Northstar98

Yeah, I figured it was an idea, but AFAIK the idea never got as far as so much as having AIM-9s test fired. At least according to the War Zone, the pilot who publicised the F-117's supposed air-to-air role stated that it was never an operational capability, even if it is quite an interesting hypothetical one (see Red Storm Rising for instance).

Well, taking the changelog at face value, it may be that the bug manifests in two different ways and one of them was fixed, but the other (this one was not). Both issues were moved to the same thread, as per my request as it seemed to be the same issue, but perhaps this isn't the case, considering for one user in the original thread, the problem was solved on their end.

Hi everyone, Contrary to this thread being marked as fixed and locked, there are still problems with the cursor in the F-16. I'll copy and paste what I had written there as all of it still applies: Certain pages in the F-16 have the cursor move at inconsistent speed when changing direction, leading to it appearing to jump. It's most commonly seen when going left/right and then adding some up/down. As far as I can tell the following are affected: The HUD (for instance, CCRP, DTOS, Maverick VIS etc). The HAD page (though the cursor does move more smoothly - as if its position is updated at a higher rate compared to every other page. Unsure what the rate should be). The WPN page for HARM. Everything else appears to work as it should and motion is predictable (though the rate at which the position is updated seems to be lower than the HAD page). No other module appears to suffer from the same bug (the A-10C for instance is very smooth and very consistent, with the exact same control on my stick bound), there are also no conflicts in the control set up. The track I originally posted can be found in the previous thread, as can my control profiles for both the A-10C (which shows no issues) and the F-16CM. Here's a video to show what I am seeing (this is after a recent calibration), this video is before recent updates but still depicts exactly what I am seeing with the most recent update at time of writing (2.9.20.15010). Note the following: The FCR and HSD pages don't show this issue - the cursor behaves entirely predictably and there are no sudden rapid accelerations - all good. However, the HAD, HARM WPN page and the HUD (here shown in DTOS, but the same applies to say, Maverick in VIS mode or any other mode using the HUD's cursor), show sudden, rapid accelerations when the switch is moved in a circular fashion. When I make just max X or just max Y inputs, the cursor generally moves more slowly and sudden, rapid accelerations are less frequent (though not entirely 0, you can sometimes still see the cursor suddenly start moving very quickly). The bug appears to affect the Y-axis more than it does X. The sudden, rapid acceleration of the cursor occurs when changing direction. Towards the end of the video I show my control bindings, you can see that my control moves as smoothly as I can make it. It properly re-centres to 0 and I can move it to the extremes of either end without any observable jitter. Here's a video showing what happens when I try another module, here I try the A-10s TAD cursor and the HUD cursor - note how there is no sudden rapid accelerations and the cursor behaves completely predictably and is generally very smooth. I also again show my control bindings and test, you can see that the exact same control is bound and (aside from not being inverted) the same exact settings are used: Every other module I've tested (A-10C II, AV-8B, F-4E, F-14A/B, F-15C, F/A-18C, Ka-50, Mirage 2000C, Su-25, -25T, -27S, -33) work as they do as seen in the A-10C video - smooth, predictable motions, with no sudden rapid movement - if I move the control to its extremes the speed of the cursor stays clamped. It is only the F-16CM and only for the HUD, HAD page and HARM WPN page that exhibit this issue, other pages (such as the FCR, the HSD, the Maverick WPN page, the TGP page etc) show no issues.

IRL the Patriot ECS has to be within 38 m of the AN/MPQ-53 RS as that's the length of the cable connecting the 2. Though you're quite right that the ECS doesn't need to have LOS to the target, only the radar (RS) needs to have that (though it also needs LOS to the missiles, as Patriot uses a command-guided midcourse phase and the RS needs to uplink steering commands throughout the entire flight). And speaking of cables: The power cables between the EPP and the ECS and RS are 23 m long, so the EPP shouldn't be more than that distance away from them. The cable between the ECS and the AMG/CRG are 15 m long, so the AMG/CRG shouldn't be further than that from the ECS. The launchers (LS) are more independent and have their own generators, instead having a radio link to the ECS, they should be sited between 120 - 1000 m away from the RS and 90 m away from each other if out in the open. This all comes from FM 44-15-1.

Thank you so much for this - it was sorely needed

Okay, preliminary testing shows this to be fixed - the AI can now effectively employ Mk 20 and CBU-99 with the Mk 339 and FMU-140 (well, so long as the run is set up appropriately in the case of the latter - as per the changelog).

Cheers! Though at the rate at which my craptacular internet is downloading the update, it might be some time before I can test this.

That's the case in the cockpit (well, not really, more on that below) - but the missile tracks continuously once fired. On the one hand some argue that the Shrike cannot detect sidelobes but don't give a reason for it. On the other hand the Shrike has a guidance section exclusively for a radar that rotates, a radar whose mainlobe is only 4.5° wide, with a period of 5 seconds (meaning that the Shrike is only illuminated by the mainlobe for just 0.0625 seconds for each revolution of the radar, with then a 4.9375 second interruption). In cockpit, against the P-19, the tone from the cockpit is mostly continuous so long as it's close to the boresight with interruptions being few and far between and decrease in frequency and duration as the aircraft closes the distance - which is inconsistent with #1 but is completely consistent with the Shrike being able to detect other lobes so long as they're powerful enough. The interruptions decreasing frequency and duration also makes sense as distance closes, as more sidelobes (and even backlobes) become detectable. Once fired, the Shrike appears to track continuously. When fired against a radar that goes off the air after a short duration, the Shrike can be seen to lose tracking immediately, with the control surfaces simulatenously returning to their neutral position and the Shrike is unguided flight. Once the radar resumes transmitting however, the Shrike resumes guided flight (though in my track, it still missed, probably due to, at least in part, me not giving it enough of a dive angle). These points are contradictory - if #1 is true, why does the Shrike track the radar continuously and why is there a near constant tone in the cockpit, when this radar is only presenting a mainlobe for 0.0625 seconds out of every 5? If anything the tone from the cockpit would be reversed, and the Shrike would very briefly have guided flight, then a nearly 5 second duration of unguided flight, then back to a very brief duration of guidance followed by 5 seconds of no guidance and so on - this clearly isn't the behaviour in game. And given that the Shrike was used (albeit less than successfully) against a radar that rotates IRL - a radar with a beam nearly 4× tighter and a rotation period twice as long - there the Shrike is only illuminated by the mainlobe for ~0.018 seconds, which if it truly were incapable of detecting sidelobes, would be followed by an interruption of ~9.82 seconds. I have no idea how a Shrike could impact an area within 15 m of the targeted if it was only in guided flight for less than 20 ms out of every 10 seconds, unless the crew were astronomically lucky. AGM-45_P-19_brief_offtheair.trk AGM-45_P-19.trk

How does this work with radars that nominally rotate? By their very nature the Shrike will only be illuminated by the mainlobe a minority of the time and be illuminated by a sidelobe the majority of the time. The P-15/P-19 is what the Mark 37 specifically targets and that radar only rotates in DCS. Several of the guidance sections target the Bar Lock, which also nominally rotates (though we don't have that radar as a functional unit). But I can also get the Shrike to consistently track the 1S11 fire-control radar for the SA-6, the SOC radar of the 1S51 for the SA-8, the Tin Shield, the Big Bird (which is a phased array and will present small sidelobes). Of course the Shrike may still miss, but that's also the case regardless - the Shrike is still clearly observed tracking and making corrections all the way to impact, it just missed (usually as a result of it wasting energy due to bang-bang guidance, the inaccuracy of the bang-bang guidance itself and the lack of G-bias with everything but the Mk 49 Mod 1). IRL, the Shrike was used (albeit less than successfully) against an AN/TPS-43F in the Falklands, which also rotates.

I mean, you could, but the only scenario I see a subscription making sense is if you don't plan on staying around very long - over a long enough time (how much depending on how expensive the subscription is compared to what we have now) the perpetual will always be cheaper and offer better value for money.

Oh my God, not again. No. This has been discussed to death. Does this idea need to somehow literally be shot into the Sun before it meets the fate it so deserves? I really do not see how taking DCS and then making it less value for money is so attractive for some people.

Yep, completely agreed - the P-12/18 are already the more appropriate acquisition radars for the SA-2 and, as VHF radars, would likely not provide warning of their presence to our RWRs, nor would they be targetable by current western ARMs. The P-37 (alongside the PRV-11 and DRL-7) already has an appropriate model, in the right format, that's animated and has a destroyed variant to boot, something that's existed for over a decade at this point. I really do not understand why it hasn't been implemented as a functional EWR considering just how prolific it is and how it would be a far more suitable stand in for P-14 for the SA-5. The P-40 (or rather the 1RL128, P-40 is the entire complex) if we had IADS capability, would do wonders for the various PVO-SV system we have and the model is almost identical to the 1S12 used in the SA-4.

The thing is though, this bug has the side-effect of giving the SA-5 a more realistic engagement envelope, which would otherwise be significantly degraded if it were completely reliant on the P-19 or ST-68U - radars which are wholly inaccurate to the SA-5 short of an IADS set up DCS doesn't support. If we had the radars the system is supposed to have, then sure.

ED struggles enough getting the Hornet finished as-is and that's after removing or not planning for features that are perfectly accurate for the stated scope, even for the exact timeframe, variant and operator. Hell, this even applies to modules that are missing trivial additions, where there's no research or technical hurdle, the features are perfectly accurate to the exact scope ED stated and they're features present on other ED modules and yet, despite all of that, we can't get them. It's not only unrealistic (in a couple of senses of the word) but something really wouldn't sit right with me if unrealistic features get implemented while perfectly realistic ones (like TAMMAC maps for instance) get snubbed. And what's even more realistic still? A 2005 Hornet with 2005-era weapons. And this is a false equivalency - DCS mission design is designed to be a sandbox and completely up to you - the aircraft often are not. This is by design - the idea is that the building blocks of the missions are supposed to be accurate, but the scenario you make out of them is up to you. I'd argue that restricting away fictional or hypothetical missions and only permitting accurate, historical ones is far more limiting in terms of gameplay, than having aircraft that's supposed to be accurate. The other thing when it comes to missions is that DCS more often than not lacks coherent, comprehensive assets on relevant theatres to make realistic missions and campaigns - it's always the same ship of theseus thing where far more units need to have stand-ins because the correct one doesn't exist. So in that sense, it would be impossible to make accurate, historical missions in the first place. Let's just take an example - aircraft carrier operations. Using the non tanker version of the S-3B? Well that's an aircraft variant from prior to 1998. Using CVNs 71-75 of the Supercarrier module? Well, what they're fitted with means they range from 2008 (CVN 73) to 2017 (CVN 72) at the absolute earliest and yet they're using a Sea Sparrow version from the mid 1980s. Using the E-2D? That didn't reach IOC until 2015 either, only it's defined with the wrong radar and the performance is wrong even to that radar. We've already got an incoherent mess and we've only gotten started. And let's say we get the GBU-54, okay great, we've made the already incoherent aircraft even more so, great! Are we going to get anything else a 2012 Hornet might have? AIM-120C-7 for instance? No? I mean, we can't get it for the F-16CM either, even though it's accurate there. It isn't puzzling - it's perfectly consistent with the design of the game, as stated previously. I mean, nothing is stopping me from having a Pakistan vs Sweden scenario, set on the Falkland Islands, set before the first manned aircraft took flight. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what weapons are available to the aircraft or what systems it has. Except this is utterly dreadful logic which taken to its ends permits basically anything so long players have the choice not to be affected by it: Let's make the Hornet's radar see things 400 nmi away, if players don't like it, simply choose not to set your radar scale so far out. Let's add the PL-15 and PL-17 or hell any other weapon ever, players still have CHOICE not to use these, so what's the issue? Let's make the aircraft fly at mach 5, don't like it? Choose not to fly so fast. Found a bug with a weapon? Choose not to use it, problem solved! Or how about, if you don't like the fact that the Hornet predates GBU-54 and doesn't have it, choose to fly something else that does have it. Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere and again, given ED's issues with finishing their aircraft, even to very narrow scopes I don't see any good reason to have that line any further from where it is now. If that wasn't the case and the Hornet had all the relevant features it should, maybe I'd agree with you, but it doesn't, so I don't.

Both systems have a purely command-guided midcourse phase (which doesn't involve the missile's seeker at all) and a terminal TVM phase (which is otherwise identical to SARH but the missile data links what it sees back to the FCR and the FCR in turn provides steering commands, instead of the missile generating its own steering commands as with SARH). Mad_Shell's thread on the subject had more detail. This issue though also applies to the RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Block IIIA and the RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV, which do use command guidance + terminal SARH (the initial, command-guided phase doesn't appear to be modelled and launch warnings appear from launch - if it were consistent with current ARH missiles, that launch warning should only happen in the terminal phase).

I'd agree but ED needs to support flying boom and drogue based refuelling in a single aircraft first.

If I may, while the current Tu-22M3 is missing weapons, I'd personally suggest a mid 70s+ Tu-16K-26/K-26P [Badger-G Mod]. It's a staple Cold War aircraft and probably the aircraft most missing from the Kola map in a Cold War setting (the Tu-22M3 was only introduced there in the late 1980s). It has a diverse payload which, in the case of a mid 1970s and beyond K-26P/PM, includes anti-ship missiles (KSR-2 [AS-5 Kelt] and KSR-5M [AS-6 Kingfish-A Mod 3), anti-radiation missiles (KSR-6MP [AS-6 Kingfish-B Mod 3 and KSR-11 [AS-5 Kelt]) and conventional bombs. The model would be incredibly similar to an H-6D, as used by the PRC and Iraq. This also has the ability to carry anti-ship missiles in the form of the YJ-6/C-601 [CH-AS-1 Kraken], (which is essentially an air-launched version of the HY-2 [CSSC-3 Seersucker] missile we already have) and conventional bombs. Speaking of export customers, Egypt also used the Badger-G (though the K-11-16 version, which didn't have the KSR-5, only the KSR-2 and -11 + conventional bombs). The model is also pretty similar to not only the original Tu-16 [Badger-A] conventional bomber, but also the Tu-16P Buket [Badger-J] and other electronic warfare versions (the P also being based on the Kola Peninsula during the Cold War as a strike escort). This only leaves the Tu-16K-10-26/K-10-26P [Badger-C Mod] and Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D] as the main variants missing, though these have a substantially different nose, accommodating the large YeN [Puff Ball] radar, which can take full advantage of the KSR-5's missile's range (something Rubin-1K [Short Horn]- equipped Badger-G's can't do, which is the version most similar to Egyptian Tu-16s and Chinese & Iraqi H-6Ds). Again, these 2 were also stationed on the Kola Peninsula during the Cold War.

The insurgent one also fires the PG-15V model: If you change .trk to .miz you'll get the mission file, confirming I used the insurgent one. PG-16V_Insurgent_model.trk

I just posted a set of screenshots and a track that clearly show it doesn't. Yes, they are the exact same model, The one in the ED directory was taken from the SA assets, as that's where this torpedo model originally was.

+1 - this should be a setting for the new ATC system when/if it ever comes.

It certainly used to fire a generic shell, but it doesn't any more: PG-16V_model.trk

The PG-16V is already implemented and can be seen being fired by "Paratrooper RPG-16". The Mk 46 appears to be from the South Atlantic assets (the exact same model is present in that directory too, with its inaccuracies - like the nose that's the wrong shape and the rear-most propeller that's a lot smaller than it should be).

Okay... All of this I agree with, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said here.

Here is an archived version.

It also clips through the main gear doors.