Maverick Su-35S

I consider this topic should be moved to the scientific or research part of the ED forums! I've always wished the best for DCS through ED, although I've gotten tired over the years of being mocked by those with little intelligence and knowledge, ignored, whatever, so I'm used to it now!

Agree, but by what margin would the missile's interception error build up? Even 2 meters away from the ideal detonation distance from the target could make minimal to no damage on the target, especially if the target is faster and the missile detonates behind. There was that funny interesting fact with that Saudi F-15 which was flying straight, was warned that a missile is coming (dunno how the pilot knew), the pilot did the dumbest things possible..., put full AB, dropped just 2 pair of flares, continued to fly straight, didn't even budge to pull up or do a turn or anything, and the blinded R-27T SAM blew up somewhere to the left and above that F-15, so..., just many meters away and did little damage on it's frame and skin and elevators if I recall correctly. So, that pilot escaped ejection or death even though he did what was dumbest of all, putting AB in full blast and still escaped by luck as the missile blew up and to the left, enough meters away to cause anything critical. So..., drawing from that example, if a DIRCM is able to make the imaging seeker have errors in it's final trajectory and intercetion, EXACTLY AS IT ACTUALLY IS SIMULATED NOW IN DCS on the SU-25T, but unfortunately only on the non-imaging seekers which should otherwise be losing track on the DIRCM emitting target maybe at least half a mile before reaching their target, the way these non imaging seekers missiles behave in DCS should be the way the IRIS-T and AIM-9X imaging seeker heads should be affected, just like that, by starting to lose interception precision and most logically detonate meters away from the unaffected initial detonation distance or simply just fly by if their detonation system only activates the detonation if the target is below X meters away and if not, the missile goes flying by. What do you think?

Just from reading now from that article, this aspect may have been overlooked by most of us: the outside temperature=)). Heh..., indeed it matters a lot in affecting an IR seeker but we usually focus on other complex details and forget this: From that article's text: Environmental Thermal range 0° to 30°C Relative humidity 0% – 50% RH And also: " The upper level was selected to avoid and damage to the detector." This can tell (at least I'd do that if I were to design a military DIRCM, to save an aircraft with) that the military DIRCM uses higher intensity laser to make sure that it does all the havoc to the incoming missile's seeker, burn it out if possible, not just affect it's precision. I don't know, now I may ask the dumbest question: Does that mean that over 30C of outside temp, the seeker looses it's tracking capability? Besides this question about what does that temp limit want to say,, I understand that the article was based on a simulator that they've created for research and it does not represent the real performances of a military IR missile seeker, but still, it's a research and how far from the military thing can it go? Just common sense!

Wow..., just stumbled upon a person who has some knowledge. Nice to respectfully salute you then! "Isn't the IRCM on the 25T just like a stroboscopic infrared light that interfere signal gain of spinning seeker reticles? So imaging seekers like IRIS-T / AIM-9X just track you normally." Just learned it from you know. I only knew somewhat about the DIRCM. But still, so it means that the DIRCM should still have an impact in tracking performances of missiles like IRIS-T and AIM-9X, by giving false information into the seek head, as you've said. I AM INTERESTED. As an ex-aerodynamicist and aerospace engineer with more than a decade of experience in flight dynamics and aerodynamics, I'm interested of everything I may learn for myself and others (when helpful) about any other subject, not only aerodynamics. Many thanks for the effort to put that link.

There is a bug regarding the login. Of course, it was built in mind with the idea to stop the thieves from playing DCS without buying a product, but it's so sensitive that if you login ONLINE and the internet has a disconnection..., only after it reconnects (you can play for days and nothing bad happens) it will throw you out of the sim with that nonsense LOGIN SESSION EXPIRED error, although YOU ARE THE SAME CLIENT, not someone else all of a sudden. The authentication server should f@#@# check this out! But this ONLY happens once the internet reconnects. So if you find out that the internet had disconnected, you'd better keep it disconnected and save your work, cause once it connects back... VOILA wonderful error! It's like there is a gap in the programming of this login feature. The sim should connect to a master server to rejoin and continue the connection session so that error should not come up again, but idk, I'm not a programmer, I'm just using common sense and logic.

Hi, Although these are not the only missiles suffering from the too high drag at low AoA syndrome which is quite common among DCS missiles, I've made a short track regarding the SEAD missiles KH-58 and KH-25. Although the KH-25 by some miracle glides at a very low speed towards the target, although unrealistically slow and manages to hit it doesn't mean that "IT'S OK, IT REACHED IT'S TARGET". Being far from having a closer to realistic drag vs AoA tables doesn't just cut a lot from the missile's real possible flight max range (if unlimited by passive radar signal strength), but also looks odd to see how it decelerates like it has some small parachute behind. The same goes with the KH-58 which actually falls short of the target due to exaggerated low AoA drag almost 10kms away from the target after being fired with LAUNCH AUTHORIZED confirmed and also that LA range is much shorter than it should normally be. I know that the aerodynamics problems subjects are a piss-off for some, but there are some passionate guys strictly on that subject and they can tell when something is quite off and truly put some passion into it. I hope the devs will find a day to try reducing the drag coefficients vs AoA on most missiles (the differences between a missile and another are not so great as most people who don't know might think) to levels seen on AIM-120s and IRIS-Ts would already be a great step towards more realistic drag vs AoA even if the particular numbers are not found. Simply by putting the same tables on the other missiles already brings them closer to realism, the max speed, range and deceleration mostly depending on engine/motor burn data and fins area, which are more accurate to get than an exact drag coef. KH-58 and KH-25MPU (not the only ones though) have too much drag at low AOA.trk

Hi, I've been playing around a bit against radar SAMs and what I found after the latest updates is that if you add an advanced waypoint action to these SAM groups to AVOID SEAD missiles by setting "Evasion of ARM = ON" and the RADAR SAM that is targeted by a SEAD missile turns off, the SEAD missile goes haywire towards the sky or starts going ballistic into the ground, instead of trying to hit the ground within a given precision near the last known location/coordinates of that targeted radar. Doesn't "IN & PAS RDR" attributes of a SEAD missile mean that it can track a radar either passively (normal mode) or by inertial navigation which basically means calculating the last known coordinates of the target? Or what does IN mean then? I searched a bit regarding the AGM-88 HARM and indeed the newer models also have a GPS correction (for better last coordinates accuracy), but the inertial guidance doesn't do the same thing with somewhat reduced coordinates precision? Also, the targeted radars that turn off to evade ARM are never turning back on. They get so scared? The only radar that turns back on to search is the one which moves/relocates to another position after it turns off and from where it stops it turns back on, like for example the Roland EWR that I've tested before this track. Maybe there is a bug which requires the radar to mandatory switch position before turning back on and if it doesn't change position, it will forever remain OFF or there's a bug by which mobile radars don't start moving to a new position and thus it never turns back on. I've attached a track. Thanks! SEAD missiles IN (inertial) mode not simulated and AI SAM radars that turn off and not move afterwards, won't turn back on.trk

I was wrong about the DIRCM not working at all. It does indeed not work at all on IRIS-T and AA missiles for no reason, but maybe this will hopefully be corrected in the future, cause all IR missiles are badly affected by a heating laser on their seeker. The DIRCM's field of work has been drastically reduced though (after some X update) from some 90 degrees (45 left/right/up/down) to just some 20 degrees (10 left/right/up/down) from the back of the plane and that's why I initially had the impression that it's not working anymore. It does, but it's almost useless as it only works on SAM IR missiles (except the faulty IRIS-T and AA missiles) if the incoming missile is within some maximum 10 degrees offset of the Su-25Ts centerline when closing in from behind. Here are the tracks: Thank you! AA missiles are unaffected by DIRCM.trk DIRCM limited to only 20deg from around 100deg.trk IRIS-T also unaffected by DIRCM.trk

I understand that they are very busy with many other things, I imagined that too and now I get it that they don't have time to prove me wrong and make a track proving the opposite of what I say. So I did this track now. Indeed, I haven't tested enough two things: 1. The preventive flares drop before an IR sam is launched indeed works. I've made topic about it and I'll quickly post this same track there to prove I was wrong about that as I've only got that feeling while playing missions and never took time to do a thorough test like I did now! 2. The DIRCM indeed works giving some 90% chance of avoiding an SAM IR missile coming from the back, but NOW (after some update) the DIRCM's effective cone is reduced from some wider angle (maybe it was 90 degrees in the past) to just around 20 degrees (10 degrees left, 10 degrees right and up/down). This was the reason why I had the impression that it's not working anymore, simply because I didn't find out during casual play that the missile must fly almost straight from the back in order to be somewhat affected by the DIRCM. Besides the fact that the DIRCM doesn't rapidly heat up the missile's seeker (I'm aware that this isn't simulated at all, like a function of lock loss over time), the effective cone on the DIRCM seems absurdly low in degrees of field. like I said, some maximum 10 degrees offset from the aircraft's centerline. On the other hand, speaking of DIRCM, the IRIS-T at the moment is not affected at all by the DIRCM's laser, no matter the angle and alignment with the Su-25T when chasing it from the back. Also the AA missiles behave the same like IRIS-T and never get blinded/heated and never loose lock on the target. Tracks provided for this as well. Thanks! AA missiles are unaffected by DIRCM.trk DIRCM limited to only 20deg from around 100deg.trk IRIS-T also unaffected by DIRCM.trk

You "believe" that the IR missiles should be more resistant to flares because they are newer gen missiles. Ok..., then what about the AIM-9X fired from an F-18 at some Su-22 in Syria and which was rapidly trashed by the Su-22 dropping flares (maybe preventive) and so the F-18 pilot got a little mad to see his wonderful AIM-9X go for flares and so he fired an AIM-120 to make sure he hits that Su-22? Was that AIM-9X from the 70s? What we think is sometimes and maybe most of the time very different from reality!

So what do you propose? Can I propose you then to put a track here with you flying the Su-25T and avoiding IR missiles with DIRCM alone? Of course, it should work with ZERO FLARES to blind the incoming IR missile, otherwise we misinterpret what it does and veer off realism!

Guess what...! F@#@ this <profanity>! It now says login session expired every single time the internet reconnects. Basically I login with the account on the initial DCS start menu, enter the game, enter a mission, disconnect the internet, reconnect it and wamm.."login session expired".=)) When I thought that I escaped the first problem this happens now. Why can't the game just recognize that it has been RECONNECTED TO THE SAME ACCOUNT and says login session expired like if I entered in single player with no internet to verify the modules, which indeed has a limited play time? Why does it do this confusion?

I've been testing this a lot to confirm. When pre-flaring against AA IR missiles, yes, even after you stop dropping flares, the air to air IR missile might go for the flares, but if a an IR SAM is launched, it will never go for flares that were pre-released. It's simulated that the IR SAM will only start looking for flares only after it gets launched, NEVER before. On the other hand, if an IR SAM is launched, it can go even for 1x flare that you release after the missile is launched at you and it will go for that single flare if you are 3-4kms away from the launch point, which seems pretty plausible from that distance. I don't even need to post a track, everyone can check this out.

Lol..., I thought that there's something related to the missile's flight performances or something, but for him, underperforming meant about the explosive damage. Don't confuse performances with explosive power. Nonetheless on an immortal AI=). Of course, you later found out that small mistake!

No! I didn't generate anything! It's the game that did things by itself over the years of updates. I had installed Open Beta when it was, then later on DCS's updated did the rest and voila..., it didn't take care of that folder, it remained named Open Beta and perhaps other files were messed up in the main game folder as well and we may never know exactly if it was only a file that needed replacement or a bunch of other. I've just reinstalled +500GB of game files and that was it. Now it works. No more crashes after reconnecting to the internet during a mission. Thanks!

I have quoted that to highlight it for everyone to not understand things wrong, not only to that guy! Did you find interesting what you wrote?

Hi, Playing DCS since KA-50 (almost 2 decades ago) I have witnessed the foreseen and the unforeseen. Now, I know that the DIRCM is basically a system designed to spot the plume of missiles within a given FOV and interpret them as real missiles or not within some given false positive error. It's purpose was to detect IR missiles although I doubt that it's able to differentiate between radar or IR missile in reality simply because it looks for a plume pattern left behind by any missile. So it basically warns you about it. After detecting that a missile is incoming, a rapidly rotating laser with a given divergence and beam intensity will eventually pass over the IR missile's seeker head, rapidly and repeatedly heating it up, up to the point of making it become completely unable to distinguish any heat signature anymore, because IR missile's seekers are highly cooled to be able to track heat targets better. The cooler the seeker, the better the lock, the hotter the seeker, the weaker the lock. That's why IR missiles are so limited in range..., not because they can't reach far. Just look at how now the IRIS-T is modeled in DCS. AT LAST..., after arguing so many times with so much logic and personal proof years behind, everyone was laughing at me until they found out that I was right, that missiles should have much more reduced drag than they had and so now we can see the IRIS-T, with better CD vs AOA tables implemented, that it has greater flight range than an AIM-120C once had (years ago). BRAVO! You guys finally found out what I was saying back then about the too high AA missiles drag at low AoA and too low drag at high AoA...! So, back to the subject, the faster a missile will fly through the air, at a greater rate it's seeker will heat up, because these are the laws of physics. So, even if an IR SAM missile can travel even past 10km down range, say... a MIM-72 Chapparal missile or IRIS-T, it's seeker will heat up in less than 4km high enough to lose the track on the locked heat source. The DIRCM does just that, it heats the incoming missile's seeker at a fast rate. Basically, if a missile is close enough to a DIRCM equipped aircraft, let's say less than 1km away, the DIRCM will first lose some time to react and start pointing the laser in repeated motions over the missile's seeker and missile will be close enough to not loose the lock on the heat source before it's seeker is hot enough. At least, that's how I find it pretty simple and logic to see. From too close, no DIRCM will be able to stop any IR missiles due to those key details. From further away, a function of time will greatly reduce an IR missile's PK without the use of any flares..., just simply because the chance of losing lock from random factors will occur. With basically a function of atmospheric temperature, missile speed and time of DIRCM actively heating a missile's seeker, there is a range between the launch site and the target after which that missile will lose lock 100% of times. Basically the PK becomes ZERO for good! I don't know what happened after X latest update, but one year ago I could have more than 90% of the missiles that were coming from the aft hemisphere of my Su-25T go by my plane without hits and today almost 0% of those missiles do that anymore. Now, with or without DIRCM, from far or from close, when an IR missile is coming for the Su-25T, it hits it like the DIRCM doesn't exist. Ah..., and by the way, in the past the DIRCM was only affecting IR SAM missiles, AA IR missiles were 0% affected by the DIRCM anyway. Now even the IR SAM missiles are not affected by the DIRCM? What is the new logic now? Thanks!

Does the Su-25 have afterburner? DIRCM impacted by engine RPM? Do you know what the DIRCM is first of all?

Hi, It seems it was actually a files corruption thing! I mean at least I suppose so, because I've asked a friend of mine to try disconnect and reconnect his internet while being in a mission and he tried multiple times and each time nothing happened..., no crash. I later found out that the "SAVED GAMES" folder from the user was named "DCS open beta" while for my friend it wasn't. After deleting all old files and afferent folders and reinstalling all files (600GB+) using the web installed, it no longer does that thing. So, everyone should know that files corruption can happen even if the REPAIR FILES feature is used..., it doesn't fix it. Thanks!

Hi, Dunno after what update this started happening, cause I know for a fact that an internet disconnection and re-connection wasn't doing this other times, but if you login with your account as normal, enter the game and load up a mission, be it single or multiplayer, if for whatever reason your internet disconnects, you will not be prompted with any error or anything just like nothing happened. You can remain disconnected for days if you were able to enter the game by online login with your account on the modern startup menu. But if your internet re-connects...BAMMM..., a CTD with an option to send the error report. So it only happens if you reconnect. If even for one second your internet has disconnected and then re-connected = CTD due to re-connection only. If you enter the game and play with offline mode, this issue won't take place. It only takes place after you reconnect to the internet when you have initially logged in with ONLINE mode. I have done the recheck of ALL files (slow work) at least twice hoping that the repair module might help find any issues with the files, but no. Nothing seems wrong with any of the installed files. Is this having to do with a sort of copyright protection or something which is made to prevent people trying to play DCS with unpaid modules and it affects everyone when the internet reconnects or is this happening only to me? I don't disrespect those who put unimaginable work and effort for these unique modules in this world in DCS, so I don't foul around with unpaid modules, so this is abnormal that these errors occur. Kind regards, Mav!

Hi, The same thing happens for me. So, for example, now if I go to my profile on DCS site and click on ACTIVE SERVERS LIST, there is a number of total servers that were sensed by the site. If I go in the sim at multiplayer, hundreds of servers are missing, including mine as well! I tried to see a given server made by myself on a different computer and different country (Romania) and although it shows up in the ACTIVE SERVERS LIST completely functioning for days, it does not show up in the multiplayer list inside the sim. Why does it appear in one place but not in the other? Thanks!

These are from DCS, right? The real F-18C isn't impressive at constant turn rates when flying at FULL AB above 10 AoA, even when clean. Perhaps you didn't know that ever since it appeared in DCS, the F-18C lot 20 has an exaggerated drag versus AoA function, so it decelerates much faster than in reality at IDLE thrust, and because it couldn't reach 1.8 Mach as Wikipedia wrongly states anyway as it's top seed, I suppose the devs have increased the engines thrust enough to have it reach some Mach 1.82 in ISA conditions at some 36k feet. Not to mention that even at 100% MIL, the beloved DCS F-18C reaches Mach 1.48 in clean config (SUPERCRUISE) like it tries to catch the F-22 and it also suprecruises at some Mach 1.27 with 2x AIM-120s and 2x AIm-9x. Anyone can test this! The real F-18C pilots know that it can reach only reach close to Mach 1 at 100% MIL, as well as maximum Mach 1.7 as top speed in clean config, when flying leveled at high altitude and may reach 1.8 only on a shallow dive for a some while. So, it's drag was and still is too high all around the AoA tables, and in order to compensate, the engines thrust is also over-exaggerated. That's why the F-18 in DCS turns with at least 2..3 degrees per second faster at maximum constant turn rate than it proves IRL for the same conditions and that makes a big difference in simulated dogfights. For instance, during personal tests I've found that it out accelerates and out climbs all other fighter jets in DCS when put into the vertical from the same initial speed and climbing G-load, shortly followed by RAZBAM's M-2000 (another jet with the same exaggerated engine thrust issue). The only fighter jet which has the highest constant turn rate, almost 2 degrees per second above the already high rate of the F-18C, is the JF-17 and it too isn't realistically made in terms of performances, either aerodynamic (lift-drag vs AoA) or engine performance! The F-16 is one of the most accurately performing and aerodynamically simulated fighter jets in DCS so far, only together with a few other jet fighters! So don't you wonder why real US fighter pilots who flew the F-16, F-15 and F-18 know for sure that the F-16 out turns the F-18 and F-15 at constant turns, while the F-15 only slightly out turns the F-18, thus the F-18 being in the thirst place, while in DCS it's on the first place. Something has to be fishy somewhere and I've already given some clues, for who cares about them!

Nope! I don't even have a button assigned for disconnection as I never plan to disconnect before fully refueled and I didn't even set may inputs as I've only started trying the F-4 with some play around in mind, starting with air refueling which has this apparent bug, which all other jets that I do air refuels on don't do! You have the track, you can check it. Like some 6 minutes after starting you can find what I'm talking about. And that didn't happen once by chance, I've intentionally then tried to see if it does it again (like a tester I like to be) and yes, it does it every now and then with no logic. Sometimes you sit there with the most forward green lights on, telling that I'm a bit lower and too forward (so the boom isn't that compressed if I'm also low and not just forward), and all of a sudden it disconnects, sometimes it stays for a while and won't do that. I think that it's triggered by the motion of the plane, cause let's be honest, you can't remain stuck in a position, so as the whole plane wobbles a bit, but still maintaining that general position with those 2 green lights, wammm...it disconnects! Regards.

Some times he says things the opposite way, so, personal choice, I erase Jester! I mean there's nothing more upside down than ignoring the lights and waiting for Jester who is also late in response to tell you what to do=)). Personal choice, I like to fix things, not ignore them!

Hi, Although I truly enjoy this product's quality, especially when it comes to the flight model realism of the aircraft, aerodynamic forces and moments versus AoA and Beta (sideslip angle), as well as engine performances, for which as an AE I can tell that for me HEATBLUR has won the prize for truly the best team in making the aircraft in flight behavior be simulated very correctly and I don't even want to talk about other third parties who never managed even 50% of what HEATBLUR proved. Every correct/fair definition comes relative to something, so I had to say it! Now, for the subject that I'm here with, whenever I do air refuels with the F-4, very often when I'm just one dot below and one dot (green light) ahead of the ideal center position, although I'm not making any abrupt maneuvers or anything, the boom disconnects! In order to catch this suspected bug, I've reconnected plenty of times and re-done the scenario and yes, for a good couple of times when I'm with both green lights from the belly of the tanker ahead of the ideal center position, meaning when I'm one green light towards UP and AFT indications, the boom unlocks for whatever reason and I must go for a re-connection! The track file has 65MBs, so I've shared it on this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cmkhmOfZEDHRm6SmuNKk5DgAZiMFS3jx/view?usp=sharing Kind regards!