red_coreSix

How does it work in conjunction with other users using the new netcode? Am I still warping for other clients or they for me?

The SA-2 does not use SARH. Many SAMs don't. How do you know it was SARH? Even then, I've seen videos of SA-2 launches generating missile launch warnings in F-16s.

Prove me wrong.

In silence? Almost all SARH homing missiles use some kind of command guidance phase in flight to get into seeker range, these signals will be detected and will cause a missile launch warning. Far from silent if you ask me.

The area illuminated will be much bigger for a SARH missile than a ARH. This is because the transmitter is further away, thus the radar cone grows. Plus, the radar on board the amraam has a small diameter so its cone would be smaller than the one from a fighter radar. A missile won't really lock on to chaff, chaff just causes the targets RCS to grow rapidly when it's close to the target. This can screw with a missiles tracking, as most of them use some kind of centroid track. When it's not it just creates main or sidelobe clutter.

I found that just holding the chat button will close it, double tabbing didn't work for me.

Interesting, pseudo noise as in frequency hopping LPI? Or just resistance against noise jamming?

Hey, Radar range is dynamic and is dependent on several factors. The most important one being the RCS (Radar Cross Section) of the target that is to be detected. So a target with a big RCS (say a tanker) will get picked up further because you get more energy back than you would with a smaller target (like a fighter). That targets emissions are picked up before they appear on your radar is accurate. The waves coming from him only have to travel one way, whereas your radar waves will need to travel both ways back to the receiver. Here is a good tutorial for the F-15s radar in DCS: [ame] [/ame]

And proper ECM would make this worse, with everybody jamming himself to the merge. And, by the way, you can't force people to play exactly like a real pilot would fly missions. It's still an entertainment product, you don't have to fear for your life, thus you'll never act like a real pilot would (you can get closer to reality with nice community events like redflag or joint warrior though, just not on your ordinary public server). I did contribute to the thread, come on... And I don't think there is no need to "enhance ECM in this sim", if we had the information necessary to provide a realistic (!) ECM scenario it would have been done already. It simply isn't possible to model ECM realistically in a sim, again due to the complexity of the subject. Especially for a flaming cliffs aircraft with no clickable cockpit. And even if we were to model the L005 in a realistic manner, you would have to integrate it simultaneously with all the other planes, not "in the future". I'm just stating the obvious here, you will never get accurate EW modelling in DCS. EDIT: I still think threads like these are really interesting and I'm, by no means, saying they shouldn't exist.

Very interesting! So "Oscyllant" is blinking, I guess, and "ECM against ground" is terrain-bounce. You mentioned the manual states the left pod being receive and the right one transmit, are you sure the left pod can't transmit? Because you would limit yourself by doing so (cross-eye jamming)... Edit: sniped by GGTharos :D

Nice post, a few notes: It's very unlikely that the L005 uses noise jamming (what you probably mean with "brute force") as its primary jamming technique (like any modern ECM system). The first panel shown is likely the ON/OFF button for the whole system. ECM systems normally operate fully-automatic with little user input due to the complexity of electronic warfare. There would be way to many parameters to configure if you'd try to do it manually. In normal operation the "AUTOMATIC JAMMING" switch would likely be turned on at all times, selecting all settings on this panel automatically. The "DETECT" and "ILLUMIN" switches probably determine wether the system should operate passively (as in ELINT/ESM) or actively. In fact, the "DETECT" switch doesn't make much sense as an ECM system constantly collects information of emitters, and wouldn't be effective at all without doing so, so maybe your theory, that it only operates as "lock breaker", is correct. The ">3KM/<3KM" switch possibly controls special modes like terrain-bounce, that are only possible at low altitude. But again, I would expect that to be automated as well. They surely don't expect the pilot to take the hands of the stick and switch all these switches with an AIM-120 inbound... I think you'd be surprised how much a proper ECM environment would suck. The current ECM modelling may lack huge parts and only supports noise jamming but this is because an accurate ECM-simulation would not only require a lot of resources (I doubt it's even doable without classified information) but would also ruin the "gameplay".

You shouldn't be able to evade any missile in-game with a 3G turn, I believe it has to do with the lagging in multiplayer. The K-13M1 is actually an improved version of the K-13M which in itself is already an improved K-13. It should perform better than the standard AIM-9P in-game (which is the P1?).

I don't think so, the R-60M is (at least in-game) way better than the AIM-9P5 in terms of turning. And the 21 can carry 4 plus two R-3Rs which are some of the best tracking SARH missiles in-game.

Not every continuous wave radar will trigger a missile launch warning, or does the clamshell? ;) The flood mode isn't even using the radar but the flood horn, which is located behind and above the radar antenna. It produced a missile warning in earlier versions but they changed it. Why do you think it is incorrect though?

If you want every radar missile to miss and your radar not being able to track anything properly :) Seriously though, the current implementation of ECM is not the best but there is limited unclassified information on western and eastern ECM systems. It would take a lot of (guess)work to make it accurate and again would absolutely destroy the current type of gameplay.

Really interesting read, good find! I just pasted it into Google translate, that worked pretty well. "definition and playback frequency system Tasks: - Replacement of the received pulse and continuous quasi-continuous signals signal of the same" This confirms that the Sorbitsya is DRFM capable, which is no surprise as it is supposedly an AESA system, which would enable the creation of false targets as well as other jamming techniques. I don't see this being implemented in the sim though, way to complex to model reliably. Especially for a flaming cliffs-level aircraft. The F-15s internal jammer can, by the way, perform about the same tasks as the Sorbitsya, so I don't see the point. It would just ruin BVR for everybody :)

As has been said in other posts, it's likely a product of the clients and server not being synced up correctly. Which is also why you have to lead your targets more when gunning.

I think it has to do with the new netcode. Targets aren't where they are shown on your screen. It seems that your game and the server aren't really synced up, which is why you have to aim infront of your target to hit it (and maybe also why the missiles don't really work).

Yes, they seem to have disabled the former already bad proximity fuses altogether now. I evaded 8 missiles in 10 seconds yesterday by just turning into them slightly, ETs, ERs, 73s. On a site note, gunning doesn't work as well anymore, since due to the new netcode targets are not where they are in game.

Simple LOS-rate based PN? I highly doubt that. They surely used some more advanced form of PN, such as APN...

As the title says, are there plans to add contrails for air to air missiles?

No they can't. And yes, the A-10 has the EGI navigation system (embedded GPS INS). The alignment takes about 3 minutes IIRC.

Again, A-10s have it, Ka-50s have it. Why shouldn't you? It's part of the start up procedure, and it's unfair if you can just disable it and others can't.

A-10 and KA-50s had to do that for years. That's what comes with a DCS level aircraft and I don't see the reason why you should disable this realistic behavior.

Die KI, zwar in "Rechenleistung" einem Menschen überlegen, muss aber immer noch die eben genannten Informationen wie Geschwindigkeit, Position und Vektor Gegners erhalten. Würde man die KI in eine ganz normale F-18 oder vergleichbares Flugzeug setzten, hätte sie gar nicht die nötigen Sensoren um den Gegner zu verfolgen. Selbst in einer F-35, mit dem 360° DAS-System wird der Computer immer noch Schwierigkeiten haben die Information vernünftig zu verarbeiten da diese Systeme nicht für den Dogfight ausgelegt sind. Vielleicht wird sich sowas in 30 Jahren durchsetzen aber heute sehe ich noch nicht wie. Vor allem wie von shagrat angesprochen wegen der korrekten Einschätzung einer unklaren Situation.