captain_dalan

Woe be on those that bought and fly warbirds...... and let us spend a quiet minute in morn over all the poor souls that bought the F-4..... Seriously though, the hood people at HB did so much to convey what the aircraft is doing, and that's even without the Jester callouts, one needs but listen and observe what's going around in the cockpit. As for HUD BFM, all the energy in the world ain't gonna save you if you can't offset a turn circle, and good luck doing that by looking through the HUD.

Good luck!

BFM is many things, to many people, but looking through a HUD ain't one of those things. There's even a derogatory term related to the practice. Even just on the topic of max-performing, you ain't doing it by flying at a fixed airspeed or g-number, so a more cluttered HUD won't help with that either. Even if that HUD provided you with the bleed rates and degrees per second of turning rate, unless you absolutely memorize ALL the EM charts for all the altitudes and all the loadouts, as well as you extrapolate all the values in between those charts, AND you are capable of keeping track all those numbers .... then maybe...... just maybe, you can pull it off. It's much easier to listen to the plane though. If you really need at the very least some orientational numbers of airspeed and altitude, then IMO, a much better solution would be to have options to configure Jester to call them out more often, especially when they are changing.

There's several good videos on YouTube on the topic of these early microprocessors. Suffice to say, while they were lightyears ahead of everything that came before, in terms of what modern people think when CPU's are mentioned, and the technology available from the 80s onwards....... let's just say, that thing had to work its semiconductor butt off, just to process the data needed for the wing sweep.

Also note, if the current radar target isn't IFF'ed as bandit, Jester will respond with "no can do" or something like that. Same will go for scenarios when no contacts are present on the scope at all. To shorten the launch time, you may want to go ACM cover up.

Quite possible, i generally don't use it inland and on instant action or training missions, at least not at ranges large enough to notice, so i can't tell.

My pleasure! Note on TTI bandits, AI pilot skill is often tied to the airplane they are flying, with the more "elite" opponents flying Flankers and Fulcrums, so take that into account when engaging them. As for Pk, feel free to experiment. I have found that shorter ranges often give me north of 66% Pk, sometimes up to 75% for the AIM-54's, on TTI Syria. And up to 5/8 kills per 4x2x2 loadout, with the Sparrows being the major culprit for Pk not being higher (very often they both miss well inside the NEZ, they just eat CM i guess).

Roger, IMO those shot are a bit extreme, and unnecessary for the TTI servers. Try experimenting with 45-50 mile shots from 35k and compare the results. Use the extra time you'll get for not needing to climb to accelerate a bit more as well. Or better yet, climb to 40k, then shallow dive to accelerate past the mach to 35k, then level off. Anyways, my results for 65nm shots, hot non maneuvering targets, mothership at 28k, bandit at 24k: AIM-54Mk47 C, TTI = 176s, mach number at active 1.71, mach number at impact 1.15 AIM-54Mk60 C. TTI = 176s, mach number at active 1.70 mach number at impact 1.16 Literally a wash. Some lofting specifics, Mk60's climb a tad higher, so they come down at a shallower slope. But we are talking minutiae here. And and these ranges, bandit so much as sneezes, that missile won't have much juice left to follow.

Yeah, makes sense. I was wondering if things have changed since the last time i ran missions like that, but apparently it hasn't

Ah, that changes things dramatically. Those ranges are sufficiently larger, that the missile endgame might as well be significantly altered. I'll try and run some test scenarios tonight. What's your Pk on those launches?

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.