Santi871

And for simplicity's sake in DCS it's assumed every RWR capable of detecting launches at all is able to detect SARH guidance with 100% confidence every single time. So for the sake of consistency I hope the Tomcat produces launch warnings on other RWRs when launching phoenix in SARH.

Yeah, currently ingame it looks similar to the pictures I linked.

Only pictures I've ever seen of what I believe is that page are these: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3723152&postcount=4 No idea how true or accurate those are, but it seems its purpose is to display more in depth link16 information.

You are completely missing the point. Without working IFF you have no choice but to VID or lock them and call raygun. It doesn't matter if people want to fire on unidentified aircraft or not.

This argument falls apart when you realize your MP experience will be affected regardless of whether you own or fly the Viper, because you will be getting constantly locked (or teamkilled) by those who do choose to fly it as long as you're in their team, because they can't tell friendly from foe. So the next solution is to completely remove the Viper from public MP servers until it has IFF. The idea of this post was to avoid this trainwreck that already happened with the Hornet.

It's not a phantom, it's a hostile SURV HAFU, which looks similar to onboard+offboard hostiel HAFU. I recommend watching wags video on link16 for clarification.

That is like... all backwards. Might be bugged, so it probably deserves some editor tests. High PRF = easier to detect hot targets at higher ranges (above ~30nm), poor detection of flanking or cold targets. Medium PRF = better all aspect detection, but less range (so best below 30).

have you tested with cold targets? high PRF should be terrible for detecting them

The handoff button would originally allow you to select a threat to listen to its PRF, right? Would there be any point in having that button there if you can't listen to the PRF?

The 120's guidance has been changed for the worse the last time it was touched maybe a year or so ago which made it have even less effective range than it used to. Currently both 120s have a minuscule NEZ. Latest info we have on this is that the AMRAAM will be getting overhauled sometime in the next year according to nineline. We can speculate it might get an updated flight model and more clever guidance somewhat like what the Sparrow has now.

You would probably use offset waypoints for that. Not implemented yet.

Yes, currently if there's no onboard track (target your radar has found) directly under the cursor, it ignores the distance at which your cursor is positioned and locks the first thing it sees at the cursor's azimuth, which could be something dozens of miles behind or in front your intended target. It shouldn't work like this but for now it does.

Not a bug per last time this was reported

You can think it's linked to this cue?

There is a blanket ban on docs newer than 1.16, even unclass ones. You can be browsing public manuals downloaded straight from a US govt webpage but you still can't post them here. So not necessarily. Whether they're relevant to the topic is another story of course.

Good point. Afaik it should be like you say.

Is it TWS AUTO?

You're on the right track, what threw me off is semantics - there's no "absolute" and "relative" coordinates. All coordinates are "actual real world coordinates" that represent a place somewhere on Earth with varying accuracy. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignoring that error by using relative coordinates". That error still exists in the real world and is a consideration - whether it's modeled in DCS is another story. There's many ways of calculating those coordinates, and they all have different amounts of error, which as you said depends on the aircraft position's/velocity's error as well as the method used.

Thanks for making me check again, those looked like legacies on my phone but watching again on my PC shows they're clearly not. I looked at more videos and it does seem like they don't pitch up, so not sure what ED is trying to do. That said, I also tested ingame and the AOA doesn't seem to exceed 13 degrees, but I'll keep an eye out. Maybe the excessive pitch feel comes from the slow FCS trimming? That bug has been reported.

No, PP uses predefined coordinates and parameters that are (normally) created on a computer outside the aircraft, then loaded into the aircraft via data cartridge. The last part isn't in yet, so we have to enter them ourselves via the UFC. TOO uses the current A/G designation's coordinates, which are produced by any onboard sensor (TPOD, HUD, JHMCS, A/G radar), or by designating a waypoint (WPDSG).

RESET pushbutton erases the L&S and DT2, among other things that aren't in yet. Right now you can't make an offboard-only track L&S, so those would be skipped.

True, I misread. Happy with the recent changes though since they're a step closer to reality.

In that case it might not be detailed in the natops. You can see in pretty much all the hornet (and super hornet) cat shot videos, it goes far beyond 13 degrees.

It's possible to STT a track that's far above (further away) or under (closer) the cursor, as long as it's the same azimuth as the TDC (see track). This is incorrect behavior - the radar, upon TDC depress, attempts to STT around the TDC in both azimuth and range (or velocity in velocity search). This means that it will exclude anything further away or closer, even if it's at the same azimuth. stt_range_bug.trk

Bump acq is not modeled at this time.