nighthawk2174

Yeah even just look at the picture the closing V is 1330kts...

I've heard its 55 seconds, so probably in the range of 55-60 seconds for both the R/T and ER/ET.

As I understand it the chart is a launch zone chart with the target as the reference. with the rmax being defined as something alone the lines of 6-8 g for like 3-6 seconds (been quite a while since I read the definition). In addition to the seeker range limit.

Yeah pretty much lined up with my results the ER/ET are more likely than not just a touch to draggy. The R/T are quite a bit worse.

From my understanding the 77-1 was never really put into production if I remember right there were maybe a 100 rounds were bought for testing but it never really went anywhere till 2015 where interest was once again raised (don't know where it went from there though).

Yeah wasn't he a SAM operator in Hungary? Hence is in depth knowledge?

Something else to keep in mind the AIM-7's charts Rmax is limited due to seeker performance not kinematic performance to 22Nmi. That is why you see all the max ranges limited to this number. The chart is for a relatively weak CW signal not a PD signal which the 7F and up could home in on or even just a more powerfull CW signal.

No the SD10 wasn't changed

Isn't this the same as the blue fog bug that was introduced in 1.5 and then fixed sometime around June-August'ish last year?

Yeah as its my current understanding there are no rounds with the SAPHEI designation in the M50 series. Also I found my error, I had set the shell weight to 210g instead of 110g (as it is in the code) of note as you stated it should be 100g as that's what's indicated in various -34's i've looked through. Sorry if this caused you any trouble, its good to look over old code but I hope I didn't delay you from other work for too long. Edit, the new rounds for the F16 are marked as PGU-27/28/30 in the code so definitely worth looking into.

Well then I guess we'll have to discover why my values have such a different outcome as I am using a drag chart to generate my results, i'll get to it when I got time. Thanks for the response. Side Notes -Shouldn't the SAPHEI round on the F16 be a PGU round an as such have reduced drag over the rest of the rounds and a higher muzzle velocity? -Any chance of adding the MK141 round as it should have a far higher muzzle velocity and lower drag than the other 20mm rounds. Currently it uses the same round as the F15.

The thing that helped me with this was actually updating windows... worth a shot if your at your wits end.

I do agree, HB's own wake model is no where near as intenese as the one for the rest of the DCS aircraft. Yes if you get stuck in it it'll cause you to drop a wing quite badly but it won't shake your aircraft to bits like it does on the 16 right now. I have felt my own wake turbulence in the game so I know you can run into your own. I was running some sustained rate tests on jets. Some of them such as the 15, 14, and 18 have such high rates at certain speed points that I ran into my own wake. It actually screwed up my tests a bit and I had to stop turning and just fly level for a bit. I eventually had to turn it off for my tests.

Yeah I tired over and over again to get the in game missiles to loft but they refused to so I gave up after a while, I may try again here at some point.

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

Agreed, FPA seekers track targets based on multiple factors such as size and energy distribution. And such a simple method of DIRCM is really only effective against rather quite outdated IR tracking technology. When they were developed IR seekers were of the AM spin scan type. Such a device was devastating to these seekers. Hec there is a study that I read that the effectiveness of a single flare (as in 1 flare) against these early seekers could range from 90-99% depending on range and aspect (the longer the flare remained in the FOV the chance of a break lock increased exponentially) However with the development of FM conical scan seekers these tools were no longer as effective as they once were, I bet it just acts like a "flare" and there is a raw chance that any IR missile just looses track somewhere in the code.

https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release Weapons Mod has been updated to work with 2.5.6, this patch I focused on cleaning up the mod (such as more consistent CCM values) and introduced the drag and thrust overhaul i'd been working on to the SA3. Key changes: All M61/M39 20mm rounds -Drag reverted, error in research on my end. Added MK141 APDS-HE-T shell for American Phalanx CIWS: -Velocity increased -Red Tracer used -Drag reduced -Dispersion set to realistic levels. Added specific shell for M117 -Dispersion set to 13milliradians Adjusted Dispersion of Russian CIWS down substantially. -From 20+ milliradians down to 10, better aligns with video evidence -From said videos noticed some used red tracers other yellow, compromised with the HE mix being yellow and AP red (seems to be a timeperiod discrepancy) ---------------MISSILES---------- S-125 GOA-B (SA-3B) -Renamed too "5V27 GOA Mod.1 (SA-3B)" -Adjusted PN coefs (removed due to issues causing the missile to not exceed 2-4 g's no matter the setting) -Adjusted thrust -Adjusted drag -Adjusted missile weight -Adjusted Autopilot delay -Adjusted maneuvering performance -Adjusted CCM SM2 -Renamed too "RIM-66M-2 (SM-2MR)" -Adjusted PN coefs -Adjusted thrust -Adjusted drag -Adjusted maneuvering performance -Adjusted CCM SA2 -Adjusted Aiming error radius -Adjusted Max G, down to 6 from 17 -Adjusted PN coefs to give missile 'half lead' targeting -Second stage smokiness increased -Adjusted CCM 48N6 -Gave same drag profile as 5V55R -Adjusted CCM full git changelog: https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release/-/commit/94f9338d1a7601aecc7d7768e9f187076642943e

The more modern Sparrows, homed in on a PD signal. Starting from the F-model and up. With the M and up only capable of homing in on a PD based signal due to the monopulse seeker being incompatible with a CW signal. This is why they removed the CW transmitters on the F15s not to long after it was introduced. Instead the main radar injects the necessary signal into its own tracking pulses with a very high prf and duty cycle (goes by ICW or CWI). The reason TWS can't support a SARH missile is it isn't constantly illuminating the target. Yes for missiles such as the SM2 it only needs this constant illumination in the terminal phase (last 10 seconds or so) but it still needs it to hit. Without it TWS does not provide enough reflected energy for the weapon to home in on.

IIRC the high pitched tone should be the launch warning with the lower pitched one at 3:40 for example the lock tone currently in use.

From my own comparisons DCS is on the right track IMHO it is still to draggy as placing the thrust values from DCS into 'that other sim' results in (C3 - Standard 'that other game' values) (C5 - DCS thrust) The biggest issue now is guidance not that drag is still most likely high. But fundamentally guidance issues made the drag issues worse, especially the high lift induced drag. The biggest improvements to the amraam will be the addition of: - Optimal control theory - English Bias commands - A more variable PN structure that can take altitude into account as it does on the AIM-7E/D - Kalman filters - Reworked chaff - High prf search - Medium PRF tracking (significantly smaller notch than high prf) - Proper INS guidance (no more magic ins - note may have already been fixed) Note AIM-7 doc is called "Summary of Navy Study Program For F4H-1 Weapon System". From August of 1960. It was declassified and made unrestricted in 1966.

Hmm try deleting your FXO and MetaShaders 2 folders in your user/username/SavedGames/DCSOB folder and see if that helps. It has done wonders in the past.

Are they just the backed in textures or has the some lighting effects not being seen in the cockpit/on aircraft + nav lights view distance also been fixed? edit found this so probably not:

Np I should go back down the chaff rabbit hole I found a ton of stuff on it and CCM's against it but I just haven't had the time to read much of it.

Agreed plus one has to keep in mind unless the chaff is at the specific cut length (and orientation) for the radar its countering its effectiveness falls off exponentially. For example this is from a doc called Chaff Countermeasures and Air Defense design, which was declassified in the 70's and is not restricted in any way. As you can see each specific cut works really well for only a really small set of frequencies. I have a doc somewhere (need to find it) with a similar chart to the above for the chaff used by navy aircraft in - I believe - the late 80's to mid 90's. And even though it covered a broader spectrum of frequencies it still had the issues of frequencies where it had limited effectiveness. Also with chaff bundles one has to wonder how long does it remain in a cloud with enough density to prevent radar signals from effectively passing through them? Especially for the small bundles used in aircraft self protection. Additionally as far as I understand it the effect you see is more of a range of Doppler shifts instead of a point target: -from same doc as above image I need to read the document again but I believe this was the basis for some filtering techniques that were proposed for Air to Air radars.

Yeah I've seen the above as well no mods installed. I reported this in the general bugs section a while ago but it was never responded to.