Badlego

any new on this one? i am really curious if we get it

Hey guys, reading the HARM threat table sheet I do not understand the entries for the carriers. From my understanding the carriers CVN-70 till CVN-74 are carriers of the same class (nimitz). I assume that these ships have the same radar systems. The RWR symbols for them are the same (SS). How is it possible to have different DED-ID for different ships of the same class? For example how is the Carl Vinson different from the George Washington that the HARM can differ between them via DED-ID? Thank you in advance.

Dear ED Team, Please Note that this Bug is still present in the latest OB. Can a Moderator Please Change the Tag from [fixed internally] to [investigating] or something else? This Tag is from June and the Bugfix did Not make it into the OB so far. I doubt that an internal fix is held behind a Release from so Long. Instead i think, that the bug is not fixed yet, but i can be wrong. So i bump this Thread and hopefully i can send you a new track at the end of this Werk... Regards, Badlego

any chance of notification?

Let me help you with a track. Mig flanking from left to right. STT lock. Steering cue before missile launch is calculated like pure pursuit: the aircraft directly points at the target. The launched missile will immediately pull G to the right to go to lead pursuit. After the launch, the steering cue hops to the right, sothat the next shot is done in lead pursuit and the next missile has an easier path to the target. Note that the TTA and TTI timer is missing once the plane is winchester, but thats another bug... F16-Aim120-Steering-Cue-bug.trk

But Page 3 on the DLink DED page says "Link16 STN" with 8 Slots to be modified. I thought these entries are setting which plane is marked as "blue" on the Datalink. There is nothing about IDM. I think IDM is not used anymore in our F16 version, is it?

any idea what will be possible once the DL-DED page is working properly? For example on the flight management DL page there are 8 entries that can be set. For me that sounds like you can have up to 7 planes plus yourself beeing blue on the Datalink. But the manual also says, that "2, 3, or 4" appear over a target symbol when one of you wingmen is locking a target...as if more than 4 planes in a flight is not possible. I know that not more than 4 elements can be in one group in ME, but i hope that once the DL-DED page is functional there is no group limitation anymore... TLDR: will it be possible to have up to 8 Vipers in an advanced DL-Network (blue contacts on HSD with numbers from 1 to 8 and lock lines)?

Can you Post a track? In that Screenshot TMS right short should make the leading and the right target System Targets (filled White boxes) and you can Switch the bugged target between them with TMS right short then. You can never Bug both Targets, thats correct, but a target does Not need to be bugged after beeing Launched on to Support a Missile. System target is enough, or even correlates Tracks (?)

Sorry for bumping this, but please can I have a Statement on this Bug? Thank you

incorrect TWS-Auto missile support Dear ED Team, In the current OB version 2.5.6.50793 the following bugs occur with the missile guidance: 1. As soon as a hornet turns cold after missile launch in TWS-Auto, the missile is still supported by the aircrafts radar with the memory track, which can last for up to 32 seconds. Some sources i found in the web indicate, that target updates are send to the missiles with the radar, therefore the missile has to be hit by the radar beam to receive target updates, wich is not possible when the missile flies way outside the radar scan limits. 2. TWS-targets, which are outside the radar cone are kept as memory targets and they are correctly extrapolated by the aircrafts radar. This is notable when looking to a target with the HMD. BUT although the memory target deviates from the actual target, the missile is tracking the real targets movements until the memory time-out occurs or the missile turns active. To sum up the above two points, the missile should be guided to the memory target, not the actual one as long as the missile flies withing the radar scan zone. I dont expect the missile to only get updates when the radar beam hits it, that would be too problematic for MP syncing, but it should not be supported when the launch platform is cold and should also not follow the real target movement when in midcourse guidance. I have attached a small track in a previous post where an AI does some aerobatics AFTER i turned away and my radar switched to 32s memory mode. The missile starts following the aerobatics until the memory is lost +5s of Amraam internal memory. Aim120 was launced im TWS auto with 32s memory. you can find the track here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4381603&postcount=51 Best Regards, Badlego

Although this bug is marked as [fixed internally] i can say it is not fixed in the current OB (06/11/2020 update). I have attached a small track where an AI does some aerobatics AFTER i turned away and my radar switched to 32s memory mode. The missile starts following the aerobatics until the memory is lost +5s of Amraam internal memory. Aim120 was launced im TWS auto with 32s memory. Should i open a new thread or can you please delete the [fixed internally] marker? I think when there is no response within the next days i guess this thread is not getting attention anymore and i will open a new one then. Best regards, Badlego F18-TWS-magic-INS-bug.trk

Dear ED team, i noticed a potential bug from the latest OB. In a test run (track attached) I noticed the following strange behaviour: 1. S300 and SA-15 SAM sites intercept SLAM's but many missiles explode way before reaching the target or beeing out of energy 2. Standard missiles show the same behaviour against anti ship missiles even worse. They do not intercept anti ship missiles or their missiles explode a few hundred feed after launch. 3. The chinese frigate i have set does not intercept anti ship missiles at all. I remember it did two OB patches ago. I notice that a new feature for SAM system was implemented: "Added multichannel tracking radar for SAM + Aegis for navy". This sounds like a TWS-like system for semi-active missiles which should provide the ability to engage multiple targets. The problem i am trying to show here seems to be related to this new feature. It looks like the missiles self destruct as soon as the launch platform switches to another target SAM-bug.trk

The new flight model is beautful now, thx ED for the great work. Finally the missile has to pull AoA to keep tracking and now has turn rates and turn radii that seem reasonable. I also really love the new notching behaviour of the missile. Before the patch a notch resulted in the missle to pull enormous amounts of G's away from the target which meant that the missile was dead after notching in a split of a second. It was too easy and seemed dubious. Before this patch you could just do a turn and the missile was dead as soon as the turn entered the notch gate + some chaff. Now with a reasonable autopilot the missile can still be notched, but now the autopilot keeps it in an intercept course based on last known INS data, sothat a notched missile passes a few hundred feet away, and you should therefore never dare to turn into a notched missile as long as it didnt pass you ;) Some points i would still improve based on some sources i found in the web: 1. I read that the AMRAAM can be fired in two modes: Inertial Active mode and Command Inertial mode: "The preferred launch mode is the Command Inertial mode in which the missile receives targeting instructions from the aircraft through the use of an RF data link which is updated every 0.5 to 1 second depending on the launch mode of the aircraft radar." -> This is the one we have in DCS currently. "Inertial Active is a complete launch and leave mode in which the AMRAAM guides to an inertial point provided to the missile pre-launch with no updates during flight." -> We dont have this mode in DCS afaik, and it would be awesome if this could be implemented, because it would then be possible to loft the missile without the need to track the target with the radar. Would be a nice tactical feature to let the missile attack certain areas. 2. I also read, that the one-way datalink to update target positions for the missile is done via a radio frequency signal sent by the airfraft radar: "When launched, the AMRAAM [...] guides towards the target using proportional navigation based on target data transmitted from the fighter aircraft radar" -> That means the missile has to be within a cone in front of the fighter, representing the radar, to receive target updates. I dont see this implemented, as you currently support your missile as long as you have a target track (including memory track!!!), no matter wich angle your missile is...with the high memory settings of the hornet you could even support your missle when you are already cold....please dont misunderstand this to be related to some "magic INS bug". In memory mode, the radar is correctly extrapolating the flight-path and the missile should correctly follow this flight path, and not the actual target, but flying cold to the missile should cut the support although the radar still has a target track from the memory... I can only guess the cone size and therefore the angle at which the support stops....If the radar has a secondary device to send the signals, the limit may equal the gimbal limit of the radar, therefore 140° for the hornet and 120° for the viper...If the radar does not have such a device, which sounds reasonable for me, the limit would be related to the actual radar mode, as the update signals have to be send with the main radar, which means the radarbeam has to "hit" the missile: TWS with 30° azimut, 4bar search could then only support missiles within a 60°x 12° cone. Having this feature in DCS would be very interesting especially when cranking the target to the left or right radar limits, as the missile may fly out of the radar zone due to its proportional navigation. Much practice and a "feeling for your missile" would then be needed to be able to use and support it properly. 3. It is possible to resupport your missile when you regained a lock after you lost it. But it seemed that target sorting is currently hardcoded: launching on a target within a group in TWS, losing lock on the group, regaining lock on the group and turning all targets to system targets will result in the missile intercepting the one it was fired on before, although in theory the missile and the radar can not know wich one out of the group that was. The missile ignores which system target is bugged in the f16, but this may be a f16 related issue... Well, this post became a bit long, so thank you for taking your time reading it ;)

Dear ED-Team, i think i found a typo in the RWR .lua file, where the position of the RWR is located. These are the "eyes" entries for the RWR sensors: eyes[1] = { position = {x = 6.7,y = -0.1,z = 0.35}, orientation = {azimuth = math.rad(45),elevation = math.rad(0.0)}, field_of_view = math.rad(120) } eyes[2] = { position = {x = 6.7,y = -0.1,z = 0.35}, orientation = {azimuth = math.rad(-45),elevation = math.rad(0.0)}, field_of_view = math.rad(120) } eyes[3] = { position = {x = -5.5,y = 0.15,z = 0.6}, orientation = {azimuth = math.rad(135),elevation = math.rad(0.0)}, field_of_view = math.rad(120) } eyes[4] = { position = {x = -5.5,y = 0.15,z = -0.6}, orientation = {azimuth = math.rad(-135),elevation = math.rad(0.0)}, field_of_view = math.rad(120) } eyes[1] and eyes[2] have the same position, which makes not much sense. Eyes[3] and eyes[4] have a different sign in the z-Position. I assume the z-position is refering to left and right of the plane, because then the z-position of e[3] and e[4] makes sense. Note that the z-position of e[1] has two whitespaces between the "=" and the "=0.35" and the z-position of e[2] only has one whitespace there, which pretty much looks like a typo for me. I guess the correct entries are "z= 0.35" for e[1] and "z= -0.35" for e[2] as e[2] has a negative angle like e[4]?

It seems to be an AI logic issue: The ships (OHB and Tecon) radars are able to detect SAM missiles, but they may not see it as a threat, even when i assign them as targets. The chinese ship is controlable in first person and i can lock and engage SAM missiles manually with it, but if i assign a SAM missile as a target in F10 view, the chinese ship also does nothing..... Unfortunately i cannot try a manual engagement in first person of the US ships, as they are not controlable (please ED!!!!) but the example of the chinese ship shows, that DCS provides everything necessary for ships to intercept SAM missiles except an entry in the AI logic to do it.... May scripts help here? and if yes, how? Would a ship intercept the missile if it is somehow (script?) grouped with an airplane that is attacked by that SAM?

You are right about the OHP, but the ticonderoga is aegis equiped and still does nothing... My problem is that i can assign a s300 missile as a target on the f10 map, but the ticonderoga is not intercepting and i need help .

Hello, are the OHP or Ticonteroga class ships able to intercept SAM missiles? so far i only could intercept a S300 missile when i was actively controlling the SM-like SAM system of a type 052 ship. I was not able to get the ship into a state to intercept enemy SAM missiles by itself: not with waypoint states in the ME or by asigning the SAM misslies as targets.... I think a OHP should be able to intercept big SAM missiles (AEGIS system plus SM-2 missiles are very powerfull atm...), or am i wrong?

TAW_Saviour holds the first place on AA-Streaks (Air-to-air kills without dieing or disconnect) and he did that in a mirage flying high and fast and screaming down in his enemies, afaik. Some time and many patches have passed since then, but the mirage is still capable to do this......

Dear ED team, in order to make it easier to train missile evasion strategies ot just to have more opportunities in mission creation it would be great to be able to place missiles into the mission editor just like airplanes or ground objects with the following adjustable properties: -Speed and Altitude -Impact positions (IP) for A-G-missiles or G-G-missiles as waypoint --This may be tricky but maybe its possible to calculate speed and 3D-direction on WP-0 based on WP-0 and IP...(wind?) -A target to intercept for active guided A-A and A-G -Direction of flight (2D like for planes but maybe also 3D?) -an equivalent to fuel in planes to set the remaining burn time -and so on.... Would that be possible? Regards

and how can a RWR detect midcourse guidance?

Do you mean the "M"-Symbol on the RWR as missile warning? This does not happen to my experience. Often enough I (F16) got engaged by a hornet which launched an AMRAAM in STT, which gave me an STT warning on the RWR but no Missile symbol. SAM mode should support an AMRAAM, but the tracks made by a SAM lock seem not as reliable as tracks from a TWS lock. I lost SAM-locks more often than TWS locks due to the target doing hard maneuvers...Maybe its because a target can easily escape a 10° cone from the SAM mode as the radar is scanning around the target than the 30° cone from TWS?

The F16C has No symbols for unknown contacts currently. Therefore a yellow contact from the tws of a hornet is shown red for the Viper. Parts of the bugs described here are therefore more a misinterpretation of the current symbologies. Green: for Sure friendly. Red: can be anything! We have to wait for ed to implement the yellow symbols for the Viper. Until then we need Support by a GCI to correctly declare contacts, do IFF multiple Times, because that May also fail and Not give a respond....or combine Radar Info with RWR Symbols If possible and judge by yourself carefully...

how does the RCS affect the ability to notch missiles? I mean the notch relies on giving back a radar signal without a doppler shift and not giving back no radar signal....Speed is therefore more important than RCS values. Less speed = bigger notch "window" (deviation from 90 deg fligthpath to missile) I bet you can do what is shown in the video with all planes in dcs. IMO its not an issue of RCS values, its an issue with missile guidance and reaction to CM in DCS

I experience similar issues on multiplayer servers with max 10 FPS since 2.5.6. SLR is off, metashaders and fx folders deleted and did a dcs repair then... Specs: I5-2400 @ 3.6GHz, 16GB DDR3, GTX1080ti I know that the CPU is pretty old, but the FPS on 2.5.5 were around 30-40. I have so far tested the following: Singleplayer on PG flying alone: more than 60FPS, GPU usage around 80-90% Singleplayer F16 Night attack mission: 50 FPS, same GPU load Multiplayer Blueflag persian gulf sitting in cockpit (F16 and J11 tested till now): 10FPS, GPU load 30% Multiplayer Blueflag persian gulf after ejecting = camera floating in the air and im looking around: 30 FPS, GPU load around 80% Multiplayer 104th sitting in cockpit: around 20 FPS, GPU load aroun 30% So far i experience constant low FPS on multiplayer servers when sitting in a cockpit. Which comes with a low GPU usage. It is possible, that the GPU has to wait for the CPU. Again this did not occur on 2.5.5! I would really love to have the performance of 2.5.5 back... Next thing i will try is playing the same mission on SP and MP and compare...

Can you please share your tacfiles from the tests, if possible?