JNelson

We have more reliable sources for our information regarding this stuff.

No you read correctly it was mach, before I went back and changed it like a minute later. In what you post here it seems to suggest that these are hypothetical scenarios and that "Weight reductions improve the performance". The source of this powerpoint is the same study which produced "New Air-Launched Small Missile (ALSM) Flight Testbed for Hypersonic Systems" so I would be surprised if they had different findings on what the phoenix was capable of.

The altitude graph is in metres. The Mach 5.1 you describe comes from the simulated phoenix which has 250 lbs removed.

Yea it's not trivial to get the missiles to fly in a ballistic trajectory. You have to disable some stuff in the lua config like the guidance and the induced drag and lift (the latter two because the stability of the missile in the old schema which the AIM-54 uses does not appear strong enough to keep the missile on a ballistic trajectory, this doesn't actually matter because the test is conducted with a zero lift condition anyway). You can see below with those accommodations the missile follows a ballistic trajectory rather nicely (remember this is time not down range distance so the actual trajectory depends on speed).

Hello Florian, Thank you for your detailed research. It's worth noting that what can be seen in the game files can not always be compared with reality because it depends on how Eagle Dynamics interprets those numbers which might not always be obvious from an outside perspective. If you compare Figure 7. Launch elevation angle effects on ALSM flight performance (Mach 1.2, 45,000-ft launch conditions). From the document you attached "New Air-Launched Small Missile (ALSM) Flight Testbed for Hypersonic Systems" you will find that currently the performance of the phoenix is very close to that simulated in that paper. Please rest assured the effective overall impulse and thrust of the missile are very close to their real values for in game and they match sources and match test shots withing 5% error for things like impact velocity, loft altitude and time until impact. Finally please see the attached graph which are the same parameters as figure 7 with the NASA simulation overlayed (dashed) with the DCS results (solid).

Dive toss in the F-4E is similar to the CP-741 computer in the A-4, however the DMAS upgrade actually added CCIP to the Phantom. Where the dive toss is more like a CCRP mode.

This demonstrates what the radar roughly looks like, but it's from a simulator, also they only go into acquisition not track. Here is a video of the AN/APQ-120 with the DSCG screen, in flight.

Our F-4E has dive toss, this is like a pseudo CCRP mode, you have the WSO lock the main lobe clutter from the radar in the air-gnd mode (don't be fooled this is the same as boresight pretty much but the antenna doesn't move when locked and the range scale can be greater than 5 nmi) then the pilot puts the pipper on the target as accurately as possible and depresses the bomb release, this tells the computer what the slant range is and it computes the target point, then using the INS the computer figures out when to drop the bomb so it hits the target.

I was just pointing out that the licensing is rarely an issue to modules and definitely not the cause for the lack of official A-4. It's definitely less certain than the sun coming up You are certainly correct a lot of the assets from the mod are unusable due to people's involvement (and licensing of the base assets for the 3d work) a lot of work would have to be redone. The module requires a lot of work regardless. It wouldn't all go in the trash but at the end of the day the A-4 for a lot of people was a hobby project and not every hobby can be turned into a monetised product. I say that as someone who wrote 60,000 lines for the A-4 project. It's understandable that people want the opposite to be true because they really want their A-4 as an official module. It's hard to fault people for their enthusiasm for the project and wanting it to be official.

This is not necessarily true look at the m-2000.

iirc, it was fairly common. You can look up pictures of the AN/APQ-120 dish most of them have iff antennas installed.

There is a post about the CAA here:

Ah yea that sounds like the issue. I'll note it on our bug tracker thanks.

Yes this is correct, the mavericks will start spinning up and aligning their gyros once there is no weight on the nosewheel. There will be no video until the maverick is ready.

The procedure should be the same as before, you may need to get closer in order to get a good lock on a vehicle.

I've spent hundreds (not joking) of hours on trying to get the caster to spin more freely and on the suspension in general and there is nothing I'm afraid. The not rolling on grass is common theme with most planes in DCS.

If you had said these conditions from the start it would have saved some confusion . Condition 1 is not reproducible on my end. When I apply full brake on one side it turns towards that side, if you could demonstrate in a video that would be great. For condition 2: I suspect what you are seeing is the transient of there being less force, aircraft and the caster on the front straightens a bit and the suspension compresses less, but if you let this transient settle (a few seconds) it will continue to turn in the direction of the locked wheel just slower than before. People are using ABS as an example to explain static and sliding friction to you. Perhaps you should look closer because no one is suggesting the A-4E has ABS.

Firstly you never said that you were braking with only one side. Secondly the friction is still less when a wheel is skidding when compared to the static friction. In the condition you go from optimal braking to skidding the wheel there will be less braking force and therefore less turning moment. The only time it will turn into a skidding wheel more is if previously your wheel was freely turning and if you actually test this in the sim this is the case. A quick way to test is to use the takeoff mission, accelerate to about 40 knots and then slam one brake on, it will turn into the skidding wheel. If however you apply optimal braking on one wheel it will turn in that direction then increasing the brake until it skids will reduce how fast it turns but it will still turn into that wheel. Because they said exacerbate the turn I assumed they meant they were already braking with that wheel and were increasing the brake until it skids not going from zero brake -> full brake. To exacerbate would indicate they already turning, which if no brakes applied shouldn't be the case.

I appreciate your concern, but this is categorically false. Skidding always reduces the friction, a rolling wheel has static friction which can deliver more force through friction when the brakes are applied. There are two perfect examples in the real-world of this effect: ABS (Anti-lock braking system) -> this keeps the wheels spinning to decrease stopping distance (over fully locking your wheels, a driver can out brake ABS but this is only because the cause the wheels to never skid whereas ABS will cause them to skid less). Traction control for launching a car, when accelerating it is widely known that when the wheels spin due to too much torque the force put through the wheels is much lower due to the reduce friction due to the wheel sliding. Lastly google is sliding friction v static friction you will find that static friction is higher than sliding friction, see: Hi this is not the case, there is still force slowing the aircraft down just less of it.

Static friction for rubber is higher than sliding friction. This means that a wheel which is skidding has less friction and therefore less braking force overall.

There is no pattern when you spotlight, the antenna will simply point where you put the antenna hand control azimuth and elevation. There are two modes for the spotlight which first requires a little explanation. For angle tracking the beam must be conically scanned (beam goes in a circular path around the antenna axis). This is achieved by nutating the antenna feedhorn at around 60 Hz. This is necessary for these old radars which use conical scanning as apposed to monopulse for steering their antenna when tracking a target. This effectively widens the beam on average to around 6.7 degrees compared to 3.7 degrees. Most of the modes have the radar nutating by default as this generally gives a wider search area at the cost of a lower average power per unit solid angle. The two spotlight modes are engaged with the action switch above AI ranges (100 nmi, 200 nmi): Half action - spotlight mode with nutation (6.7 degrees) Full action - spotlight mode without nutation (3.7 degrees) Technically you can use spotlight at AI ranges and below but this is just called acquisition and a full action will command an automatic track.

The AN/APQ-120 is a pulse radar and it displays the raw returns (with little filtering). You will need to distinguish between ground clutter and actual targets. The AI (range setting) goes up to 50 nmi, inside AI range you can make an STT lock provided the return is large enough. The manual even reports the ability to spotlight (manually guide the antenna) targets even further, the range scale goes all the way up to 200 nmi.

As of the last update the RPT will actually jam when receiving a signal.

It's not possible that's it's reverted to the SFM, lots of things would not work. The carrier being damaged is a bug that has reared it's head before and has come back, but seems unrelated to the scooter (in that we have no control over that).

There shouldn't be any flight model changes in this version!