Muchocracker

This kind of project isnt going to be done in a month.

and as mentioned in replies above. It is not modelled.

complaining about BIT tests (that are nothing but eye candy) not being in the training missions. Lol

It's not an in depth IFF system right now. Most of the switchology doesnt do anything. And no you dont get any indications of interrogation. That's not something i know of to be given to the pilot across any airframe. Ambiguous is when there are conflicting classifications between on-board and off-board interrogators. For example you ID it as hostile but the awacs ID's it friendly. It's basically never seen because of the aformentioned low fidelity of the system as it is stands.

You can do some math to emulate all of the spherical earth stuff. Or at least most of it.

The wording of the whitepaper isnt the best which is why i included the clarification that i (fuzzy, admittedly) recalled from raptor. 131 feet drift number used there would be kind of a "nominal" random drift occurance from the increased weighting of GPS into the blended solution. It could at times be better than that or worse depending on conditons obviously. 300 is just the desired threshold to start using it.

Well as raptor described it's not actually updating the INS. It's rather just changing the weights of the blended solution to use the GPS more. The INS would keep drifting at its normal rate with no change continuously until a fix is performed. I guess another way to put it would be while the kalman filter is trusting the INS from 0 to 300 feet position delta it would be smooth. When it's blending the GPS in, the drift is going to a bit random (because GPS is noisy) but wont exceed 300 feet or error. Yeah having a lot of the debug tools in general would be a nice to have.

Would have to get raptor in here to clarify, but the last i time i asked him about it he described that the INS and GPS systems are more or less completely sepate and don't interact with eachother. With the MMC and its kalman filter creating a blended output of both solutions. The filter would kick in when the delta exceeds 300 feet and weight the GPS with a higher bias to confine the blended position error within that box. The system would be pretty much running that state from then on until the solution delta's are driven back under 300 feet (ala INS FIX)

entirely block dependent.

No, it hasnt been moved over from the f-16 yet.

You're gonna have to be more specific than "it's still an issue". It's been pretty well established now in this thread that the ability to defeat the amraam with loaded barrel rolling is not suppose to go away entirely. Just be more difficult to get away with. Is it missing outside of the proximity fuse distance (that was changed to 15 meters), or is it missing within the PF distance? The latter is likely gonna be an issue with the new warhead frag pattern.

report issues in the dedicated DTC bug reporting forum

no, there isn't. 59 waypoints is the absolute maximum.

I don't even know what's being argued about anymore. It doesn't really matter what the hornet squadrons did more or less in its service life. The NATOPS and its checklists are pretty clear on what the NWS is doing for takeoffs and landings.

That's absolutely fine. You can do that if you're not absolutely confident in giving information that's not classified. But then don't make absolute statements like you've been doing the entire discussion despite it being stated by others with evidence as well as the developers themselves that it's not impossible to do to a level that's sufficient for a game.

Alleviate but not remove. This cited report is from 1986. And the pitch bobble is still noted as a behavior in a 2006 dated NATOPS. Idk what point you're trying to make here.

The FCS turns the steering gains down with speed regardless. There is no reason to disengage the NWS on either takeoff or landings.

it's explicitly mentioned to be used in takeoff in the checklists and automatically engages when the nose gear has WoW's at touchdown.

It's designed to be engaged during takeoff and landings. Explicitly mentioned as such in the NATOPS checklists. The steering gains get reduced with speed to prevent oversteering.

These are your own words are they not?

Who said anything about concrete or 100% accuracy? We all know that the APG-81 is too classified to get hard data. The point is to get as close as possible through knowledge of first principles and what you can glean through open sources. Idk about you but i would much rather have a 60% approximation than none at all. You're the claimed EW Engineer, how about you tell us? I know you're asking these questions in bad faith so you'll probably scoff and dismiss the answer like this is some kind of black magic forbidden knowledge. But i'll go ahead and list some of the stuff stimson's touched on anyway. - Pulse Compression in its normal forms - Pulse Compression using pseudorandom codes in more secure formats - PRF Jitter/Switching - Pulse to Pulse/CPI to CPI frequency agility - Phase shifting elements to null antenna gain in the direction of a jammer to counter high power jamming signals. - Leading Edge Tracking to counter gate stealers It boils down to being unpredictable. If the jammer can't know what waveform to send back or isnt sophisticated enough to match parts of the waveform then signals get rejected. You use parameters that you know, and fill in the blanks with first principle knowledge, idk what is hard to understand about this concept. Sensitive receivers will detect low power pulses from longer range than noisier ones, more advanced detection algorithm's can decode higher complexity compression and frequency hopping schemes. And for that matter who says it would be exclusively transmitting LPI waveforms? It's not a free lunch has associated costs that can be detrimental to overall detection performance. You're trying to gish gallop me in attempt dismiss and discredit the broader point that you can in fact get more than "closer to 0%" by working on first principles of RF/DSP/Phased Array/EW theory to build a really damn good Electronic Warfare simulation that isn't TS/SCI. The game itself has a long way to go in RF modelling to get where it should be, and i said as much in the OP. But it's not "impossible".

-Stimsons introduction to airborne radar 3rd edition (gets you started on base concepts and digital signal processing. Touches on EA/EP concepts but not in depth) -Electronic Warfare Signal processing by James Genova -EW 100 series by David Adamy There's plenty more that you can find through google searches.

The A-10's SADL is not link-16 bro. They are entirely separate tactical datalink's and dont cross-talk. You are seeing him because he's being tracked by an AWACS and you're getting that donated track over L16.

It's only pre-aligned on hot start. It has to be aligned when going from cold start. Use stored heading to shorten the alignment to 90 seconds. The chucks guide that's linked in the top of the main hornet forum page has the steps.

Your INS isnt aligned properly. Use the CV selection on the knob then move it all the way over to IFA when it's finished.