Jump to content

Santi871

ED Beta Testers
  • Posts

    717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

1 Follower

About Santi871

  • Birthday 04/10/1972

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Stepping aside from the technical discussion for a minute... The community is not interested in wonder weapons nor weird fantasy nor gamey mechanics. What we do want is (modern) missiles to be worthy of some respect. It doesn't go for the AIM-120 series alone. Put shortly, if you allow your modern missiles (again not just the AMRAAM) to be defeated by simple maneuvers with minimal effort which exploit rather large weaknesses in your seeker/radar modeling, all other R&D effort is worth nothing. What is the point in investing so much into developing higher fidelity flight models and guidance algorithms if missiles can simply be defeated well inside the kinematic NEZ with minimal risk? The takeaway from reading this thread is that it is the developer's intention for a lookdown split S to be enough to defeat the 120. We don't even need to use chaff. That is enough for anyone going up against that threat to not take it seriously. And that results in the current status quo: post after post complaining that shots are taken well within kinematic parameters but they are still easily shrugged off. I would be interested in seeing the results of a simple public poll: - Are you satisfied with the current gameplay and effectiveness of modern a/a missiles in DCS? yes/no The fact the posts in this thread arguing towards an improvement or bugfix of the bug in question have accrued dozens of positive reactions makes me inclined to say I have an idea of how such a poll would go People are frustrated because the NEZ is not a NEZ in DCS, it has not been for many years, and it is not showing signs of improvement. To clarify, I'm not saying notching or chaffing should have a flat 0% chance of success. But as it currently is, missiles are just not very deadly at all for anyone who knows how to exploit the seeker implementations. If this behavior is defended and upheld, it makes us all not very excited for any further work on missiles. The new FM and guidance stuff is amazing, and it's super fun to see all the details that have been modeled. Only for it to be soured and overshadowed by behaviors like the ones presented in this thread. /resume technical discussion
  2. Can you help me understand why it's getting confused by the terrain returns that are 6 range bins away? (assuming 1km wide range bins)
  3. The range at which it starts ignoring DL updates is variable and depends on "several parameters". This implies that after a certain point in certain conditions, the 120's seeker can get a much better track than a radar further away could hope to achieve. It also implies like GGTharos said that incorporating more updates makes the Pk no better (possibly even worse). Here's a public source that isn't ITAR controlled and so can be posted here. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6680&context=utk_gradthes
  4. The manual needs updating, since the game was corrected shortly after the feature was released. The lines should be green, also a PPLI's designation is shown with a dashed line, while a solid line means it's under missile attack. Similar to the F-16.
  5. Yes, this is intended and ties into how the A/G radar is (or was) supposed to be used pre GPS to counter INS drift. You have a physically significant landmark that is easy to spot on the A/G radar, and you know your target is X miles in certain direction relative to the landmark. Once you get there, you pick your OAP, designate it by pressing WPDSG and then apply the offset by pressing O/S. Your radar will still be looking at the OAP. The idea is that by refining the radar designation by designating the physically significant landmark you'll be able to find the actual intended target. This is also why the OAP is called that... offset aimpoint .
  6. This is not temporary or a bandaid. The maximum digital zoom for the variant being modeled in the Hornet is 3.5x in 9 levels. If you want to check what other modules are doing, probably best to do it in their forum sections
  7. It should be way less sensitive and it's been reported already
  8. Yes, STT RAID is also called SAM. It doesn't have "two L&S" or anything like that, it just interleaves scanning and tracking portions centered on the STT target - in ED's implementation the STT target is also always the L&S, which isn't necessarily the case in the real jet.
×
×
  • Create New...