Hummingbird

The beauty of many of the jets in DCS, and the reason they fly so close to reality, is in large part due to official EM charts being available to the developers. Hence I was wondering how the EF2000 will be taking on here? In other words: Will it be purely calculated? Or will you have official EM charts to follow?

Well it goes for jester too then, and it's in both RWS and TWS.

Thing is the actual difference is evidently very small between the APG-73 & APG-68(V)5, so small that the actual pilots flying the things aren't really noticing a difference vs the same target. Why that is? I don't know, maybe the APG-68 is utilizing superior hardware or software to compensate for the smaller disc?

Well I'd assume the laser isn't used before the FLIR camera has actually acquired the target, hence I don't see the need for a wider beam. Found this video:

Noticed that the AWG-9 very easily loses track of targets after the latest patch, both in TWS and also lock in STT. Anyone else notice something similar?

As the title says, the Bogey Dope hotkey doesn't appear to function anymore for some reason.

Only 7.5 km? That seems a bit short. I would think that in clear skies the range would be much more than that, but I am also basing that assumption on ground operated laser rangefinders, like those you find on MBTs and such. I know a Leopard 2 can range out to 10 km with it's laser for example.

Falcon are you sure Lemoine wasn't talking about the SuperBug ? That said I'm not disputing that the APG-73 has a longer detection range than the APG-68, I'm just not sure it's by very much, esp. when we're talking the APG-68(V)9. This is based on what the pilots say, and claimed enhancement in detection range the APG-68 was supposed to give over the APG-66.

Fair enough. I just hope that if they decide to adjust things, then they atleast make sure to do it for all the aircraft at the same time.

But like the real pilots say, there isn't much to choose between the two, so why should we expect there to be in DCS? Plus the Hornet's radar is already better than the F-16's in DCS. So far the only valid point seems to be that both radars are overperforming, not that the F-16's is too good relative to the F-18s. In short you can't just adjust one radar to be 100% realistic and then ignore the rest, doing so and even more unrealistic relative performance might result.

I just hope it's not because you're mostly flying the F15 on the GS server and thus face the Viper more often than the Hornet, and hence it annoys you more that the Viper is overperformlng than the fact that F-18 is as well? Because if so then that's not really being interested in realism as much as it is wishing for a noticable advantage vs the most often faced opposition. But I assume that's not your wish, and thus it's important to stress that any adjustment to the Vipers radar also requires similar steps taken to the radar on the Hornet (or any other aircrafts radar that is over/under-performing), and at the same time so as not to make one unrealistically inferior relative the other.

Figure 4 was deemed immediately lethal due to structural failure. The spar is completely severed, hence that part of the wing is coming off right away in flight.

Not sure why you even found that comment necessary? Yes a 20mm that shoots at 6000 rpm is certainly sufficient. Not sure what that has to do with the effect from a 30mm HE(M) shell hit though though.

Fig.1 & 5 were judged as "Probably lethal structurally & aerodynamically; lethal by loss of control" Here are some interesting extra details about Fig.5 (fragments entering cockpit):

Rechecked the report and it states directly from behind with 10 deg rotation. (I misremembered it as 30 deg it seems) "Shooting conditions: The wings were attacked directly from behind, and the fuselage at an angle of rotation of 10 ° from this position." This looks like it might be the entry hole?: Here's a couple pictures from the tests to see if the shells would skip at an acute angle on the wings, but the shells just pierced the thin skin and detonated inside:

We do, it was 30 deg from the back, the same angle at which it was filmed:

- because you don't agree with it. Remember all I'm saying is that people need to know what it is they're actually picking up on their radar screen in DCS before making judgement on wether or not the radar is really overperforming or not. That is; is it a [insert airplane name] loaded to the brim with missiles & fuel bags, or is it a virtually clean one? (This is ofccourse assuming loading external stores increases the RCS in DCS, which I honestly don't know if it does) I said this as it felt like someone was trying to argue that a Hornet would pick up a Viper before the Viper could pick up a Hornet, which I don't really see any evidence to suggest should be the case. Thus if you're campaigning so aggressively for the Vipers radar to be decreased in effectiveness, then why are we not seeing you do the same for the Hornet which radar is even better ingame? Remember like TheFighterPilot says, the pilots who've flown both usually observe the Viper & Hornet (Legacy ofc) radars perform about the same in actual practice, i.e. the difference in being able to pick up similar targets isn't that big.

True, and do you know what is also true? That no'one was actually complaining. But since I already highlighted that a few times you ofcourse already know that, so I probably don't need to post this advice?: Guys, remember to read each others posts before you accuse anyone of anything :thumbup:

Noticed I didn't address this btw:

No Fenrir, anyone who has expressed that opinion (which is identical to my own I might add) I have not ever "fought" or even addressed. I have addressed a comment on the British tests that insinuated it was invalid. If you can't see how saying "it only shows what happens with perfectly placed shots on the ground" comes across as "it rarely happens in combat", then I don't know what to say. And don't misread this as me saying it is easy to make hits with the Mk108 (NineLine apparently thought I meant that), because I know it's damn hard thanks to a 550 m/s MV. In other words: The Mk108 is far from a ideal fighter v fighter weapon. But IF you manage to score that hit, well then obviously you'd expect it to be either fatal or atleast very crippling by far the majority of the time, that is all. In short not a 100% sure kill irrespective of hit placement, ofcourse not, and we obviously don't disagree on that, hence I'm astounded how NineLine & yourself could translate it as such.

Sorry but you're the one who suddenly seems to be on a crusade to devalue the opinion of those whom you don't agree with here. Next time you tell people to quote "get off their soap box", then notice who it is that is egnaging in ad hominem attacks instead of just keeping it civil by sticking to the subject.

Mate, I haven't been criticizing the new DM at any point. I was initially responding to ONE thing NineLine said. He apparently took that as me criticizing the new DM, which I never did.

What in the ??? Has it ever occured to you that maybe you were misreading MY posts ? For example: I HAVEN'T SAID THE NEW DM WAS WRONG.

Also just to be clear I have at no point criticized the new upcoming DM you posted pictures of. All I've done is state (& shown) what would most likely happen in real life when a fighter got hit by the Mk108, that's it. So if what you say about the new DM is true, that is:

@NineLine I find it odd that you think I am trying to pick a fight when it was you who effectively challenged my statements with: 1) "Those were perfectly placed shots in ground testing" 2) "SO why didn't the immediately swap out all guns for cannons, have you asked yourself this?" 3) "P-47 says hold my beer" *posts random pictures of damaged P-47s* In effect those three things is you insinuating that it would be rare for a Spitfire or P-47 to go down due to a single hit by a Mk108 in actual combat, which is completely the opposite of the conclusions drawn by the RAE after testing, and in contrast to what I said, i.e.: