ricnunes

Sorry but that cannot be true. Did you run the scenarios that I shared in my original post? Because I did and after patching the game the results are exactly the same: - 100% of the times when the F/A-18 gets hit from behind by a AA-11, the (F/A-18) pilot dies! - 0% (ZERO) of the times when the Mig-29 gets hit from behind by a AA-11, the pilot dies or more precisely the (Mig-29) pilot ALWAYS SURVIVES! Honestly I don't know how you cannot see or replicate this, I really don't since it's so obvious!

In the sequence of this topic which is now closed: While opening DCS today, I noticed that there was an update today - DCS 2.9.13.6818 - and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this update was supposed to fix this problem as it's stated in the changelog: Fixed: Damage model - Pilot cannot survive any explosive hit. And this fix not only applies to the F/A-18 but also to the F-16 and F-5E. Actually and since I own FC4, I can confirm that this problem also affects the FC F-5E. But and unfortunately after updating DCS and then making some extensive tests with the F/A-18, I didn't notice any changes/improvements at all regarding the pilot survivability when being hit by missiles. It's exactly the same as it was before the update! I didn't have the opportunity to test the FC F-5E and I don't have the F-16.

Greetings, About the subject at hand, it makes absolutely no sense to model Block 2B! IMO, the earliest Block of the F-35A that makes sense to model is obviously Block 3F for several reasons: - No F-35A Block 2B ever entered in service, not even as IOC. The only F-35 that entered in service as IOC with Block 2B was the F-35B (STOVL variant) with the USMC. The first F-35A version that entered in service as IOC was the Block 3i. Granted that there isn't much of a diference between Block 3i and Block 2B but then again there isn't also a big diference between Block 2B/3i and Block 3F apart from some extra weapons integrations, bug fixes and "one or two" added capabilities. As such modeling a F-35A in service with Block 2B isn't realistic and regarding Block 3i, it was only realistic for a period of 1 year (between 2016 and 2017 when Block 3F entered in service). - With the point above in mind, it makes just as sense to model the F-35A Block 2B as it would make to for example model the YF-16 instead of the current F-16C Block 50 (I'm exaggerating a bit here but I hope you understand my analogy). - I also remind that the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun only became operational with the Block 3F. So this means that a realistically modeled F-35A Block 2B wouldn't have a working gun (it would carry the gun internally but it simply wouldn't work)! So, if the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun is to be modeled (and according to the FAQ it is and IMO, rightly so!) then Block 3F is the way to go. - Moreover, all these F-35 Blocks are basically software updates much similar to how an application such as for example DCS gets updated. Resuming, the diference between Block 2B and Block 3F is basically software only which allows the aircraft to have more capabilities such as using new weapons including again, the gun. Apart from this, the capabilities between Block 2B and Block 3F are quite similar. If there's a capability or two of Block 3F have which for some reason can't be initially modeled then this shouldn't be a problem because the same happened and happens with all other DCS modules (for example, remember when DCS F/A-18 module came out that it didn't even have a TWS radar mode? This doesn't mean that for example a YF-18 should have been modeled in the place of the current F/A-18C lot 20). - Block 3F allows modeling more weapons (and realistically so) such as GBU-39 SDB which IMO is among the most important weapons of the current F-35A inventory. Another weapon that can be modeled is the dual mode (GPS and Laser) GBU-49, another important weapon of the current F-35A inventory (similar in capabilities to the GBU-54). - Block 3F was the first version that have full warfighting capability to the F-35. The F-35 entered in full service (as opposed to IOC) with Block 3F. It we want to use a more traditional line of thought, the Block 2B and Block 3i were more like "prototypes" or more accurately, early production aircraft instead of full service aircraft (like Block 3F). Well, for what's worth and IMO the ideal would be a F-35A Block 4 (should be in service by the time the module comes up) with GBU-53 (a.k.a. SDBII) besides other weapons but if this is not possible then Block 3F all the way! My 2 cents, anyway...

Yes, that's very telling indeed. Thanks for sharing your logbook records! Please, tell me one more thing: During those 42 ejections of yours in the Hornet, do you remember if you still had some degree of control over the aircraft just before ejecting? (note that I'm not asking if you could bring back of land the aircraft. I'm only asking if at least one of the control surfaces of the Hornet still worked after you've being hit and survived in the Hornet)

So you're saying that when playing the F/A-18C scenario that everytime (100% of the times) you get hit from behind you don't get killed while with the Mig-29 in the same scenario you'll survive 100% of the times?? Or, if you're having the same results as I then why would this be an expected performance? Do you believe the Mig-29 is a "fully armored" aircraft while the F/A-18 is "made of paper"? Don't get me wrong but that's extremely hard to believe (and I'm not the only one noticing this). Yes, that's basically what I've been trying to say. Please, feel free to try the scenarios that I shared above (you can even edit and change the player's aircraft) and test. I strongly believe that anyone reach a simple conclusion with them.

First of all, greetings and thanks for your reply. I can't speak for the DCS F-16 since I don't own it. But I can speak for any FC fighter jet aircraft (F-15C, Mig-29A/S and Su-27/33) and even for the A-10C, all which together with the F/A-18C are the jets (although the A-10C is not a fighter) which I own in DCS. But I wouldn't be surprised if DCS F-16 was affected by the same type of bug/issue but here I digress. I'm also aware that if the missile hits the cockpit area then there's a strong chance the pilot won't survive or at least that should be the expected case, hence why in my last post I tested with scenarios where enemy would always shoot (heat-seeking) missiles from behind so that the tail part of the aircraft gets hit instead of the cockpit area. Anyway, I made two example scenarios/missions which I attach to this post, which are basically the same where an enemy Mig-29 armed with two AA-11's which starts roughly 3.5 nautical miles behind the player's aircraft. The only diference between the two scenarios/missions is that in one of them the player (also) flies a Mig-29 while in the other the player's aircraft is the F/A-18C. All that the player must do is to keep flying straight at a speed where the enemy Mig-29 (chasing from behind) can catch up and fire one of its AA-11 missiles and of course, do NOT perform any evasive maneuvers or use any countermeasures (Flares). With the scenarios/missions mentioned above in mind, I flew 5 times each mission in a row and the end results were the following: - When flying with the Mig-29, I survived 5 out of 5 times (survived 100% of the times) when I was hit by the enemy Mig-29 from behind with one AA-11 missile. - When flying with the F/A-18C, I was killed 5 out of 5 times (survived 0% of the times) when I was hit by the enemy Mig-29 from behind with one AA-11 missile. This is definitely NOT normal, as both aircraft (F/A-18 and Mig-29) are quite similar in terms of size and general shape. I also tried the scenario above with another simple change: with the enemy (MIg-29) behind armed with 2 AA-8's (instead of AA-11's) which if I'm not mistaken is the least powerful air-to-air missile in DCS in terms of warhead (and therefore destructive power) and the results were the following: - When flying with the Mig-29, I survived 5 out of 5 times (survived 100% of the times) when I was hit by the enemy Mig-29 from behind with one AA-8 missile. - When flying with the F/A-18C, I was killed 2 out of 5 times (survived 60% of the times) when I was hit by the enemy Mig-29 from behind with one AA-8 missile. The above (AA-8 scenario) wasn't that unexpected as the AA-8 is a much weaker missile than the AA-11 but at the same time the AA-11 warhead is not that powerful either, namely when compared to some other missiles and there's the abismal diference in survival rate between a F/A-18 and Mig-29 against the same AA-11 missile. And even against the AA-8, it's still very bad and unrealistic for the F/A-18C because in 2 out of 5 times the pilot didn't survive a quite weak missile (AA-8) when hit from behind and therefore far away from the cockpit. One more thing that I observed from my last set of tests is that the F/A-18C pilot only manages to be able to eject when and only when the aircraft after being hit by the enemy missile still retains some form of controllability (i.e. some control surfaces still work). When all and every F/A-18 control surfaces are damaged then this equates in the game to the "Pop-up to external view, F/A-18 aircraft model becomes wingless (wings are ripped off) and pilot get instant death" situation. I say this because and looking in hindsight, this was exactly what happened to me during the other 2 times were I survived in the F/A-18C which I reported in my first post of this thread. With the Mig-29 (or any other FC aircraft) when the aircraft has absolutely no controllability (no control surface works) after being hit then the pilot still has a chance to eject. As such, I urge you to test my examples and I'm 100% sure (and I'm rarely 100% sure of anything in life!) that you'll end up reaching the exact same conclusion as I did. Missile_Test_Mig29_FA18.miz Missile_Test_Mig29_Mig29.miz

Well, but I don't. For instance, I've taken several missiles including from behind which shouldn't kill the pilot or at least be much harder to kill the pilot since the explosion is far from the cockpit but end result is always the same when an incoming missile hits the F/A-18C: - "Pops-up" to external view, F/A-18 aircraft model becomes wingless (wings are ripped off) and pilot get "instant death". The image that I shared in my first post is very telling: From 102 times that I got shot down, only in 2 the pilot didn't die and I was able to eject. And I was also shot down by several different missiles, such as AA-7's, AA-10's, AA-11's, AA-12's, SA-8's, SA-15's, etc... and again, this never happens with any other DCS jet aircraft that I own. Moreover and again, the diference is staggering between the F/A-18 and any other aircraft like for example the FC Mig-29. Actually, I just did an experiment to prove my point which consisted in the following: - First in the Mission Editor, I placed two Mig-29's, mine (player) in front an enemy AI Mig-29 (which was just behind me), played the mission and the enemy AI Mig-29 shot a missile at me (an AA-11) and hit me from behind, the aircraft was shot down and started to spiral but I was able to eject. Then in the exact same scenario, I replaced my/player's Mig-29 with a F/A-18C, played the mission and again the enemy AI Mig-29 shot a missile at me (AA-11) like in my last try but once the missile hit my F/A-18 from behind the same "Pops-up" to external view, F/A-18 aircraft model becomes wingless (wings are ripped off) and pilot get "instant death" happened! So, there's something going up with the F/A-18 regarding pilot survivability when the aircraft is hit by a missile. With guns everything is ok, indeed when in the F/A-18 when I get hit by gunfire everything I can either eject from the aircraft or limp back to base but with missiles it's almost NEVER the case. And this is not even something that may happen sometimes. It's something that happens ALL the times!

Greetings, I own the F/A-18C module for DCS for quite a few years now and recently I started to play it again (now with DCS 2.9) and it's been a pleasant surprise since it has been quite improved since the last time that I played it. This with a basically single exception - which I think it always have been present - but now and since I didn't find any recent post regarding this issue, I decided to post and report it: - Like the title says, everytime I get hit by any incoming missile the pilot is almost always killed and I have absolutely no chance to eject! This doesn't happen with any other aircraft that I have, like for example any of the Flaming Cliffs aircraft. For example in 102 times where I got shot down by enemy missiles while flying the F/A-18, I was only able to eject two (2) times and instantly got killed the other 100 times (I send here in attachment a picture of part of my pilot profile, showing this)! So, this is: 1- In no way, realistic! If we look at these type of aircraft statistics like for example during Desert Storm then we can see that the majority of such type of aircraft shot down by enemy missiles (by both air-to-air and air-to-ground), the pilots were able to eject and the vast majority of these survived the ejection. 2- Any other aircraft that I know of in DCS don't exhibit such behavior. As such, I'm asking the devs here to fix this issue. IMO, this is more important than meets the eye even because it's basically impossible for someone to play with the F/A-18C using a pilot profile with the "Invulnerable" option set to NO. Perhaps a sort of a simplified/interim option/implementation to improve missile survivability when flying the F/A-18C could be implemented until a more definitive solution for this comes up?

BUMP! I would also like to see/read about improvement being made on this one.

I noticed that users have been unable to download the mission pack. This problem should be solved now.

Thanks for the kind words guys :)

You're welcome Icebear :)

@Yurgon, Apparently it worked the way that I pretended to. Thanks for the feedback!

No problem! Actually I made a similar mistake by missing the part where you mention that you later found the discussion thread. But as you said, apparently it's not possible to delete posts (at least I also don't know where) and since there was an another member (Noj) that also missed the discussion thread, I decided to keep that post. I'm glad that you're enjoying the missions :)

Thanks again for the heads up Yurgon :thumbup: I'm also glad that you liked the Humanitarian Aid mission. BTW, Yurgon how did following part worked well in the Humanitarian Aid mission (For those who didn't play this mission, the part below is a SPOILER):

@SAPALLASVI Thanks for the kind words! Yes the issue with the Camp Medevac Base mission (and not only, 2 other missions had the same issue as well) was reported and taken care of (I hope :) ). All you need to do is you re-download the mission pack again and make sure that you overwrite the existing mission files that you previously downloaded!

Yes, I agree that would indeed be the best solution for us. That's a very good solution indeed! Thanks for sharing it :thumbup: But as you say, if it only works for SP than it's a petty. Speaking of SP and MP, could you confirm me if the solution that I'm currently using for my missions works in MP or not?

Yes, you're right NeilWillis! :) Ok DONE! Change the mission's name from "Humanitary aid" to "Humanitarian aid". Albeit I kept the old (and incorrect) name file name (R_Camp_Humanitary_Aid.miz) for the sake of being easier to update - Just need to copy over and replace the old mission file.

Ok, I took a look at the Medevac Base, Medevac Convoy and Medevac Convoy 2 missions and Yurgon was right, there was indeed a problem. Thanks for detecting the problem Yurgon! The problem was related to the condition that detects the player's helicopter altitude at the LZ (to extract the casualties). The condition is called "Unit Altitude Lower than" and the problem was that since this condition detects Altitude Above Sea Level and not Altitude Above Ground Level (AGL) which means that if I place the trigger with this condition somewhere (in this case the place where I want the LZ) I must check what's the Altitude Above Sea Level of the LZ area and than define/set the condition according to this. And I forgot to do that for those 3 missions, sorry! I do like the DCS World editor very much , but I would prefer a million times that such condition would detect the AGL altitude instead of the Sea Level or at least that there was an another/alternative condition which could be called something like "Unit Altitude AGL Lower than". Anyway, the problem was detected and solved and I've already uploaded an updated version of this mission pack which corrects this problem on the 3 missions mentioned above. Those missions should work now! Actually I tried 2 of them (Medevac Base, Medevac Convoy) and they work now. Sorry for any inconvenience!

Thanks for the heads up Home Fries. :)

@Yurgon, Thanks for the feedback and for reporting the issues. Yes, the only mission that was updated was Humanitarian Aid and indeed, you shouldn't need to kill anyone in order to evac the casualties in both Medevac Base and Medevac Convoy missions. Maybe I screwed things up regarding the triggers, nevertheless I'll take a look at those missions as soon as possible. Are those two missions the only ones that you couldn't successfully end? @ricktoberfest, Well, Yurgon reported that there are problems with the Medevac Convoy mission, so if this turns out to be true that could be the reason for the problem that you're experiencing. However, be aware that if you modify the missions and while you are free to do it, that and than by doing it you are at your own "risk" (and I can't help you much with it, I'm afraid).

That's a good idea Home Fries! I'll definitely consider doing a MP (Co-Op) version of POW2. However I never made any MP Missions for DCS World before, so is there anything that I need to do besides choosing "Client" on the skill option for every aircraft object that I wish to see playable in the MP environment?

I'm glad you liked that mission! When I first had the idea and decided to implement it, I wasn't sure that it would work or if it would work that well but to be honest and I was pleasantly surprised with the results since it worked much better than I initially expected! Of course most of the credits goes to the DCS Mission Editor which I find excellent and at the same time quite easy to use. It's just a petty that we don't have a hoist winch animation/simulation but on pilot's seat perspective you wouldn't see it anyway ;)

Beware that one of the missions (Humanitary Aid) has an issue which I missed and fortunately someone over SimHQ alerted me for it! The problem is that the weather pattern in that mission (Humanitary Aid) makes the task of landing at the place to drop the supplies an almost impossible feat due to heavy fog! So I updated the Humanitary Aid mission by changing the weather and the updated version of this mission is available in the same link above. You just need to download the mission pack again and inside it you'll find the updated version of this mission (Humanitary Aid). Sorry for any inconvenience.

You're (all) welcome! Feel free to give your feedback regarding these missions. Well, the problem is that I don't own the Mi-8 module.