Zergburger

i think its just a function that is not present in early access at this time. But yes it would've been nice of them to mention that, because it has led to much confusion

seems to be working as intended, this is not a modern engine with a FADEC, and has obvious limitations (many of which are stipulated in the manual).

when i tested this, my SON-9 never recovered, and my guns never resumed shooting. Firecan radar goes to full elevation, then just spins on its gimbal, ad infinitum. Also i could not get more than 6 guns in my battery to engage. EDIT: when i took manual control of the viper, and kept it from flying directly over the SON-9, the behavior did not occur. SON9bug.trk

anyone got a plug on a IRL mirage f1 manual? post if its old enough to not anger the forum gods, PM me otherwise.

guys, im sure they will tell us when they are ready to do another, the amount of work still remaining on the mirage f1 is going to take at least a year, probably 2+

nice documentation

im not sure what you mean by washed out in this context BTW i also saw your report on the rudder pushing INTO the spin on a departure, seems like it may be hard to dissect the departure recovery issues with the possibility of two compounding bugs outstanding.

in any spin or departure right now the rudder will hold deflection into the spin

i think the anti departure logic is overriding the pitchrate logic, if you manually take control of the pitch channel, you can get out of these departures in a few oscillations

we can't be the only two people that want this XD

Currently the F/A-18C binding options for the radar elevation is setup like the real jet, where the position of the axis controls the slew-rate of the antenna elevation, I applaud ED's choice to do this as it works great for people that have HOTAS setups specifically tailored to the hornet. However, I very much would appreciate it if ED could add a second axis bind to treat the antenna elevation axis as an absolute position, like the viper and other modules. For people who do not have antenna elevation axes with a sprung center, the current iteration is very difficult to use; this would remedy the issue. Furthermore, I think the current iteration potentially creates a fair amount of issues where newer players (without the sprung-center radar control) do not notice their radar slewing up into the heavens or full down and end up wondering why their radar cannot find any targets. Cheers.

clearly what "should" happen and what dcs does are not always in alignment. I was just explaining a phenomenon i see a lot in game.

forgive me for being late to the topic, is it confirmed the -CE will be getting the R-530 and not the Super 530F?

AFAIK The P-35 (NATO name "Barlock") was the most common search radar for the SA-5 in later years, with acquisitions in the range of 350-400km for bomber sized targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-35_radar The P-14 "Tall King" was used in the earlier years, sometimes with a height finding radar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-14_radar Issues with the SA-5 (and SA-2) stem--in part--from a lack of 2 major components missing from the sim: 1. Multiple guidance algorithms: The SA-5 and SA-2 both have an array of trajectories based on the: altitude, range at launch, elevation in degrees from the track radar, and anticipated maneuverability of the target, among other things. 2. Multiple Thrust programs: SA-5 would exceed design limits (read: spontaneously self-disassemble) if launched on the maximum thrust profile at a low altitude target, there were subsequently limited thrust programs to slow the missile down in the thicker air, as well as extend the on-motor time (where the missile is most agile). SA-2 allegedly also had multiple thrust programs, however i have been unable to find any evidence. null "If the target is closer than 80km, the missile will fly a proportional guidance profile from launch, using a low thrust program to accelerate to supersonic speeds (above Mach 3). This conserves fuel, and reduces heating caused by the friction in the dense atmosphere. If the target is further than 80km, the missile will fly combined guidance profile. After launch, it will climb at a constant 48° in elevation for 30s, to get out of the dense atmosphere, and then it will arch over, and accelerate to hypersonic speed (above Mach 6) with a maximum thrust program. This way it will collect enough momentum for the long, unpowered descent towards the target after the fuel exhausted. During this phase it uses the proportional guidance method." --translation of http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/ Учебник ЗРК С-200.Состав,принципы действия и боевые возможности - учебник по с200 , page 238

heres another one for your viewing enjoyment. op_120.zip.acmi

If SLAM is that accurate with GPS guidance only, why does JDAM have such a big CEP?

The AIM-9P (non dash-5 variant) is a rear aspect missile so if you manage to get tone and launch on a contact in AB, and they turn into the missile while cutting burner, there is a decent chance it will drop lock.

can we either move this to wishlist or unsolve it because it appears we have conflicting info going on here?

Im curious if we need a more complex LMC simulation, or if IAT needs to be implemented for proper lead calculations for gun to begin to happen. on a tangential topic, im curious if hellfire has any proportional nav for moving targets--SAL or Radar both.

i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the trim works this does not work like the trim in other helos in DCS. Attitude hold is like ATT hold in a fixed wing, if you have a vector, it will hold you there. The force trim in central position trim mode is what you want ot be using without a FFB stick. you must recenter your pedals and stick when you hit up on trim hat. tbh unlike the ka-50 where you want to use the trim button every time you mvoe the stick, just consider using the trim for large changes in flight regime. EG: flying at 40kts, then accelling to 120kts.

+1

ok, i will retry it some time. I retried the mission immediately after encountering the bug and did the btr myself the second time. TY for looking into it anyway. Love your stuff, keep up the great work.

When flying mission 10, i opted to have the F16 use its remaining maverick to attack the BTR instead of having my hogs attack as it would be much faster....but the falcons split and the one with the mav just fucked off back to base, consequently, the power plant got blown up.

The form factor difference seems immense between pave spike and pave tack. Does pave tack bring an increase in visual fidelity or other feature that could redeem its substantial increase in weight and drag when compared to pave spike?

i was thinking of the "modernized" f4es, like turkey's terminator or whatever its called when i wrote that.