Cik

make sure you are on the right T i'm not exactly 100% on my coordinate systems but essentially the T denotes a wide area, if you have the right coordinates and the wrong T you will be off by hundreds of miles. "the T" is a field in the coordinates page. by default i believe it is set to 38T, though depending on where you are (north, i believe) you may be in the 37T. try setting the field to 37T instead and then input the coordinates and see if you get the correct target. my knowledge of this sort of thing is operational, not scientific. i've had to switch it several times, especially in missions like bactria where you will be flying over the border mountains near russia. for an actual understanding perhaps someone will pop in and enlighten us about what operation we're actually performing when we're switching this stuff. my bet is that it's a geographic square switch, georgia must be on the border of whatever larger unit MGRS is composed of.

it has to be a specific unit equipped with a specific system, the EPLRS (i assume some kind of transmitter that can transmit to the A-10's avionics) most humvee units and some APCs will have them; by default they will turn on and you can see it in the advanced unit actions under EPLRS:ON if the unit has it. i don't think infantry can carry them at all, so if you're using infantry as a spotter you'll have to switch to a humvee or armored vehicle of some description as a JTAC.

it stops the skid anti-skid works against the skid opposed to pro-skid, which i guess is default man do i gotta answer everything? come on

the real problem with this whole thing isn't that airplanes are hard to see, but the 'vanishing point' especially against small aircraft. i've tried several times to dogfight against F-86 for instance in another jet age aircraft and i will start a lead turn before the merge, acquire a visual on the other side, and while i am looking right at him he just vanishes "POOF!" like smoke. and then of course i fly towards him and try to re-acquire and he's behind me. it's endlessly frustrating trying to fight something that requires visual when past a certain (relatively small) distance it just vanishes.

FYI, the maverick is an exceptional AA weapon in DCS, because it is not vulnerable to flares and maneuvers better than the AIM-9 IIRC source: i shot down a su-25 once with one in an A-10 after it effortlessly kicked out like 2 flares and spoofed my sidewinders.

back when i used them often i would observe the split of the bomb and the resulting impact of the projectiles, however most times they would scatter harmlessly over a wide area; after that i set the HOF to 1500~ and the RPM to 500-1000, which reduced the area they were hitting in; however impact of the explosives still seemed to do negligible damage in many cases, even to essentially unarmored IFVs like the BMP-1. edit: i could just be doing it wrong but i couldn't point out an area where that's possible. i've done CCIP/CCRP releases at many different altitudes against many different targets and never observed any really potent effect. -97, while harder to use (due to the parachute stage and therefore delayed release) seem absolutely murderous though. i just started using those instead of the -87.

CBU-87s always seemed worthless to me, though. even if you set HOF and RPM to very low values to make sure the spread is very tight, i've never had any luck reliably killing groups of light armor with them, which is the intended role i believe. HE in general seems very weak.

maybe your missiles are just supposed to be worthless :^) like my R-27 t. flanker P.S. i know your pain, here's hoping for a fix.

if the range ratio stays about the same and the accuracy of missiles increases it will help the flanker more than the eagle, IMO. the problem the flanker has is that it has a theoretical range advantage, however at that range it's PK with the ER is basically 0% if it had better CM rejection and it's pk was 5% it could actually play range games instead of just having to blindly charge into AMRAAM and pray to the gods of thermal seeking for a hit with an ET, or even worse try to beam into close range for R73. furthermore, the psychological impact of the missile actually having a chance to hit something would do wonders for the flanker's "threat rating" in the minds of it's adversary. as it is now, eagles will blindly charge you because they know that your only real weapon that outranges them is a total joke. if it was less of a total joke, you'd have a deterrent to tell them to back off.

my guess would be that chaff is not nearly as effective as the majority opinion here seems to think the evidence is anecdotal, but my guess is that the entire world's strategy shifting to radar BVR (which shows no signs of actually stopping) means that it's reliable enough (and has been for a while) to build planes specifically for the purpose and basically bet air superiority almost entirely on the performance of your radar and missile systems over any sort of dogfight-centric strategy. if chaff were some sort of cure-all "press this button to dodge nearly infinite amounts of semi-active missiles" as it is in DCS, every defense department on the planet wouldn't be designing their air superiority strategy specifically around long-range radar missile combat.

older LRMs can be defeated with breaks, but MRMs especially aren't vulnerable to it (which was the whole point, anyway) modern MRMs can pull double+ the Gs you can, because they don't have to worry about liquefying the skeleton of a pilot, and they are lighter, going faster. IMO a break should only work at a very specific range band against heavier missiles (aim-120, ER) and that's at the border of those missiles' minimum range. anything else and you should rely on beam and run. IR may be different, i'd guess because the whole point is to leave a cloud of flares and then separate, but beam would probably still be pretty effective.

at least as far as i know, yes. unlike on most other planes, there is no continuous mode that i know of. IMO the jammer isn't that useful for the A-10. it only helps against radar threats, which should be relatively rare, and furthermore it only really precludes very long-range SAMs from shooting at you at long range. if you want to not be fired upon by long-range SAMs in the A-10, your best bet is to just be behind a hill. i could be very wrong about this, and the real life effects of jammers are of course shrouded in mystery, but AFAIK jammers don't effect probability of kill of missiles fired against you; they only effect the ability to lock you, and then only pretty far ranges. unless you are flying against SA-10s (and you shouldn't be) a jammer will have no effect on the situation whatever. the jammer is a specialized tool and i wouldn't take it in the majority of missions. only take it if you are going to be facing a large number of RADAR SAMs (or interceptors, but let's be honest it probably won't be too helpful then) and if you are going to be flying at high altitude (for some reason) otherwise it's much more effective to beam, chaff and descend into the dirt. in most missions the jammer is a paperweight; take more fuel, more bombs, or some utility rockets instead (or just save the weight for increased maneuverability)

if it's anything like the falcon it should have other gunsights. what you seem to be describing is an EEGS gunsight. it probably has a SNAP mode like the falcon does that may not be in yet. i wouldn't bet on gunfunnel being it's only option forever in any case. the thing obviously was designed for this sort of fight, it would be ludicrous to think it's designers didn't recognize the need for snap-optimized gunsight modes.

i set it at zero as a setting it's nice to have but having to scrub missions because yours or your wingman's engine randomly detonates isn't really fun. missions with maintenance failures is okay i think, better because many of those can be worked around, firewalled or fixed in flight. an A-10 with an engine fire is RTB territory, an A-10 with a NAV failure or a pump on the fritz can still fight.

as you and i both know, real world data is impossible to acquire as AFAIK the ER hasn't even been used in combat more than a few times, and the R may or may not bear any resemblance to it in terms of seeking. neither me or you can somehow magick together contacts in the kremlin unfortunately. the best i can do is tell you that in game it's a lemon, and that all missiles of the type are (at least, currently) unfortunately there is a very obnoxious doublespeak about this issue, as when you say "balance wise, it's a mess" everyone says they want realism; realism which can't be acquired, which means the status quo that favors eagles is indefinitely sustained. GGtharos says it's true to life. i can't exactly call him a liar without proof, and since there is no proof either way, and since balance doesn't matter, nothing will ever change. i understand the frustration of the flanker pilot now.

i could do it, but the tester in this thread seems convinced there is nothing wrong. even if i were to gather a ton of data that says a few clicks of countermeasure release effectively disables every SARH missile in the game outside WVR, what response would i get? probably none. seems like wasted effort. ED probably knows that the ER is useless. i mean, how could you not? try firing it at someone like twice and you'll realize the same. russian BVR has been hopeless for a very long time. if they wanted to fix it they already would have, probably.

when i tested it they looked exactly the same (probably it's own problem) the ER's and AIM-7s chaff vulnerability can best be described as "total" unlike the AIM-120, which has a limited (or, well, not so limited) ability to operate in a chaff-heavy environment (IE, every fight in the game) every SARH missile does not. every SARH carrier in the game is effectively a WVR platform for this reason. shooting someone down outside WVR is mostly an impossibility. perhaps if they fly straight into merge and spit out less than 2 chaff, or something.

in my experience at least the ET's kinetics mean you are solidly inside threat range of the AMRAAM if you are in ET range as a BVR option it's only real ability is surprise attacks from the deck against high targets. in a merge it's useless, because an EOS lock in a merge is nearly impossible to get and you will be killed if you try to press for a good enough shot. i'd also like to mention that an ET that refuses to bite on flares is one in a million. in my experience if an eagle flares once or twice poof, off it goes into the blue yonder. basically the ET as a BVR solution doesn't work because it's pretty garbage in a merge. most of the time you won't be able to fire, and most of the time the eagle will flare because they expect an ET from you. if you ripple both they will be spitting flares/chaff to spoof the ER and will probably end up spoofing both.

the chaff is too far away from the target, not that the target is too far away from the shooting platform. if the chaff is in trail miles behind it will be outside of the radar beam of the shooter, and thus ineffective against any missiles being guided by the shooting platform.

the target was traveling across my nose at an angle. i tested it at the max ballistic range of the missile, and medium range (about 12nm if i remember correctly) both 100% hitrate. i also tried a beam aspect in clutter, 12nm with my plane at 25 angels and his at about 19. 100% hitrate there, too. keep in mind though that in both cases the target was making no hard maneuvers, just flying in a straight line. i would imagine you could dodge the missiles if you were maneuvering. in any case, obviously the missile itself is working. it's just a CM vulnerability issue.

rage had a video where they seemed to go stupid often, but i did 5 tests with the flanker and the eagle both in lookup when the target was out of beam with a 100% hitrate on both the sparrow and the ER. the missile is fairly accurate, and even has quite the range until there's a single bundle of chaff in the air, then you can release all 6 of your ERs to no effect whatsoever.

if i'm actually wrong about this i'd appreciate you helping me understand i'm a su-27 with 6x R-27ER in front of me at co-altitude is a F-15. i begin illuminating him i launch a missile my radar keeps a continuous track of his airplane the whole time the missile misses, decoyed onto a piece of chaff my radar is not and has never been tracking. so, keeping in mind that since it's a SARH missile and the only thing it does is follow the 'paint' that it's host aircraft is providing, how can it be decoyed by a chaff it's host aircraft's radar has not been decoyed by? is the entire function of a SARH missile just handwaved? is the R-27ER secretly a AMRAAM such that it has it's own missile radar it can turn on and actually seek independently? how is this not entirely incorrect?

so it just rolls for every chaff in the FOV how does that even make sense, none of them are even being illuminated by anything why are they decoying things if there is no way for the missile to even know they exist? what? so if them being hit is entirely cosmetic, them DECOYING things isn't cosmetic. how is this not a huge problem? HUH?

so you're saying that the missile modeling is correct and that it does model CW/M-link communication, the real position of the radar beam and such, but then it deliberately is programmed to look like it does not? a very bizarre thing to assert, considering the job they did on faking a poor implementation of chaff looks very convincing.

the problem is that the way it works out makes no sense; the radar can maintain a lock against something but not guide missiles to it. either the chaff needs to actually cause a dropped lock (and thus, kill the inflight missiles ability to track entirely) or the missile needs to actually track the target. missiles tracking chaff even though the radar clearly has a hard lock on the target makes no sense at all. is that what you are getting at? i am so confused. i hesitate to offer critique but you should stop being so damnably cryptic all the time and just say what you think is actually wrong about the missile modeling.