nighthawk2174

No I started in DCS and then moved to falcon for quite some time and then reintroduced DCS as a secondary primary after EDGE was finally released. Well yeah in a twisting dogfight, or any maneuver tactics,loosing sight of people is easy especially if the cockpit can get in the way. More like wanting a more realistic representation of vision.

Updated the mod to V1.7 https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release ----------------------------------------------- V1.7 -F86F M3's now have 300 rounds per gun -M3 dispersion reduced -Dispersion of some M61 rounds tweaked -F5 given red tracers. -CCM tweaks for quite a few missiles -Restored F14 loadouts -Added PGU rounds to F18 -Old Deka SD10 thrust restored changelog here: https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release/-/commit/d22b28df484e0268c0fb0951d2fea229061d87f9

harder than irl.

Having spent a few hours over a few days just observing aircraft of all sizes from ultra light, GA, private, military, and large commercial I have no doubt that 1920, 2560, and above (including VR) are not accurate in terms of visual detection and ability to discern target orientation.

And that iirc the majority of the HB team only does this part time right? So i'm willing to give them some more leniency on delays as well (which some like the carrier and new missile API are largely due to ED's changing code base that has pushed these back).

This would be my preferred solution, I am not convinced that even emptying all of the 300 possible rounds through the gun would have the effect it does now. Much like with the barrel heater if overheating was really this big of an issue: Rendering the guns unusable would be noteworthy no? Wouldn't, if this was the case, there be some system to help cool the guns? Rather it seems more likely its a non issue and the above effect is overblown to near comical levels. Hec in my own post there is no noticeable increase in dispersion in the irl gun tapes. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4239871&postcount=107

I know this may be a little off topic too what is currently being discussed but I wanted to respond to this comment left by the OP:

Sounds like that 200 rounds number is for ground use? So cooling during flight may make it so we can't shoot it long enough to really even overheat the gun may be something worth thinking about.

Yup fixed for the next update.

If anything's going to get changed it's in all probability the lift. HB had IASGATG do their CFD for the drag values and the results are defintly of the same quality as the 120 CFD done years ago. Lift, however, wasn't touched largely due to how very limited the DCS engine is with those values.

The original R60 (as far as i'm currently aware) uses a spin-scan seeker and has no ability to separate false targets from real ones let alone CCM capabilities. I found a paper (which i'll need to find again) of testing of the 9B/AA2 seeker design which is very similar in design to the R60's seeker. The decoy rate against 1 flare, as in ONE deployed flare, was often (depending on aspect and heavily on range) above 90% and quite often hovered around 97-99%. The current value for the 9B in game is 10 so I set the R60 to 3 due to it likely having a seeker of better quality and it being a cooled seeker as well. This results in a decoy rate for one flare that is still quite high but not as high as the 9B. For the R73 I was until recently under the impression that it still used either a spin-scan or conical scan seeker design, although I have been given documentation as to otherwise. Now the version we have in game has a "Crossed Linear Array" seeker. Which would make the decoy rate much lower for flares not near the target to the target (hence rocket assisted flares) but if a constant stream of flares is used it will be decoyed at a high rate. I will be doing testing and in all probability dropping the value for the next update to this mod. The AIM-9M uses the default ED value which seems quite reasonable based on my understanding of the seeker. However in its case its a bit of a more complex issue. It can filter out flares based on energy rise time. If the programmable seeker is programmed with the correct range of energy rise times it should have very good to excellent resistance against the very basic type of flares we have in game. But ofc if its not programmed right it will have a high decoy rate. Like in the gulf war against the wide variety and often wider level of quality of flares the Iraqi's used it had a high decoy rate.

Good to hear, though with APN something i'm curious about you guys have used the term adaptive PN while in western literature the term is augmented PN. What are the differences if any? And as far as i'm aware very modern missiles like the 54C, 7P, 120b|c, should use some form of optimal control with kalman filtering. Is this planned to be added at some point down the road?

Yes that's the PRF, Hi PRF has a greater detection range but also a higher doppler gate speed and less detection range on cold targets than medium iirc.

This is just a thought but couldn't you get range via the seeker with some trig? If you know the angle at say t=0 and then take the angle a few seconds latter say t=3, and keep track of how far you've traveled, couldn't that information be used to get range data accurate enough for a loft profile? Or even just have it so it keeps the certain its nose a certain degree value above the target, turned on if the jet points its nose far enough up, and base this angle off the los rate change / loft up to a certain alt, if the los rate starts to change really fast then start having the seeker move towards the target.

No the current AIM-54 doesn't have the new lofting code so it'll drop a good 500ish kts when coming out of the loft.

Could also be of use: - MIG-29 - Harrier - F15, with weapons (Red line)

Question is this 200 rounds before overheat is this for a stationary gun or one with the same level as airflow over them as would be expected in an F86?

Hence why TWS has limited settings to ensure every target gets a pass every two seconds, according to a doc out there the refresh rate while in midcourse is 1sec. And even with large settings for example in LTWS shouldn't the computer send extrapolated position updates, alongside accurate updates, so long as the missile can receive updates? Besides I was more talking about where iirc it was reported where the missile didn't get any updates at all and just flew straight or on its initial loft trajectory.

Thanks! Edit - one more question do amraam's loft profile get updated during midcourse based on what a target does (for example a split S)? Or is it set at launch only currently (I haven't been able to test this unfortunately way to busy recently)

I thought I saw it was reported as a bug that in particular the F18's TWS was unreliable and sometimes missiles wouldn't get the updates?

Did ED do any validation tests for its new CFD I am curious the small write up given to us about the new CFD didn't go into the depth that IASGATG went into which leads me ask did ED do any validation tests for its CFD? If so i'd love to see the results.

Yeah the performance of the S300 in game is not right and well we'll see how many years it takes to get fixed.

This has been reported as a bug for many years now but the M39 20mm cannons still have the same dispersion the Vulcan did. Now with the partial fixes to both the GAU and Vulcan's dispersion is a fix to these guns in the works? Unlike the Vulcan these canons don't have the rate of fire to compensate for the bad dispersion so they are almost useless in A/A. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181440&highlight=dispersion&page=2

You can read up what IASGATG wrote in his paper, and what i've found so far: ^ Chemistry Of High Energy Materials 2nd Edition Something else of note which I found in the same book, Chemistry of High Energy Materials, I wonder if the more modern AMRAAM's the C7 and/or D can owe part of their increase in range over the C5 due to the use of other fuel mixes? Something that is quite interesting to me.