nighthawk2174

Issue seems to have persisted after the last patch. AMRAAM_BUG_DropedTracks2.trk

If you launch the trk's in tacview you can also get the closure rate to see if they were or weren't notched at that moment. Dont disagree with such missiles being way too sensitive to chaff though, should be a lot more resistant. The rest of what you posted are either us waiting for the new missile API or already reported bugs.

Updated the mod to V1.9, only a few minor tweaks https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release ----------------------------------------------- V1.9 - Updated HB AIM-7 to current standard -AIM-120B, initial boost thrust approximated from video footage of NASAMS launches. changelog here: https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release/-/commit/a8fb45bfb0bdf195c8fe13a0a3f350224a62b6a0

Currently it does not, it is something to consider but in the context of missiles i'm not sure if it'll make much difference. They'll still fall out of the res cell of the radar very quickly, they could still be filtered out with range gatting. They'll still take a few seconds to fully bloom to their maximum RCS size after deployment. After which they'll disperse slowly over time and lose their effectiveness. Not only that but the resources (not to mention having an accurate picture of its rcs) to keep track of the chaff for more than say 5-10 sec after deployment may not be worth it. Not to mention that the wind would have to be quite quick, even more so if its not blowing right at the targeted radar. Plus the kinds of altitudes were talking about may be quite high (highly variable though), for example chaff heading directly at a radar with a fictional 55kts notch. Over georgia right now the altitude where the winds are that fast is in excess of 18km. A few areas (DCS wise) like a few sections of the central US and most of syria that altitude is much lower (as of this post) is only ~6-8km (is probably highly variable though). But if its even at a 45° angle the necessary wind speed would have to be doubled. I think there are bigger fish to fry before doing this but again may be worth investigating sometime in the far future.

I'll also just post my post again

I just want to stand up for the eagle a bit, if you know what your doing its one of the best (minimum top 3) if not the best dogfighter. The eagle does almost everything excellently and at a minimum well. It will outrate the viper, especially above 15k ft. altitude. While not Jeff or F14 (with flaps) levels of rate it will maintain a good rate for its class from sea level up until its one of the best at high altitude. It is one of the best vertical fighters, often called the "space shuttle" by a group I dogfight with. Alpha/nose pointability wise its good, while it can't pull as much alpha as the F18 it can still get up to 33deg and remain stable and easy to point. It can also use differential thrust (moving one throttle up or down not both) to really screw with you in one circle fights as well. Also acceleration wise (F16VF15), according to the manuals for 10k feet level acceleration: *100% fuel and clean The F16 will take ~29 sec to go from M.36 to M1.0 (200kts KCAS to 560kts) The F15 will take ~22sec to go from M.45 to M1.0 (250kts KCAS to 560kts) Against the mirage its easy to outrate it and outclimb it. If they go for high alpha their going to nuke their speed (an issue of every delta) and you just point your nose up and then come around on them in the vertical. Worst part about the mirage though (from my perspective) seems to be the guns. Poor velocity, no upward angle, limited ammo, awful gunsight.

Yeah Yeah just mistyped should be "there's not". I just don't see it even having its seeker powered on to go HOJ till the pitbull point. And that the guidance system should absolutely go to the last known intercept point which it currently doesn't.

Hmm although i can't imagine there's something built in to not stray too far from the original pitbull point. Pluss shouldn't it only go HOJ once it goes pitbull?

I would temper your expectations though it's been marked as reported basically since it came out and still not much. Was even marked as no bug for a while too.

I have been told by multiple pilots at this point that chaff is not very effective against missiles. One even said its like less than a .01% chance it would actually decoy a missile (context was modern active missiles). Where it can help though is near the notch in throwing off a track from a tracking radar for a SARH missile and helping in attempts to confuse re-acquisition attempts. Now its not that chaff won't have an effect it most certainly will but it acting like a flare but for radar missiles just doesn't seem how it would work. More that it would draw the aimpoint behind the target. Or help the target get into the notch. Not causing the missile to pull max G towards a chaff bundle well outside the res cell of the radar.

Ok not going to lie that is hilarious!

I got one here: AMRAAM_BUG_DropedTracks.trk

This behavior is not new but also not correct. We just have to hope ED rebuilds the chaff system as currently they are just a big flare but for radar missiles. This is not how (in particular) PD missiles and chaff should interact.

Yeah so basically the behavior we should be seeing is the missile continues to loft towards the predicted intercept point. Going in to the terminal phase about 8NMi or so away and in High PRF searching for a target. Where it should then lock onto the target closest to the predicted intercept point should midcourse guidance not be reestablished/ either with TWS or a hard lock.

No seems like its the same issue and is kind of a big one.

Ehh I just don't think there's really any negative impacts (again in terms of DCS here) airframe wise beyond hung stores. But the big question is how likely are they to hang? IIRC for the F35 no such G limits on any ordinance exist even for older weapons with "hard" limits on other jets (I could be wrong don't quote me on this). And as is pointed out in the doc I posted earlier. How many of these limits aren't due to them being actual limits but just a lack of testing. So hard to really put a "realistic" twist to hung stores.

In terms of the hornet I have doubts it would do much beyond having an unacceptable impact on longevity and up time due to necessary inspections. Now I’m not saying pulling 9+ g’s multiple times couldn’t have some impact. Such as potentially causing hung stores. But, on the scale DCS is dealing with, airframe wise being new every flight, I just don’t see it being catastrophic. As I said before though there may be exceptions and the f16 over speed may be one of them. And is worth investigating.

Worth a read about said limits: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8lqhpdolqge1a07/F-16_Code_One_article_Dont_Stretch_The_limits.pdf?dl=0 Something worth considering pretty much every jet is going to be built with a F.S. (factor of safety) where the "limits" aren't the maximum possible the jet can take (there will be exceptions ofc). Rather it would just have negative impacts on the longevity of the airframe. Which for 40+ million dollar jet is a big deal. Hence stuff like the F14 being limited to 6.5G (7G?) during peacetime. And instances of F15's pulling 12+ G's without the airframe suffering any damage. There's also a few stories i've heard of hornets pulling 9+ g and the worst that happened was one of the engine bay doors was slightly bent. So we should just be careful in making it so something, that yes is bad for the longevity (in terms of decades/ 10's of thousands of flight hours) of an airframe, but normally wouldn't be catastrophic is made so just because of limits meant to preserve the longevity of something.

Something else to consider is the exact way the RWR is set up. It could be such that the frequency/PRF of the amraam was outside of the orignal design. Or it could be related too: But I would take this with a massive grain of salt. BUT, imo he's talking about TWS itself and the RWR not being able picking up the guidance signals to the amraam and not the missiles seeker and just misspoke. That or the SPO-15 has an inerent flaw where it could not pick up the amraam for some reason. I'll dig and see if I find anything.

So something that appears to be 100% replicable is that in the F15 if you fire off an AMRAAM and don't provide continuous tracking up to impact the missile will go ballistic: track 1 - TWS till impact track 2 - Snipped tracks High alt shots here when I get more time I'll do this at more altitudes with more jets. Just no time right now. TWS_SNIPPED.acmi TWS_TO_IMPACT.acmi

Check the missiles_table.lua, very bottom. From all indications, from chizh and others, the russian missiles AP is just incredible antiquated. I'm not even sure if they use much more than raw PN for ranges under 25km (variable above that). Which, while not awful, is far from the most efficient guidance. Realistic and fair often don't occur at the same time in hyper realistic games. Especially in the subject of modern BVR missiles. The ER is just not as good of a missile as the 120C or 54. It is beyond doubt that imaging seekers are essentially immune to pyrotechnic flares. There are just too many ways to accurately and reliable filter out this decoy type with FPA's seen on the 9x/irst/python5. Yes, at high alt (35k +) in particular. No, unless i'm just a complete fool the mig29/F14B (wings swept)/F15 will outclimb the hornet without much issue. The accel and level speed performance charts exist, feel free to compare: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xly60w457wkrvqf/61908290-A1-F18AC-NFM-200.pdf?dl=0 the pages of concern start on pg304 of the pdf. And if it is in fact off, which I just don't see it being too far off, then i'd be right there with you calling for fixes.

Right but it really should just be one action instead of having to make work arounds. Maybe something ED can work on as part of the needed changes that are going to have to be made to make a dynamic campaign even remotely realistic.

Hmmm really wish the system was more like task = "barcap". Where you can set up waypoints from the advanced action menu for them to either follow in order or move between randomly. Then set an engagement zone (hopefully making it not just a circle but making it so you can define its shape more finely with a bunch of points that connect together). A lot like how its done in CMO

in a jet that weighs say 75,000 lbs (F14 max takeoff weight) +- 15-20lbs is utterly pointless in simulating its not worth the effort.

Well flare spamming should defeat the archer we have with very good reliability. Again could be a jet to jet issue, do some tests and post the results.