Boagord

Thank you! I'm not convinced that taking wind into account significantly improves my tool's accuracy. The tool is only precise to about 0.1 Nm and is mainly used for mission preparation and providing a rough estimate of the expected outcome. For a highly accurate drop, you need to rely on the equipment provided by the aircraft. In my experience, manual drops are extremely challenging because it's difficult to get all three parameters right—speed, for instance, greatly affects the impact distance. Ultimately, the pilot’s precision ends up being lower than that of the tool. Similarly, it's much like amateur fuel consumption calculators: they give you a general idea of what to expect, but they aren’t very accurate. In most cases, including wind data only complicates the system without offering much added value. For example, when accounting for wind, you’d have to specify the wind conditions at various altitudes. However, if you come up with a method to perform this calculation, I suggest explaining it to an AI and integrating it into the Google Sheets copy.

Thank you for these responses. I added a calculation of the bomb-to-target angle at the moment the target enters the bomb’s FOV (adjustable FOV) and another calculation of the bomb-to-target angle T-X seconds before impact. The results seem consistent to me, but since I did it quickly, I hope there are no mistakes. @AndyJWest : I think I have the document you're referring to, but DCS and reality don't exactly match when it comes to ballistics. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r1b88Y58dCQsrn_2-Vgo-SsyT1A3pLAydKNTaPoctdQ/copy?usp=sharing

Thanks for the feedback. It can be done, but before going further, I'd like to know if the tool is accurate and useful in real-case scenarios. I have little data on the accuracy I can achieve with pitch angles different from zero. From experience, it's decent, but I don't really know how it's handled in the game and in the F-4's bombing computer.

For some time now, we have been trying to compensate for the lack of a weapon delivery planner tool in DCS. There are already some excellent pop-up attack planners available, but none that are well suited for loft or high-altitude bomb drops. Sometimes, when preparing a mission, we need to know how far from the target we can drop our bombs or how to optimize our trajectory. What should we expect? The goal of this tool is not to achieve pinpoint accuracy on a target but rather to understand what is possible and what isn’t, and to visualize what will happen in the game before the mission begins. The method implemented to develop this tool is broken down into several steps: Data Collection: We recorded the readings provided by the F-4’s bombing computer by varying different parameters in order to estimate the drag coefficient (Cx). Ballistic Calculation: Using this data, we performed a ballistic calculation to predict the bomb’s impact point based on certain parameters. Adjustment According to Bomb Type: An average correction—based on a coefficient that replaces the bomb’s effective surface area—was applied to account for differences between types of munitions. Validation and Correction: The results obtained were adjusted to match the current data provided by the F-4’s bombing computer. Even though this approach has its limitations and I do not claim to have the perfect method, the overall result is quite satisfying, especially for Lodrag bombs. Your feedback and suggestions are very welcome, as I remain an amateur—sometimes a bit clumsy—eager to fill a gap in DCS and continuously improve this tool, so any help or ideas are welcome. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C-UjHGR9P5EDAeDXvKEoe7PAes8WeBPKWpGU4u3lCO0/copy?usp=sharing

Bienvenue dans le groupe ATAC L'Allied Tactical Air Command est une entité virtuelle évoluant sous DCS . Elle regroupe plusieurs escadrons, et est à ce jour composée de : - VF-211 "Checkmate" sur F14A/B (Callsign NICKEL) - 337m "GHOST " Sur F16 (Callsign GHOST) Ce groupe a pour vocation de réaliser des missions et campagnes dans un environnement immersif (utilisation SRS, vol tout temps, ravitaillement en vol…) en utilisant, à la discrétion de l’escadron, des procédures issues du monde réel. ATAC regroupe des simmers passionnés, désireux de partager un moment convivial et plein de bonne humeur, bien installé derrière son joystick. Il est administré par les différents chefs d’escadron; qui se réunissent régulièrement afin de d’organiser la vie du groupe (recrutement, campagnes…). La gestion de chaque escadron est quant à elle laissée à la discrétion du chef d’escadron. Une soirée officielle ATAC est identifiée le mardi soir. Elle permettra de proposer des entraînements, des missions et des campagnes sur un serveur commun. Pour proposer votre candidature, rien de plus simple : cliquez sur le lien Discord ci-après et laissez-vous porter. https://discord.gg/5pxVVNAr2v Les escadrons suivant sont à la recherche de pilotes et navigateurs : - VF211 "Checkmate" : 2 Pilotes et 2 RIO - 337m "Ghost" : 2 pilotes Il est demandé aux postulants d’avoir plus de 18 ans et de maîtriser les bases de la machine (cold-start, Navigation, Ravitaillement) A bientôt parmi nous ! ATAC team

HTS has a FOV of 120° in DCS, exactly the same as the radar.

I have a question regarding the AIM-120: I'm not sure if it's a bug or not, but I think there may be confusion with the countdown before the missile's radar activation and/or their impact on one side and the calculation of the A/F-Pole on the other. From what I understand, the countdown shown is for the last target fired at by an AIM-120: it does not change when I switch from one target to another, only when I fire a new missile. The A/F Pole indications do change when switching from one target to another. From what I assume: Data coming from the bugged target: Target distance Closing speed Data coming from the last target fired at: Time before missile radar activation or supposed missile impact. This can give an incorrect A/F Pole value when in DTT mode, you fire the first missile at target A, a second at target B, and then rebug target A. In this case, you have the countdown for target B but a distance and closing speed of target A. And thus, an A/F Pole which is a mix of both.

The translation : In the mission editor, the F-15E has mysteriously disappeared. I can no longer locate the F-15E in my mission editor. However, the command files are still present, as well as the theme. I've deleted DCS and then reinstalled it. Nothing. I've performed the repair three times. Nothing. I've uninstalled and reinstalled the F-15 four times. Nothing. I'm at a loss, I don't know what else to do. Ma réponse : Est-ce que ça ne serait pas la date de la mission qui poserait problème? Selon les réglage et l'année de la mission le F15E peut ne pas être dispo. Je suis sur Discord si besoin. My Answer : Wouldn't it be the mission date causing the issue? Depending on the settings and the year of the mission, the F-15E may not be available. I'm on Discord if needed.

After some tests, the fuel flow of a clean aircraft is spot on, but it seems that the drag caused by the stores is a tiny fraction of what it should be: In the documentation, the relationship between the DI (Drag Index) and the fuel flow appears to be of the form ax + B For example, for 50,000 lbs, 520 KTAS, and 10,000 ft, the relationship appears to be close to: 10518 + DI x 73.875 A clean F15-E has a 21,3 DI and the FF is very close to the documented one but the coefficient of the variable linking the FF and the DI appears to be close to 74 in the documentation and 13 in the measurements taken in DCS. null Although I cannot validate all of this as I don't have enough time, I am certain there is an issue somewhere because in no configuration can I achieve a fuel flow requirement exceeding 15,000 lbs/hour for 60,000 lbs, 520 KTAS, and 10,000 ft, whereas I am supposed to have this result between 60 and 80 on the DI.

Temperature is calculated for 15° at SL, and standard as indicated in the PDF. I don't remember my setting in the ME. DI calculation is inside the spoiler, but As you said there is a huge difference. I did not yet test with a clean aircraft, I lack of time. If you want to try

So, here is the @crazyduncwork : https://github.com/crazydunc/F-15E-Strike-Eagle-Performance-Calculator/releases/tag/1.0.0.9 In the attached file there is my XLS. My xls is less precise than his .exe because I am far less experimented, I haven't yet integrated the pylons, and some conditional DIs like those of the 610 gal fuel tank but perhaps more transparent in understanding how it operates. The source of the work is a file F-15E-Flight-Manual-15-April-1993.pdf that can be found on Google (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share it here). The fuel flow tables were taken from page 704 and the subsequent pages of this PDF. The DIs table was made from pages 625 and the following ones. As an exemple this loadout give a weight of ~80 000 lbs and a DI of 100: Since the gross weight is 80,000, pages 722-723 should be used, and on this page, the column corresponding to a DI of 100. This give : Do you observe the same flow rates? Is the documentary method correct? I hope my explanations are clear. fuel_consumption.xlsx

@crazydunc and I have developed an aircraft Drag Index and weight calculation system independently. A .exe and an XLS respectively. Then we have collaborated on the data extraction about the fuel flow, as noted in Appendix B (-229 engines) of the F-15E-Flight-Manual (15-April-1993) Currently, there is a significant discrepancy between the document (which applies well to the engines 229) and what is observed in DCS . Is this issue known? If not, we can provide specific figures or exemples.

The symbols (WP, MP, TGT etc.) are always too close to the center of the image. Or the image is too large in scale.When you want to designate a coordinate, if the target is not in the center of the image the coordinate is not the right one. Furthermore, to see the shift, simply take a vehicle visible to the radar, put a markpoint on the radar return spot and move the patch map. the markmoint and the target will not always be superimposed Some exemples : I'm going to play with 1.3: Now it is centered on the spot, but it is the TGT 2 which is offset: And now that I have moved the view, the square is still shifted towards the center but the shift is oriented towards the south (left) whereas on the first image it was rather towards the north (right) Still towards the center of the screen: So if we want to make a pinpoint the target must be in the center, you cannot marpoint several targets precisely in one frozen frame.

the bug still seems to be present

Have you any source about it? In DCS I can guide aim-7m in P-STT lock, so I assume it is a CW guidance. And I found this : https://books.google.fr/books?id=o3PTEuaoSosC&pg=PA1409&dq=aim-7m+cw+or+pulse&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPyNC4t7_xAhXQ3YUKHf5eAQoQ6AEwAnoECAkQAg