85th_Maverick

Do you find this normal? Kind regards!

Now, on the other hand has any of you actually tried to compare those EM diagrams that you found on the net with how the plane actually performs in DCS? Surprisingly, the DCS FA-18 will outperform the data from any EM charts found in both constant turn rates at any comparable IAS/Mach, altitude weight/loadout config and also in longitudinal acceleration (engine thrust), vertical climb and/or max climb rate! Very good for finding the real EM diagrams, but please make some tests and compare them. What I've found is that our in game FA-18 has a constant turn rate of about 2-2.5 seconds faster than any of the presented diagrams. At higher loadouts and altitudes, the gap is even higher! Kind regards!

Well, in fact that guy "000rick000" is generally right! Sorry, but you may need to rethink about what the turn radius formula says: G = V^2/R, where G is obviously the centripetal acceleration, V is velocity and R is radius. Indeed, the w (can't spell the conventionally used "omega" character for angular velocity), V and G have a linear interdependent function. These 3 all vary linearly to one another, while the R versus G varies with a squared function of V, but don't get fouled by looking only at the formulas and not look further on how the values: V, w and G can combine in order to (mathematically) have the same resulted R. What is corner velocity first of all? It is the velocity at which you will obtain the plane's maximum allowed instantaneous lift force (structurally operational limited) divided by a given weight, otherwise known as a maximum operational Z-Gload, which will offer you the highest instantaneous angular velocity. This mostly happens when flying at the maximum aerodynamic lift coefficient which lies nowhere else than on stall AoA (be it taken as the wing's only stall AoA or supercritical (vortex shed on fuselage) AoA)! Well, the following factors will affect this dimensionless coefficient: 3D wing shape, 2D or airfoil sections shapes (affected by leading and/or trailing edge surfaces deflections), Mach number and Reynolds number. You can make a test (by only using the formulas or in-game tests) and see that if you can mathematically hold the same max lift coefficient at, any given instantaneous test speed, the resultant G-load (any G within or outside the structural limitation), centripetal acceleration (which is G-load multiplied by the gravity acceleration constant 9.80665) and angular velocity "w" will in the end give you the same radius R. The reason why the Navy knows that their T-38 (or any airplane whatsoever) will obtain a lower turn radius at low airspeeds most probably has to do with increasing the maximum lift coefficient by the use of droops and flaps. There is no other physical way that the plane can obtain a much lower turn radius, unless it increases the maximum lift coefficient (be it aerodynamic or global). For short, the maximum aerodynamic lift coefficient alone (not accounting engine thrust) will give you the same resultant radius (as long as the engine thrust isn't varied) no matter how the G-load and velocity will decrease throughout the turn (these usually decrease due to excessive drag). Now, I've only taken into account an ideal situation where the maximum aero lift coef. won't vary with airspeed and Mach number. The airspeed affects the lift coef through the Reynolds number. The Mach number affects the critical AoA (thus the max aero lift coef) due to the disturbances of pressure waves (compressibility) and later due to the presence of normal/attached shock waves. In general, the maximum aero lift coefficient will have it's "maximum" somewhere near 0.25-0.35 (this drastically depends on wing shape). Above and below around Mach 0.3, the max aero lift coef will become lower (decreasing more rapidly towards lower Mach than it does towards critical Mach). The thing is that engine thrust will always affect the actual (depends on actual AoA) and/or maximum global lift coefficient (which takes into account all the forces perpendicular to the undisrupted airflow vector, not just the aerodynamically gained ones). Due to the fact that as airspeed increases, so will the engine thrust also increase (more or less linearly), the max global lift coef may eventually get higher if somehow the max aero lift coef won't suffer a sufficient decrease, so theoretically/mathematically if you will, the radius should be getting even lower near corner velocity if the sum of aerodynamic + thrust induced lift force will eventually generate a higher max global lift coef than at lower airspeeds where the engine produces less thrust. But this is only theoretical! Usually this may never happen indeed, because for airspeeds as high as 400+ knots near corner velocity, the max aero lift coefficient is somewhat reduced due to high Mach number and the engine thrust component (through AoA) may not compensate for the loss, but anyway, the difference in minimum radius between corner velocity and minimum 1G flight speed at crit AoA should be barely noticeable. In all the velocity corner and/or EM diagrams that we see, we are not told anything about the LE/TE (leading edge/trailing edge) surfaces deflections, but we can presume that at least the leading edge droops are partially deployed towards increasing the critical AoA (thus maximum aero lift coef) even though it's lower than near Mach 0.3. I doubt that near corner velocity, when pulling to obtain the critical AoA, the droops/slats wouldn't employ to "correct the airflow", otherwise I'm pretty sure that the corner velocity would've been much lower than we actually find them. This again can add up to tell that turn radius mustn't vary considerably from corner speed to low speed. Kind regards.

Sorry that I need to address the same question which I've put some 5+years ago (the initial thread got closed), but I'd like to ask again: If you fire a SARH missile at a locked target and then you lose lock, then re-lock that target, shouldn't the missile re-acquire the target or simply follow the new reflected radar signals (be it a chaff or a real target, whatever)? AFAIK the SARH missiles doesn't have an own radar, but only a radar signals receiver in it's nose and/or a sort of datalink for course updates that are given by the launching platform's (aircraft for instance) fire control computer inputs according to the radar signals detected by the launching platform in order to lock a target. In other words, the SARH missile's guidance should be slaved and listen to the info/inputs given by the plane's (or ground platform's) onboard radar whenever that radar will give info to the missile or follow a specific radar signal reflected from the target onto the missile's radar receiver. Why does the SARH missile no longer listen to targeting info once the first lock has been lost? I would've thought that you could fire a SARH missile without an initial lock (using weapons launch override) towards a target and if you lock that target later, the missile would then start listening to the FCC and own plane's radar and go where it's continuously directed by the received radar's signals and not fall blind like a brick. Maybe some of us know about the technique that an SA-6 used to down an F-16. They've used their radar for 2-3 sweeps to determine the target's vector info, turned it off, fired the missile on an estimated intercept course, turned on the radar at a calculated time, the missile started listening to the radar's info after tracking the target and hit the F-16. What's different in DCS that this may not happen on any platform (aircraft or sam)? Thanks!

I have a question guys and if it was answered somewhere else and I didn't find, please correct me: Does the real SARH missile loose track on the target at which it was fired, if you select and lock another target as the missile is airborne? I don't know much about the real SARH missiles, but as the name suggests, shouldn't it be getting target data and trajectory calculations from the firing plane in almost real time (with some delay) and follow any target continuously even if you change it, or should it really loose track for good and stop listening to the firing radar/computer once the lock was broken on the first target? "Tharos", are you here man? You know well about radars! Thank you!

A quick and probably silly question! Which radar takes a less time in order to scan a complete picture (without re-orienting the antenna)? The APG-63/70 (don't know which one's modeled in DCS) on the F-15 or the ones on the Russian fighters like MIG-29, Su-27, Su-33? From my opinion, it should take less time for the Russian radar to scan a complete cycle on the 4 horizontal bars than it takes for the Eagle's radar. The Russian radar seems to scan a complete horizontal bar in one pulse which takes less time than it takes for the Eagle's radar to sweep it's antenna on a bar in less than 2 seconds (as GGTharos suggested), so the Russian radar jumps to the next bar much quicker. I don't know the exact scanning technique each radar uses. Thanks!

This might be a way it stabilizes it's orientation and/or remains on a locked signal, not just for russian fighters, but also for others: (at 0:21 second you can see it rolling)

Hi Spyro, now i don't want to veer off topic here, but for the case given by the AA missiles Cd vs Mach diagrams shown by "IASGATG", can you please share us one example where the supersonic Cd might actually get below the subsonic one? You might be right that common knowledge might not always be an approach for every situation (especially when something is still unknown), so could you please (if you like) share us a chart/diagram showing an object that travels through the air (involving shock waves, oblique or bow shocks) that has a Cd lower than subsonic? Although, now as I write this down, I think the space shuttle's Cd on re-entry (at any steady alpha (AoA)) or the high speed projectiles might indeed be some examples to this, but only up to a point i guess, where the Cd will again rise above the subsonic values, because the temperature will gain more and more of the total Cd's proportion as the speed continues to rise, as the viscosity (translates to friction) rises with temperature (for gases). Take a look at this: http://aerorocket.com/tunnel/SSWT/CdvsMn.gif In this illustration of CFD predictions and real test data for the shuttle, the CD in supersonic won't get lower than in subsonic until at least Mach = 2.5 to 3 is reached. Way different than the AIM-9 and AIM-120 missile charts here, where the Cd's get matching at much lower Mach numbers. http://www.wetenschapsforum.nl/uploads/monthly_02_2013/post-8743-0-88999300-1361982547.jpg http://home.sprintmail.com/~pejsa/artpic2.jpg Here the bullet's Cd finds it very hard to get near the subsonic value again. If you have a more realistic and conclusive example, please let us know. Now, I hope I didn't mislead any important subject here, because I also want to make sure that the DCS's data is correct, whether predicted or taken from reality. It's a tremendous happiness when DCS actually matches up the reality, but ONLY when it does it, of course. It's feels like you have a pot of gold in your PC and there's no other sim that ever reached this level before, or maybe this is just because i'm a flight sim fanatic!

Thank you very much "ENO" and "Davis", this was the key to successfully load up the MIST! It's the first time i was able to make any unit respawn in the same location every time! This link provided a few posts ago by ENO was also helfpul: http://wiki.hoggit.us/view/RespawnGroup Sorry i was a bit late on testing this after reading your replies and i'm glad it works now. Cheers!

Thank you very much ENO! This is something that i was also looking for. Now i seem to better understand the scripts. I still have a problem loading the MIST into the actual mission editor, which makes me the only noob to complain of such an easy task otherwise. Although i had taken the "Mist v3_4 guide rev0.pdf" example from page 6, i might actually not understand how to load it correctly, because i get a script error while playing when the script's triggered action takes place. So if someone would have the patience to explain how to actually load the MIST into the mission editor, i'd be grateful! Thanks you!

Does any one of you guys know the detection ranges of both the E-3 Sentry and A-50 awacs? At least some real data ranges, because it seems that none of these 2 awacs aircraft can detect anything that is further than approx. 250+ km from it, even if the target flies as high as 35000 feet (10km). Just happened to find the following info about the newer A-50 Awacs radar and it's maximum capable detection range (400mi, most probably for the larger and higher flying targets): http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-09-06/russian-air-force-shows-upgraded-awacs-and-plans-new-one I also read that the E-3 Sentry should be able to detect targets as far as 250 miles (approx. 400 km away). Another question, and i'm sorry if i ask much: Is it realistic that the A-50 can detect and track targets flying even lower than 5 meters AGL (just tested in game) from 80km and more without any kind of disturbance/clutter, while the E-3 Sentry has quite some difficulty finding aircraft targets below 40 meters AGL? The difference seems quite high between these 2 radars. So, is the E-3 Sentry that bad? Here are some small results that i managed to get within the game and found out the detection ranges on a very low and high flying aircraft (A-10C), of both the A-50 and E-3 Sentry: E-3 Sentry: maximum detection range: - 55km, on an A-10 flying at 50 meters AGL over water. - 230km, on an A-10 flying at 10000 meters MSL. A-50: maximum detection range: - 125km on an A-10 flying at 50 meters AGL over water. - 250km on an A-10 flying at 10000 meters MSL.

Thank you Exocet, so i've seen the copy-paste a unit as a solve too, but i have to work a lot even if i want it to spawn for 10 times (requiring 10 units on the map, of course), so i kind of want to find a way around this. I'll try reading about MIST scripting that you tell about, seems the perfect solution for what i plan. Thanks!

Hi guys, i'm new to these trigger stuff on mission editor. Can you fast tell me how to make a unit respawn (no matter if time dependent, instantly or in any other way) in the same place or close by, after i kill it? I read part of what you've been saying here about flags and such. I'm trying to build a small mission where i kill a ground unit and want to have it respawned again after each kill, in any way possible, but i can't seem to do it. Thanks!