Schmidtfire

The AIM-9B behaviour looks kind of cool. But here is the interesting part. GAR-8 (AIM-9B) was developed by Belsimtek (now ED) for use on F-86F module. R-3S was developed by Leatherneck for MiG21bis and later put on L-39 and MiG-19P. Obviously they developed the missiles in different ways and thats why there is such a difference in DCS. Also to note is that none of the missiles fly in that classic snakelike sidewinder pattern. What missile is closer to real I don’t know.

As for missiles: R3S slightly ”improved” AIM-9B R3R closest would be AIM-9C R13M is close to the AIM-9G R13M1 is close to the AIM-9J AIM-9P is close to the AIM-9J Rb24J = AIM-9J Rb24 = AIM-9B RS-2US beamriding missile. R-55 same missile but IR seeker. R-60 limited all aspect capability. R-60M all aspect capability (DCS) CONCLUSION AIM-9P, RB-24J and R-13M1 is equally matched. Rb24 and AIM-9B are equally matched. R3S is a bit better, at least in DCS.

Regarding R-60 against ground targets. United States actually developed AGM-87 Focus for this purpose. The idea was to retain the IR seeker of the AIM-9 and use it during night attacks on trucks, campfires and other targets with IR signature against a cool background. It was tested successfully in Vietnam but was dropped in favour of other weapons.

I don't know if this will help, but you can have the ship stationary until % damaged by AI MiG-21 (a trigger) and then the ship will try to move away at full speed. Or choose another AI aircraft that has Anti-Ship mission. Moving ship attacked by MiG-21 might be solvable by some clever scripting and triggers, but it is a bit out of my level of knowledge.

I have not looked at your mission. But here is a workaround: Set the MiG-21 to Ground Attack. Under Advanced Waypoints select Bombing and choose weapon, how many to expend etc. Put the bombing marker on top of the ship to be striked. This obviously only works if the ship is standing still as the AI wingman is set to strike the ground/sea where the ship is located. I have tried this using AI F/A-18C dropping Mk84's on a submerged Submarine, so it should work for you too. Have not tried with rockets or other weapons, but that should work as long as it is something that can be targeted against ground. This short tutorial will give you the basics:

Thanks. I have already seen that video In my opinion, it is not enough footage to jump into EA. I want to see "Petrovich AI" in action, how the guided missiles works, sounds, navigation, the multiseat functionality etc. A meaty presentation with few edits what to expect on Day 1. For all we know there might be 6-36 months of frustrations in store... Worst case scenario I can wait until there is a sale down the line. But I think it is a very reasonable to ask for a proper showcase before it is released.

What is perceived as realism is highly subjective. As I previously wrote, there is already many issues with the view system within DCS. Will it be more realistic because big canopy reflections and a gunsight you cannot see through? Replicating what a fighter pilot sees on current software and hardware is extremely difficult, if not impossible. We are already at a big disadvantage trying to pick up aicrafts and objects compared to real life. So that is why Im very doubtful that these big reflections gives the overall experience that a real fighter pilot would have. Instead it might push us further away from what is realistic. I really do like the new reflections, my objection is that they come on very strong in the current flat screen environment. It is what it is... not much to do about it. But the sight glass has to be fixed... that is extreme.

This is not entirely correct. This guy could see fighters at 24 miles. Extraordinary, but possible. In theory your arguments are very valid, but flying in DCS the reality is somewhat different. One of the biggest advantages since birth of aviation - height, doesen't work properly in DCS because of spotting mechanics. You also have to factor in the strange zoom/fov/lod behaviour, the dynamic range, contrast and color compared to real life. VR helps a great deal compared to a flat screen as fighters doesn't "blend" into the background as easily. Im currently using a 3440x1440 screen and honestly I don't see much. Not at long ranges, not at medium ranges, not at close ranges. Dotted labels help, but it ruins the immersion a bit. Back to the new reflections. They look fantastic, not questioning that. But the strenght of the reflections becomes sort of a problem dealing with all the current issues and limitations above. I guess we just have to deal with that for the time being. As MBot wrote above, the biggest issue right now is the gunsight glass, if that is fixed then I think we will be ok for the time being. At least Magnitude 3 is early adopters and that is a good sign

Did not know Marines deployed together with the Navy on carriers. Yes. Marines on carrier = ATFLIR Point of the original post is to pick whatever makes more sense for what you are simulating. Obviously, if only raw performance matter for a "generic" multiplayer mission, the Litening is hard to beat. Incredible zoom performance and ability to point laser marker during night missions. However, I really like the fast zoom levels on the ATFLIR. It also looks a bit sleeker mounted on the chin.

It really comes down to what you want to simulate. Performance is in the same ballpark, but might change in the future. NAVY - ATFLIR MARINES - LITENING (on centerline only) SPANISH AIR FORCE - LITENING That's it. Simple. Figure out what service you are flying for and load accordingly.

Bumping for visibility. It is very important that AUTO works correctly. Please check new information posted above. Current method might be correct for TPOD but looks like it is not the way to go for TV Designation. Thanks! @myHelljumper @Zeus67

The RWR has not been fully implemented and is not working correctly. There are other threads about it. But yes, there should be a flashing LAUNCH light upon launch etc. I don't know if it is intended to be fixed and fully implemented or left on the F-5E module "as is".

I also suspect that R-27ET seen as the ultimate "stealth weapon" is a DCS thing, with the OLS-27 IRST overperforming a great deal. So using 4x R-27T/ET's on the jet in real life for BVR type of engagements would make very little sense.

I have to say, this is a growing trend. Problem starts when there is a technical discussion. Players who expect realism are getting mocked or hit with arguments like "im having a lots of fun, just play" or "it's good enough for me". Good for you, but it doesent help the developers further improve the product for your benefit.

Im sorry you got attached to an unfinished flight model for 2 years, but changes had to be made to make it more realistic. You should now be able to make a more realistic airshow, just need to plan and practice with the new flight model. It's a good thing.

They have removed the older LAU-3 FFAR (19 rockets, pods with front cover) The newer LAU-68 FFAR pods with 7 rockets are avalible. To use them in a ripple you can set it in the Mission Editor or via Kneeboard with engines off. It will unload the entire tube at one go for a better effect on target area. Ripple settings for rockets are something that is generally set on ground by manually configuring the pod. For Zunis I doubt that you can set exact ripple interval in flight.

Ok, Im bumping this thread. @myHelljumper I was gonna make a report on the weird EHSD DESG behaviour when using TV Designation, but found this thread. Reading the A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 I find it very strange that there is no mention of needing EHSD DESG and using waypoint increment button for AUTO delivery. ARBS/TV Designation "The pilot can either fly the velocity vector over the target and press/release the TDC to designate, or action slew the TV FOV box over the target and release the TDC to command target acquisition. Again the preferred (easier) method is to fly the velocity vector to the target to designate. Once designated, no action slewing may be performed to sweeten the lock on point using 6 to 1 magnified video on the DDI. In the A/G master mode, attack symbology is presented on the HUD once target range is established. The MC uses the target LOS rates generated by the ARBS, aircraft altitude, and airspeed to compute target range." 2-44 Reading how the INS designation works, INS point blank, ARBS/TV and ARBS/LST Designation, there is not a single mention about going into the EHSD and box anything or use the Waypoint Increment button. Also worth noting, when in ARBS/LST on lock on it automaticly switches into AUTO and presents a bomb fall line (pictured in 2-49) Here is also some quotes. "Remember that in an auto delivery, the system will attempt to hit the designated target. When using the TV to designate the target, knowledge of where the TV will typically lock on certain target types is critical to mission planning and success." 1-204 "On Day and Night Attack aircraft the ARBS is the only height-above-target measurement device available that is actually tied to the target. In light of the accuracy of the ARBS system, the limitations of the radar altimeter, and the inaccuracies involved in ADC measurement, every weapons delivery should attempt use of a DMT designation. In some scenarios lack of valid DMT designation should become one of your tactical abort criteria." 2-4 WHY SHOULD WE GO INTO EHSD PAGE AND DESIGNATE SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY DESIGNATED VIA DMT??? I do understand if EHSD DESG is needed for the TPOD as it is not well integrated into the Harrier. But it makes very little sense for TV Designation via DMT. Please have a look at this! Thanks!

If it helps for reference, there is live footage in this thread along with some screenshots:

This looks great!

The MiG-15bis module was released several years before GDR faction was added into DCS. Back then "Germany" was the natural choice for a GDR livery. Good that it got reported.

Pros are that it's great to have many options. Ability to reenact historical missions and scenarios. MiG-21bis is a great example they added some historical weapons and equipment not used and in some cases incompatible with the bis version. Cons are that flamboyant loadouts on Hornet, Viper and Warthog becomes the norm. Lots of players love to have the most destructive aircraft and wipe out base after base. 6x AGM65, 8x AGM-154 JSOW, 4x AGM-88... It doesn't reflect real life operations and learning the limitations and history of each aircraft. Min-Maxing is a thing even in a simulator like DCS, so it is a struggle for the devs to cater the "rivet counters" aswell as the "casuals". Today DCS attracts a very broad spectrum of players. Some like study simulators, others want a flight game with focus on the action. The compromise right now is "technically possible" loadouts. Back to the Mirage F1. Aerges has not ruled out other versions, but I expect them to mainly focus on the variants announced.

Im not going to buy it unseen, so hopefully there will be a few detailed videos (not only trailers) before the EA starts. That's how it was done for DCS back in the day, but seems like we get to see less and less content before release nowdays

At the end of the day we are squinting our eyes in front of a monitor, trying to deal with a bunch of other visibility limitations in the sim. Very important to strike a balance here as we are already hampered in our ability to see things on the screen (compared to a fighter pilot with 20/20 vision). Reflections looks really cool, but it is a bit much. I guess we have to wait and see how ED develops the tech...

I have noticed that the Zuni Rockets is not sticking out from the pods as per IRL. Tip of the rockets should be clearly visible and outside of the pod. Also referenced here in Object Bugs (posted in 2018):

This issue was reported 5 years ago. To put in perspective, we first got our hands on the DCS: F/A-18C two years later (in 2018). Not a small bug either... the sound stops