Hobel

Unfortunately, it didn't make it into the OB, but I can say that it works brilliantly. Now both sensors TGP and Maverick are Aligned, which makes it even more accurate from the first feeling. Previously it was the Maverick and SPI that were aligned which led to the problem here and a small inaccuracy

Yes with the RWR thing the notch meta could be reduced immediately, in addition you will not know in the future if you hit the notch, as long as you are in the aim120 seeker cone the RWR gives warning.

Yes, but it depends, a few updates ago the ground units got an update and depending on the status even the FOV in which the units can scout varies. So if you shoot, you give away your position, if you dive down again and disappear from the LOS and reappear at another position, the units should not shoot at you.

first of all, the main problem is that the Aim120C with an energy state of 2-3.5m can be defeated very easily by this maneuver, with a PF of 15m the problem would be almost solved. if the missile flies over 15m or even several 100m the energy state is usually already very low. It is certainly possible that it will still work, but the risk is too high for it to be worthwhile to roll against a missile and it forces the pilots to turn out. before the last update that really broke it, the results were very good, the missile always came very close to the target at a good energy level, but the problem was always that the PF was too low. @Default774 had tested it here, Unfortunately, the videos are no longer available.

What mods do you use for the F18

So the problem is that the ME is not able to include height differences of buildings or bridges?

Nothing different from missiles that already have 11-15m PF. Other missiles such as the SD10 have more PF, otherwise the SD10 etc. would also miss more often. Test it out At the same energy state. How far misses the SD10 and then Aim120. The Aim120 has also been tested with a higher PF and the results are very similar to other missiles.

Keep in mind that the tracking radar in DCS has a Small cone, if the missile is not in this cone the AGM-45 will miss. this can cause some confusion. i don't want to rule out a Bug but please test all situations with a Search radar Tracks or tac View would therefore be very helpful.

The topic name is. And this includes supposed solution ideas that can be discussed. And that's exactly why PF was invented in case the missile doesn't hit directly. And that is precisely the case here, among other things.

So which value is realistic? There are references to the aim120 that it could also be 15m, but let that not be valid enough. And 15m has already been tested by the community, it reduces abuse more than enough. The warhead is at least enough to do some damage. So my question here would be why should the value be limited to a fixed 9m when the fuze would be perfectly capable of detecting targets up to 15m, plus the seeker and Fuze can interact with each other to find a better solution. However, it was decided not to go beyond 9m, the fuze sees the target but does not trigger because? What is the reason or philosophy that the value is fixed or so low?

Yes, it works very well in dcs. If you fire missile normally with radar and lose the lock, switch it to EO lock if possible and EO will then steer CW. R and ER

Not only, if you shoot a Fox1 and the target notches your radar, the system falls back to EO and thus keeps the lock and CW on the target and thus the FOX1 can still track and hit the target.

What is the exact problem that you can't scan over 45° in EXP 3? I don't know if I'm doing it wrong or if there was some kind of fix but I can use the complete scanning area. yeah and here 48° lol

In the Mig29 there is a kind of primitive "data link" even if the radar could be worse, this is a small compensation. And I completely agree with you about the combat capability. I play them all in PVP environments. FF and FC are basically the same in terms of effort, the FF modules often even have some great features that improve SA which is already an advantage, even the magic radar of the FC modules doesn't make up for that.

is this activated? i only hear a sound after the wingrip

My subjective impression based on testing and game experience is that it can't be fixed only by guidence. There has definitely been some improvement this year compared to before, the missile used to burn a lot of energy vs a roll at long range, now it has to get very close so it starts to have problems. But look at the results ingame basically, and I think that's an important point, the missile often only flies a few meters past between 10-20m, that's actually a very good result with these extreme maneuvers if you ask me. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the end result, the role or in other words "abuse" unfortunately works very well.

No.

Why should that take time? Could you show an example And what hardware are you using?

I have tested it and have to correct one of my earlier statements. DSU-33 currently makes no difference to Impact it could even have a detrimental effect. I chose a flat surface on which infantrymen were standing and then measured the radius of how many died on Impact vs DSU-33. There was basically no difference. The impact fuze also triggers on vehicles, so if it also triggers on an airplane, the distance to the surrounding vehicles increases and the damage is even reduced.

Hm interesting I had the feeling that the slew rate is quite similar with the same zoom lvl, but I may be wrong. In any case, the enormous zoom with the TGP gives you the opportunity to capture the target very well. And that's exactly how I often do it, the tgp remains SOI and I simply control the Maverick and make a handover, which works perfectly for me.

It's been a while but the SA10 in DCS has a huge tracking cone to acquire multiple targets at once and I think it's similar with the Patriot. Therefore the results with the AGM88 are also better.

sorry my mistake. anyway it "works" i have taken control of your track But there is a code for each of the Hawk radars(And CWAR searches permanently), Only the tracking radar can be hit when it actively illuminate. However, I have done a few tests. and for me the AGM-88 ONLY hits when the SA-11 is on, i.e. observed, and that is always the case when an aircraft is within a ~30nm radius, if something is outside then the SA-11 switches off completely. you don't hit in your track because your AGM-88 is outside the tracking cone, from the moment the SA-11 fires a missile it seems to switch from "observe" (wide cone) to active tracking and from that moment on the AGM-88 is no longer in the FOV of the SA11 and misses. this should not be the case and I have already observed this with the Shrike45. The AGM-88 should actually still see the SA11 (side lobes and the very short distance), but this does not only apply to the SA11, the logic runs through the whole DCS, for example with the SA-2 Tracking radar it is the same. example picture when the shrike is outside the tracking cone it miss, same seems to be the case with the SA11 and AGM88. This has already been discussed here. I have done a few more tests here where I fly low in your mission so that the AGM88 stays in the cone and then it hits. AGM-88 track los miss .trkAGM-88.trk

The argument is that the SA11 has only one antenna, which is not the case with most other Sam models. can you provide a track for, because in PB mode, the AGM-88 hits the Buk when Tracking

Well Sa-19, Sa-15, Roland and so on have 2 antennas, one for search and one for track. and DCS these units can't separate their emitter and it all stays on at the same time and if the AGM88 tracks the search radar it stays on even if Sa-19/15 and the like are tracking something. The SA11 has only one radar which switches from search to track (I don't know exactly how this works or how many modes the radar has, we are assuming DCS Logic for the time being) and the initial source is therefore omitted for the AGM88. But irl the AGM88 has other modes and if it does not find the initial source it would switch to the next best one, which in this case would be the tracking of the SA11.

You mean just like the F-4? Enclosed is a report that in the real F5 there was probably a certain resistance at a certain point, that would already help a lot.