85th_Maverick

I already said about the factors that matter, you didn't read? And exactly as you say, the KA-50's AP bullets should be much better in the end for anything else other than tanks. All APCs should take damage to death even if sooner or later, but certainly should get damaged from this cannon. The same goes for the Su-25's AP bullets which again, do very little damage to tanks compared to an A-10, although a line of bullets actually hit the tank spot on, when only a low percentage of the bullets sprayed by the A-10 that hit the tank are enough to destroy it. I doubt that the devs had secret access to data regarding the real damage of the bullets of a Su-25 and A-10, so they've done the tweaking on their damage based on their imagination only, but even if the Su-25's bullets would be less damaging than those of an A-10, hey..., how much less? And even so if doing a bit less damage, the AP bullets of the SU-25 which hit a tank in greater amount (higher accuracy) should still kill a tank faster than the lower accuracy sprayed bullets of an A-10. You must take all factors into account when analyzing and understanding what's wrong!

You got it! Why does this only affect DCS modules other than the FC3? The LLTV on Su-25T and MAV seeker on A-10A have different graphics logics than DCS modules LANTIRN or FLIR pods? With Su-25 or A-10, the targets appear hot as normal. Just made one using MIST (last version) to continuously respawn a group once a player aircraft is within a trigger zone. Just please let me know what to do using the respawn script in order to have the ground units "warmed up" in order to normally see them on FLIR. Thanks! FLIR tests.miz

Ok, so..., the KA-50's 30mm can't do anything even to a Chapparal. Chapparal is strong, lol, but the A-10's gun which is also 30mm can give 100% kill damage against a T-90 in 1 second of burst. Cmon..., let's have some logic here. We all agree that the incidence angles between the AP bullet and the armor, the AP bullet's capability and speed (kinetics should count) and also the armor's strength, all matter for how much damage is finally produced, but cmon, it's daylight clear that the AP bullets of the KA-50 are almost useless as weak, almost as weak as HE, while for an A-10 they are as they should. What's your logic/explanation? Also the Su-25's bullets are weaker than those of the A-10 when attacking the same tank (ex: T-90) although more bullets from the Su-25 actually hit the tank (greater accuracy) as they are almost all shot inline while those of the A-10 are sprayed in a cone. Still the A-10's bullets are more powerful. Nonsense!

Copy man. Sorry I didn't read what you've stated and thought that it's a bug again, but still..., I have late activation on units and make them appear when X unit is spawned in Y zone using MIST scripts and they are all as cold as the surrounding and completely invisible in IR. So all ground units are cold at start, but for how many hours until they heat up while running and how much to cool down while not doing anything. But the ground soldiers should always be hooter than the surroundings anyway no matter how they start in mission. 36C while idling or 40C when they are sweating or running should make almost no difference on our FLIRs when we see them.

Doesn't have anything to do with what he means. It's about the simulated graphics at more than 40nm on LANTIRN/FLIR which behave as the world ends beyond 40nm. Dunno about the real range limitation of such systems, but the subject is about the graphics rendering as it appears on FLIR/LANTIRN.

This bug of having units become invisible on FLIR and LANTIRN took place some while ago at some "x" update (about 1..2 years as I remember) and now it's back again. Just prior to this last Open Beta (this is what I'm playing only) version, everything was fine and the targets could be seen on IR LANTIRN or FLIR. Now, they are one with the ground. Unless you're trying to struggle with TV only, you can't see units anymore. Strangely enough, this only affects all DCS products except for the FC3 aircraft (Su-25T and A-10A) with which you can clearly see targets on IR as before. Here's a track: LANTIRN, FLIR bug for DCS modules, not affecting FC3.trk

Hi, Dunno if this is the right thread for what I'm asking, but if possible, could the devs make the visual labels (as a new option) not be visible anymore behind physical objects, including the cockpit? I'd like to play with "Labels" turned on but not be able to see a target's label when it passes behind a non-transparent cockpit element. I'd like to be able to see them naturally, like something physical. Again, if possible! Regards!

Even with hot start, I personally get like a 700ft offset between TGP and MAV (WPN) view. So..., hot start doesn't fix it. Probably, the only fix is to use the BSGT calibration technique you spoke about above. That's probably the only fix. Thx.

From me!=) I built it as a reminder of the 1987 Afghanistan war using the Persian Gulf map, because we still lack the Afghanistan map. So, it is actually a bug due to the mission editor, and not because of a correctly simulated failure after all. Thx!

Hi, Although I may not be up to date with all the changes that are done to aircraft here and there (the more aircraft, the more total changes), but I lately wanted to start flying the MI-8 as I love it and what I now find (never happened before no matter how badly I was torturing the helo in the air) that after a random amount of time while flying, the helo suddenly snap yaws me to the left and remains at a constant beta (sideslip) angle depending on main rotor disc blades pitch and IAS. The pedals have no more effect. It's as if the connections between the pedals and the tail rotor pitch control has failed somewhere in the system. I've provided both a Tacview and track regarding what happens. This is the Tacview file and you can see that at 6:40:25 the helo violently and uncommanded yaws left and remains settled at some beta angle until the end of the flight when I try and manage to land it somewhere in the field. The yaw control was completely gone although the pedals inputs work as usual. MI-8 random yaw control loss.acmi The following is the track file. Just accelerate the time until some 620 seconds have passed in the recording since start and you'll see how the helo jumps in left yaw after it was flying nicely trimmed in yaw for a good amount of time. MI-8 random yaw control loss.trk No warning lights of whatsoever appeared such as gearboxes failure or something, just this behavior that happens every now and then. Let me know if I may put too much strain into something due to airspeed or stuff, cause the controls were actually constant all the time before and after losing the tail control. Regards!

An ex aerodynamicist here! Yes, if the advancing blade would reach it's stall AoA in transonic sooner than the retreating blade, you should have a left rolling moment when the stall occurs, but even if the helo is very heavy, let's say it actually flies at maximum takeoff weight and at TAS (true airspeed) where the advancing blade would be well in transonic, the AoA still should be lower than for stall if you fly at 1G (Z axis). The same should normally apply for the retreating blade. Yes, the higher the speed, the more AoA the retreating blade needs in order to equalize left and right rotor disc lift, and as for the advancing blade's case which needs to lower it's AoA to maintain lift, I can guarantee you that it's still a good couple of degrees away from stall angle, again, if you maintain 1G and although it's critical AoA is indeed lower (usually about 50-60% of what it used to be in subsonic), it will still have some degrees margin from stall when the retreating blades are already there. At least up to 300km/h TAS, this should be a good fact. Well above that, yes you'll be more into transonic on the advancing blade, but..., it's AoA should also be needed some lower (yes, the 1G needed AoA lowering is indeed logarithmic, but still decreases a bit) and keep in mind that throughout the whole transonic airspeed region, the critical AoA doesn't vary much (it looks a bit like a bowl on the graph, but not a deep one) and it increases again in supersonic by some amount (but not as good as it was in subsonic). So, you should never be able to blade stall due to transonic in any case at 1G. The retreating blade on the other hand will actually stall above X amount of TAS at 1G and at an actual weight. So, I'm sorry to contradict you here, but before you ever get to increase your AoA in transonic up to reaching the stall value, your retreating blade AoA will always get to the stall AoA first. The higher the TAS, the greater the difference in actual AoA between the left and right side rotor disc. The drag that you mentioned is only influenced by the rotor disc aerodynamic performance and TAS/MACH and will affect the required torque to be applied on it from the gearbox, otherwise the drag has no influence regarding this subject. Now, at speeds let's say..., of about 100 to 200km/h where most known helos don't have blades long enough or rpm high enough to ever reach transonic and the retreating blade AoA is a good margin away from the stall value, if you pull enough aircraft AoA (hence vertical Gs automatically) to have the retreating blades reach above critical value, you will always have the advancing blades below critical AoA. The retreating blades will go above their critical AoA well before the advancing ones do, hence a stall rolling moment towards the retreating blades will always occur. If I've said something wrong, please correct me! Regards! o7

Copy that! Good explanation and yes, changes may need to continue to be done, but imho it's never been better as it is a the moment. Except for all the A-A missiles drag at low AoAs which I still find too high to be real (this is a different subject), the keep lock / loose lock performances seem more appropriate.

Exactly, exactly, exactly! What have they done cause it's not working as in 2.5 anymore...?! I didn't make any router changes and stuff like that.

ED, don't change a thing! It's probably in the best shape as it is right now! Not thinking about balancing and stupid ideas like that others think about! By what the tests show, the number of chances to avoid an Aim-120 (at least, cause it's the best in the sim) could be about right. From how I see it, slowly but surely, ED has now managed to make it about as realistic as it can get in terms of active radar missiles seekers performances.

Like I said before, it still remains. I don't see your "effortless and absurdly effective" ways of notching the AIM-120C. Please, show us how as most who reply here come with a track or something. Yes, now I see the change... and you know what that change is between what I've already said it was happening and what happens now? The chaff effectiveness is the only change, NOT the seeker's ability to lose or maintain track. At least, I've done the same tests again like in the original ones that I've first put here and there it is. Now, the chaff does also affect the AIM-120C, which wasn't happening when I've posted those first tracks. All other missiles were affected by beam notch and chaff, the AIM-120Cs weren't. Now they are as well, that's the change...! I still can't easily (just one in 5-7 times maybe) notch an AIM-120C's radar through maneuvers low and slow close to the ground with no chaff. So, this contradicts what you say about being "effortless and absurdly effective". Just words, no proof! If you try notching an AIM-120C at higher speeds to make it lose lock without chaff, I wish you good luck. Yes, there will be chances, but not many without using chaff. Here are 4 fresh (up to date game version) ACMI tracks proving what I say, the only difference between the first ones that I did, being the effectiveness of chaff: These 2 attempts are without chaff: beam notch only testing (no chaff) at medium speed very low alt - 0 chance to break lock.acmi beam notch only testing (no chaff) at very low speed and alt - 0 chance to break lock.acmi These other 2 attempts are now with quite some chaff: Beam notch + loads of chaff low and slow works now to break the lock of an AIM-120.acmi Beam notch + loads of chaff works now to break the lock of an AIM-120 even at higher speeds.acmi Regards!

Notch 1 - That's normal...! Notch 2 - That's normal...! Notch 3 - Now you see? And that's also normal...! It depends on a lot of parameters that most of "you and me" can't understand and can say that it's either non-notchable at all or too easily notchable. I say that how it is right now, it's as far as realistic as it's ever been and I doubt there's any other sim out there today that is able to replicate this. Good job ED!

Yeah, it has become really easy to notch both missiles and radars (at least the F-18's) in look down conditions, even if the target is at high altitude, but below the horizon. Maybe that's how it's more realistic, did you think of that? This isn't suppose to be a Star Trek tech or for how we'd like it, it should be simulation oriented only. That's how I love DCS! Exactly, and you're not the only one seeing these kind of results where it's impossible to notch it in conditions where you'd think it should be doable. It depends on conditions and some find it as if it's very easy cause they get a random chance of eventually notching it, while some try all sorts of things and still can't get it notched as it would be logical. None of those finding very different results being noobs at this...!

Copy that! So I'm not up to date with the changes, so I'll check to see what your track shows. I still couldn't find the time to do so, but can't wait to see what's in there! Cheers! That's not good if the AI stuff (planes / launched weapons) simulates one thing and the player's ones simulate another! This already happens regarding the flight models (which for me are the most important aspect of a simulator, less the avionics and weapons simulation) where there are great differences in performances between AI and player driven aircraft. I don't get ED's logics to this.

K, I'll check again then, maybe I'm not up to date with the latest modifications which might prove both of you guys are right, but half an year ago (may updates behind) it was exactly as in the tracks that I've provided!

I have the exact issue as Quicksplice depicts. Why in the world is this happening only with DCS? No other game for which I make a server does this problem and people can connect to my servers, which mean that my port forwarding and everything else is already right. My DCS mission server does not show up in the lobby, but ONLY at the active servers list at my profile on the DCS website. If someone tries to connect by IP, it will say: Server offline. We can all see that there are more than 1000 servers, yes, so I'm kindly asking the devs what could be the possible reasons why some can't have people connect to their servers on DCS, but in other stand alone games they can? Thank you!

Solved...? For everyone? I have this problem since 2.7 came out. I am using the Open Beta version since 2.5 I have changed absolutely nothing for the port forwarding rules since it all worked well in 2.5 and other for games that I host it all works flawlessly and people can connect and play on my created servers, but NOT so is the case with DCS anymore since version 2.7 went out. In 2.5 Open Beta it all worked well, my server was appearing in the lobby list and people could connect with no problems either from the server list or by direct IP. Now, after updating to 2.7 Open Beta, bye bye! I tried installing and trying to create a server using the 2.7 stable version..., no joy, the problem is the same! So it's quite a while since 2.7 came out and I still could not figure out a way to have my server mission re-appear in the lobby as it used to. I even tried downloading and establishing a dedicated server for Open Beta and also downloaded the dedicated server for stable version and still..., the same result with both tries, my server is not appearing in the lobby. If I gave a friend my IP and he tried connecting to it directly, "Server offline" was the answer! This is impossible! Please, if there's anyone out there who had this issue and solved it and it wasn't Raiden's case which something totally different, please let us know what you did! Many thanks!

Show us how you'll be able to notch an AIM-120 (B or C, they're modeled the same) missile at +/-80kts closure (you said 100+/-15, I say you can only notch if below 20kts only if also flying very slow) in look down condition with all the chaff in the world and see what you get. And you say "with look up being a lot less". Huh...! You won't even notch a missile with all the chaff in the world if you are not below 20kts while hugging the ground, but if the missile sees you above the ground, you'll have mathematically zero chances of notching it! I think I've tried a lot more tests and scenarios than the testers did, but you can try! Please make a track of it (Tacview would be even better) and share it with us so we can confirm your claims and analyze. You complain that your active radar missiles lose track of the targets when they are notching over the ground? I find that they're actually more close to reality as they are simulated right now. You probably believe that the radar physics would allow these active radar missiles have some sort of alien tech in them and shouldn't lose the target in any condition. In fact, there are many conditions which still can't be overrun to have them lose targets. That's the way it is. You are right that they should indeed lose targets that are notching over the ground with or even without dropping chaff if the geometric closure rate versus ground is at around 100+/-15 knots as you say, but that doesn't happen by far. It's closer to 0kts (I said 20kts maximum closure rate difference vs ground speed) and only if you also fly slow enough, you'll eventually be able to notch it with or without chaff. For the AIM-120B/C, the chaff does ZERO difference whatsoever, the only thing that works is flying slow with as close to zero closure rate as possible. So, you can't even notch them with 999999999 chaff thrown all in 1 second even if the missile is looking down at you and you're very close to the ground, but as for going up or having the missile look above the ground at you, notching it will happen in far less cases than the already mentioned one, otherwise said, less than zero chances if you will! I've done only a short test to prove this in the following tracks (after many tens of hours of trying other different stuff that also didn't work to have the missiles go for chaff or be notched). Now's your turn to prove what you've said! They are still quite highly resistant to notching conditions even in the best conditions and you want them worse? Aim-120C vs beam notch vs chaff.acmi aim-120C vs beam notch vs chaff.trk

I don't know why I smell that you're not actually right about the chaff effectivity in version 2.7 and that's the only reason why you won't share a track like I did cause you can also actually see that it's true that you can't avoid them using chaff, but only by using the new aim-120s radar logics! In my track everyone can clearly see how I've tested all the useful tactics to force the missiles into the notch and how there is a 0% chance of having them go for chaff alone. Thank God that ED devs have otherwise simulated the possibility of having the radar missiles go for the ground as their radars limitations are more realistic now than they were before, but the chaff has no effect. I don't know, maybe there is some strange possibility to make them go for chaff that I didn't think about nor test, but so far, in the conditions which should have the 120s as well go for chaff (even if more chaff would be needed) as it happens with the R-77 which indeed goes for chaff at beam notching, the chaff is useless in 100% of the time. Like I say, it would be fairly easier and honest to recognize that you can't avoid 120s by chaff in any condition in version 2.7+ (cause yes, in 2.5 all the radar missiles were going for chaff at beaming even when looking up at the target above the horizon), than trying to convince everyone of us of something without proving it. I don't want you to be mad at me or something, it's just about our contradiction here! If you can prove that it's like you say, I agree, if I can prove that it's like I say, why don't you want to agree? Cheers!

So, silently you agree with me that the AIM-120C never goes for any chaff, but it's rather nicely modeled for the pulse-doppler radar modes limitations on losing a target in 1st notch conditions. Not insanely easy at all to evade by notching, but at least it simulates something about it, the chaff, is 100% useless on the C model.

Yes man, the strakes will not only sometimes, but always (but only in varying amounts depending on geometry and positioning) increase the boundary layer's kinetic energy through the induced vortex/vortices over a portion of the surfaces down the flow. Thus, the lift slope, not only that it continues to extend versus AoA, but if the vortex's energy increases with AoA, the slope also becomes exponential by some power. The aerodynamics is a domain for which I'm happy to live, it's wonderful! It would be interesting (for me, at least) to know why would the tail controlled missiles be able to increase the airflow separation AoA.