nighthawk2174

I doubt its accurate but if I am wrong please do correct me

The current SA10B uses the 5V55R which is a SARH missile not TVM.

I'd see if you can find that file and delete it then run a repair if it was in your main game install. To repair if you have windows 10 just type Repair DCS into the search bar and it should find it if not the DCS_updater.exe in your bin folder is the same thing.

So will this be changed? As if the vehicle can go faster under manual control I see no reason that it should be restricted under the AI.

When you click on the shield what files does it point to (after you get kicked out and it turns red)?

sure:

The no notch on the Jeff iirc was a bug.

Sweet, on my end this mission I made with the latest update as of the posting date hopefully this gets fixed in the next beta or two.

As far as i'm aware the battery for the 120C5 should just be around 100 seconds but right now its at 80 seconds like the 120B. I also could of swore that it was 100 seconds in the past? Is this an accidental change?

The S300 is matched to the flyout charts that I found for the missile so it's accurate to those charts. The Patriot received only a cursory CFD treatment with performance tuned to match that other sim that shall not be named. The Patriot ain't a small missile either its still 410mm and 5.8m long against the 5V55R's 450mm and 7m. Now just to compare the performance of the two in thrust as they are similar in drag with the patriot just being a bit less then the S300 in everything up to high supersonic where the S300 gets quite a bit more draggy. S300 - 5V55R Boost only - ~59,500lbs for 10 seconds MIM-104C Patriot PAC 2 Boost-Sustain - 44,870lbs-3740lbs for 5 seconds and 15 respectively. Now the S300 has one hec of a boost yes but the patriots boost can still get the missile up to M5 in a high loft and the boost keeps it going that fast while the S300 will start to slow down. In a final note I should go back and do a full drag curve for the patriot at some point as it was on of the first missiles I did and I only did a subsonic, transonic, and supersonic drag value change Edit - after testing it also does seem that the S300 when ti lofts pulls a ton of g's and doesn't really stop until its looking right at the target, i'll investigate this and see if I can fix it. Edit2 - New loft code seems to have helped fix the S300's high G issues, will continue to test further and probably add it to the Patriot as well. Edit3 - New loft code is much smoother and as such the Patriot is no longer pulling insane G's on launch and now its a super missile, going to adjust drag performance. Edit4 - Patriot is now good it no longer pulls tons of G's on launch, or when lofting, drag was adjusted to match this reduction in energy loss due to execsives g's Edit5 - While S300 is now lofting more smothly it still pulls lots of g's shortly after launch (20+) will continue to investigate this and adjust performance if I do fix it.

I have a bunch on new main menu music sound files that are no longer working and i'm a bit confused on how to get them working with this structure. The standard location of these was Mods/aircraft/(module)/Sounds/EditorMusic. How do these work now?

Thanks I hadn't heard of this program i'll definitely take a look!

What does the 14b's digital EIG look like?

I don't think they actually changed anything I compared the shell_table.lua from 2.5.5 to the latest build and there are no changes.

Just wanted to bump this and add I just noticed recently while tweaking the missile mod that the Nr_Max value or the max allowed G is set to 17 for the SA2 in game. This is well above its 6G rlf limit, and if you set it back to 6 the missile gets even worse! Hopefully ED will look into both fixing the Glimt and giving it half-lead/full-lead guidance. Along with the "K" aiming sub mode that prevents the missile from being dived into the ground.

Agreed solidworks isn't ansys but I too was surprised by its results. For my runs I used solidworks 2019 5.0 and used the CFD plugin that came with the version my school gave me. From my validation tests I found that SW's was accurate with moderately high res meshes (around 1+mill cells in contact with the body) and around 4-5mill total. I ran every .2 M through the solver having it solve for the force in the direction of the flow and then just solved for the CD value from that. In the initial settings I would turn on an option called "supersonic flow" for any mach value above 1.8. Following this I just ran each value three times and took the average. And when I did this for the two missile I ran validations for the curves matched quite well especially at high supersonic and low subsonic. The only area that had trouble was from 1.2 to 1.6. Occasionally the solver would pump out a number that was off, usually not by massive amounts, but it would generate a noticeable 'bump' (for lack of a better) word in the graph. To tune DCS I then made a matlab program that would take the CD value and just run a simple solver that would basically generate a flyout chart for a level launch. I would then take this graph and change the numbers in DCS until they matched.

Just so people who may be completely lost can get caught up I just pulled some definitions from some sources on radars I have. "MTI" This is a method of clutter rejection that a radar may employ. Clutter is essentially 'noise' on the scope, think the F14's radar in pulse mode when looking at the ground, that can obscure a target. There are two types of MTI that have been developed. Coherent and non-coherent. The non-coherent is the oldest type and may also be called "area' MTI.

I think what you may have heard is that the magic INS bug, the missile always knowing where the target is during midcourse, was probably fixed for a few missiles.

So something that's been impacting a few of the missions i've been making is the speed at which AI travels. Lets say I tell them to move at 25kts, they will only go 17 (at most) while if I take over I can get it up much faster to whatever the top speed of that vehicle so happens to be.

I actually just found this today and I think it supports the -34-1-1 F15 manuals 8mill 100% cone of fire. This impact area is not much bigger than the dot in the center of the actual gun reticule. Now I don't know what the size of the piper in the 15E is and I hope someone out there knows! But if its anything like the 15C, which it appears to be when you see it at 4:49, the actual dot is 2mills. - 4:33

No chaff was used by the AI in the video in my first post.

Yes even if the bandit enters the notch for a fraction of a second it should not do this. Not only should it have a track memory As its pulling at 20+ g's (where it had been previously 3g's) and the wrong direction. At the ranges seen above for a missile it should be essentially impossible to A) notch for anything but absolute fractions of a second B) Even notch the radar due to the minimal range meaning the target return would completely overwhelm any background returns.

In this case the apparent closure rate as reported in tacview was at 145-155kts when it pulled. But yeah this has been around for a while it just seems its far easier to replicate now, I had this happen 4 times in a row.

So something I've been noticing for a while especially since 2.5.5 and now quite consistently since the last update is this: Missile isn't even in the notch yet it will pull a lot of g away from the target. Quite odd and frustrating when it happens. It does seem to happen quite consistently against the AI in my tests. I haven't tested in MP yet though. Trk files https://www.dropbox.com/s/cfj6dfhg6qgnlv7/AMRAAM%20Bug3.trk?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/wb9hkkw27yr8aj6/AMRAAM%20Bug2.trk?dl=0 Edit: No chaff

Question is thrust on and off drag also being looked at as well to the others such as pitching moments (finally!)