nighthawk2174

Unfortunately ED just encrypted the in-cockpit sounds so I don't know if you can get a in cockpit sound mod working anymore.

t_accel = boost t_march = sustain The AIM-120C is a boost only motor.

- SD10 -AIM-120B -AIM-120C

This is what i'd like to see in terms of a subscription: - Access to MP missions with the asset packs (buy to use in ME and SP), - Get access to the supercarrier 3d models in MP (such as the ability to land not necessarily all the bells and whistles but get absolute minimum access. - Get access to free trials of all the aircraft and maps, and discounts in the ED store. - Access to dedicated server (not 100% sure on this yet) - Access to EA modules is interesting but i'm not sure what to think of it yet I don't think any of these points would be controversial but would provide at least a reason to purchase it.

The amount I used is more based on in game testing than what the lua file value is due to a lack of a direct answer about what exactly the value means.

This is a supplemental thread at the request of 9L. I want to make the case that the dispersion for the CIWS system on ships is exceptionally high. Documentation indicates it should be less than 1 milliradian yet in game it uses the same 22+ seen on the airborne guns. This is a difference of over 2200%. In addition to this there is the MK141 shell that these guns use that is not used in game. This shell (as far as I can tell) is apds shell with a red tracer. That seems to have a significantly reduced drag shape over the standard M56 shells in game. copied from my reddit post on the subject of dispersion:

No I don't mind i'll get together what I have and i'll make it when I can get on my computer and not mobile.

Currently american CIWS uses the same 20+ milliradian dispersion as the airborne Vulcan. And the same rounds which is not accurate. Making it more accurate by significantly reducing the dispersion down to under 1 milliradian and giving it the more potent MK141 round would also make the system more capable.

Ok and has there been any discussion internally about CIWS that you know of?

Ok, well that's really the only way I could reasonable read it as but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Of note, yes lets say this error even exists in the version that I did the tests on a difference of 3 ft may or may not be a major amount. Plus one has to ask is this just for aircraft or is this the same for where the bullet hole in the ground decal is applied to as well. In the gau tests a difference of 3 ft, if that 3 ft was exactly applied in the ground plane and not vertically would only induce a 3% error which, as you noted, could always work backwards as well. I hope the changes are accurate to what it is irl, 5mills for 80% 13mills for 100% with the majority of the remaining falling just outside of that 80% circle. And if this is the case the Vulcan should absolutely be reduced very shortly afterwords as can easily be seen in the video that started this thread they shoot very similarly in dispersion. The issue with the PGU (beyond dispersion) is that its a more modern aerodynamic design than the rounds used on the other jets resulting in a rather noticeable increase in range over the M56 line of rounds. Currently it uses the same drag values as the M56 which is not correct but seems it will be getting fixed soon.

And my response stands as well it could very well be the case but what if it appears to be 2-3ft less than it actually is as well. If it is 3ft more (worst case), that would only reduce the difference between what is seen and what should be seen by 100% instead of 135% (M61 as an example). Not to mention the in game tests and the extracted data showing the actual dispersion values that I did here. On another note what has the devs said on CIWS regarding dispersion and the fact ciws uses a different round the MK141 which is going to have not only increased inital velocity over standard M56A3 rounds but it being a saboted round and of a different shape should have better balistic characteristics as well. Not to mention the tracer color as well.

The big nock on range is mostly due to having to boost up all the way from 0 kts. Additionally it's not quite as big a difference as you may think. For example I just quickly made this: One missile is fired level from 0kts the other from 500kts level at sea level (SD10).

In all of my tests I used active pause to ensure no movement macedk

Agreed, this would also be nice for such things as custom labels settings or smaller asset packs.

Yeah its quite bad and as can be seen in the guncam video the dispersion after quite a bit of firing has no to negligible increases in dispersion. This again appears to be due to the gun having the same heat capacity(?) as the other guns identified (quite literally the same numbers). Each shot adds less heat, 52% less than the mig's cannons, but it fires at significantly higher rates and has a lot more rounds as well. As far as i'm aware the drop of the rounds is largely because of the lower initial shell velocity, this post, I think quite conclusively puts the Vi at ~880-890m/s where as in game right now its 823.5m/s for one round and 875 for the other type. Of course drag could always be an issue but I have no sources to run a ballistics calculation on so for now we'll just say it's probably alright but should be checked of course.

- 5:00 He holds down the trigger for a small burst of 4sec at 5:01. Then he has a 10sec burst at 5:09. Followed by a 6sec burst at 5:23. Now the next small clip I don't think it is the same aircraft but if it is there is a final 2sec burst at 5:42. And throughout this whole period the amount of dispersion doesn't change and is very very very tight. This is my track and well by the middle of the 10sec burst well.... the dispersion is very bad. Hec of note I actually was 1 sec short in terms of trigger time for the first burst and .5sec short for the last one. https://www.dropbox.com/s/wm7fu1eos3u20yl/1.trk?dl=0 Video:

Honestly I think they just copy pasted the heat barrel effect if I remember right from an earlier post its the exact same numbers as the canons on the 190 which defiantly isn't right.

Agreed even just having watched F86 strafing runs... in DCS fire the guns even for a few seconds and they become hopelessly inaccurate when in gun cam footage where you can see F86's firing for long periods of time there is no apparent change in accuracy.

Agreed I'm pretty sure this is a bug i've heard a few other on various discords ask about this as well, although for them it wasn't pretty much all of their fired missiles that did this.

They're not contradictions there will still be a short time period where the chaff can be seen by the radar and not filtered out and if your dropping a lot of chaff in a steady stream you can create the apparent effect of an increased RCS. In particular for Pulse radars, PD this effect would be more limited. Additionally we're talking about self defense chaff bundles here the amount of time they remain at a density to actually have a noticeable impact on radar detection ranges is not going to be anywhere near the amount needed and used by chaff corridor missions (thousands of lbs of chaff not the couple of lbs - if even that- for the small bursts used on tactical aircraft). Besides there could be a whole plethora of reasons not to use chaff such as not wanting to affect civilian radar systems which aren't built to handle chaff. Or it could be as simple as costs savings. Edit Just as an example lets say you have a chaff bundle that takes 1 second to slow from 550kts to 0kts. In that 1 second the chaff would move 465ft (but still moving ever more rapidly away from the launching aircraft) and still be detectable for 461 ft if -I did my math right- viewed from the rear, if we assume the Vgate is +-45kts. Now obviously as we get closer and closer to the beam the shorter the time between launch and dropping below that 45kts. If the radar as a resolution of 1° for example at 8 miles it would be 736ft wide if it was centered on the aircraft, now one could have it so the target is not centered (conical scan / monopulse) or just set ahead of the target as a way to minimize the time chaff can be seen.

Against any PD radar (the 54's included) chaff is naturally filtered out once it drops below the Vgate. Additionally the amount of time it takes chaff to actually reach its full RCS can be 3+ seconds at which time its already fallen below said Vgate and is going to be separated from the main aircraft as well potentially by quite some distance. Not to mention if you chaff just so happens to not be perfectly cut for the 54's radar frequency that will also decrease its effectiveness as well. One also has to wonder if the 54 uses such systems as RCS edge tracking, where if the rcs of a target rapidly increases due to chaff the radar will track the leading edge of the contact. This anti-chaff method was first developed in the late 50's early 60's.

Yup ^ as I recall the 77-1 was developed a while ago well before the interest in 2015 and now it seems possible production of the latest variants.

The increase in side range could easily be due to RCS: Note how at the ~50° degree's left and right from the nose the RCS is rather quite large. Now we don't know the exact aircraft and RCS used so we can't say for certain exactly how the RCS varied, but the difference in range in the sides is not a lot over the head on range. -Note the exact apparent RCS IIRC is also dependent on the frequency of the radar hitting it as well.

This is a pretty common theme there were lots of updates left out in the this most recent patch notes in particular (leading to the speculation ED released a branch with a lot more dev features then intended). Plus the difference in performance is not major, this slight change was accomplished not by adjusting the drag but the nozzle exit area which seems to have made it so the missile gets a bit of a small boost over the previous iteration. In terms of improvement, 30K ft M1.0 launch Very old VS 2.5.5 VS Latest 2.5.6 TAS VS TIME - 120C - 120B TAS VS DISTANCE - 120C - 120B

More pics: Images from "A comparison of the USAF Projected A-10 Employment in Europe and the Luftwaffe Schlachtgeschwader Experience on the Eastern Front in World War Two"