Hobel

Okay if it only happens with the old miz it should only be limited to "old" f16/18 and new ones fix it completely? Thx!

Thanks I could finally reproduce it with this miz! So for new F18/16 too? What do I have to set in the f16/f18 so that the own data link is displayed, when I test it with new ones I have not yet been able to reproduce this.

that's basically my point i would be in favor of a different method because that way, you can't shoot at helicopters in DCS no matter how optimal the conditions would be and the seeker can Lock this target, here i would be more in favor of a relative dynamic distance limit than a hard Line,because you can currently Track and shoot at tanks at 15-20nm with these old Mavs. with the other things i agree with you about and thank you for the interesting documents!

I didn't refer so much to the different missles, in fact I was more focused on the modern version. when it comes to the older missles you are of course right that the limitations should be greater in terms of pure tracking. I think and your document shows this very well(and thus you have provided direct proof), the pilot might still be able to roughly recognize the target but the seeker has problems to distinguish the contrast at such a large distance, which is why he can hardly or no longer Lock the target from 5nm, thanks for that. but I would still say that you can shoot at a helicopter within 5nm if the contrast is high enough for the missle and that the targets do not exceed the kinematic limits for an immobile maverick the thing here is, why are there speed gates? if the target is within 5nm(or depending on the size of the helicopter 3-4nm for small and 5-6nm for large) even the older misses should be able to lock a helicopter, how does an IR/TV seeker know how fast the helicopter flying directly towards you is ? it only sees a contrast that hardly moves.

Hello it seems there have been changes here, tracks One and Three the Missle Hits now can you test it again and share your experiences? The values in which the Aim120 can reacquire the target 2 times have probably changed from my observation and also seem more dynamic, the closer to the ground the more difficult. that means before the rv was ~100knots and now the missle can reacquire the target in track 3 scenario already at rv:36 knots

The fact that you can display the RWR on another screen without breaking the IC is very important, especially for cockpit builders

Other sensors? For example, can I create a track with the TGP and then I or a wingman can shoot an Aim120 on it? Is it also possible to triangulate several RWRs with each other and create a track and shoot it?

Ah, okay, that might explain it. Also that it's not visible on some servers. So if servers are still using "old" f16/18 they just need to be recreated it, in the ME and the error doesn't appear? I hope that's it. Are these "old" f16/18 in your miz?

In some tests when I was in the blind spot of awacs the onw ship link disappeared. Here is an example from the MP Server Buddy Spike pg Modern. What the exact trigger is is still a mystery to me, I couldn't reproduce it in the sp

This is also not necessary, the Seeker should recognize a contrast and a helicopter as well as a tank offer this contrast and 5° is more than enough If the helicopter flanks you at 250 km/h, the Maverick should have problems, but if it flies directly or at a slight angle towards you? and it is precisely these limits that can be observed with the Laser maverick. Here are examples. Once the best and the worst scenario for the Maverick. In the first bad scenario, I Lock a helicopter with the Laser Maverick that flanks me and flies at 250km/h, the Missle catches the laser and also tries to fly towards the target, but cannot reach it because the limits of the Missle are simply reached, which is shown very well here, if the helicopter had been slower and closer, the missle would have had a better chance. However, if the helicopter is flying straight towards me, the laser missle has absolutely no problems. If I try the same thing with the IR Maverick, it can Lock the target on the station and hold it, so is Contrast are Valide here, but immediately after firing it loses the target? A helicopter flying straight towards me is basically a stationary object for an IR sensor In your opinion, what are the limitations in this situation?

from the pure testing of the last version there are 2 new main features that I have observed. -9m PF -less wobble(Significantly less) Less wobble roughly means that the missle no longer makes extremely hectic movements when it loses a target and Lock it up again, it is now much smoother, thus saves energy and leads more cleanly to the target here i one scenario: in this example the AIm120 loses the F16 in the notch and changes to a new target, the change is now very smooth, as you can see the Old missle was always thrown around Left New. xr5piv.mp4 Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to testing it in detail yet, but from what I've seen so far, it's already a small Aim-120 revolution for me. the wobbling has caused a lot of misses i'm looking forward to the future tacview evaluations!

So just to be clear, there is no option for the red side to have the same GPS quality as the blue side? I thought it was the same for both sides, especially if you use this option?

Do you mean like that?

have you tested it again? with the new landing gear change, something seems to have changed well

could have been a K4 in DCS it is similar

yes, you can slave to the STP in FCR-GM mode, then make the FCR-GM side SOI and slew the FCR minimally and then the bottom is marked directly under the STP. personally, i would always enter the STP ALT to save future work, but that's how it works too

Love it

Ja das wäre sonst sehr schade gewesen, die F15E ist schon ein verdammt tolles Flugzeug mag die System Logik von dem jet auch extrem. Hoffentlich können wir trotz allem auch noch die mig23 sehen, weiterhin Daumen drücken.

Nein dagegen hat ED eigentlich Maßnahmen, kann man auch hier irgendwo nachlesen. Theoretisch könnte ed das Modul weiter entwickeln.

For A/B is it MSL step

Even block a/b from 1998 already had this function

What kind of warhead does our m282 actually have?

wow interesting, as I understand it. so ring 1 shows the emitters that are illuminating me but are not in tacking/lock range or at least he can recognize me. Ring 2 shows emitters that can theoretically lock/track me, and ring 3 when the enemy system is in theoritical firing range? So even if the system is not Lock/shooting the threat in the RWR jumps through the rings? with this logic, Target Separation button would work again With SAM, i.e. ground air defense, this is still quite clear But what about enemy jets? if a Su27 flies 1000feet above the ground, the threat and range of the weapons is significantly different than if it is 40,000 feet, is that taken into account to some extent? but i have to say that the DCS F15E RWR gives perfect SA, because i have all the ranges of the different SAM systems and jets in my head, when i see that a SA11 is on the "30nm marker" in the AN/ALR-56C in combination with my own altitude i can immediately classify the threat without thinking about it. there is also the question here, the weapon range differs significantly from my current altitude against SAMs so when I am low the threat emitter should jump back into RING 2, should the ALR-56M take into account the own altitude or that of enemy jets in any way? here an example all these emitters are ~50nm away from me, only the SA-10 gets my increased attention here. Should the SU27 gradually approach the 30nm mark, this would be the next potential higher threat. the limits start as you say with systems like S-300, there it would of course be practical to recognize whether I am in theoretical attack range, but usually you know the position of such systems and then tend to stay away from them, but in general systems that track and shoot below 60nm are more common in DCS and therefore you always have perfect SA with the F15E RWR, at least in DCS.

It depends, there is a bug with DTOS in conjunction with TGP and soi change in the current version. But it has already been fixed. The best thing would be to send a track of what happened to you first

Hm. And what's the problem?