Ahmed

Agree with all you say, Harker. Also especially with the 3rd parties having done a better job than ED despite multiple bug reports on the issue, and I hope that ED some day revisit their general ALR-67 simulation and also HUD EW symbology. However, regarding the OP's claim, there is a big difference between being able to classify a particular emitter as lethal and non-lethal depending on plenty of signal characteristics, including power, and being able to estimate if a monopulse radar active missile locked on your aircraft "has lost pursuit capability" or not (in OP's words).

Because the DCS viper simulates the ALR-56M, and the DCS hornet simulates the ALR-67(V)

The RWR cannot magically judge distance..... The Hornet RWR can classify threats as non-lethal, lethal and critical (just ED has implemented it wrong imo, based on public docs and available HUD tapes, as has been reported plenty of times), but, in any case, a reasonable educated guess is that any 120s locked on you would be presented as critical threat together with anything causing ML tone. There is no such a thing as "progressive lethality" moving towards the center of the RWR as the OP requests.

Hello, Thanks for implementing the steady aoa tone in the last update. However, the yaw rate tone is still not corectly implemented. According to NATOPS (Departure Warning Tone), the tone should start at a rate of 1hz at 40º/s yaw rate and the tone rate should increase with yaw rate until the tone becomes steady at 60º/s. Currently in DCS it comes only at a constant rate independently of the yaw rate value. Likewise, the aoa tone rate with flaps HALF or FULL should increase with aoa as the aoa progressess from 15 to to 35 and 12 to 32 respectively (above those values it becomes steady as currently simulated).

Hello Bignewy, Any news on this? After some further research, if the RWR in DCS discriminates between search and lock even if the player is not the target, it should certainly discriminate too between lock and launch even if not target. Currently the RWR while trigger a lock warning in a very wide sector (if not omnidirectionaly, didn't test enough), however it only triggers a launch warning if the player is the target. A lock and launch warning should be triggered if the player is close enough to the beam. While specifig guidance methods and specific systems will have different characteristics, the general explanation and rough numbers given by GGTharos agrees with all available public data on the simulated systems. Again, I report is a bug because in the past DCS worked this way and spurious launch tones were triggered (just maybe in a too wide area), while at some point it stopped doing it for the launch tones, so it may have been an overlook in some update.

There was some talk in the past about improved boom physics too but I haven't heard about this in a while.... It would be great to have all this revisited and also simulate the aerodynamic interactions with the basket

Glad to see that ED are not going the road other developers go not to fix broken stuff by making up that "they purposedly toned it down" :thumbup:

Don't fly "through the HUD". Look out, learn the picture you want to see, learn the cues to perceive relative 3d motion on a flat screen, and keep practicing. It is actually relatively easy in the DCS F18. Definitely don't try to fly the numbers in your HUD, that's one of the most common flightsim mistakes and will hinder both your AAR and your formation flying. An additional tip would be to practice flying formation with the tanker, both in the observation area and near the contact position, that will help you with all the above.

The caret is pitch and roll stabilized in reference to the aircraft's horizontal, according to its definition.

The thing is that the F-16 has a lot of publicly available documentation describing this while the F/A-18 does not. I'd also like to see some educated guess being done so that both modules are up to the same standard, as it doesnt make much sense to have incredibly detailed systems in one module and simplified versions in others, but I don't know how ED can approach the documentation problem.

Any info on a timeline for this to be added?

Yeah well that's obvious. What would be nice to know is if it will ever be a good idea in the future :smilewink:

because we need a sea state weather parameter but we don't have it yet (wishlist anyone?)

If player parks in the bow (as commonly done IRL recoveries), blocking a catapult track, the AI doesn't recognize the situation and taxi to any of the other 3 available cats. Instead, it taxies to the blocked cat and launches crashing into the player. Tracked attached. boom.trk

This is actually not neccesarily unrealistic, as long as they don't RTB after launch. For the rest, agree.

This is a very valid point that maybe should prompt ED to have some kind of QA on 3rd parties before placing them on final release state

To amplify Swift's report. Even if you set a waypoint for the AI at 7NM at 500ft to make them emulate a case I departure, the AI will first climb to 1000ft and then descend back.

For a start it would be nice to see some of the bugs posted in the bugs subforum tagged as reported.

Thanks GGTharos for the insight! Yes, my point precisely is that there is no way currently in DCS of flying into the beam and getting the spurious missile launch warning. The RWR seems to be hardcoded to just trigger the launch warning if the aircraft is the target, while in the past it seemed to be simulating and area around the beam and triggering the launch warning on other players flying into it.

Deleted

Hi, I think I reported this long ago but it got marked as reported for a different reason, and not exactly this one. The RWR does not give 'spurious' launch warnings when the player is not the target, even if the player is flying fingertip with the target (that's not fingertip on the track I know). It does, however, give spurious lock warnings. The RWR seems ot be coded to magically know who the target is in case of a missile launch, even if the player would be within the resolution cell of the radar. This likely applies to other modules as well. Regards, rwr.trk

This is actually quite needed so I hope the devs can allocate some time to get it implemented

Nevertheless, it would be great to get an official acknowledgment of whether this is accepted as a bug and is going to get fixed or not.

Hi, Found that many weapon types, including at least JSOW (singles, BRU-55 do), Harpoon, SLAM, Walleye, don't jettison when using SELECT JETT in STORES mode. No only that but it looks like the jettison sequence gets aborted and any station to be jettisoned after the one containing the weapon in question doesn't get jettisoned. Additionally, for some of them (Walleye at least), EMERG JETT wont work either if used after having tried to SELECT JETT. Short example track attached. jsow.trk

Good find. The aircraft should definitely not be using true altitude for most, if not all, of what you listed there.