Jump to content

Northstar98

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8293

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Northstar98

  1. Northstar98
    Just in case anyone wants to have some of these items (and for ED to take a look), I've attached a folder containing the 2 sets of loadouts. There are some items missing (namely combinations of CBU-99 and Mk 20 Rockeye IIs, Mk 82 and Mk 82 Snake Eye. The pre ASW deconfiguration set is what's actually accurate for "S-3B", given that the Maverick Plus upgrade (which added AGM-65E/F and AGM-84E/H/K compatibility) only applied post ASW deconfiguration - the configuration depicted by "S-3B Tanker". However, given that buddy stores aren't implemented, this can be used as a stop-gap. To install, simply choose the folder you wish to install and drag and drop the contents into your main DCS directory, this will break IC so keep a copy of your original. S-3B.zip
  2. Northstar98
    Just as an addendum to this, I've attached an updated Arleigh_Burke_IIa.lua which fixes this issue. Though there are a few other things I'd personally change: Arleigh_Burke_IIa.lua
  3. Northstar98
    There should be an SA-3 site to the north-west of Allstedt (about 1 km to the north of Allstedt itself), but the nearest SA-5 site IRL is ~40 km to the south (adjacent to Eckolstädt). See here for real-life satellite imagery of the former and here for real-life satellite imagery of the latter.
  4. Northstar98
    Yeah, looking at satellite imagery, what's depicted here doesn't bear much resemblance to the real place.
  5. Northstar98
    Scenery objects can be animated (see wind turbines etc). EDIT: Actually, with the video - those could very well be new assets.
  6. Northstar98
    They're almost certainly scenery objects baked into the map.
  7. Northstar98
    I didn't say it was up to Ugra to implement RSBN or PRMG systems as units that can be placed by mission editor. It would however be up to Ugra to implement RSBN and PRMG systems on the map, ideally where they should be.
  8. Northstar98
    Because realism is somehow a bad thing here?
  9. Northstar98
    There is a TACAN unit as a placeable unit. There isn't RSBN and PRMG as a placeable unit. You are already catered for even if the NAVAIDS were realistic, but given that there isn't an RSBN or PRMG unit anybody who wants to use Eastern Bloc aircraft at Eastern Bloc airfields is not catered for. Having it the way that it is reduces accessibility. There is a TACAN unit, there isn't an RSBN or PRMG unit. So anybody who wants to use Eastern Bloc aircraft at Eastern Bloc airfields, should do what exactly? This isn't just some pedantic thing (as if realism was a bad thing to begin with), it tangibly impacts gameplay (including whether or not you can even do things like instrument procedures at all). I don't see anybody here demanding perfection. And? What's your point? This results in the opposite. Shame you don't want to give people the choice to use the NAVAIDs that should be there...
  10. Northstar98
    Yeah, should ideally have PRMG and RSBN systems, not TACAN. The inclusion of TACAN at these airfields is a post-reunification thing. This site has quite a few of them: https://www.mil-airfields.de/de-rpt/ddr-funkfeuer-rsbn-de.htm
  11. Northstar98
    This may be due to the 1L13 and 55G6 being A/B-band radars, whose wavelengths are too large to be received by the small sensors in the HTS and HARM. The P-14 operates at 0.15 to 0.17 GHz, which is also in the A-band, meaning it too will not be detectable to the HARM (whose limits start at the C-band which starts at 0.5 GHz) and possible the HTS. The same would also be true of the P-12M/18 (appropriate radars for the SA-2 and the latter is also seen at numerous GDR EWR sites)
  12. Northstar98
    Probably AIM-9B FGW.2 (also known as the AIM-9F) and possibly the AIM-9L?
  13. Northstar98
    ? The approach is based on the radar range equation, from ED's own whitepaper. Something you yourself recommended I do. Fidelity has nothing to do with whether the equation is valid. You may get a different result, as the variables may change (and its probabilistic in nature to begin with), but the equation remains the same and I'd expect any radar model to use it, at least at some point (as the current model does). The numbers I used are not what I expect to get each and every time, I gave them as approximates for a reason, especially given this is one case of detecting low-flying, closing objects over calm, relatively open sea, radars are also probabilistic and RCS itself isn't necessarily a constant either. The numbers I gave are examples, based on current in-game behaviour. All of this is perfectly consistent with ED's whitepaper. But whether they're detectable at 20 nmi or 2 nmi, the point is they'd be detectable at some stage, but currently, they aren't at any stage, in any circumstance. But what the ranges actually should be is besides the point - the problem is that the radar cannot detect these missiles at all. Not that it does so further or closer than expected. Again, what the detection ranges actually are or should be is irrelevant to this bug report. Using the same numbers I used in the OP, the Hornet's radar should detect a 5 m2 target (what the MiG-29 is defined with in DCS) at ~70 nmi and that's exactly what happens in game with the same set up. Yes, but again, this is irrelevant to the bug report. If I was reporting things detected at unexpected ranges yes, but I'm reporting things not being detectable at all, under any case, as if they have an RCS of 0, so this isn't really relevant. The radar already has detection distance be proportional to the 4th root of RCS as it should be - this was the focus of the phase 2 upgrade (which concerned things like probabilistic detection and RCS etc). The distances themselves may change, but as I've said previously the distances themselves aren't relevant to this bug report. The problem is that the radar simply cannot detect the missiles at all.
  14. Northstar98
    Couple things I noticed on the stream by Wags At 24:36, you can see a helipad and training range in the forest on the approach path to runway 25 of Damgarten. He flies over it at 30:00. As far as I can tell this is completely fictional - the only thing that should be there is a forest and the outer marker beacon. In 1985 satellite imagery nothing can be seen apart from the forest and a small clearing for the marker beacon, ditto for a 1969 satellite image. There is an EWR site (FuTK-332) near Saal about 7 km to the north-north-east of Damgarten, which should have a grass helipad, but it's unmarked on the map and doesn't appear to be present. There's also an SA-3 site practically adjacent to this site that also doesn't appear to be present (the area appears forested when it should be fields). Both are clearly visible in this satellite image. Damgarten has an SA-3 site (541st OZRD) which doesn't appear to be present (see 29:35, the area appears to only have a single road is more densely forested - accurate for modern day, not so accurate for the timeframe). It's clearly visible in this image and this image. Hopefully these can get corrected. I'm of course not expecting a 1:1 recreation, but I'm more open to things missing (as I can always remove trees and put an SA-3 site there, satisfying points 2 and 3), but I have more of a problem with things being present when they shouldn't, especially things like the training range in #1, especially when real military sites in the area don't appear to be present.
  15. Northstar98
    I'm hoping most of the baked in stuff such as this is attached to the civil traffic setting. Personally, if it were up to me, I'd have the map accurately depict the real place, but leave scenery object cars, aircraft etc empty so I can control if they're present or not and where they're present. A similar thing goes for tanks in storage areas/military bases - ideally I'd place these myself (allowing for functional units). Things like parked airliners should really be functional units we can use (and would provide an excuse for developing more in-depth ROE logic, IFF systems, no-fire zones for things like air defences etc. In DCS, it's far easier to add a static object, than it is to remove stuff (which usually causes unintended collateral damage with other nearby objects). Things like military sites and helipads should be the real ones (and again, empty of vehicles - so I can place my own). Absolutely. I mean I'd take even an AI version at this point and we are getting RAF Gütersloh on release.
  16. Northstar98
    Yep, takes me back to this nearly decade old request: I’d love to be able to add, edit and remove sides/coalitions at will, set their posture with respect to each other and have their postures be able to be triggered so they could be changed mid-mission. C:MO is a perfect example, see here for an explanation of that.
  17. Northstar98
    The equation I’ve used is the same equation in the white paper both have detection range as being proportional to the 4th root of the RCS. I’ve just treated all the other terms as being equal within the same radar because the gain, wavelength, average power, effective antenna area, dwell time etc wont be changing between the Hornet detecting the MiG-21 and the Hornet detecting a cruise missile. Given that the same radar mode, PRF etc were used in both tests. SNR will probably change but I’ve got no way of determining what it is. A smaller RCS target will be producing a smaller signal, however as the distance closes that signal should increase to a detectable level, as it does in other aircraft. Suffice to say however, the current implementation is a bug.
  18. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, Unlike other modules, anti-ship and cruise missiles (here tested with the YJ-83) are invisible to the radar. Radar range is proportional to RCS to the 4th root - a MiG-21bis (RCS of 3 m2 - see line 2025 of this) flying as low as the AI will let me at about mach 0.9 has it detected on the order of around 60 nmi. Based on this, a 0.121 m2 target (see line 27 of this) such as the YJ-83, would be expected to be detected at approximately 20 nmi (ignoring other factors). However, at no point during this mission (including using the ACM modes) are the missiles detected on radar. At one point I am following a missile close behind it and the APG-73 fails to acquire it. The AIM-120 on the other hand is able to acquire, track, home on and successfully intercept the missiles autonomously. As for other modules: The Mirage 2000C detects the missiles at ~20 nmi. The F-14 detects the missiles at ~34 nmi. The missiles were clearly visible on the APQ-120's scope at 10 nmi. Of course these modules all have different radars, with different antenna sizes, powers etc. Regardless though, the missiles are completely invisible to the Hornet's radar. APG-73_YJ-83_no_detect.trk RDI_YJ-83_20nmi.trk AWG-9_YJ-83_34nmi.trk APQ-120_YJ-83_10nmi.trk
  19. Northstar98
    Yep - no version of the Tin Shield is associated with any version of the S-200/SA-5, the same goes for the P-19 (which should also be able to act as an EWR). BIGNEWY said another radar is coming for the S-200, but that was well over 3 years ago at this point.
  20. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, A fairly simple request, the trailer mounted ST-68U should be able to be used as both an early-warning radar and as an acquisition radar for the SA-10B (specifically, the S-300PMU, which is just an export version of what we currently have). IRL this radar is frequently seen as an EWR and can be seen operating as such IRL on the Syria, Kola, Caucasus and the upcoming Germany map. The NVA did briefly operate the S-300PMU, for which our current system is a perfectly workable stand-in (with basically the same battery components, fire-control and low-altitude acquisition radar), the ST-68U is what was used to provide acquisition for the system. The changes required should be fairly single line changes to RLS_19J6.lua, S-300PS 40B6M tr.lua and S-300PS 5H63C 30H6_tr.lua
  21. Northstar98
    With Germany supposedly coming this month, I want to bump this request - the P-37 and the PRV-11 are both radars that are quite prolific among the East German LSK and is stationed at numerous EWR sites throughout the GDR. https://www.nva-futt.de/index.html?https://www.nva-futt.de/eingangfutt/inhaltfutt.shtml Both radars have perfectly sufficient models (though the mound the P-37 sits on should probably be deleted), all they require is a suitable sensor and unit definition, which should be fairly trivial for ED to implement.
  22. Northstar98
    Yeah, have to second this question - some modules have their DTCs stored in plain text files that are easy to manipulate, you can make a number of these and then select which one you want from the cockpit, allowing you to rapidly pick from a selection of cartridges without having to make a new one each time. Their just wasn't a built in solution for generating them. I really hope this system does the same. EDIT: Looks like it does - I see "FILE" and "LOAD" options. I just hope we can pick one from in-cockpit.
  23. Northstar98
    Incidentally, the missiles appear as the ship-launched YJ-83, not the air-launched YJ-83K.
  24. Northstar98
    The AK-230 system on the Aists is controlled by an MR-104 Rys [Drum Tilt] system. The MR-123 Vympel [Bass Tilt] is used with the AK-630/630M.
  25. Northstar98
    Is there any chance for these assets to become functional units that mission editors can use? Especially those Aists as they're armed and would be a suitable target for aircraft. We're sorely lacking Cold War naval units and they would go a way to fleshing out at least amphibious units.
×
×
  • Create New...