Ahmed

I noticed it is quite easy in DCS to trick the missile's guidance algorithm to hit the ground while pulling lead by diving towards the ground. While this was effective in the oldest system, such as the S-75 Dvina deployed initially in Vietnam, the engineers quickly learned these tactics and implemented revisions into the guidance algorithms (i.e. half-lead elevated by constants in later version of the same S-75). Thus, newer systems shouldn't be exhibiting this "pulling lead and hitting the ground" as they currently do in DCS.

Hello, I noticed that infantry do not attack at night even if enemy units pass right in front of them. Their visual sensors seem to have zero range at night. Track attached (2.5.3.21235)

What about the flashing lines for missile launch as reported in this post? Does anyone have more video examples?

Excellent job guys! Just convinced me to finally order the rift :lol::thumbup:

Hello, I'm posting here as this is more a question than a bug report. It was of my understanding that HUD RWR threat indication (line and symbol) flash for missile launch, as (barely) visible on this video. In today's DCS update it does not, and Matt's video from yesterday doesn't mention it either. This may have changed over the years, and I don't have any documentation to support it, but maybe someone can shed some light into it.

Cool! If you are using the same API than the mission scripting system, Object.getVelocity() should get you the ground track easily too. :thumbup:

Hello, Noticed while flying with a crosswind that the heading show in the "Selection's properties" window is, indeed, the heading. As there is no way that a radar can get this information (other than datalinks such as mode S), is there any chance that you can change this into the object's ground track in the future?

Hello, I noticed that the target heading vector as defined in pages 138-139 of the EA guide seems to react wrongly. I set up a head-on intercept in the ME: Target Aspect (TA)=0, own heading (FH)=090, bandit heading (BH)=270. After initial STT lock the picture looks correct: After taking a 45º offset to the right (FH=135), I get the following indications: This target heading vector looks wrong (reversed) in this second example, as it shows a TA to the right of the bandit's nose (~45R TA), while actually lateral separation is being built to the left of the bandit's nose (expected to see ~5L TA). BH is still 270º. Track attached. TABug.trk

Hello, I noticed that in some situations the sonic boom effect was triggered at abnormally low mach numbers. I did some investigation and found that it seems to be wrongly tied to ground speed instead of relative speed with the fluid (air). I attach a track with 97kt wind aloft 1) If flying with a tailwind at Mach 0.9 -> sonic boom wrongly triggered 2) If flying with a headwind at Mach 0.9 -> no sonic boom p.s. The 97kt limit on wind speeds aloft also seems a little bit arbitrary. Winds aloft in real life usually exceed 100kt and sometimes can exceed 200kt. Regards, SonicBoomBug.trk

Hello, Since today's update, AI are freezing when launching from carrier (tested on S-3 and F-14A), halfway dawn the cat track. Replay attached LaunchBug.trk

Id actually say the opposite. When I first noticed the difference I gave kudos to ED for finally someone modeling these kind of things into a pc sim. Can’t talk about the F-18 as I dont even know what air data sources they use, but 70ft per 10k looks about right to me...

Legacy Hornet never got the buddy store AFAIK. So most likely a Viking in the old times or a Rhino nowadays would be serving as recovery tanker.

It is indeed 3.5 in the .lua files. Could be interesting to experiment with IFLOLS angle 4.0 degrees for strong winds, but probably not idea to mess with the values until there is an in-game (ME?) option ;)

Am I? Yes... :no_sad:

Also, the wheels spin under certain conditions when stationary on deck

"hornet tanker 3.5" is fuel to tank (similar to bingo quantities for diversion), not tanker angels!:lol:

The same way there are CATM-9s in the sim, a FCLP meatball wouldnt hurt... if the team have time after EA maybe (?)

EHAM and EBBR have no EMCON concerns. Also, unlike ILS, ICLS is a microwave based system.

For both carriers and airbases it would be a great idea

Thanks for the lecture on airplane instruments. FYI: I do land safely on IMC conditions out of NDB approaches (and other non-precision types) on a weekly basis.

You have ADF and you have TACAN... I don't see the problem if the real Lot 20 doesn't have it...

And for the 5th time too, stop trying to justify the presence of an inlet icing warning in clear air regardless of the temperature (to be honest I dont have a clue about where the inlet temp sensors are located).

Jet engine icing happens only in a narrow margin of temperatures and requires moisture in the air (i.e. clouds, mist or other kind of visible moisture). We are talking about roughly about the 0 to -20C (static air temperature) margin mainly though it may still exist at lower temperatures (up to -40). That's the general consensus. Current caution goes of several thousand feet above the nearest cloud with the ENG page reporting 22 degree inlet temp. So the icing model at least is wrong. But in one of the latest updates they commented that some changes were coming to the atmosphere model as some of the wing vapor effects were going to depend on humidity, so maybe the icing model will be revamped too.

For icing to develop you need a temperature range AND moisture. At the moment the advisory is going off when clear of cloud so the logic is definitely bugged

The activateBeacon command could benefit from having a power parameter like the radioTransmission does. That would allow for the mission creator setting up beacons with the appropriate range