VAF [136] Striker

Is it only possible to make a polygon using a units waypoints or units on the map? I had thought I read somewhere that you could make a polygon using map coordinates.

Other Aircraf Test Results Next we move on to some other aircraft with FC3 modeled systems. We wanted to see if there was any major difference between the Western missiles against the Mirage when fired from a different aircraft. So we set up the same set of first tests with the F-15C and the M-2000C. After doing these tests we decided that it wasn't necessary to repeat the dissimilar altitude or gimbals tests because they would probably have the same outcome. Our conclusion is that the performance of the missile itself would probably be almost exactly the same repeating all the same tests. Same altitude (10,000 ft) shot, F-15C and M-2000C, both at 350 kts, slightly over 10 seconds. Same altitude (10,000 ft) shot, F-15C and M-2000C, both at 350 kts, slightly under 5 seconds. Same altitude (10,000 ft) shot, F-15C and M-2000C, both at 350 kts, just about 1 second difference. Next, we move on to the Su-27 and the F/A-18C. Even in a level fight at the same altitude and with the same speed, the R-27ER clearly outperforms the AIM-7M, AIM-120B and AIM-120C by 14 seconds, 11 seconds and 6 seconds. Not only does it have a superior initial energy rate but it's glide path is outpacing everything but the AIM-120C. We did have a slight difference in aircraft speed but are not certain it's enough to redo the tests based on these results. (May redo the test because of my inability to read the airspeed properly)

Introduction Hey fellow DCS virtual pilots, thank you for taking the time to read our document on the flight distances and speed of the various air to air missiles in DCS World. First of all I would like to clarify that this document is not for any official use and is simply a helpful guide for virtual pilots to use when deciding to pick various load outs. Some of the motivation to do the extensive testing we did came out of our desire to understand weapon limitations and the best way to counter or leverage these limitations. The data did help us understand our engagements and how better to deal with different threats and although we primarily fly the Hornet in A2A, this information is useful to pilots that chose to fly the Mirage, Su-27 or F-15C. Also, please be aware that although there is always going to be some bias regarding platforms, we did our best to limit it to the point that it did not have any effect on our evaluation testing. These tests are NOT meant to prove the ability of one pilot over another pilot. The tests are simply to show the performance of each missile based on the exact same or as close as possible to the exact same parameters for both platforms. There are also some differences in initial missile speed that we cannot account for even though both platforms are traveling at close to the same speed. But it appears that some have a slightly higher or lower off the rail speed. There is no way to simulate all of the different maneuvering techniques used in A2A combat so it wasn't even attempted. We tried to use the best practices in our testing. All engagements were done from either the same altitude or from altitudes that were reversed and also at the exact same indicated air speed and the missiles is fired at the exact same time or as close as possible. All of the telemetry charts are pulled directly from Tacview and the missiles are all set to "relative" time. They show the exact time of launch, flight time and impact time. In a couple cases the impact time had to be estimated. We do not feel that it made the test irrelevant again because we were looking for missile flight time and performance only. Pilot skill is not factored into any of the testing. Originally we planned on exporting the data from Tacview into Excel spreadsheets for comparison but it's really impractical to do so. All of the information is in the Tacview files and they are zipped up and kept safe as an attachment for anyone to view them. We did all of our testing in sequenced routines to produce one Tacview file at a time so they wouldn't be suspected of being tampered with. The Hornet / M-2000C is one complete file, the F-15C / M-2000C is another, and the Su-27 / Hornet is one other. Test Setup DCS Version: v.2.5.3.21708 Map: Caucus Default weather conditions, no wind. Test Results F/A-18C vs M-2000C (end of graph line is impact point) The first set of tests between the F/A-18C Hornet and the M-2000C are all done at 10,000 feet with a indicated air speed of 350 knots and a pure head on aspect. They were also fired at as close to the exact same time or as close as possible just inside shoot cue range between 15 and 16 miles. Radar locks were maintained for the entire flight of the missile. Case 1 In this first chart you will see the AIM-7M launched from the Hornet against the Super 530D fired from the M-2000C. The S530D achieves a peak speed of 1,700 kts while the AIM-7M only reaches about 1,100. The significant difference is how long that the S-530 can sustain a higher speed allowing for a 13 second difference in impact time. Case 2 The second test between these two aircraft was done with the AIM-120B and the S530D. In this case the performance ability of the AIM-120B is definitely better than the AIM-7M. They both achieve a close peak boost speed. The significant difference is the mid-course speed of the S530D. It sustains a much higher velocity allowing it to reach the F/A-18C 6 seconds sooner than the AIM-120B reaches the M-2000C. It was also observed that up to 8 nautical miles the missiles are nearly equal in terms of distance traveled after launch in the same amount of time. Case 3 The third test is with the AIM-120C and the S-530D. The AIM-120C has a higher peak speed but the S530D has a better mid-course sustained speed. This makes the two fired at the same time almost equally matched on their impact point. Maneuvering Cases The next set of tests between the F/A-18C Hornet and the M-2000C are all done at 10,000 feet with a indicated air speed of 350 knots and a pure head on aspect but turning to a 30 degree gimbals immediately after firing the missile. They were also fired at as close to the exact same time or as close as possible just inside shoot cue range between 15 and 16 miles. Radar locks were maintained for the entire flight of the missile. Case 4 In this first chart you will see the AIM-7M launched from the Hornet against the Super 530D fired from the M-2000C. The S-530D achieves a peak speed of 1,700 kts while the AIM-7M only reaches about 1,100. The significant difference is how long that the S-530 can sustain a higher speed allowing for a 13 second difference in impact time. The other significant part of this test may be due to some of the missing ability of the F/A-18C radar currently. It may also be due to missile turn ability. But the AIM-7M never actually impacted the target. It missed by several hundred feet even though the Hornet maintained a constant radar lock. So from whatever reason unknown, the M-2000C turning to a 30 degree aspect somehow caused the missile to miss the target. The difference in impact time can only be estimated but 11-14 seconds should be fairly close to accurate. Case 5 We found similar results from the AIM-120B launched from the Hornet against the Super 530D fired from the M-2000C. Again, the peak speeds are similar but the significant difference is the cruise speed of the S-530D. It is able to sustain a much higher rate causing an estimated 7-10 second impact time difference. Again, the other significant part of this test may be due to some of the missing ability of the F/A-18C radar currently. It may also be due to missile turn ability. But the AIM-120B never actually impacted the target. It missed by several hundred feet even though the Hornet maintained a constant radar lock. So from whatever reason, the M-2000C turning to a 30 degree aspect caused the missile to miss the target. Note: we were able to reproduce the same results of the missile missing in this and the previous test! Case 6 The AIM-120C did much better in all tests we've done so far and it was the same case with the gimbals test. In fact you can see from this chart that the AIM-120C actually performed slightly better than the S-530D. It has a slightly better sustained cruise speed which translated in about a 2 second impact time difference. We did repeat the test though and did get slightly different results each time. Sometimes the S530D got there slightly quicker and vice versa. Non-Maneuvering F/A-18C, Hornet Altitude Advantage The next set of tests were done at differing altitudes, starting with the F/A-18C first. The Hornet started out at 10,000 feet and the M-2000C at 6,000 feet. Both aircraft maintained the exact same indicated air speed and the firing was done just within the launch cue at 15 miles. Case 7 In this test you can see that the AIM-7M Sparrow has a slight difference in flight time compared to the same altitude test. The altitude difference reduces the time difference to 9 seconds instead of the 13 seconds when both aircraft are at the same altitude. The performance is still poor compared to the S-530D. Case 8 In the next test here the AIM-120B does a little better than the same altitude test but only by a few seconds. Again, the S-530D arrives at the impact point over 5 seconds before the AIM-120B. The interesting thing about both of these first different altitude tests is that the S530D is way outperforming the Sparrow and even though the AIM-120B has a slight advantage during the burn phase, it quickly loses power and its descending performance is bad even compared to the climbing S-530D. Case 9 This test shows that the AIM-120C has much better initial performance until about 2/3 of the flight with the S-530D pulling ahead slightly at the end. Because there was a 4,000 altitude advantage, the AIM-120C was able to get to the target about 2 seconds earlier. Non-Maneuvering Mirage 2000 C Altitude Advantage Now we switch to the M-2000C having the altitude advantage at 10,000 feet and the Hornet at 6,000. Case 10 The interesting aspect about this shot with the F/A-18C is that even with the same conditions of head on aspect and speed, the performance of the AIM-7M is very similar to the performance at the same altitudes. This is probably because the missile was fired in LOFT mode. The initial trajectory of the Sparrow appears to be enough to overcome the altitude difference, probably within very limited differences though. It really didn't matter in the test though because the S-530D still got to the Hornet 13 seconds before the Sparrow and had a much higher rate of glide performance while descending. Case 11 The AIM-120B was not able to perform even a modest climb from 6,000 to 10,000 feet and was not able to maneuver to the target. The missile ended up passing below the Mirage even though the Hornet maintained a constant lock on the target. The entire flight time difference was 9 seconds compared to 6 seconds for same altitude firing testing. Case 12 The AIM-120C performance was extremely close to the S-530D. In all of our testing with the Hornet at the lower altitude, there was only a 1 second difference. In our opinion this fight could go either way based on the chart. Same altitude, probably a tie, Hornet low, probably the M-2000C the victor, but if Hornet with an altitude advantage, the likely outcome is the Hornet as victor. The AIM-120C has the ability to climb and keep on target. Will be posting results of next round of testing on next section. Tacview-20180923-194147-DCS-VAF Missile Comparrison Test.zip Tacview-20180923-191839-DCS-VAF Missile Comparrison Test.zip Tacview-20180921-170806-DCS-VAF Missile Comparrison Test.zip

:)

Pure speculation IMO. They are a private company and absolutely no figures are publicly released. I'll leave it at that. I removed the last sentence because I don't want to push the issue mainly because everyone that works for including 3rd party developers and associates to ED are almost certain to be on NDA's and I don't want this thread to be turned into a quest for numbers that could cause a problem for me or anyone else responding to this thread.

No one but ED is privy to the actual numbers but I highly doubt this figure of hundreds of thousands. There are only 67,000 forum registrants and the vast majority of those go back 8 or 9 years since I've been a member and a lot are dormant accounts since they never delete user accounts on the forum. Not everyone registers for the forum but it is highly encouraged by ED and the staff so I would say it's probably close to the number of actual accounts. The simulation community is tiny compared to FPS games.

This problem is present on every server and has been around to some degree since 2.5 was first released. Some seem to be less prone to it but it's still there to some extent. Clients are constantly warping around, bouncing like on a big trampoline and warping. We have guys in the VAF that have some really powerful systems and very high bandwith ISP's and they still have the same problem, so I don't buy any "your system" explanations. Happens in stable or beta. I haven't even seen a single post from anyone from ED about addressing this issue. I would really appreciate some official response. Has anyone seen anything regarding this problem and if a cure is at least coming? If it has been discussed I would really appreciate a link.

I'm having a similar problem too. I have the user snap view checked and have custom settings set for the A-10C only in the user folder SnapViews.lua. I have not altered any snap views for any other aircraft. I also did the modification as a .diff.lua to the axis so that my TrackIR uses the "absolute" movement for all the TrackIR axis for all the modules. Both the A-10C and the F/A-18C respond correctly to my TrackIR but all other aircraft do not. They all still move slowly like they are reading the original SnapViewsDefault.lua. It does not matter if I change the axis back to the Head Tracker in the controls. And it does not matter whether I'm doing instant action of if I'm in a public server.

Thanks Feefifofum. So it's the carrier moving that's causing the issue. I hope they will fix that in a patch.

How many Hornets can be cold started on the carrier now? We were having problems with them spawning into the same locations and exploding before this latest update. Anyone know?

I honestly thought it was just our server experiencing problems but got on Buddyspike today and everyone is warping around. Everyone in our group saw the same problem. So bad that it's basically unplayable for us in MP and we only do MP stuff. Please fix this because it's really killing us right now. A lot of people in our group just don't want to bother right now because of this and some of the other issues. It was in the Persian Gulf one but we see it in Caucasus too. I posted it before under this link but really the same issue in my opinion. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3533195#post3533195

This guy really needs some time off. Or could you at least give him a weekend pass to the red light district?

Collateral damage is always a possibility no matter what weapon you use, even the GAU. We always use whatever has the best potential of taking out the enemy with the least amount of wasted ordnance. The CBU-97 will do the job but it's really a waste on softer targets like BMP's in my opinion. You'd have to use multiple guided bombs or mavericks so that's not ideal either. If they're lined up nicely you could take out all 4 in one pass with the GAU but don't get close because BMP's are deadly when in close range. Max range on the GAU is recommended and they're easy to kill because just a few rounds on target will get them burning. Or you could make a rocket pass on them. Just run your rocket piper along the column and put one or two on each one. Again, stay out if their firing solution though.

You know I've told you before Snoopy, but over at the VAF we appreciate everything you guys do. Looking forward to the new guide.

The VAF, the 75th Tiger Sharks and it's carrier group VCVW-7 are now closed to recruiting at this time. We have a bunch of new pilots we're working with and we need to get them through the training process. We will post here and on the website when we open up recruiting again. Thank you for all the inquiries.

It's happening all the time. We've tested on the Persian Gulf map and same thing happens. Clients start to warp in and out of the terrain and then explode. It happens when you take off from the carrier and land at an airfield and on both of our servers. I'm including a track file from this morning. Snowman said that when he looked at my aircraft externally that it was doing the same thing that I saw when external on his aircraft. This can be reproduced because it was doing the same thing with a different client and me yesterday. Shows up in the Tacview as well. If you select Snowman's aircraft in Tacview you'll see him bounce up and down through the runway at the end. Go to 2:25 and watch till end. VAF SUPT And Refueling Caucasus beta-20180616-095851.trk Tacview-20180616-095918-DCS-VAF SUPT And Refueling Caucasus beta.zip

Every time I try to get into the LSO position I'm looking up to the sky and can't seen anything else. I've installed the LSO PLAT view and I'm using the left Alt F9. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

You are absolutely correct. I should have thought to test that. As soon as I remove all the wind the system starts working again. So this is related to the new map and weather. ED people, please tell us that you're going to fix these problems. I suspect that this is fairly low priority currently but for all us out there the use this stuff for training and immersion it's a real problem.

The RKL-41 used to work perfect in 1.5. It's been completely broken since 2.5 came out in multiplayer. I haven't tested it in single player recently. We use the L-39 a lot for training and when you're doing bad weather flights it's really nice to have it working. I haven't tested it on all the air bases but it won't work on Kutaisi or Kolki.

RGR, thanks BN!

Yeah, should have specified that it's in MP. Haven't really used the Hornet in SP lately.

It won't go up when I pull up and hit the "U" key to get back on the shoe. I thought it was supposed to be automatic. Is there a way to get it to go up or is that a bug at this time?

I would like to know this too.

They're supposed to line up on the fore deck and right side so it doesn't interfere with recovery of other aircraft. I've seen them on the left side area as well. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_110129-N-3885H-179_USS_George_H.W._Bush_(CVN_77)_is_underway_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg

Hey infotechsailor, I sent a pm to you with my dischord info.