ShadowFrost

Also remember, the K4 has more power and different prop so that may not apply as much as it had before. Though I imagine it shouldn't be too far in difference. I forget where, which book it had been, but one of the top German aces said something along the lines of "using full right rudder, some brake and pushing the power up quite rapidly so that the rudder became effective and you did not go off the runway". Not sure who it was exactly, but I'll let you know if I find it again. But thats how I do it in DCS and it works pretty well.

Can agree well said, much better written than anything I had. :thumbup:

Most definitions yes, but it's a classification issue in DCS. If you classify as "bomb" no SAM site will intercept AFAIK. So, certain bombs (with wings or else) need to be classified as "missiles" so they can be intercepted by SAMs as they can have quite long ranges. Edit- Until the SAM system is modified to enable certain bombs to be intercepted.

I'm not sure if it was a fluke or not, but I've seen LS-6s take evasive action to not hit each other. Could just be sheer luck, but they deviated from flight plan after being dropped to avoid one another. So its potentially even harder to collide than one might imagine.

Yeah I agree, that's why I am against them being classified as "bomb". (Though JDAMs are a bomb, they should be moved to "missile" until ED changes something so that they can be engaged) I think the LS-6/GB-6 are closer to where they should be than ED's GBU 32/38s in terms of SAM interception. I believe the 32/38s should be adjusted not the LS6/GB6. I'm not sure what options Deka has in terms of setting interception values against sam sites though. But I would live with that versus the alternative with the hopes that it can be tuned so only modern systems can engage such weapons. As it doesn't appear the IR sams have a very good success rate, they are not too much of a factor other than they shouldn't be firing to begin with. Edit- As a side note, I understand the SAM system is basic in DCS. When I was saying "its supposed capabilities", I say that as in what ED believes the SAM systems to be capable of doing in terms of reaction time, filtering, and RCS detection size at range. If they think a TOR (SA-15) can engage a certain RCS at a certain distance than that should be applied as a judgement to what SAMs engage what. So if ED believes SA-15, SA-10, Patriot and etc. are capable of shooting down missiles, then bombs should be intercepted likewise as they operate under the same principles for interception. Especially when SAMs aren't modeled in some extremes and there is a good bit of simplification to the system as it is currently (and likewise for the foreseeable future).

One would assume so as the LS-6 in appearance is no different than JSOWs or etc (other than a probably larger RCS). AFAIK there is no RCS reduction attempted on the LS-6. SAMs operate under the same principle. If it has an RCS it will see it eventually, whether it gets filtered out or not is up to the SAM system and it's supposed (in DCS) capabilities. I think its more an issue of JDAMs not being intercepted in DCS when they should than the other way around. But if people have hard information to the contrary that SAMs shouldn't engage JDAMs I'd be more than interested to see. Because otherwise, JDAMs shouldn't be any different to a SAM site than most missiles provided the radar can detect a somewhat slower object (IE not getting filtered out).

As AeriaGloria says, there was a structural clearance increase for both block I and II. (not sure if those numbers are exact, but they seem pretty close to what I remember) So I dont think payload capabilities will change between Blk I and II. But that's just from what I have seen (and haven't). So likewise, I could be wrong, but I don't think Blk II will have any additional payload capabilities over Blk I in DCS.

No, AFAIK. No hardpoint/pylon changes from blk 1 to 2. And I think any weight clearances were universal between blk 1 and 2. So no other changes either AFAIK (Not entirely sure on this one)

Say what you want about his previous doings, I wont say either way. But nothing gives the impression that there is a specific timeframe that Deka is working with. I mean, he posted public evidence that A2A refueling was in progress. No mention of when, just that it is. And also, plenty of users in the past have done what he did just now. Screenshoting/sharing information that Deka has already said so the question would have an answer. I don't see an issue with that. Now maybe he (Kaq) could say something along the lines of "yes, this is what they've shown so far..." but that would be a finer point.

Can also confirm, not getting any RWR indications on HSD from player aircraft. Ground units are popping up still. But, I do get audible notifications for tracking/missile. Not sure on HUD as I cannot remember.

Its no so much with the RWR that they've missed it. It just occurred with the most recent hotfix AFAIK. Probably something was broken in the hotfix.

SD-10 was never adjusted to fit between 120 B/C AFAIK. So there is no adjustment necessary to SD-10 provided its correct. As there was no reduction/etc to make it fit between amraams. AFAIK there have been only two version of SD-10 released to public, that being what the JF-17 released with and the other version that was provided ~3 days ago. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16vBb9wOABGp7iaxYIk5r7c_cYTFB3Xlfm0VNHdoElII/edit?usp=sharing ^ the above is the version of the missile I believe we had on release. The changes ~3 days ago did as follows for the same tests from above. Slight performance different, and confirmed changes in the file. 15.5 vs 15.65 5000ft 21.29 vs 19nm 16000ft 32.5 vs 33nm 32000ft Right being new (most recent) left being referenced from the above document. Apparently amraam got a 10-20% boost today, I have not done tests to confirm.

I think there was some additional texture work added to release branch, or at least I saw it in the notes somewhere.

Just wanted to notify you guys on something, when in TWS (not STT) the Mirage 2000 will lose radar lock of someone that does a roll. If this is correct than leave it, if not, now you know. M2K TWS locks JF-17, JF-17 does two 360s (just straight aileron roll, no other inputs, keeping a straight line) and M2K loses lock. Should be easy enough to try an reproduce. I believe the range was 15-30 nautical miles. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oKOGQyRM6aEifEm38Miw_Wumn5-9mWJU/view?usp=sharing Here is the track file, but unfortunately, its a lot of JF-17 bug testing and I'm also not the mirage pilot. So I don't know how much good it does.

Confirm that Magic IFF is indeed working in multiplayer under mode 6. IFF tests JF-17 vs JF-17 (same team) Magic IFF works correctly, M6, returns as friendly M2k vs JF-17 (Client/Host switched roles confirmed both ways) (same team) Magic IFF works correctly, M6, returns as friendly Su-27 vs JF-17 (Host is JF-17) (same team) Magic IFF works correctly, M6, returns as friendly JF-17 vs JF-17 (opposite teams) Magic IFF works correctly, M6, returns as unkown (which I believe to be correct) Additionally, no false positives against enemy aircraft. Tested against F-16,18,15,14,M2k,Su-27 All returned as unkown https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oKOGQyRM6aEifEm38Miw_Wumn5-9mWJU/view?usp=sharing IFF tests were done near the end.

Ran through some additional tests after swapping roles. Noticed he (the forum poster) said he got no warnings from sams so also tested. No SPJ pod. SAM tests. Hawk (Host/Client) SAM sites give locking and launch warnings SA-15 (Host) SAM sites give locking/launch warnings S300 (Host/Client) SAM sites give locking/launch warnings Everything is working as expected above ^ Head on trials F-15 vs JF-17 (120* variant unkown) F-15- (Client) gets launch/lock warnings JF-17- (Host) paints, no lock warning, missile warning once active (not MAWS) F-16 vs JF-17 (120B) F-16 (Client) gets launch/lock warnings JF-17 (Host) paints, no lock warnings, missile warnings once active (not MAWS) JF-17 vs JF-17 (opposite teams) (SD-10) JF-17 (Client) paints, missile warning once active JF-17 (Host) paints, missile warning once active M2k vs JF-17 (530D) M2k (Client) gets launch/lcok warnings JF-17 (Host) paints, no lock/launch warnings, MAWs picked up missile after missile missed Su-27 vs JF-17 (R-27) 27 (Client) gets launh/lock warnings JF-17 (Host) paints, no warnings F-14 vs JF-17 (Sparrows/54s) F14 (Client) gets launch/lock warnings JF-17 (Host) paints, no luanch/lock/active warnings (tested Aim-7 and 54) Additional details, what is happening, JF-17 gets painted (basic yellow aircraft radar indication on HSD) and once missile is active, {120} shows up (or similar) with MSL MSL warning on HUD and audio. No other information is provided by the RWR. No locking audio tone/contact switching from yellow to red, followed by "tracking" audio tones, and no MSL launch warning on hud, launch audio notification, or flashing of RWR contact to indicate launch. JF-17 does not appear to be receiving information indicating certain stages of air to air combat for its RWR in multiplayer. Though, while it is not receiving information, it is transmitting necessary information for all aircraft (other than JF-17s) to allow their RWRs to work normally and as expected. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oKOGQyRM6aEifEm38Miw_Wumn5-9mWJU/view?usp=sharing Additional track file. -Note at the end IFF tests were conducted.

IFF was working in multiplayer earlier today on non-magic servers for reference. Potentially a magic only bug?

Tested a bit more thoroughly and with more detail (track file). Edit- I get spikes from ground based SAMs and launch warnings from SAMs in MP. I am client, Aqua is host. No SPJ pod. Head on passes below. Will test more scenarios soon. JF-17 - SD-10 Paints, no hardspike, missile warning once active M2k - Matra 530D Paints, no hardspike, no launch warning (semi-active, so no active warning) F-16 - AIM-120C Paints, no hardspike, missile warning once active F-15 - Aim-120C Paints, no hardspike, missile warning once active F-18 - Aim-120C Paints, no hardspike, missile warning once active https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Y7akuYcWfsORM7ibcDFZYbgGqbLLkdM/view?usp=sharing Track file was 6mb so it wouldn't fit on forums normally.

:thumbup:

I mean I think older jammers can probably be simulated, but your talking about one of the highest amounts of classified items of anything to do with an air combat simulator. But modern stuff would probably be much more guess work than ED would like. But thats not to say we won't see a review of jamming and etc. in DCS sooner or later, there is just more other aspects that have higher priority currently. Think new damage model, SAM AI overhaul, missile overhaul, and dynamic campaign, all items that require a high workload but also, are very much needed and add a lot more to DCS IMO. Not to say I dont want a better EW suite, just information is very difficult to come by and I think there are some other aspects that should be fixed/improved beforehand.

Gotta love the mission name. Let me know if you can reproduce now. To reference, I generally fired just two LD-10s in SP as soon as a Tor's radar went active, then turned 90 degrees and watched. Though I dont think the number will make any difference, that is just additional information that may help. Edit- If necessary, I can also screen capture (record) everything that way there are no doubts on what I'm doing since it doesn't generate logs when crashing. Just let me know. TrainingMissioadasdnJ17.miz

Those given conditions are for the LS-6, I was just citing as an example and that you could test against those. But for any reference max range, you need to have launch parameters similar to those of what I reference for the LS-6 for any comparison to be accurate. Which I probably will at some point. But even then, you assume that the source is accurate, which I dont. But it still wouldn't hurt to test against. Unfortunately, I have not seen any launch conditions for the GB-6 stated max range so there is not much to go on in terms of testing for accuracy on our end.

Well understood, thanks.

Yeah, but even then I still dont trust them. (When there is nothing else to go on use them) I would prefer a CFD analysis to the drag and optimum angle of attack for glide, which would be too hard to do, just no one has done it AFAIK. As numbers from manufacturers may be over stated or understated and there's no way to know. But I agree, its the best place to start for a reference.

I think the only issue with this is, what were the launch conditions for the recorded range? As it may be 6.5% under the assumption that they were both launched at Mach 1.1 at 54000 feet.... but I dont assume that to be the case. But then again, I'm not making an argument for performance. If you want to test the LS-6 (I know not GB-6) against a known test variable, try it against the cited range of 36000ft, 485kts, 60km. Because unfortunately, max range is no good without launch conditions for the max range. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-GBU.html And obviously, your assuming the source is accurate, which I dont have a clue and I dont assume it to be in all honesty. But there is a fully testable set of conditions if you so wish.