nighthawk2174

Ummmm if you look at the video he is not 15 degrees nose up just looking at the elevation of the radar antenna tells us this: Additionally the moment it flashes to his hud (right before the splash call) we can see he is just above 23.5K ft with an airspeed of just under 300kts (although this may have dropped a bit since he had begun maneuvering). Can I also add that at 2.0 Nmi in-game the missile actually misses in the above scenario.

I've seen this on other jets as well such as the F5 and F18 so I don't know if its a jeff specific problem, the having different missiles then they actually have.

The one thing i'm curious about is why both the 120B and 120C lost somewhere on the order of 300ish kts to their top speeds? Seems a bit to have such a drastic change especially when the drag was somewhat reduced overal. And the thrust values that were being used where probably about as nailed down as public information would allow.

Ok seems reasonable for a heli from that aspect, now of course in DCS as you noted this number is a bit high. Maybe something worth investigating is a rework of some of these values?

was it indicated if this value was max possible? Or was it more along the lines of max head on?

Quick fix for HARM lofting, forgot to reset it back to default after testing. Fix is up live. https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release

Updated the mod to V1.1 ----------------------------------------------- V1.1 -F86F M3 heat effect reduced substantially -Updated AIM-120B|C lift curves to ED standard -Fixed AIM-120B lifetime (up to 80sec from 40sec) -slight adjustments to DLZ in FC3 aircraft for AIM-120 and AI launch paramaters R24 series AGM-88: -New Drag curve -New Motor Data https://gitlab.com/Nighthawk2174/nhawk---weapons-mod-public-release

Probably but it does seem it may be a bit buggy at the moment according to that other thread.

Yeah DCS's R60 performance in terms of kinematic range isn't awful, my own CFD results matched almost exactly with ED's current implementation so the range is good imo. In terms of seeker range its hard to say i personally havn't seen anything saying DCS's representation of the R60/60M seekers are wrong in terms of range not this Additionally: I'm wondering does a chart like this exist for the SU-27? I'd base the relative range values off of how these charts compare to the baseline.

For the R-60, the original non cooled variant someone in another thread posted these: could be worth looking at. Additionally how are the IR signature values calculated? What do the values mean?

I'm not sure if this is a bug so i'm asking here but I've noticed you can't get an area track when the area your trying to track is more than 21NMi's away. Is this accurate?

ehh we know how they work on a basic level, I think there's even a doc out there with the code used on an older one, it isn't exactly a state secret its more the limitations of a particular system or its effectiveness that's classified. For example RWR's tell you've been launched on by the change in the PRF when the missile is launched. In order to support the missile you often need a really high PRF. I was just reading the other day that the 23MLA's tracking is 5khz with the missile channel at 100khz. (or mhz forgot if it was mhz or khz). As you can tell there is a dramatic difference in PRF which a rwr would be able to distinguish and then trigger a audible warning in the cockpit.

I have my doubts, serious serious serious, doubts that the bullets not hitting exactly where they should is what we're seeing. And even if we compensate for the massive difference seen. What is the difference? A couple of inches, a foot? That still can't fix how off the dispersion is, we're talking in terms of 100's of percent off not 5 or even 10. In particular for the CIWS vulcun. For the 100% Vulcun and the 80&100% Gau8. I already did tests where I pulled data from tacview showing how off dispersion is. Beyond that there is plenty of documentation and video evidence to compare too as well. Lets take this again: And lets also assume that .0022*8*1000 is infact an accurate representation of the 100% circle... well that's still a 57% difference in 100% circle size for the vulcun. And with the dispersion from my tests that's 220%+ difference. Now with the above stats from the 15's -34-1-1 those numbers rise to 220% and 275%+ respectively. And if we take the CIWS dispersion to be sub 1mill lets call it .8 that's a difference of 2200% and 2750+% respectively.

Wikipedia is inccorect here, yes older US jets used a CW transimiter. But latter on in US jets and the russians from the 60's either had missiles that home in on a high PRF PD signal (us jets after the F4) or used what's called CWI (Russian jets and flood mode for US). CWI is a PD signal with a really high/low (forgot which word works best) duty cycle. Command guidance was largely used on the older SAM systems I have pics of a good explanation here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4044289&postcount=6

Geez since 2012... Thanks for the links though i'll have to check out the workaround.

Before my post I just want to add more data to the pile, thank you too MrTheOx once again for more information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And i'll bet a decent sum of money when you ask about dispersion the value the'll give you is 5mills and 13mills, and for the vulcun something like 6mills and 10mills. +- a bit depending on the jet. F15C for example: Additionally what about CIWS? It is my humble oponion no reasonable person would call DCS an accurate representation for the CIWS guns. Any news on that being looked at? In conclusion I have become convinced this is what happened:

Can't wait to see the rest of the checklist walked through! Hopefully you'll post your full list as well.

Now if its a jet: I'd love to see a full fidelity F15C. It is the last teen series fighter to not be made full fidelity and I see it as the most likely candidate. I don't think its the F4E as that has already been announced so I doubt it would fit the mind blowing category. If it isn't the 15C that really only leaves a spattering of 50's fighters like the 104 for the US. For Russia we still don't have a modern fighter like the 29 although ED has in the past said they can't make it and its up to third parties like razbam with the MIG-19 and MIG-23. If it isn't a 15C i'm actually leaning towards a European aircraft like the tornado being it. hmm what do people think of the chances of it being a bomber like the 52? If its a heli: I see the cobra or Apache a model as the most likely candidates as one had been in the works and the other the legendary attack heli and arguably either in my eyes would act as the counterpart to the hind.

A-10C piper inaccurate with HEI So I was doing some testing with HEI and noticed that even with the piper right on the target and ammo set to HEI: the shells landed: Maybe something worth looking into?

Agreed even though the major point of this thread is the question of bullet drag dispersion differences can clearly be seen in the video.

I really don’t see why ED made this change in the first place, especially as it’s quite easy to see the big difference, and not make it an option to use the old system for traci ir. It surly can’t be too difficult to just make a special option that changes the view Kia to the old settings.

Adding this as this is additional documentation on this matter, thanks to MrTheOx on reddit for this:

thanks for the mention of my post, this really does need fixed especially for the older missiles like the SA2 and SA3.

Yeah anything beyond the C5 (what we have right now) is just way to classified to hope to get any kind of reliable stats on. Hec I don't even know if the D is the same size as the C models.

Agreed, if it is actually a module it should be peaceable in the ME, not usable but at minimum placeable.