ruxtmp

I agree this is a much needed ship but if I had a vote I would pick LPD 4 Austin class over the San Antonio. It just seems more period correct for the planes we currently have in DCS. But I will take whatever Admiral decides to make.

Johnny, can you show us a video of this thing in action? It would be so cool to see this plane flying around low level in the valleys of the Caucus map.

Now if someone can make a map of the Meridian, Mississippi area it will be perfect naval aviation simulation

Hawkeye and Admiral, Thanks for the LCAC and cant wait for the USS OAK HILL to flesh out my MEU for the Persian Gulf.:thumbup:

No the objects no longer show up in the latest version. They are just light green boxes or completely invisible.

Admiral189, do you have any updates on the Harpers Ferry ship? It may be best to ask a moderator to move this thread to the MOD section under the 3D Models too.

Looks exactly like my screen except you can actually make out some of the text on the HUD. I can turn down all the setting on the MFDs and HUD making it somewhat readable in a very dark room. Also have to mess with my graphic card and monitor settings but then I have to redo all the settings again for day ops. It is not worth the effort on top of all the other non-functional systems and bugs. Hopefully the influx of money on the upcoming Falklands map, Mig-23, and F-15E will allow them to fund fixes in this module and get it out of Early Alpha state.

Seems like the functionality was added but it really had minimal improvements on my system when flying at night. The HUD when loaded with a flir image is just a flat green square that you cannot see through. I need to tweak it more but I don't expect to improve much if any at all if its a solid green HUD.

Interesting to see this. It appears that the data needs to be updated across the board for all the aircraft. The RCS data is very odd I think it maybe more a coefficient than a true RCS value. It may also take into account materials of construction and resonant frequency due to shape and internal construction. The IR data I wont even guess at as how that was determined. If I recall correctly I think these are the advertised frontal RCS values of US aircraft but I have seen the numbers vary wildly (eg the F-15 can be anywhere from 10-25m^2). F-15C ~ 10 m^2 F-16C ~ 1.2 m^2 F-18C ~ 3 m^2 F-18E ~ 0.1 m^2 F-22 ~ 0.0005 m^2 F-35A ~ 0.0015 m^2

There is already a mod for these. Not exactly the same as the ones shown but just as good and available now. Take a look at the 476th Air Weapons Range MOD. It gives a bunch of nice objects to use in mission editor. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=287

The whole EA thing is really like a Ponzi scheme, but it supports the game. You just need to be very aware of certain 3rd party developers and their skills. If you start to see a lot of things by one developer in EA you can almost be sure they are hurting for funds and that time lines will be extremely long or worse the modules may never be completed.

I would wager the pilot body will come before most or any real fixes. They seem to be more a modeling shop than a coding shop.

I have no idea how everyone is getting such vastly different results. For me against any High skill set AI Mig-21,23,29 any shot is pretty much a miss using the Aim-120, also holds true for the AIM-7. Could this be a computer hardware issue? I run a i9-7900x 3.3GHz with 32GB RAM and a Nvidia TitanXP video card on a windows 10 64bit OS with solid state hard drives. Is this rig to slow to run DSC I don't have issues with FPS and overall it seems to run well.

Wow! Nice progress I am following this with fingers crossed. This unit will bring the DCS fleet one ship closer to being able to deploy a full USMC MEU. Thanks for your hard work!

If RAZBAM did not have the appropriate information or understanding of how said systems worked then why in the world would they even have attempted to build a module like the Harrier? If this is truly the case I would be suspect of anything they push out. Other developers wont even touch an upgraded aircraft of one of their already created modules because they lack accurate information on some of its systems. Maybe RAZBAM should have released these modules as Flaming Cliffs versions, like the F-15C or A-10A, where the understanding is that the systems are lower fidelity or close approximations of the aircrafts systems and not a full representation of the aircraft.

Learning with payment modules? is it a new selling concept? So we have to pay for them to "learn"? I think so, or at least that what appears to be suggested. RAZBAM had been a MS FSX developer and decided to get into the DCS business once that game/sim ended. I can agree that 3rd party developers have a learning curve and all first modules are a bit of "on the job learning". It just appears that this developer was not fully transparent at how they intended to support these two modules when they were released in Early Access. I pretty much just use the harriers and mirages as AI backfill in my missions. I mean I spent money on the WW2 asset pack so I figure I got 2 planes and LHD asset pack.

Please be aware that the AV-8 and the Mirage are modules that RAZBAM are using to learn how to develop code for DCS. Likely they have not yet been able to figure out how to code the corrections or determine what is causing the bug.

I really look forward to seeing both your efforts in game. The Harpers Ferry and Alvand Class would be amazing additions to the game especially the Strait of Hormuz map.

I did two repairs on my open beta prior to testing prior to repair the aim120_family.lua file was 3kb in size and dated 04/01/2020. After the repair the file size remained the same at 3kb and only the date changed to the date of the repair 6/04/20. Not sure if I am not getting the appropriate file in the repair but it has zero impact on the performance of the missile on my system.

After further testing with f-18 and AIM-120C the ECCM and terminal guidance are still poor. AI high skill target in Mig-29S guns only will easily evade. I ran 50 fights on NTTR map. Launching at 18nm from 25000 at Mach 1 headon aspect, Aim-120C will hit about 12% of the time. 34% of the misses appeared to be due to chaff combined with AI maneuver. The missile just flew to well behind the target. 16% missed during terminal guidance phase with extreme turns and lost momentum to make intercept. 22% dove vertically down from loft to engage target and I assume lost target in ground clutter or chaff. 12% of the misses the missile just overflew the target never descending from the loft. 3% of the missiles showed LOST on HUD due to radar track loss prior to going active. I assume radar loss was due to chaff and target went into notch or outside radar scan. Repeating the same 50 but removing chaff from AI the AIM-120C will hit 78% of the time. 12% of the misses dove vertically down to engage target and I assume lost it in ground clutter or could not pitch up to intercept climbing AI. 6% missed during terminal phase with extreme turns and lost momentum to make intercept. 2% of the missiles just overflew the target never descending from the loft. 2% of the missile showed LOST on HUD due to radar track loss prior to going active. I assume radar loss was due to the target flying into notch or outside radar scan. After some thought I think maybe my expectations for missile performance was too high. Based on anecdotal historical evidence from AIM-120 performance in real world, if I assume the target aircraft did not have RWR, chaff, or failed to use chaff I think the DCS performance matches pretty closely with the Pk achieved in real world based on what data I could find. I will just have to accept that chaff and simple turns are extremely effective against radar guided missiles because I cannot find any public data of chaff impact on even old out of circulation missiles.

Firing from the Hornet both the Aim-120B and Aim-120C eat chaff more than before and are still easily notched. Simple lazy S turns is all it takes. Lofting is also really odd. When they loft they either never arc down even if lock is maintained or they cannot make the arc and the enemy aircraft happily flies on as it tries to make a U-turn and misses by at least a mile. As an extra the Aim-7s loft the same way either attempting to be a moon shot or cant arc back down in time to make an intercept. They eat chaff and are notched on par with the AIM-120 family. This is in Single player against AI (High, Good, Average) not sure if it reacts different in MP.

I am having TACAN range issues in SP with the Supercarrier. The range readout on the TACAN only updates in increments of 10 miles. (eg I am less then 10 miles from the ship it reads 0 if greater than 10 but less than 20 it reads 10 miles). I have not yet tried other TACANs or different channels. This is something that occurred after the 03JUN update as I recall seeing 7 miles on the tacan when I was practicing cat shots.

Do you fly the Harrier at night with FLIR and NVGs? Have you ever tried to fly a full CAS mission in the Harrier from a cold start to a landing? If so, you would find it is riddled with bugs that make it pretty much useless or incredibly unrealistic. I suspect that most that are happy with that module pop in with an airstart at noon drop a few MK82s in CCIP and hit escape and say what an awesome flight.

The entire podcast was very revealing and honestly RAZBAM should have been more forthright in their advertisement that the AV-8B N/A and Mirage are learning projects funded by DCS users and not specifically EA. The fact that two modules are learning projects also hints at their inability to resolve bugs in a timely fashion or actually correct bugs without creating additional bugs. Things that seem simple are probably outside their abilities to code at this time due to still learning how to code inside DCS. How they can continue advertise complex models such as the F-15E if they are still learning to code in DCS is beyond me.

Would love to see some and LPD and LSD to compliment the Tarawa. Also some Iranian naval ships like the La Combattante IIa, Tondar hovercraft, Saam Class frigate, and a boghammer.