SDsc0rch

i like this! 8) a little feedback, if you don't mind.... - please tell us if the mission will be an air start - say it somewhere in the briefing - also, what's our flight name? there were a lot of "FORDs" - and.. LABELS?!?! really?? (ugh! what's the key to turn off all labels? ah.. L-SH F10) - there are some typos in the intro and briefing - where oh where is that supplemental material that is being referred to?? - why not put bullseye on a landmark - like oh say, the farms that marks the FEBA? later on, i found the "mission planner" button and i found you can actually move the bullseye (AND your flight's waypoints) ------ very nice - but should be right from the get-go - speaking of that mission planner, i can see REDFOR units and their waypoints - SPOILER ALERT! - and last but not least..... MP! yes, this is a cool scenario, but working with the AI is "difficult" - i would so much more prefer to fly this mission in multiplayer and work cooperatively on it - wouldn't have to be fishing through menus to communicate with TWO and yeah, this is the first campaign i've bought - i like it i notice how its named RF 16-2 ------ wouldn't it be cool if we got a 16-3 and then -4..... and 17-1.. 18-.. 19-...... etc etc 8)

same i've looked in all the docs folders (release, openbeta, alpha) -- can't find - came here to ask the same thing

yep - but everyone seems to think we "can" model the a-10 because its UNCLAS and we "can't" model other things because they are "classified" you are simply WRONG and because you and your ilk are so vocal, you scare away legit devs who would model advanced a/c every bit as well as the a-10 is currently thank you very little

awww.. he thinks everything in the A-10 was modeled - he thinks everything in the A-10 is UNCLAS how cuuuuute

yeap.. known issue

^this^

if you were indians you would be mighty warriors from the "fights with a sliderule" tribe :rolleyes:

i "think" M=2.606 is the absolute max you can get...

sounds to me like there's room for improvement

hopefully its a LATE model strike eagle! so we have a LETHAL weapons system - and modern weapons!

mudhen confirmed - check light grey? ED?? :))

yes!

adding amraams to the tomcat would have been very expensive the phoenix guidance signal was encoded in to the radar beam, from what i understand - very different from how the amraam receives its midcourse guidance --- the tomcat fire control system would have needed substantial tweaking to make it compatible with the amraam, and i believe that (plus the fact that it already had an active missile) were the primary factors that lead the powers-that-be to not opt in to the slammer

make'em both!

EXACTLY

second post still valid i have no problem whatsoever with chaff being effective against a look-up tgt for the reasons that the second post explains

allllllright, looks like we may need to calibrate your brain housing group here.... no worries i keep hearing this phrase (or words to the effect of) "chaff is miles behind" at jet speeds, you go a mile every six seconds or so ---- and to go miles you are talking 12, 18, etc seconds no - that's not what we're talking about ---- this is RBC >> "rapid bloom chaff" it literally uses an explosive charge to rapidly disperse a cloud of wires (reflectors) that are cut to specific dimensions to be optimum radar reflectors and this all happens very fast not seconds later - not miles later ---- it all happens very quickly and yes within the FOV of the host a/c radar and/or the active missile seeker FOV and, won't go in to detail, but there are various ways chaff is used - the kind we're talking about here is not the only kind ----- enough of that.. also.. i think you guys may have an incorrect view of how "narrow" a radar beam is its actually pretty wide - but electrical engineers and programmable signal processing guys have gotten pretty adept at developing "tricks" that can mmm... "artificially" increase the resolution you oughta google it, its actually pretty interesting - some details are out there, you'll get a "good enough" idea.. in general, radar has great resolution when it comes to *range* but much poorer resolution when it comes to angular measurements IR is great with angular resolution, not-so-much with range

you understand it just opposite ---- ch will be more effective from long range, where the host a/c radar system will have the least ability to discriminate between legit tgt and chaff/decoy ---- resolution comes in to play ^^ yes this

that's hilarious - LOL

i would stipulate that an excessive dud rate like we're seeing should probably be looked at but! i also want the A120 looked at theres this thing where a quarter to a third of the amraams i fire instantly pitch nose up (and not in a pop-up profile) and are wasted ---- immediately upon launch the missile springs upward - i know right then its trashed and i fire another ----- watching tacview i see it does not lose lock or anything like that, it still tracks but its energy is so depleted it is useless and never hits due to this, it is my SOP to fire two amraams per target that means.. if i am carrying eight amraams, i effectively only have four engagements per sortie sure, the RU missiles could see some improvements but then so should the slammers ---- this anomaly where it pops up and is wasted is ridiculous - in the real world this dud rate would not be tolerated (and note - i have other "wishlist" improvements in mind behind this one) and once that aspect of the amraam is fixed, stand by to stand by gentlemen - now you have a very lethal slammer inbound and i have effectively *double* the payload yay for me - bummer for y'all ; )

going to my list...... chaff *should* affect radar (yeah, the radar in the nose of your aircraft) this isn't modeled chaff effectiveness is modeled ("modeled" - see above) to a degree - but not for the aircraft-mounted radar ----- that's why you see the disconnect, cik and its understandable why you would raise that objection you don't see the radar target designator box being pulled off the target that you can see in the HUD with your eyes i for one would think that would be a cool effect just like the AIM-9 seeker head is pulled off the target when there are flares or missiles within the seeker FOV

listen - its no big deal - you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill its called "computer modeling" its st00pid to go to the nth degree to simulate reality when you can achieve the same effect by a little sleight of hand what do you care if the missile misses by 100ft or 1nm? a miss is a miss ED does this all over the place - not just here ever use interleave mode on the radar? know what its supposed to do? its supposed to INTERLEAVE HPRF and MPRF (each yields different detection performance based on range, closure rate, aspect, look-down etc) does it do that? no ----- what it actually does is *averages* the two my reaction? bleh! give me REAL INTERLEAVED MODE!!! well.. maybe someday ----- when we get ASM and a high fidelity radar model (maybe that's what's holding up the hornet?? eh?) - when we get a DCS level F-15C??? if you look closely you'll find this "estimation" or "modeling" happens many places not just in DCS, but in govt simulations as well as long as the EFFECT is the same....... alls good listen, if you want to go nutz over this, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander imma gonna come back with youtube vids and trackfiles of amraams coming within ten feet of my targets - and they don't EXPLODE and kill the bandit what. the. HECK. REAL missiles have a proximity fuze and detonate within a lethal radius - they spew projectiles which cut, bludgeon, pellet, sever, and otherwise "disrupt" the target a/c this is not modeled in DCS, if an absolute HIT is not achieved (ie.. the missile doesn't get "skin"), you fly free i know two things ---- 1) you have been victim of this (ie.. your missiles didn't achieve a HIT) and 2) you have been the beneficiary of this (ie.. a missile targeting you did not KILL YOU ---- ever look back and see a missile flying formation on you and then fall back as it lost energy? i have - a half dozen times...) it all evens out like i said, good for the goose, good for the gander ---- you get your improvements, then i want mine fairs fair and gentlemen.. i got a list i want my amraams to not be subject to losing lock within a mile or two - that's frigging ridiculous nor should it be as susceptible to certain kinds of countermeasures as range reduces toward the end-game and remember - more modern missiles are BETTER that's just the natural progression and the amraam and AIM-9 are modern and continually being upgraded russkies.. whatchoo got?? mm hmm exactly again, fairs fair you think you got me? i got plenty more where that comes from.....

amraams get trashed in the notch and eat chaff too protip: watch a tacview

exactly, if you're at that point, that is what i call a "problem" and shrinks etc probably call that an "addiction" that person needs help i'm just wondering if what i'm seeing here rises to the level of "addiction"

the most interesting excerpt in the article is right here... all his slide-ruling and assumptions and "figgering"...... eh, i can take'm or leave'm (with mostly the needle pointing over to "leave'm") but those low real-world Pks are something to keep in mind if you want to have a realistic simulation in DCS note - in vietnam, if US pilots were able to visually pick up the bandits before the bandit fired, we would kill him 2/3 of the time - even if we were defensive initially (and we usually were - they made good use of GCI) if the bandit got in un-observed ----- 90% kill rate and that's how it goes generally ----- killing an aware bandit is very difficult even if we assume missiles/weapons systems/etc are all working *perfectly* its still hard to kill a bandit who knows you are there but.. we don't live in that world - and weapons systems are NOT perfect - this fact drives Pks lower for DCS purposes, we should expect to see Pks on the lower side