[Ракеты в DCS]

@GGTharos

We can speculate all we want about HOJ. But I'm willing to bet in modern ECM environment those missiles might have a hard time guiding at all!

In DCS we have perfect guidance on ECM by an SD10. Thankfully 120 is already adjusted.

Are you saying the Chinese have broken some kind of ECM milestones with their missiles?

Let's stick to what can be the most ballpark implementation in DCS. Remove variable PN.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

This is not ED's code. Please contact the developers of these missiles.

This creates a serious disparity of standards for missiles in DCS....

Could you at least give recommendations to those third party developers? As far as I'm concerned ED missile standards are the benchmark. Everything else should just follow suit as improvements are made.

Or is this a case of UFO missiles make better sales?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Supporting the missiles should be a thing in DCS, just as it is in RL. Just as it is dictated in training for all pilots employing them in RL.

Why are we even disputing this?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Heres the exact manual quote " Once the target has been acquired by the missile, terminating data link will have no impact on probability of kill (PK) unless the missile loses track." (emphasis mine). It will help the missile reacquire if it looses track from notching, chaff, ECM, or any combination of those.

Bingo! End of argument

Thanks

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

I'm sorry but what did I say that was false here?  LOS rates is absolutely a possible avenue to build a loft profile that doesn't require ranging information.  As can be seen there are missiles that loft without any range information in use.

Bro, we are not here to build missiles. We are trying to bring the current missiles of relatively the same era to behave to a logical standard within DCS limitations! Cmon

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

 
Again, no, it does not.  Clearly stated in the manual 'Pk is not affected by continued support from the launching aircraft once the missile is autonomous'.

So for example an STT supported 120 that lost track on a target in the notch, while the support platform has a clear lock from a different angle should just miss and not reacquire the target. Is that what you mean?

Are you disputing the information that is clear in the F16 manual as referenced above by Dundun?



Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

 
No, he has it right.  It is very clearly written in the manuals that we do have access to that once PITBULL, Pk is unaffected by continued support from the launching aircraft.  While there will be 'gotchas' in there, the statement is quite clear.  Pk is affected when launching beyond seeker range.

Read my reply again and the subsequent ones from Alfa.

I think you didn't understand it.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

TBF I can imagine a loft without range information stuff like the javelin shows its possible.  I can't imagine you couldn't build something based off of LOS rates.  Would it be as good, probably not but it may still be possible.  Not to mention if host radar burns through it should go for a loft.

I really hope ED doesn't make missiles based on imagination. Haha

You just shut down your own argument right there.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

What, do you think every missile is built the same?

Mobius708

Once again you aren't understanding the query!

ECM prevents range information fed to the missile. No range info = no variable PN.

Questions?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Ehh the performance the radar gets in range is already very impressive for its size and being a monopulse seeker with MPRF modes and modern digital electronics I think that my statement is more accurate.

Yes its accurate in current DCS implementation. Which of course suits the fanboys just fine.

Lets talk reality here. Or maybe you got some official manual data to prove your point (not!)

All RL pilot accounts and manuals/doctrines dispute your so called accurate theory.

I think I rather trust their data.

But nice try



Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Now lets get all missiles to the same guidance standards.

ECM = no loft, no variable PN.

Why is the SD10 and pheonix still not affected?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Yes it'll result in a higher PK but the missiles even without out datalink updates the missile is still going to be extremely resistant to both countermeasures and notching.  Datalink updates are just the icing ontop for the rare circumstances where something weird happens or there are friendlies mixed in with hostiles.

No. You got it backwards. The active seeker is the icing on the cake should support be lost. Not the other way around.

120 radar needs all the help it can get!

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

No. Supporting 120s does increase PK, there are post active DL updates. All relevant manuals (F-16 -34 to name 1) support this

Bingo. End of argument.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Not quite you can support it with datalink updates all the way until impact (with STT offering a higher refresh rate than TWS).  It should allow you to fire into dogfights as the missile should reject targets other than the designated one.  Additionally it'll give it better CCM resistance and even if the target notches the missile so long as the main radar sees it it'll still get updates on the targets position for re-acquisition.

Exactly! This is how it should be. A supported missile should have much better PK than an unsupported one.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

 
Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.

@chizh can you please also look into making the relevant PN adjustment and remove variable PN logic and loft for SD10 and Aim54s vs ECM.

Because they can just be manually lofted into space with a high pitch angle. ECM makes no difference to those missiles.

Thanks

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Shooting Down Missiles flying M2.5 off bore.]

Its a joke currently because half the 18 pilots don't even realize they are shooting missiles down. They just fox a radar contact and the 120s do the rest. Intercepting M2.5 missiles with 100% accuracy.

I guess 120 really has a better radar than a modern fighter to make that intercept.

If that was the case, ships would not need CIWS. Just load a stack of 120s on deck. Haha

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Shooting Down Missiles flying M2.5 off bore.]

2 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

The AMRAAMs is still a HOB missile, it's just initially limited by the radar gimbal for target acquisition. You can launch them HOB, but they will need to expend more energy to make the initial turn, like JDAMs too.

Mobius708
 

Are you even understanding my query? 

 

@ED,

 

Is it the intention of DCS dynamics to make the F18 capable of radar tracking and easily shooting down any incoming missiles in any conditions and parameters? If the answer is no, then something needs to be done about this. I was under the impression it was patched recently, but seems its still a thing...

[Shooting Down Missiles flying M2.5 off bore.]

No I am talking about Aim-120

[Shooting Down Missiles flying M2.5 off bore.]

Seems like the F18 is better than Iron Dome air defense that can track and snap intercept missiles off bore, at all aspects and speed.

 

How is this still possible? I can understand a head-on long range shot, but this? I have dozen examples, but this one is from after yesterdays patch.

 

It makes A2A a joke right now.

Tacview-20210722-215811-DCS-PACT2021_6v6_GUDAUTA-KRYMSK_2.7_1.zip.acmi

[Aim-120 Home on Jam Lofting Desync]

@BIGNEWY
 
Please also check out SD10. It appears its ECM logic is borked too. It is lofting ALL the time vs ECM. The variable PN needs to be removed from it just like 120.
 
Basically something wonky is going on with ECM + Loft logic in DCS rn. Best to check all missiles in MP to see that its fixed properly.

[SD10 Lofting vs ECM??!]

Since the last patch it appears the missile is somehow lofting vs a jamming target whereby it should not.

 

I think this has got something to do with the latest round of ED updates removing this capability from Aim-120 which causes a MP desync.

 

Please have a look into this so the hotfix covers the SD10 as well.

 

Thanks

[Aim-120 Home on Jam Lofting Desync]

+1! BIG bug in MP making it basically broken. Needs a hotfix asap

[Ракеты в DCS]

Not

You are so close to normalizing a good standard for A2A missiles in DCS and ER has been worked on recently. Why not finish it once and for all? Fix its PN (to same standard as other missiles)

Why leave things hanging in the air for more years?

Perhaps ED team can look into this from a general game dynamics standpoint?

Introduce new features that affect A2A uniformly and don't leave missiles and dynamics that are fundamental to the MP community neglected (your most hardcore group of customers).

People like to pay for complete products. Not a 5yr WIP plans, and having to chase the developer. All these affect the gameplay, hence we are here.

Less moaning from customers, more fun!

Don't treat everything as just a 'bug report'...

Just MHO.

Anyway, recent progress brings some optimism. Looking forward to new upcoming patches.

S!





Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

I mean it is a monopulse radar it can get range and angle information with only one pulse I see no reason that the delay to acquire would be anything more than fractions of a second so long as the target is in the FOV (especially if the missile is getting datalink updates).  As pointed out by GG things like more realistic gate modeling and things like proper HPRF to MPRF mode for the amraam are probably going to be more impactful. 

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS).

This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range.

Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition.

Anyway glad that ED is looking into this matter.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

 
Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.

Does this mean f16 still not affected? As the ECM isnt modelled on it yet? Or will this just be set to a standard 40km burnthrough?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Ракеты в DCS]

Это будет исправлено в следующем апдейте.

Спасибо!

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk