nighthawk2174

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.

In theory though couldn't you get a rudimentary loft from LOS rate? Say keep the target x deg below you and if LOS rate passes a certain point lower that angle until your using raw PN till burnthrough? Stuff like the javelin iirc does something like this.

Agreed and the amount of documents that had to be posted even just for this to once again get looked at... This fix should take only a few minutes to make and test and maybe another 10 or so to read through the documents posted.

@NineLine didn't ED at one point say that it was interested in possible incorporating user mods that were of a high quality? Maybe we could investigate this mod just becoming part of the base game?

Maybe @BIGNEWYcould see if this could get looked at again?

It'd be a nice mission feature that instead of just having the unit inside of moving zone trigger condition to also have this option for the coalition or a group in zone conditions.

Tbf this damage to the wing skin was both on the top and bottom of similar areas (~14-10sqft) and hopefully the updated system will take that into account both visually and in reduction of lift from the wing. Which in itself could be fatal. It also cut the aileron control wires which would all but guarantee a loss of control imo (did it in your tests and how regularly?). Not to mention one of the wing spars was damaged having a good chuck nocked out of it. The combination of the roll due to a difference in lift and undoubtable severe vibration may just cause the wing itself to shear off. Thanks for reporting this and doing some testing, hopefully the proposed fixes will come soon!

The 30mm Minengeschoss round should pretty much be a 1 hit kill anywhere unless ofc the fuze is not triggered due to not enough material (such as fabric). There is a video of a test of the round on a spitfire and it blew a massive and completely catastrophic hole in both a wing and a tail section that was shot at. Don't have the video but it is out there somewhere.

I mean with a prop if you put in more power you should get more work out of the engine and get a higher top speed. As you go faster on the rpm yes the prop efficiency will fall but this doesn't just cause you to go slower your ability to push faster just falls off rapidly. You don't just loose thrust because your efficiency falls. And as said above the charts show the top speed is 375 and if the mustang in game doesn't meet this then its modeled incorrectly its that simple.

The F15 has RAID modes (which we don't have in game for the F15) so it should be able to separate targets at a good distance if it is was used, they may have not used it and if the two migs were flying extremely close to each other 20 NMi for separation isn't unreasonable. rog 800km seemed rather far at 350km radar horizon would limit you to seeing targets above 5000ft at 350km assuming that the AWACS was at 30k ft. The farther away the higher the target would have to be and if the AWACS was flying lower or higher would impact this as well.

Assuming 800km is correct, that is rather far for the AWACS to detect targets. Forgetting about the issue of radar horizon; it would straight up be out of its detection range if they weren't heading directly for the AWACS due to reduced RCS/lower closing velocity especially if you were getting noise from ground clutter.

Its because the G limit instead of being 6 at low altitude and droping off to as low as 2g above 40k ft its g limit in game is something like 16g. Maybe @BIGNEWYcan give us the actual number since ED locked the lua files and also report this inaccuracy.

Its a horrible form of guidance for A/A missiles, i'd be shocked truly shocked if it uses pure at all in any mode. PN is just a significantly better form of guidance.

I mean how far away was the E3 from the target area? Could they have been in the radar shadow caused by earth's curvature? Were they hiding behind terrain? Or were they just simple just too far to be detected in lookdown mode? (also the notch size is selectable by the AWACS crew not sure by how much but it is a thing). Its one advantage the F15's radar offers is that in the absence of info from the EW system due to above limitations you can still find targets on your own. The 29's radar (in particular the A) is not as good in this role, with more limited range, worse look down characteristics, and from what I've been told a number of other issues with the radar one that I remember being told about is a rather finicky Search to STT in some situations.

Right but why would it take more than fractions of a second to acquire the target? Plus lets just assume that it does take some time, it still wouldn't matter much as English bias commands would give the seeker the initial information it needs to keep the target in the seeker fov anyway. So again in comparison to proper gate modeling and HPRF-MPRF modes (again assuming that your assumption is right, which I don't hink it is, its probably a truly minor factor.

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.

TBF to that as well we need to also keep in mind in some cases multiple missiles were fired (even though the first hit) causing PK to go down I think this happened a few times if my memory is correct.

More or less it should it uses the exact same sub-muntions just fewer of them. So its part of this and can be used just as well as the JSOW to discuss the problem. If you want too you can amend the title to a discussion on the effects of the BLU-97 submuntions as that's what its really been about this whole time. It was just inspired by the JSOW-A which just so happens to use the same sub-munitions as the 87.

Unfortunately I can't make tracks for at least another 5 hours but maybe Tipis or someone else can using the mission Tipis posted (you could as well). Addtioinally in realtion to the name of the thread I think its quite poorly represented. Both in the range from the explosive there is damage and the effects of the damage especially against infantry and trucks and in particular sensitive targets such SAM radars and missiles. And lacks soft-kill effects against heavier targets such as crew bail, chance of fire, track/weapon damage. Even just a dice roll for these instead of you must do x amount of hp damage would probably work beter. From Tipis's post if you look at it he dropped an 87 right in the middle of the formation (using active pause to ensure a central hit) where each solider is 10m apart vertically. And well considering there are supposed to be over 200 bomblets hitting within the box... its easy to tell something is off. Lets say we drop a theoretical single bomblet on the head of the middle guy. Based on the souces from earlier there should be a 20m lethal zone where pretty much everyone is dead. With a 40m zone with a high chance of death or sever injury. And a chance of injury extending maybe up to 80m (depends on the exact fragment weight and inital velocity of the blu-97). Well there are areas with only one infarnty unit dead and no units injured around it. Others with just injuries. And a mix of the two.

Sure but suppression is suppression not being shredded into small bits. Where this would occur is at a range where the crew has a chance of not getting hit and dying. This is highly dependent on both the frag size/weight and its inital velocity and the density of frag. Higher weights are more lethal and penetrate more armor with less velocity needed, density of frag increases the chance of being hit lethally, and higher velocity increaes the lethal range and armor pen. Based on the document Tipis posted for the blu-97 that very lethal area is 40m circle radially from the bomblet. With it being very dangerous probably out to 80m based on the explosive weight and frag weight. Currently an infantryman 40m away from a bomblet will not die nor the exposed crew on many of the WWII AAA pieces. Additionally the frag should have just about the same lethal range against stuff such as trucks and even longer ranges against very sensitive items such as radars and missiles. Currently they have to be very close to the bomblet the frag should be tearing up targets withing 10m however from Tipis's tests they are not. Sure although DCS doesn't simulate every single bomblet right? So if it did that may not be the case as there would be a higher chance of a direct hit. Where even if the direct hit doesn't kill we should still have effects such as the crew bailing out if it is penetrated (likely injuring or killing crew) or possible starting a fire. Even if its not enough for a K-kill causing the crew to bail out of fear is a real thing that has and does happen. Or on softer targets rendering them inert (radars such as the fan song in particular) as either the crew is dead or the radar is damaged. This should be occuring a lot farther from the weapon and at much higher damage thresholds due to the nature of the target. Not really +1

IMO this is a reasonable solution and is one that has been proposed before in the past, can't imagine its too hard to do.

I'm confused why would maneuvering of your own aircraft upset the TWS tracks?

Right but say at 40NMi and a beamwidth of 3deg that'a an area of 4.2 NMi in width. And that's assuming it doesn't do some kind of raster or con scan; that's still a massive area I just don't see how it would be much harder considering TWS still updates relatively fast. If anything it'd guarantee your looking in the right spot instead of having to get the DDD cursor on the exact perfect spot.

Yeah something to consider is that some vehicles like the flak should just stop working completly if the pattern is even near the piece as its likely the crew would get shredded if the are not taking cover. Same with trucks and other light vehicles being close enough to only damage them in game right now would probably result in the driver getting swiss cheesed irl.

Fighter to Fighter datalink works correct? Also is the not as sure lock on from TWS accurate? I don't really see a reason it shouldn't be as good as on the DDD.