nighthawk2174

Yeah if the host goes down the whole network goes down. But I was the host and was observing all of this. Same observations even with other people hosting.

Me and a friend have been flying the jeff for a couple of dozen hours in MP and have noticed some weirdness with the datalink: - Some targets never show up. It is not uncommon for some targets just to never how up on someone's datalink. You can see them, have them STT'd yet the other person doesn't see them on their HSD. - Sometimes a target you have either in TWS, SAM, or even STT won't show up on your own HSD. - In addition to this when it does show up there are times when the position of the target and heading is not what it really is. It differs from the radar, often quite drastically. - Some targets just stop updating. Even though their being seen by someone in the network such as an AWACS their position will just stop updating for quite some time. Usually ending with it fading off of the datalink. -Something else we've noticed is that occasionally a target would be getting regular updates but then just disappear off the data even though they are being targeted by someone else. - We've also noticed some targets just take forever to get their position updated, far longer than it should. Other times they just disappear as noted above this more concerns that someone has a bandit in TWS or STT yet on my HSD it may be 5-10 seconds between updates.

hmm interesting never knew this.

I do have to wonder though how feasible would a full fidelity Japanese aircraft even be? From my understanding the overwhelming majority of the documents related to anything military in Japan was burned right before/after their surrender. So is there even enough info left/SME's left to be able to make a high fidelity aircraft?

The seekers on said missiles are monopulse seekers and not the Cassegrain antenna on the slotback radar so they don't have this limitation. Also from my understanding the sidelobe radiation that blinds the antenna at extreme angles does so by increasing the base noise level to a point it can't see anything because the horn that blocks this radiation isn't on the antenna gimbals.

Imo, its because chaff acts like flares in game not like chaff. Probs a leftover from LOMAC if not the Flanker 2.0 days. - This is accurate behavior for the slotback radars. Their cones can't rotate fully due to the design of the radar cone. And as far as i'm aware this blinds the radar largely due to sidelobe radiation, i'll need to read up on it again to be sure. Ehh from my own CFD the performance gain for the ER/ET (R/T are quite bad) isn't as much as I think you think it is. Besides the ER will always be fundamentally limited by the fact its a SARH missile compared to the amraam.

Question I have is if the art on the radar is showing what is happening accurately, because if so, then that 13 bar scan would explain a lot.

I agree with that since the last update the radar is not detecting targets as well as it did in the first few patches after launch.

CFD is a powerful tool: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A/view?usp=sharing

Biggest issue now is it seems last update for whatever reason the thrust was reduced slightly along with other drag changes which gave it a more appropriate drag curve (as in how quickly it slows down although imo its still a touch to draggy based off of my own CFD and IASGATG's CFD. But most importantly it lost ~300kts in terms of max speed from before. Beyond this the chaff resistance of all missiles (not just the amraam) is way too low. The size of the notch is too big. And the guidance is some wired form of pure in some situations and a bit of lead in others, not the Optimal control guidance law that it should have. The SD10 actually suffers from this worse than the amraam as it seems to be very susceptible to chaff and have an even larger notch.

Almost seems like they guide like SARH, without a launch warning and without the need for a radar lock, until they get close, then the enemy gets an active missile warning. Although will see if they ever fix it it' been years and years and years that they've behaved like this. Probably an artifact from the LOMAC days.

Sort of and yes. Detection ranges often depend on how big of an RCS you decide to base that max detection range off of. Now for missile ranges a really good example is the SA10 I would say has ~50 less range than it probably should.

I think the SU15 would be a really cool jet to do would love to see it in the game.

From my understanding you can tweak the g-performance of the pilot for each jet. I remember that a while ago, I think it was belsimtek, fixed a bug where either the mig15 or F86 piolt couldn't handle any g's at all.

F was the first in the new line of sparrows from the previous gen. It got the new MK56 motor which is shared by the rest of the sparrows. It got a new seeker that allowed it home in on PD waveform as well as CW. And got a slew of massive electronics upgrades. The M was next and got a new monopulse seeker and nosecone that increased its lock on ranges and effectiveness, along with giving it HOJ. Although it became incompatible with CW as a guidance method. The MH is a slightly upgraded M variant with parts from a AIM-7P. These were all electronic and improved the CCM resistance and gave the missile lofting logic. Now in the code the F model has a really low chaff resistance (FAR lower than it should be) but is identical to the rest in every other way. The M has much better chaff resistance but is identical to the F in kinematics. The MH has the best chaff resistance and can loft, even if the loft in DCS makes the missile useless. But once fixed this will be the best sparrow variant.

So something that I've seen a few times now over the past month or so is this: - actual loadout is 2 PL5E and 4 SD10. Obviously some kind of dysnc. I've seen it happen on a 18, 16, and a 14. As well as the JF17 in the pic above.

Not to mention that by 06 the 120C7 had come online and its supposed to have similar range to the phoneix, not to mention the 120D was in development which improved upon the already impressive range.

I thought that was fixed a couple of patches ago. It not working for you?

When a radar tracks something it isn't a like a laser beam often there is a cone often in the range of .5 - 2°'s in size. And if your in that cone you'll get the launch warning/lock tone same as everyone else. That being said I think that in DCS you get the warnings way to far outside of the cones but i'd need to test first. Additionally from my understanding of RWR's what trigers a lock warning/launch tone is not necessarily a change in power but a stark change in the PRF of a radar.

Yeah well it is a SARH missile so the amraam even if it is incredible buggy and slower than it should be, right now still has that decisive advantage.

no they weren't deploying chaff

So something that seems to have become a regular occurrence is: that after a short while tons and tons of ghost contacts will start spiting out of real tws contacts in random directions. (All the contacts behind the two groups marked as 1&2 and the one quite close to the bottom of the screen) -No jamming -Targets are flying straight and level -It starts to happen after shortly after a tws target is given a priority number. -If a missile is in the air it will start to track the new contact, stop lofting, then stop again, then start tracking the original contact and go back into the loft. Each time jinking hard and killing speed. This is a pretty critical bug as if this doesn't get fixed it will effectively render TWS and by extension the updated phoenix's useless.

certainly doesn't seem like its particularly stealthy half the time.

The reason I posted the drag force graph was to disprove a point. It appears to me that, -as far as I can tell- you seem to think that at the transonic region the rate a missile is losing speed should increase due to the significantly higher CD value than at high supersonic and subsonic speeds. This graph is meant to show that even at these speeds as your slowing down the drag force continues to drop and does not increase or even level out. So even as the CD increases the fact that the squared factor velocity is still falling will ultimately mean that the drag will too even at these high CD values. This is why you don't see this "inversion" at these speeds. Additionally, the difference between the highest point and lowest point of the large drop off (the point where the CD value falls off after its peak value at M1.2) is 175lbs at the top and 67lbs at the bottom... the amount of force is incredibly small (considering how high it gets at high mach numbers). That's also why I posted the resulting speed vs time chart as well to show that it matches (in terms of shape) what we see in DCS and frankly in that other jet sim as well. When looking into terrain the effect this has on PD radars is that it increases the intensity of the background noise which decreases max detection range. But once detected and locked onto maneuvering to place terrain behind you won't break the lock. Rather you either need to break LOS or get into the notch, which when trying to do against a missile that's probably under 5 miles from you would be next to impossible. Partially due to the incredibly high los rates due to the guidance equations. Not to mention if the host aircraft is still providing datalink updates notching ain't going to work at all. But on top of all of that it should be near impossible just due the very small notch's missiles are supposed to have; staying in a notch that's probably in the range of 30-45kts for any period of time that could actually cause the missile to lose you would just be almost impossible.

One thing is that the detection ranges for the 15's radar are definitely less than what they should be, and as far as i'm aware the newer full fidelity jets are on a completely new radar model. As too what it improves/changes I don't think we've ever been told.