captain_dalan

I have observed similar TACAN behavior at times as well. Especially in MP. There were instances of me having to be inside 50 miles, to pick it up. I always assumed it was the mission designer's choice.

Have you tried that same bandit settings against another AI flown plane, like MiG-21 or F-5? EDIT: i mean as in AI VS AI

I think it may be tad too early to ask those questions.

Not entirely correct. If you mean "airquake" defending, by going cold as soon as possible, then no. But every AI with BVR capability worthy of mention will go into both a lateral and vertical offset as soon as it launches on you, TWS or STT. It will try to keep you in its radar gimbal limits, while losing altitude at the same time. If the time the AI starts offsetting coincides with the time the missile is still burning (or would be burning if it uses the longer burn motor), then this will effect the missile's terminal energy in favor of the one with longer burning motor. This is very likely to happen with bandits that carry AIM-120C or SD-10 missiles, definitely a case with the R-33 and R-27ER and possibly a case with AIM-120B and R-77. Note, that these scenarios assume employment of the Phoenix in the 30-50 nautical mile ranges, from angels 25-35, and firing platform mach number of 1 - 1.1, against high subsonic or transonic bandits. Firing the missile from extreme ranges (say above 60 miles), may indeed give other results, as the missile may enter bandit's 10NM defend bubble, before the AI actually has the opportunity to fire and thus offset, but these are far from optimal shots. That doesn't mean you SHOULD NOT take such shots, just that i wasn't including them in my tests. Same could be said for shots inside 20NM, or low altitude shots. The missile behavior might as well be very different based on AI actions. So my recommendations would be, under "standard or expected" engagement conditions, against cruise missiles or fast approaching bombers, the Mk60's should fare better. Against actively engaging bandits, like other air-superiority or interceptor assets, the Mk47 should fare better.

As @Naquaii said, the difference in DCS is burn time, with the 60s producing more thrust for less time, and the 47s producing less thrust for more time. At fairly normal/expected intercept altitudes of 25-35000ft, this results in: 1. For hot and non maneuvering targets, with both missiles launched under same conditions, the Mk60 will become active and arrive at the impact point with slightly more energy then the Mk47; 2. For maneuvering targets, due to induced drag by the missile forced to change directions, the opposite is true. The Mk60 having stopped the burn earlier, even with higher top speed in the lofting phase, will deplete its energy faster, and generally underperforms, when compared to the Mk47, as much as available energy at terminal or impact point is in question. The more the missile is forced to maneuver, the greater the difference. 3. The same can be said for firing the missile at angle greater then 0 from hot aspect. The greater the off-bore angle, the more the Mk60 will suffer. Finally, this is all DCS, i have no idea how IRL missiles perform. Hope this helps! Cheers!!!

@Biggus and @Naquaii thanks mates! That was the info i was looking for. Cheers!

We who work in software development, don't make changes just because there are bugs in our code, sometimes we make them in order to introduce new features. True. But it certainly would take less man hours then having your teams do ALL the work.

And my question is, can we fire twice on that track, without the first shot losing guidance. Still, the AWG9 has a lot of peculiarities. It would be nice if we could get a definitive answer.

Hey guys, it's been a while and i'm not sure i got this right even the first time, but is the AWG-9 capable of supporting multiple Sparrow shots on the same target, as in fired in some sequence? Say, you fire the first one to make the bandit defensive and then, while the first one is still in flight and (presumably) guiding, you fire a second one, and then perhaps a third and so on... Will the first missile lose guidance? And does this work the same for pulse and pulse-doppler STT locks?

It's quite obvious that it's not how it works, i'm just suggesting things might be different if enough good will exists on both sides. For some of it yes, but other things, like basic weapon parameters, say motor thrust or nozzle area in this case, it's not really all that hard to change and test the changes. And after the changes are being made by the community, you just need to let your QA team test them and confirm or not the end result.

I know ED have their hands full, and HB too, but why not let the community make the modifications and submit the solution and the calculations for review, and then include those into the code base? I'm sure many among us would do this free of charge, even in times such as these. when many of us struggle to make ends meet or keep their jobs.

Confirmed loss of track for both A and C variants. STT-ing after firing in TWS, but before missile going active seems to be a one way ticket to the stratosphere! Tacview-20240501-014315-DCS-1 on1 loft test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20240501-014729-DCS-1 on1 loft test mk47.zip.acmi

Is this a universal thing or just PVP? I don't fly anymore (not enough free time unfortunately), but i had a bit of spare time to run some AI VS AI test missions last night. There doesn't seem to be anything different then the last time i ran them. Tacviews attached bellow. Tacview-20240423-004331-DCS-AI BVR F-14A duels VS MiG CMk60-31.zip.acmi Tacview-20240423-002708-DCS-AI BVR F-14A duels VS MiG-31.zip.acmi Tacview-20240423-003839-DCS-AI BVR F-14A duels VS MiG CMk47-31.zip.acmi

Ah i see. Then we or on the agreement on that. Not much different as an end user experience. Most of us, the vast majority fly without a human RIO. And even then, only seldom venture in the rear cockpit. All that effort would be wasted on something more people won't really get to play with.

Update: No track this time around, and no real crash either. But something happened to me last week, that almost looked like a crash on mission start. It was a generic instant action with an air start, i thin it was on the Nevada map, just a free flight. DCS hung as i clicked the start button, sound froze, and i thought i was about to have the first freeze in ages. Then the mission unfroze and i continued with the flight as usual except for one thing. My HUD was all skewed as if i had messed my gyro with an over g. Except i hadn't pulled any g's at all as i had just started the mission. The g indicator did show about 5 or 6 g's pulled though. As if the plane has literally shuddered at mission start.

I would look at it the other way. Of course, this is only my perspective, so i won't claim others share it, but: 1. An update Bombcat B with a new HUD? Yes, it will be far less work then a brand new D. But how marketable it really is? Yeah, i know, people have been complaining about the existing HUD for ages, but how many would pay a full price for a new HUD? SOME certainly would. But how many? And the new possible loudouts? I don't think that would justify the sales either. Personally, i wouldn't buy it all, as mud moving isn't my thing. But you would you charge people with extra 70$ for a HUD and some bombs? And if you do, how many will pay, and how many will feel cheated for not getting it for free? I mean, if you go for something like, i don't know, a 20$ upgrade, then sure, you'll probably get rid of most of the ill will, but why not go for: 2. A brand new F-14D? The level of work needed would be much higher indeed, but not as much as starting from nothing. You already have the engines modelled, and the basic aerodynamic properties. Some of the internal systems as well. But even better, the user experience should be so much different, then you can clearly market is a new plane and charge it as such. I have no idea how the average DCS user decides on a purchase, but the F-14 fans and enthusiasts i know, would absolutely go for a fully priced F-14D. Everything from hot it flies, how it presents and processes information, what it can carry, even how it looks will be different. Something more to look forward to experiencing, unlike the crutches of a new HUD. Anyways, just my 2 cents.

And often overstated and somewhat misleading precedence. Even back then, a flight would often consist of a pair in which one plane would carry a more fighter oriented loudout, i.e. Sparrows and Sidewinders, while the other plane would carry a pair of Phoenixes. And even if we decide to take "Save the Phoenix for the fleet defense" mantra, it's not like anyone flies realistic mission loads anyways. Cold war era or otherwise. The way i see it, the F-14 treatment in Cold War scenarios (open MP) is more of "keep it fair" mentality, as it always has been, then any attempt at historical accuracy. I just can't wait to see what excuses will be given when the Eurofighter comes around. They'll probably ban it from 90% of the servers out there....

Now doesn't get me wrong, i have escorted strike packages on a view occasions, but as i said, the mission, or the game itself, doesn't really keep track of this. There's no (if you want to call it that way) "Mission success popup" for the escort. Add to that the fact that most open MP missions aren't designed around it at all. It was fun escorting that F-18 guy for sure, but it's not like he really needed it. And most servers, especially PvP are just like @RustBelt said, quake. Almost a BVR extension of a dogfighting server. I can't help but wonder why do we even start cold on the ground? The opposite sides start less then 200 miles from each other, why bother with take off at all? Just to pretend you know how to start a plane? While i can understand the dogfight servers as a training tool (which let us be honest, they really aren't, as their starting locations, positions and loadouts, don't really reflect actual training scenarios), most open MP PVP servers aren't even that. Air superiority and any form of CAP doesn't exist under such conditions. It's just "quicky" free for all melee.

Not really my favorite screenshots, but i wasn't about to open a new topic just for this. Anyways, how do you guys like my new default snap view?

General question here, were the ECCM and ECCM/Sealed introduced and used only with the D and it's new radar, or were they compatible with the vanilla AWG-9 as well?

To be fair, the mission doesn't exist on most PvP open servers. There's no way of tracking it or scoring it. Even relatively "professional" E-sport events are essentially team death matches, something that hardly resembles any RL context. Planes aren't designed nor used in such vacuum. But it seems that that is what most of the user based wants. For all the snobbery towards the users of other products, we seem to be following the same engagement patterns with our product. Only recently did i see videos of some events that start adding mission elements to DCS PvP, but we have a long way to go.

Having dabbed in the RIO seat a bit over the holidays (being my own RIO), i would certainly like to see some controls being added as orders we can issue to Jester. Ability to hook targets or assign "do not attack" to some comes first to mind, and of course MLC filter manipulation. I can see why some people swear by it. Oh, and let's not forget.... Happy Ney Year everyone!

My eyes have been opened! I am going to name my firstborn after this guy!!!

You can't know that for sure

While actually looking for targets. does it stile home in on the data provided by the fire control computer?