ShadowFrost

I would love to see a track of it doing this. Thanks

There is an amount of error to the LD10 as it gets slower which with it's smaller warhead can prevent substantial damage from being inflicted on the target. There is also an issue with the SA11 unit not taking damage from the LD10 at times. Other than that, a track file will be very helpful. In PAS/SP the LD10 is a rather short range missile compared to other ARMs in DCS. In ACT if you are high and fast enough it has reasonably good range.

Mostly agreed, however, in the DCS environment, a small amount over redline ~5C could likely be ran for the duration of the sortie on a fresh engine and only be a maintenance concern otherwise. IRL (not WW2) I know of radials being ran near or at oil redline at METO for a significantly longer duration than allowed without adverse effect. Obviously not something you would want to do often... but the situation neccesitated it. Though this is second hand knowledge so take it with a degree of error. However, larger overtemps will reach the thermal breakdown point as the oil is 30-50C hotter than indicated within certain areas of the engine and 270F is generally regarded as the breakdown point for mineral oils. So at that point... the longer you run the larger your risk of a critical component having oil that cannot do the job intended. But generally speaking that can and should be avoided.

The number of engines I've seen die in racing would likely say otherwise... But in the traditional sense.. Yes high oil temp is indicative of another issue and will not be your primary threat to engine failure for aircraft. Not sure why I didn't think of using active pause on the ground. Thanks

I have not looked at the tracks involved in this thread. But for reference, the P-51 can survive at least 7 minutes of oil overtemp on the ground. So 50 inches max rpm (higher power setting will nose over) for approximately 7 minutes once passing redline of the oil.

Since this applies to other aircraft and probably all under the new temperature model I'll just add this data bit here for consideration. Most mineral aviation oils start to thermally breakdown near 270F so at that point you will see a rather extreme drop off in lubricating performance. If the temp gauge indicates 100C the temperature reading is likely near 212F at the oil temp pickup point. Internally, the oil will be anywhere between 30-60 degrees hotter (f) within the engine at specific points. Brand new engines and even used WW2 engines IRL have been known to take serious punishment and modest overheats (generally water coolant). For the purposes of DCS I don't imagine you should have much issue running an engine excessively hard below this oil limit, however, above this limit you are entering dangerous territory for once the degraded oil reaches a critical component it will likely serious damage the engine within a short period of time. The oil temp limit is especially important. Coolant less so. But generally speaking, if you keep an engine within temperature limits you should be able to run it as hard as you like. Sure, there are other factors like shock cooling an engine (radials) but most things are maintenance concerns and really don't impact DCS. Edit- There is an assumption here that a temperature between 212 and ~270 F (the thermal breakdown point) is not critical. It could be very possible that a temperature within this range reduces the oil beneath the minimum needed lubrication amount and can accelerate wear/damage the engine before reaching the 270F/thermal breakdown point. This is a possibility, however, this is unknowable to me. The oil would almost certainly reach this limit at the thermal breakdown limit if it has not reached such a limit sooner.

Copy, PAS mode. Thanks

Appreciate it, what changed between the first two and the last shot? As the oscillation only appears in the last shot as far as I can tell. Which mode did you fire in? Thanks

Under what conditions does it encounter the oscillations? We had seen this in testing and had believed it to be fixed.

Once people get over the MK60 motor performance reductions... which aren't that great in combination with the new lofting. You will need to keep the aim-54s at high altitude for optimum results... but they can still make 100 mile shots under the right conditions. I think you will find that the Cs are fairly more deadly in practice in a multiplayer environment than before.

A track would be lovely if you have one. Thanks

Fairly certain it is a known bug and being investigated. Does this still happen?

I'm not disagreeing, I quote "That being said, there have been more than a few times I've flamed out unnecessarily due to wake turbulence in MP. " and created a bug report about it.

I'd argue its hard to make that comparison as its not apples to apples. As DCS pilots will generally fly their planes much more aggressively or in wrong envelopes/techniques. That being said, there have been more than a few times I've flamed out unnecessarily due to wake turbulence in MP.

The inflight restart procedure generally looks something like this "idle, in-flight relight control forward, trim for airspeed, wait for restart, push throttle forward". If you use the starter button with the engine turning... it may restart.... but you will and should break your starter.

Obviously its going to be this. Just may have to wait ~10 years

It is not an aerodynamic problem. Guidance showed that the LD10 had a issue in terms of control authority at slower speeds with low angles of approach. SP likely encountered this more often than PAS mode due to it taking a direct line to target where as PAS (depending on the distance) could take several seconds before beginning its descent towards target due to later target aquisition. If you see anything other than the above example of low speed & low angle misses, additional data would be nice in ensuring there aren't separate issues at play.

Unfortunately, I still do not understand what you are getting at. Not once do I mention the kinetic performance of current vs past as I have no data to make an argument from.

Its very important to have data (tracks) because if you say you miss and I say I hit there are many, many parameters that go into why one launch was successful and why one was not. How do I know you actually have a problem instead of firing outside of useful range? Or maybe an issue exists but it only shows itself when firing from a extremely slow or fast airspeed. I cannot test for all possible variables therefore a track is extremely valuable to confirm that the particular issue you are seeing is addressed. I have mentioned possible areas of improvement in regards to the current guidance that could be causing issues (besides kinetic performance, I can make no comments to the kinetic performance as I do not have the data) that can possibly be optimized. Past that, without additional data showing areas of concern I can not make anymore conclusions. As discussed above, failing to effectively guide and hit the target from a low angle has been noted.

I have taken a fairly in-depth look at the tracks and recreation on my own end in singleplayer. I would start by saying (for the original poster) you are firing on quite the limit of range for the weapon as it is currently. Lofting is important and you have done this. However, with both the HARM and the LD10 as they slow down they will not aggressively correct to keep on the proper intercept course and will fall short of their target with a margin of airspeed remaining. I will pass this aspect on but there may be reasons or limitations for this existing. Due to the nature of the LD10 vs the HARM and the HARM's comparative energy retention this "trait" is far more prevalent in the LD10 than the HARM. Adding to that, there is a marginal performance difference between the LD10 and SD10. It is worth approximately 1.5-2 miles on a 5,000ft ~mach .8 shot. So approximately 10-15% range difference. Why this exists may be down to a few reasons, the SD-10's level autopilot, the erratic G-behavior of the LD10 (it wobbles around at times), or another issue. The LD10 works currently but you must apply it in a way that it does not arrive to the target with a low energy state and fall below the "glideslope" of the target for effective employment. Otherwise than that, I will mention the aspects above to people who know more.

Tracks would be appreciated, also valuable would be a quick answer to whether or not you were flying in multiplayer. Also I will assume no IADs scripts are being used unless told otherwise.

DCS does not heavily model ECM, mechanical reliability, or any additional number of factors that are likely to reduce PK of a real world missile but are not present in the DCS environment (unless you know exactly how the IRL missiles failed to reach their target and can precisely replicate that within the simulator, then that would be a fairer argument). In DCS the aircraft and weapons have been generally assumed to be on their best day without incorporating the above factors so assuming launch parameters and defensive techniques are comparable to IRL... DCS should see a marginally (debatable as to how much higher) higher PK. Lastly, there is the unknown standard of pilot training in DCS. Should we account for shots that were not in range in the PK when this is less likely of an occurrence IRL? I think without additional data and controlled parameters it is unwise to argue on that stance alone.

Yes, there is an issue where you may have to recycle the waypoint for the new coordinates to load. (Not cursor zero) But this should be relatively infrequent. If this issue is occurring often it is likely due to operational error. (More data needed) The above however sounds like a cursor zero (maybe cycling issue if infrequent). A track file is needed to know more. Also ensure you are entering correct ground elevation.

The aircraft FBW does not protect from a departure with relatively harsh rudder input. Likewise, this could be correct as is as I am close to the (or slightly past) the acceptable limits. Just reporting plausibly suspicious behavior. Did not exist in previous builds but is also very difficult to recreate. If ED has additional tools from the track file they can determine whether it is pilot stupidity (FLCS overload) or another issue at play. Edit- It should be noted that the last (known) pilot input was in the vertical before the spins. Everything after the initial rudder command was more or less uncontrolled/commanded and unrecoverable due to altitude. More info. 8.5G pull 15-16 units of AOA before departure from controlled flight. https://streamable.com/rhoxzp Stability.trk

Hypothetically, yes, it would be damaging the tires through sliding (not sure how much the aircraft weighs at this point) but nowhere close to the point of failure. The sliding action is something I wouldn't imagine a crew chief wouldn't be very appreciative of the pilot overtime (sortie after sortie throughout the lifecycle on an aircraft) but not something that would destroy the tires unless you did it for hours upon hours. So in regards to the DCS simulation... procedurally you should not do the above if you are attempting to imitate reality.... but doing so won't cause any noticeable damage to the tires because of the time period it would take to noticeably damage a tire through this action and the fact you have a "new" aircraft every time you fly. However, I could very well be wrong... See below notes. Note, not a helicopter pilot. However, I am a student pilot so I am somewhat familiar with aviation wheels on general aviation aircraft (which may be apples to oranges for all I know in this example). But, my input comes from vehicle racing and flat spotting/destroying tires under braking without ABS. Which has to be done at a high speed and generally (at least by experienced drivers) only results in an very uncomfortable vibration that can result in other items failing, driver discomfort, and in serve cases which are quite unusual, tire failure.