p1t1o

To be honest Ive tried both weapons and been blown up by both, but had best results with the technique shown. @Holbeach Have you tried staying at altitude and turning off-axis (or split-S and carry on in direction of ingress whilst bomb flies "over the shoulder") on egress? The bomb is chasing (travelling laterally in the same direction as your escape) you in the video and you spend time and distance by hitting the deck on the way out. You're faster up high and the bomb is, again, following you down. And vertically slanted flightpath takes longer to cover more ground distance, it can add up. The only other option is high alt level bombing. *** One should note that during the cold war, there were some missions that were not really expected to come back, this isnt *necessarily* a realism problem. Another good example are nuclear torpedos that existed during the cold war, they were basically suicide for the launching sub.

Try this: You dont need to be accurate with these weapons and this can give you the opportunity to escape. Ingress fast and low, pull up hard just as the target passes under you, release just after you pass vertical, then bug out AFAP. Keep your height as this increases distance between you and the burst. Some might say a drag chute and survivability are linked somehow. Some also might say that a nuke being a danger to the delivery aircraft is realistic.

Not necessarily. This type of shaking is caused by resonance, which means that vibrations of a certain frequency are amplified. If you change something about the system (such as the flexibility of the system such as releasing brakes, or, hypothetically, the length of the pitot tube) then the frequency band are which resonance occurs can change, so the vibration of things stops being amplified. Or if the frequency of vibration changes (such as if engine RPM is altered) then the vibration can move out of the resonant band, de-amplifying it.

This is not logical. If this were the case it would apply to pitch as well. And the only reason Im not 100% equivocally saying that the Hornet has a roll rate sensor is because I dont have the actually manufacturing data in front of me, but how on earth could it not have one? There are so many systems that depend on it, attitude hold, radar antenna (always stabilised in the horizontal), inertial navigation etc etc...I mean, you stare through a roll indicator the entire time you are in the plane (pitch ladder in the HUD). How can these systems work without intimate digital knowledge of roll angle and roll rate? That being said, I cant explain why there' no auto-roll-trim either. This from an F16 driver: "The roll rate trim still seemed sensitive to asymmetric loads more than I would have thought, but the Viper was less sensitive to uncommanded roll when dropping a big egg off of one side than anything I ever flew and dropped bombs from. OTOH, when my LEF folded up, the FLCS tried to help me and I did not go into an uncontrolled roll or yaw. I still had to trim all the way and hold fifteen or sixteen pounds of pressure, but I am fairly sure the FLCS control laws were not designed to work properly with such a drastic "modification" to the aero properties the jet and I were experiencing."

p1t1o probably thinks that he is catching quite a lot of stick for disagreeing with the statement that the GAU8 can reliably disable or kill "any tanks on the planet". The T55 was the 1970-era tank I was referring to as one of the last pedigree of tanks that could be reliably destroyed by a GAU8. And the T55 is a pretty fricken old tank! In service 1959! I even went so far as to say that I agree that the DCS damage model sill makes the GAU8 a little weak. *** Isnt it a bit much - a bit fanboyish - to insist that the GAU8 can kill *anything*? Thought this was a sim crowd that cared about accuracy...

Sure, its not gonna be good for the tank. And sure, killing a tank - even a modern MBT with enough luck and bullets - with a GAU8 is far from impossible. But theres no justification at all for saying that a rear shot can kill "any tanks on the planet", thats just misinformation. It doesnt matter how close you shoot, 30mm is still 30mm. You have to go way back into the 1970's to find a tank with rear armour thin enough to be *reliably* penetrated (remember A-10A initial service entry wasnt until 1977). Add on to this the near-impossibility of achieving a perpendicular impact. So even in its prime, this gun was only just a "tank killer" (other types of "mission kill" notwithstanding) Thats not to say that in DCS, the GAU8 could stand to be a little more effective against something like a T-55, but then who knows, has anyone actually seen the effects it has on a T-55 in a real-world setting?

Frankly, because of the business model and the way it is marketed to us, they need to maintain BS2 even if they discontinue sales. Otherwise they are saying there is a timer on every module, and when it runs out, you wont be able to fly them anymore (without maintaining an old computer running an old version of DCS:World - and even then this would compromise the feature of having different modules fly together) Whether or not they are *obligated* to do this is another matter, it all comes down to resource. If they are going to get more benefit from assigning staff to a new module, or working on DCS:World environment, rather than updating an old omodule, I wouldnt expect it to ever happen, regardless of how peeved we are about our purchases. TBH Ka-50 needs a marketing push as well as a quality pass, it is still the most advanced combat-heli sim available, even now. I cant believe there isnt a fresh generation of interested individuals who would be keen to pick it up.

1 - The Ka50 definitely should be given a once-over to update it to DCS 2.5 The whole deal behind DCS World + modules is that you add the planes you want and the world is there for everybody. Obivoulsy DCS:W is updated to keep up with graphical advances and modern computers. Are we going to lose the Hog in DCS:3.0? 3rd party modules in 4.5? At some point 1.5 will become unworkable on contemporary machines, we cannot be expected to maintain older versions ourselves. No, they must keep the older full modules forwards-compatible, otherwise you are renting the module for a finite time, and not actually purchasing anything. Im not asking for major content additions, just that they work. Bugs at release i can handle. NEW bugs introduced down the line are not really acceptable unless dealt with. The Ka50 might be the oldest module, but it IS still the most advanced combat-heli sim available to the general public. If they gave it a polish, brought it up to standard, they could easily generate a new influx of sales. (And Im very impressed with the numbers of people that apparently seem to have in-depth knowledge of module sales figures) 2 - different topic. The Shkval might be bugged but if you are flying the Ka50 ANYWHERE NEAR airborne threats, you are not using it at all correctly. May as well take the Hog into high altitude BVR engagement (or you want AMRAAMs on that too?). Get shot down by a fast mover and you have nobody to blame but the person who setup the mission. Ideas like "its experimental why not stick XYZ weapons on it?" are not in keeping with this being a "sim". FYI, its not exactly fully "experimental", those few airframes that exist are in active frontline service.

/thread

Uh-huh...

Colour me surprised! Makes sense. Is this based on knowledge of events/equipment, or is it an attempt to explain the behavior we are seeing in DCS? It does seem like a pretty YUGE weakness of air-to-air radar - so much that Im surprised that I dont drop MORE locks - that I've never heard of before, it would seem significant enough to be a major problem in pretty much all modern air combat then? Is it a well characterised problem for those people who work in the field? I dont mean side lobes, I mean the filters making it hard to maintain locks. I think i said before, I dont see it as very likely that DCS is simulating side lobe effects.

Not for nothing, but when Im in an M2000, I am very rarely matching speeds with a 250kt C-130 target. And still dropping locks. I was never really talking about an "iso-speed" engagement, only answering queries about approaching from the rear quarter. I'd also be very surprised to learn that "side-lobe filtering" was simulated in DCS, given the simplicity (no criticism) of the simulation of things like ECM, countermeasures etc. Any chance, to avoid me having to learn an entirely new field and perhaps acquiring the wrong information, you could explain in a few sentences how "side lobe" = dropping locks from "iso speed" targets? Cheers! :)

No worries :) Though I cant think of any reason why, from a moving vehicle, you'd want to filter out returns with zero doppler shift. Besides which, in my example mission, the target is a slow-mover which i made no effort to match speeds with, its unlikely that I ever spent much time at zero doppler shift. Certainly not often enough to explain the difficulty in maintaining a lock. Im still going with "bug" at this point.

That is an incorrect description of look-down-shoot-down pulse doppler radar. A doppler radar can detect a stationary, or relative-stationary target with no problem, regardless of doppler shift. What a look-down-shoot-down pulse doppler radar does is filter out returns that are stationary with respect to the ground - this is why "notching" works, because the closing speed is equal to your airspeed and the contact is stationary (in distance terms) with respect to the ground. In all other situations, the contact would not be filtered. If the radar was filtering out contacts that are at zero closing speed, then zero percent of ground clutter would be ignored, defeating the object.

Generally speaking, yes. Though I have heard little about radar having a susceptibility to dropping tracks from the rear quarter. Is it expected behavior? Cant post a track at the minute, but I have little faith in them anyway these days, in tracks my aircraft do not often make it off the runway. Next time Im flying I'll try and remember to save one.

I consistently - not every time but often - lose lock on a "training" mission I set up. The target is a friendly C-130 set not to react to any incoming fire flying at roughly 250-ish kts at roughly 6-7k feet, flying in a straight line. No countermeasures, no evasive maneuvering, no ECM, within 10km of my aircraft. Whether above, below or at same alt, and definitely NOT beaming, locks will drop with infuriating regularity. Definitely feels like buggy behavior to me.

Im 100% certain that forum comments are exceedingly easy to ignore, backseat moderating is just so...unseemly. I've even seen people say things like "Dont suggest that! They should work on something else!" as if the devs have no choice but to hold forum comments as ironclad orders. If someone posts something you dont agree with, just let it die, posting just bumps the thread.

Coupla questions: 1) In the campaign menu there are several entries. One is the Georgian Campaign. Then there are three others called "chapter 1", "chapter 2" etc. What is the deal? Is it 4 chapters? Or two campaigns - one standalone and one in 3 parts? 2) In the [standalone] Georgian campaign, the first mission has 7m/s wind at "ground" and 30m/s wind at 2000m. First off - 30m/s!? That is around 70mph, now I looked it up, winds at altitude can go VERY fast, can be over 200kts in a jet stream. But 30m/s at 2000m IS exceptional. Whats the deal? Why so fast? Would attack helicopters be deployed in 70mph winds? Or am I expected to stay low where the wind is less. Now I tried the mission, and probably never went over 200m, but yaw was out of control. When I tried to come to a hover, initiating hover hold at as low a speed as possible, I would drift quickly. Thats the wind, so far, so sensible. But not for love nor money could I make the chopper stop spinning. I was expecting it to "weather cock" into the wind, but it wouldn't settle. In zero-wind training conditions, I have never had this problem, so I assume it is the wind and my lack of knowledge of how to properly pilot in these conditions. But is this mission supposed to be so difficult? Or do I just need to learn how to fly it right? For reference, I generally fly around with 3 axis stabs on, alt stab off, FD off. I will turn heading or alt hold on and off depending on need. At one point, I managed to get heading hold to stabilise my headin gin a certain direction, but I was drifting sideways at around 50-60 kmh and any effort to correct this would set up a spin again, I was unable to regain a stabilised heading. At no point did hover-hold appear to be doing anything. It seems, to my inexperienced hand, that the wind was totally overwhelming the APs ability to counter. Any insights into this missions? Any tips on flying in [very] high winds? What altitude envelope does the "ground" wind refer to? Thanks! P

Regarding the Super 530, and you may already know this, but just in case: Pete's Tip-Top-Tip (that he just recently learned himself on these forums) - The "TIR"/double-rings HUD cue that shows when you are using AA missiles appears at Max probability of a hit, NOT max range. You can fire before this. You can get 18-20nm out of the 530. Until I found that out, I was very disappointed that its "range" (actually the distance of max Pk) was only 6-8nm.

These keybindings can even be programmed into an axis to give a slider an incremental function.

I kinda agree, except... Well Falcon's graphics are barf. But beyond that, in DCS we have a spotting problem, which is heavily related to graphics realism. Some of this is down to, say, the complete lack of a thermal layer, so we dont really have functional IR sensors. But the biggest issue is just the difficulty of spotting a tank sitting in a grass field, even with a targetting pod from 2nm an 5kft. So to fix this, you improve the graphics engine. Its a no-brainer that this brings with it higher fidelity graphics. And when realism is the game, there is little point in skimping on visual realism.

Thinking back to the good old days?

IIRC, if you have more than one pair of rocket pods, salvo mode will fire from all of them, rather than in pairs.

What is it that makes it more deadly than an Alamo or Sparrow? *** To update the OP a bit - did some trials, and at 30kft, the missile can hit an AWACS at around 18-20nm - and this was a flanking attack, would be greater in a head-on shot. Im glad Im not the only who didnt know you dont have to wait for the "TIR" cue! *** I see the doppler-reject switch is also on the RDI update list, that would be very interesting...

"I love how DCS is so realistic, I hope they make it more realistic." "Do you think the parachutes are modelled realistically?" "LOL DONT CARE" ??? c'mon