nighthawk2174

Updated the mod to work with the latest Open Beta version. https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release NOTE MAKE SURE TO FULLY DELETE THE ENTIRE MOD BEFORE UPDATING there are several files which I can't edit anymore due to them causing the game to bug out or hard crash if any edits are made to the file. As such you will need to purge the mod to ensure none of these files remain. The core of the mod is still intact but i've lost the ability to edit the AIM-7E/F/MH on all aircraft including the F14, the AIM-7M on every aircraft but the F14 can still be moded. Edit: this is hopefully a bug I've made a report and hopefully it'll get fixed, of note this impacts ALL mods modifying files in the coremods folder so make sure to check all of your mods for both updates and to see if it edits files in this folder.

Yup its the latest update I'll put out a fix sometime soon, just got around to working on it.

Currently it uses the same rounds as all the other vulcuns minus F16 PGU. Which is a much slower shell with a much higher dispersion than what it should have. And considering more than 1mill of dispersion is considered unsatisfactory well... (note this was a paper about how to improve the CIWS's dispersion and the method they came up with was ultimantly adapted)

With the release of the SC soon just wanted to bump this As you can see not just the dispersion but the kinematic performance of the MK149 round is signifigantly higher, at sea level it doesn't even go subsonic until its traveled ~4km. Some stats: MK-149 APDS V0 = 1160m/s Dispersion = ~.7-.9mills Round mass = ~74.1g for tungsten and ~73.3g for DU (assuming solid slug as per diagram) Explosives = not sure, at first I thought there was but i'm not so sure anymore. Caliber = 12mm (subcaliber shell) Drag = No data but should be quite good the shell slows down much slower than the PGU Tracer = None

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a296761.pdf You also gotta be careful not to make the piolt too good, like keep in mind pilots can't do 9G say for 40 seconds then after a very short recovery do it again for the same amount of time. Every time you go to these high load factors it should start to significantly decrease your ability to hold G. Negative g's in particular should severally impact your ability to hold high G. That other prop sim does a REALLY good job of this and I recommend going and reading their post on the subject. While very modern G suits, a better understanding of the phenomenon, and the Gstrain maneuver have improved a pilots ability to hold high G for longer things such as very rapid G onset and long drawn out fights should still impact the performance.

Tracking through terrain has been an issue for DCS missile for a long time the SD10 much most other radar missiles in the game suffers from this. Just got to wait for ED to fix it there's nothing on deka's end that they can do to fix this.

Yeah the phoneix, currently, is essentially an amraam.

Makes sense ^ small incremental improvements over a period of time.

No I agree seems then it was a incremental improvement probably more in the range of the low to mid 50's in look up then for whatever RCS that original number is for.

Did the APG68 get anything over the APG66 that would significantly alter its detection range?

Bump, this is a pretty big issue ontop of https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=266811

? could it just be an AI thing

Now if their work on the HARM is representative of what their doing in the background then yes so long as they don't f* up it should be good.

Not sure that's just what deka said that they couldn't program it right. That all it had was an option for boost/sustain.

Not necessarily the sparrow for example has a very long burn time but has a much lower top speed its really dependent on all the variables thrust/weight/drag. Plus the final sustain stage is really only supposed to fire when the target is in terminal and about to hit the target. Deka can't do this currently though in DCS due to how limited the code is in this regard. Yes its quite likely that the missile experiences more drag but not just due to the larger fins, the amount of drag that could be added just due to a different nose shape and the larger size of the body probably outweighs this. yup yes a bit more than a bit though. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kKgmzpUWwtN4Zxws6UajlUwy-oQCP9SG It's definitely isn't, they've shown off some cfd work their doing but it isn't in the game yet. In terms of performance there is essentially no difference between old and current performance: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4225128&postcount=93 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4251084&postcount=245 well the two motors used on the A/B and the C-C5 we have decent numbers for and finding anything on the C7 isn't going to be possible.

This has been an issue in DCS since day 1 its multiple factors such as just a simple HP bar system for vehicles and lack of fragmentation simulation. + it seems every once in a while a random vehicle will either just start shrugging off damage or not be damaged at all. If you want good ground damage model DCS does not have it, if you want a good representation of this that other prop game and that other jet and prop and tank game have really good systems.

- the number i've heard is no less than 2x the g for the worst case intercept geometry. From my understanding though its often the case you don't need to go to this limit. The above case I posted is probably a worst case scenario though. -Great document on testing limits even though its for the F16 same idea applies.

+1

According to the HB doc the 54A is ~18G and the 54C is ~21 iirc. Besides even just looking at the vid above the load factor is most certainly higher than 9 considering how it goes 180 in around 3-5seconds.

Agreed the issues were seeing are a generation of tons of new contacts even on contacts flying level and straight and not accelerating. With tons of different random contacts with very different and absurdly high velocities spawning from the position of the target and often also resulting in the loss of the target. Surly though one of your SME's can comment on this behavior, I doubt highly that this is in any way accurate. It seems like something that if it did happen it would have been caught and fixed almost immediately. As KlarSnow said above as well its also not a complex process to reject such random contacts.

I mean... the 54 is fully capable of 20-25g's if anything its probably underperforming in this department. Yes the current 54 model is the base ED code.

Nice hopefully this will get fixed as when the new phoenix code gets added its going to be super critical that the system doesn't loose the track because of this. Edit just wanted to add my own vid of what happened + track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wxlu9oou9ef91dr/AIM54TWSBug.trk?dl=0

The mission setup is this, I have a bunch of infantry sitting in a spot with "PERFORM TASK: HOLD" in their WYPT 0 so they won't move till I tell them too. However quite randomly groups will start moving but not to their waypoints they'll just move about randomly around their WYPT0 until I give them the order to move then they will move to their waypoints. TRK: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pd3ri2ua136gy3t/OddInfantryBehavior.trk?dl=0

Nope its a bug, jamming effects aren't implemented yet.