple as this though ED. if you do not fix your netcode so allow a meagre 10 players stable then DCS World will never become what it has potential to, and I will feel sorry for the IL2 guys wanting to make a new IL2-46 on DCS engine cos that will never work if the game can't even support 10 players stable online. Haven't played any online missions with my friends lately because of the broken state it's in. It's simple unfeasible to do any sort of larger scaled missions. :(

+1 bump anything ED? It's beautiful that you've added the trigger. you just forgot to add a parameter to select which heli.

Basically the Su-25T is a terrible platform for such a short range missile, no surprise it's tricky to get right