achitan

Hi Neon, thanks for the kind words. I am here to help so please let me know how I can help....time permitting, of course :).

Hi guys, So I've always been bugged by the fact that I have to create the real life weather for a certain mission that I create for offline missions. While it is not a huge burden to Tab forth and back from an Active Sky window to DCS and insert and calculate the right inputs (wind directions need to be turned around as DCS uses direction to instead of direction from, as just one example of the changes) for the DCS weather inputs, my flying time is limited. So I could only do this once a month. I've thus created this little command line app' to facilitate a fast weather snapshot creation. The catch is that you would need Active Sky for this to work. The good thing is that you can use AS's historical weather to get the exact weather of a certain date and time (Cold War/Korean style campaigns). As this does not need any LUA interpreter, the downside is that the weather doesn't evolve over time - I thought if I changed the LUA weather file, DCS will "feel" it and refresh the weather by itself. It does not do that, unfortunately, but for my needs it is quite fine. The app' also sets the right time of the day taken from the METAR. Please read the README and follow the instructions of the help app' text. Any problems, please write it here and I'll "make it so" in a fast update. The link is provided here Hope you like it, Adrian

Hi guys, so I've made changes to get to v. 2 of the document. Maybe the biggest change is that I've added the AIM-54 Phoenix into the calculation. This was done by doing some F-14B engagements. I've also added some clearing up sentences...buuut even if already said in the pdf, here I go: all encounters are considered as taking place at FL250 with real weather during the 4th of February 2019 taking off at 10:00 am. That is to say that I was at FL250 (altimeter set at 29.92 NOT airport altimeter setting) when the engagement started. Because of winter, the atmosphere was denser than ISA so slightly lower kTAS were usually achieved by the missiles even with no initial turns. The target' speeds were twofold: AI - about 600 - 700 kTAS initially me - about 750 kTAS Turns to run were also two fold: AI - downward in the vertical, full AB, supersonic as they leveled off, about a 2'000 ft loss in altitude - sometimes they just turn leveled, always a hard turn me - always maintaining altitude, but with a crank in the opposite side of the turn at F-pole for 5'' While I always try to evade the "first wave" with aggressive barrel-rolling, I didn't do that for my case III encounters so I tried to let the missile bleed off just from air density. Hope this settles the hypothesis a little as I saw most were mainly baffled by that. Nevertheless, everything is written in the pdf. Adrian :) P.S. next comes the BVR potential study, the chances of BVR success based on positioning and weapon parameters alone (air police) - no launch allowed :)

Hi jojo, thanks for your answer. I do talk about altitude. I say at some point ">20'000 ft" while when talking about the theoretical values and the tacview encounters I use 25'000 ft. I tried to make all measurements at the same FL give or take a few thousand feet. In any case, all shootings happened very close to 25'000 ft. I created the missions to have the engagements start at that altitude. And about your very nice radar capability analysis I can only say that this is exclusively a MAR document - theoretical and practical in my engagements. Actually, as you can see from the actual engagements part, the ranges are much much lower than the MOR which is in line with your actual firing range capability. Case III is NOT MOR dependent :) Adrian

Hi guys, got some time to do some analysis. Here's the link to my blog post (pdf embed). Hope you find it interesting as I did :) writing it. It quenches my BVR knowledge thirst...for today :))). Link Here The post is a MAR study from different angles but it contains the 530D among the big boys (AMRAAM and R27ER). While not saying that "X" is better than "Y" as different missiles have different employment procedures, the MAR is the field that a badly perceived missile can level the field in the hands of a smart pilot. Again, I hope you find this an interesting read, Adrian

Sorry for being away for quite a long time. I know the range is shorter but the speed is higher. That means this missile should get a better minimum abort range. Even if it reaches a lower rangeit should be deadlier at a larger MAR because of the higher speed. Yes, it has a higher deceleration than the AMRAAM (both used in DCS), but it should be faster. While the AIM-120C would reach the 10 nm mark within 25 seconds, the 530d should do it in 20 seconds (exageration not based on actual facts). I am doing a virtual-BVR study of the most common missiles based solely on kinematics (no dynamics allowed :)) for this topic based on maximum operational range and tacview encounters which should be ready next week. I already like the results... Adrian

That's exactly what I also said. The new target has to be within the limits, of course. If Razbam is working with the AdA then that is super. I just saw no missile update on the list there. About the MICA, you are right. A new radar set is needed and they said it'll be the C not -5. Thanks!

Anyway, the other issues are more pressing for me. Adrian

Hi myHelljumper, My understanding (from various sources on the net not necessarily pertaining to just the 530D, but to same age same technology non-the-less) we have here a passive CW monopulse tracker with Doppler filtering. After launch the missile points itself to the target (datalink just before launch) and starts doing signal processing and proportional navigation to intercept the target. When the signal stops being received (or sent by the launcher as in a lock loss) the missile flies straight. When the signal is regained (all signal lobes, etc. etc.) the tracking resumes. Even if the signal was lost for 10 seconds. Nothing, besides the lack of signal can stop that missile to resume tracking (electronics doesn't stop) - OK, after 10 seconds of flying straight it would be a miracle to still regain the whole radar signal in the antennae gimbals (even signal lobes that don't hit the target need to be captured, otherwise signal integration will not resemble original signal. This implies switching targets, though, again, getting the entire signal from a different position target is quite hard to do unless they're in a tight finger formation :). Because of how the monopulse CW tracking works it is not a problem for "buddy illumination". STT uses different parameters for even the same radar model (small changes in frequency and/or lobe amplitude and/or polarization) so no two planes can drive the same missile unless they have the same physical radar set or the missile's electronics are tweaked to "listen" to some other radar. That is my understanding and it may be wrong, of course :). I don't have access to real pilots/engineers/technicians who actually work in L'Armee de L'Air or any Air Force for that matter. The MICA is the replacement of the 530 and is active radar homing :) and is carried by the Mirage 2000. I am quite happy with Fox 1 missiles, but having a longer reach won't hurt anyone. The AIM-120 is there so why wouldn't this be. Again, not forcing anything just wondering if it could get a time slice after everything else is done - I happily saw that you are doing lots of projects. Thanks, Adrian

Hello RAZBAM, I know this hasn't been in the list of systems to be updated in the MLU, but what is the time table (far future, I guess) for the 530D update? The fact is that I only do A2A sorties and the whole DCS universe is way behind on this mainly because of missile mechanics. There is also the missing advanced radar modes or the annoying FCC simplifications (M-pole, F-pole, A-pole, Husky mode for ARH) on the newer fighters, but the Mirage is quite complete for BVR and WVR. Unfortunately, the 530D, as almost all other DCS missiles (exception may be the Sparrow which got a special ED update but I didn't test it), has very poor logic - fooled by chaff at launch moment and low speed. While the on-chaff-guidance can definitely happen, the ECCM capability is one of the main features of this missile so it should almost never happen at launch ranges. Furthermore, the D has mainly improvements for low flying targets guidance which impair ECCM improvements as the ground is the largest chaff cloud out there. While I am not a real life pilot or involved with missile developing, I really can't see the 530D going for the first chaff cloud 90% of the time. I think most of the time, a modern missile should be kinetically beaten or out-turned, the latter with the pilot sweating like in a sauna :). Notching should also be a way of missile evading at long ranges but with a lower probability and only because the launching platform radar is affected by this. The speed of the missile is another issue as I'm seeing the 530D accelerating to only 1'600-1'700 kTAS after launch which is not Mach 4.5 - ~2'700 kTAS at FL250 in ISA conditions. I know it doesn't always go to maximum speed especially if it has to turn after launch as the pilot couldn't nail the maximum probability of kill launch parameters, but it still should be around that value. I see the R-27ERs go to 2'500 kTAS 90% of the time which is correct, and so should the 530D. It is an interceptor's missile so it should be fast. And one more thing about the 530D is that you can change targets while the missile is in flight. It of course has some limitations but it should be there. And finally, are we going to get the MICA missile :)? Cheers and thank you for this superb model and giving me a bridge between Falcon BMS and DCS, Adrian

Thank you very much for your input. I saw that it is also on sale now and that settles it as the F-14 is not out and the hype is over on it - for me. Plus in the last few days I've spend a lot of time reading stuff and seeing videos (DCS Mirage's) on the Mirage and its' weapons and it is pretty impressive already. Thank you for your inputs and see you in the v-skies :)

Hi guys, so I am seriously considering buying this over the upcoming Heatblur's F-14 as it has reached a very mature form (plus it is an F-16 replacement in all aspects). The problem is that I am only interested in the A2A role (BVR mostly and WVR as a second interest), and after doing a few tests on how the medium/high range A2A missiles the results are disappointing. It seems that the Sparrow is the only missile that behaves well enough in DCS (recent update) to resemble real life. AIM-120s, R-27s, R-77s are all super-simplified. So I was wondering how the Mirage 2000C's 530 behaves (Magic II and other IR missiles behave quite well as they usually have to just catch up with the target in a pure pursuit fashion). Is it in the hands of Eagle Dynamics and we'll have to wait for the AI updates or is it a Razbam thing? Thank you, Adrian

Hi guys, just to be short, I fly DCS by creating missions in the mission editor. For that I use the weather read by Active Sky Next and put the values in DCS for my departure base, but I have 7 modules so 7 missions with the same departure date so should be same weather. Unfortunately, I go by the logical way and create the weather for one mission and save it as a profile. When I go in the next module's training mission I want to load the new profile, but NO. It isn't there. Try again without any luck. The weird thing is that it sometimes works and the profile gets saved...but most of the time it doesn't. I guess I could make a mission with all my modules parked and I can choose which model to fly, that way I am free of the weather problem as I only have to make it once for all. But is there a reliable way to save weather profiles? Thanks, Adrian

Just tested a start at -18 C with just the generator and the battery on (with GP) and it started OK. Shouldn't it be off for start?

You look at the enemy and hold the padlock button until a the view fixes on it with a red square (un-complete square).

Hi again, it wasn't the throttle quadrant. Jumped the gun on that one. It seems to be linked to the outside temperature. I was using -18 C for my first tries and -5 C for the one that worked. So...I don't remember any limit (at least not withing -20 C) on the start of the engine. Is there any? Thanks.

Hi, Mizzy! After more testing I found the problem. It was actually from the fact that the throttle lever was NOT at it's lowest position. I use a HOTAS Warthog FCS and I guess the throttle quadrant doesn't give the lowest signal when in IDLE. So before trying to start I pressed Num + until the throttle moved forward a bit, and then I kept Num - until the throttle didn't move. The engine started OK with no problems then (using the keys for the fuel valve lever). It's weird that the Warthog isn't completely down when at IDLE because the portion from IDLE to OFF the FCS is a button instead of an an axis. Anyways, maybe some calibration would do the trick. Thanks a lot for your answer, you made me go back to basics and the problem is solved. Adrian

Hi, guys! A few days ago, when I resumed flying this beautiful machine, I noticed that the startup procedure didn't fire up the engine and moving the fuel lever to half way at 600 rpm would do nothing. I found an entry on this forum that there is a bug that doesn't fire up the engine if you close up more circuits on the right electrical panel than just the generator. Tried the new procedure and it worked nicely. I even considered it to be more true to life because the starter needs lots of amps to turn the engine so why would you load many consumers on the GPU when you could do it when your own engine is providing the power after the starter has done it's job. Not to mention the shock that the whole electrical system is getting when the starter is on. Now, after yesterday's (or the day before) update the engine will not start firing at all, in any configuration I try. So what happened and what is the new procedure? My procedure: 1. call for chocks 2. call for gpu 3. right side electrical panel: - generator on 4. left side engine controls: - instruments and lights on - ignition circuit on - booster pump on - transfer pump on 5. cover up and start the engine 6. at 600 rpm, fuel lever open half (one press of the HOME key) Unfortunately, the engine sits at 600 till the starter is automatically stopped a few moments later. As I said, I have tried with all circuits closed but for the battery, with no circuits closed (not even generator), with and without flicking the Air Start switch on the left panel....nothing worked. I have no axis conflict and the fuel valve lever works with the default HOME, RSHF+HOME, END keys. Thanks, Adrian