ShadowFrost

I'm not sure what the pathway is for the bomb, but I would go ahead and delete it (the bomb's corresponding file) and then repair and see if that fixes it. Make a copy of it just in case repair doesn't add it back (It should but doesn't hurt to be safe).

I did a quick search through the DCS manual before posting this and found nothing of the like, looking through an actual manual as well which I imagine has it hidden in there somewhere. It would make sense though if that was the cause. Especially because you can run the engine off the engage switch up to about ~1600 RPM. Probably deserves a move to the "not a bug section" lol.

Mags off engine turnover it sounds like combustion. It doesn't run thankfully (for long). Corresponding manifold drop vs no drop when just cranking. My guess is combustion. I know on a hot engine this might happen with primer and fuel, didn't know about a cold engine. Happy to be told otherwise due to special mags or etc. but I'm assuming its a bug. Maglessfire 2 is better as I show both primer and crank (combustion) and no primer and crank (no combustion and no corresponding manifold change). maglessfire.trk maglessfire2.trk

After 10 minutes of idling at 1000 rpm oil pressure/temp show minimal difference. Here is an example with the oil cooler shutters open, but with oil cooler closed results are no different. Cold start mission. Then appears to magically be within limits after a unknown amount of time passes. The gauges on an R1340 and R-985 don't work like that. I imagine its just EA issues, nonetheless, still posted. Edit- Does it have something to do with intercooler? I didn't see anything in startup checklist but I will test as well. Edit2- Tested that as well, it seems around the magic 10 minute mark for a 1000 rpm warmup oil pressure goes to where it should be. I can't say for how long it should take a P-47 to warm up (one imagines not this long) but the instant transition is wrong in my experience. https://streamable.com/fod4mn And a streamable for easier review. oilpressure.trk oilpressure2.trk

To add to the overheating issue, I literally can't get the oil pressure down on ramp or warmed up. Seems like temperature modeling of the engine has some work to be done.

I didn't get kicked for AN65 try verifying files. Could just be an issue that doesn't show up for me, I believe I saw someone else in my session get kicked for it as well.

Yes I understand that, I'll see if its happening for me or not. Give me a few minutes

Not that I've tested your claim, but have you verified files? I would do that and see, sometimes files just become corrupted or the like and don't pass IC.

Something going on with the A20's damage model. Doesn't directly respond to gunfire. https://streamable.com/mak9v7 Track below as well a20damagemodelissue.trk

I highly doubt that is how the phoenix worked(s) as all missiles used to do that and it is a byproduct of DCS. (Specifically, the massive G-pull when turning active) And most still do, the exception being the SD10 and 120 which even then, is quite a recent addition. It will just take time for heatblur to update their modeling to the new API. (Which I actually believe they did once already but ran into some issue) Nothing against Heatblur, they do a great job as well, development just takes time.

Yes we are in agreement, I was more referencing the OP's argument. Looking at the two missiles, it would appear to be the new guidance rules/lofting increasing range (as it should) with the 54 not getting such treatment yet causing the performance miss match. (And I recently did a straight-line comparison, but not as detailed as I have done previously, and found the order of performance mostly the same) Nothing wrong directly with the SD10, 54,or 120 in kinetic performance, just the 54 needs its guidance update to be comparable again.

OF COURSE IT SHOULD, nothing can out-range glorious MK60. (That is sarcasm) I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a kinetic evaluation of the missiles recently to determine if something is actually wrong, or just varying stages of improved guidance causing performance to be difference.... I actually might know a guy that tested this stuff before, maybe I'll go ask him if he's found anything.

I will be following this one....

What aircraft are you flying when you try and detect the JF-17 vs other aircraft? I ran a test in perfect conditions and the JF-17 picked up other aircraft in an order contrary to what you are suggesting. Though disclaimer being, these are AI flown for testing purposes. If there is something going on with player flown aircraft, it will not be shown through my testing. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ietAOAHq5TgAr8FyYzZNoYArioiKJV6Fdd2IqdBGni8/edit?usp=sharing My Results

Using B-52s to launch harpoons at stationary ships, the harpoons use the pop up maneuver too late and overshoot their target. I can get more tracks if necessary, this was just a from a mission I was creating. Harpoon Popup fail.trk

True, but I've had good luck against groups of units. It may miss the intended target and hit another apart of the sam site. Think HAWK/s Patriot formation that are really close together.

Key words, try. No guarantees, but its still going towards its last known location.

Why does it need to be discussed against the harm? It should be discussed against itself and what the flaws are that make it operate potentially erroneously. Having a equivalent is nothing to do with it. The flaws being, IMO, simplistic SAM AI and RCS systems/modeling. Nothing directly related to Deka's modeling as they have more than met the status quo in terms of what is expected in a DCS module currently. That's not to say there aren't issues with the bigger picture, but that's not directly an LD10 fault.

Time to prove the RCS of every weapon in the game. I'm sure someone somewhere has an answer to this. Wait, it wouldn't even make sense to do so because RCS is so simple as it stands. How do they define RCS in DCS? Is it an average? Is it just one angle? Who knows because one number isn't how RCS works.

Exactly, the RCS of the LD10 is that of the 120 (which is normal for DCS, a lot of weapons share/use the same RCS as its a very simple system anyways) it could possibly be moved up to match that of the Aim-7... But even then its a marginal gain and unlikely to fix the problem. For reference, RCS of LD-10 is .0329. RCS of Aim-7 is .0366. (In DCS, real world values unkown) Obviously, the LD10 is similar to Aim-7 in shape. So it would have a similar RCS but possibly not exact due to unknown difference in materials/coating if it was even the exact shape to begin with. But RCS is very simple in DCS anyways. But overall, this isn't so much a issue with the LD-10 itself. But more so, a simplistic AI system for SAMs and a RCS system that is composed of one number per weapon/aircraft which does not account for smaller/larger RCS signatures depending on angle of viewing.

LD-10 has some form of INS so it will try to hit the target still. IIRC

Sounds like we need an option as to whether our engine has been pre-warmed or not. Because, one set of operational conditions is not applicable to everything in DCS.

I know it's probably not always the case, but with a module that isn't released you have more incentive to work so I feel things get done sooner than the EA route. But +1 Deka did great, lets hope Truegrit do as well.

Yeah I completely get that as well, but they need to show things from time to time or people start thinking they've disappeared or etc. and the uncertainty would hurt current sales. But ideally, yes they dont show us something that is more than 1-1.5 years out. There is a reason, most big games due advertising in a year to 9 months cycles. When you start getting over a year its very difficult to keep people interested.

Probably to avoid backlash that comes with missing any set date, even when they say something along the lines of "targeting this, but no promises". I agree I would like more information, but when they give us more information and then situations change causing that information to be inaccurate, people take to forums/reddit causing a bit of a mess. But hopefully, they do give us some information on the damage model, and assets. IIRC, nineline said something about them building x-ray models for damage model of some AI aircraft not too far back. (A few days ago) I also imagine they will want to release it close to, or alongside the P-47 (pure speculation on my end, but it makes sense business wise) so if we get more news about the 47, I imagine damage model is close to follow.