Koty

Right, I'll post some latest pictures from there: Everything you see is work in progress, and all that jazz. — 04/08/2022 — 05/08/2022

i meant the on-gauge AoA in both cases

and the touchdown in that was at just between 14-15° AoA at about 140 Kts so my impression is either the indicator reads 2° too little or the aircraft with flaps out is generating 2° worth of lift too little.

B-52D with the dog, sign me up. Even as just an AI, DCS needs a cold war 52

Not even similar specs, necessarily. N019 is vastly superior to the N008, being internally coherent high PRF radar, while N008 is still a low-PRF externally coherent set. So you might reach similar performance at altitude, but the N008 will have trouble detecting things down low. N003 to a greater extent. But at least you're able to do it at all without a scope full of clutter.

The letter K in R-60MK and R-60K stand for the Kolibri radio fuse. Problem is that indexing in service was a mess, so most R-60K and MK will just be called R-60 and R-60M, especially with photos found on the net. Main source of confusion is also the fact that the Kolibri-fused missiles are generally regarded as export missiles (as they were the only ones, besides maybe a couple R-60 to Yugoslavia, that were exported), which most people will interpret as "export-only", regarding then all R-60's in Soviet (and descendant-states') service as the "original" R-60 and 60M. In fact both were used in Soviet (and descendant) service, sometimes even on the same aircraft: Above - Page from Yugoslav MiG-29 manual, shows the paired windows of "optical contact-less (proximity) fuse" under number 8 for original R-60 (main visual difference to R-60M is the heat-resistant glass nose which is no longer transparent in visible light spectrum). This above is the example with white-painted bulges on the sides, I've been unable to confirm the variant, but it might just be a later production of the MK, this example being from Poland. On this example you can actually see the white paint peeling off. I will also try looking for something more substantial on the matter.

The RWR has 3 threat-type lights. Pulse-modulated, TWS and CW. These should light up, as per manual, to warn pilot of different type of threat however they do not follow the described functionality. Assuming the most simplified logic, TWS should light up when a TWS radar is looking at the aircraft and is considered primary threat. Pulse-modulated threat should light up for STT and CW for launched missile. (This logic is also partly wrong, but about that later.) Current behavior as tested with S-75, S-125, S-200 and Osa, as well as MiG-29 with R-27R: When the aircraft is engaged, Pulse-modulated threat comes up. Once missile is launched, RWR switches to the TWS threat. Even assuming the simplified logic as described in the manual, CW threat should light up instead of TWS. However, since we know the operation principle of these systems, it should be possible to assign threat type based on the actual system: S-75 (SA-2): This system operates in TWS regardless if missile is being guided or not. There is no "real" STT, even if game "pretends" there is. Depending on how the actual system works, it might be able to detect the missile up-link (later US RHAW's in Vietnam could do this) and switch threat type to CW to warn pilot regardless, even if it is still operating in TWS. S-125 (SA-3): Same principle of operation as above. S-200 (SA-5): Tracking radar operates exclusively in CW. There is no pulse-modulated mode. Osa: System works purely in pulse-modulated single-target track. As with SA-2/3, RWR might be able to detect the up-link for missile's command guidance depending on its capabilities. MiG-29: Pulse-modulated STT, switches to CW when missile is launched.

This has been an issue for a very long time, no proper roughmet texture has been created for both R-3S and R-3R which means they now render as 100% metallic. The only parts that should render as metallic are the rollerons and maybe a couple of details. Whole missile should be smooth, sides of rollerons maybe slightly rougher. Rollerons and some details should be metallic, paint on the body should have barely any metalness to it, letters semi-matt: Sadly I do not have good details of the fuse windows. (in the first picture it is covered by protective band)

Looks like noone made one yet ... I'll make one.

Yes, there are other models with mistakes and or technical problems too (looking at the R-3S/R models still missing proper roughmets). Hopefully it gets a looked at.

I've realised this could probably be moved to https://forum.dcs.world/forum/423-ai-bugs-non-combined-arms/ or somewhere more appropriate.

R-60M model in DCS is in fact an R-60MK with its prominent Kolibri fuse on the side: R-60M uses an optical fuse, arranged with cruciform arrangement:

Keep in mind the 19P has an extended nose with a radar in it compared to the original day-light fighter. This brought a notable change in stability.

If you want to be pedantic, it really is just the loss of lift. = loss of lift. You will usually start losing control before the wing is fully stalled. Some wings are designed in a way that allows part of the wing to stall earlier to warn you of incomming stall before your controls get into the stall-disturbed air as your wingtips inevitably stall. A really good example of this can be found with the Yak-28: the wing has a constant chord on the part outboard of the engines, between the engine and fuselage the chord lenghtens, decreasing the relative thickness and increasing leading edge sweep. The leading edge in front of the ailerons also has an extension which curves down (similar method was used on Convair deltas, however there it was primarily to reduce drag). This ensures you will feel the onset of stall long before your ailerons are stalled, retaining control. EDIT: On a side note, this reminds me how much I'd love to see the Yak in DCS

This is a good point, 3 point tracking alone will prevent people from just driving the missile into the ground. Would be even better with the other modes available, however the manual was not specific on how they function, so at best we can make assumptions that Gorka is some sort of lofted guidance and H is for constant altitude (H missile = H target). But this is just an educated guess.

From what I've heard and read so far, the limiting factors are available terminal manoeuvre G's, missile speed needs to be higher than launching platform speed at time of impact, overtake speed over target (important for rear aspect shots) should also be enough for the fuse to work properly. These limits will also probably differ depending on missile, launching platform and intended target

One major factor in launching missiles is seeker sensitivity. This was a limiting factor for the 7F which could barely see past 20 nm. New seeker on 7M is not just more sensitive and can pick up targets from much higher distances, it also does not (itself) need to see the target. This would imply lock on after launch capability, but you still require STT lock for the missile to go in the right direction.

There might be other systems with this problem, but no, this is very individual. But it might be worth having a look at other systems, like roland. I'll have to have a look at how the S-75 missiles track, but for that we'd need a proper implementation of full command guidance.

Also I think you got the wrong code name, 5N62 is the Square Pair, Bar Lock is the P-35.

Technically speaking, the F-4E did carry 9L, 9M and 7F, it wouldn't be cleared for them until mid 80s at earliest however - so the earlier variant of Phantom we should be seeing should be without the 7F, being a 1974 variant. Whether the DMAS (late 70s?) variant will have it remains to be seen. Forget look-down/low level attack with Phantom (although older modules like the 21 and F-5 can somehow not get affected by ground clutter at all). This is one of the major advantages the 23MLA has, possible the Mirage F1 as well. That said, (in case of the 23) do not expect miracles - the filters employed on the 23 should leave a clear scope at low altitude, but also dramatically reduce the sensitivity.

Not sure how intentional this was by HB, however, S-200 does not change emissions when launching so this is in fact more or less how it should behave.

Hello, the tracking method used is wrong. The method being used in DCS is proportional navigation, however, the correct method should be three-point. Three-point is main guidance method, there are secondary methods (for vertical guidance only) for low-flying targets and helicopters, although it probably won't be possible to include multiple tracking methods. Three point method, in short, means system is trying to align 3 points into a single line, that being put the point of the missile on a line formed by launchhing vehicle and the target. This then makes the system a fully-automated command line-of-sight system. Semi-automatic command line-of-sight method is used when target is tracked manually via a high-magnification camera system instead of automatic radar tracking. In case of interest I can enclose the pages explaining the main guidance method.

not even MF, MS; MF was actually capable of fighter manoeuvres. MS was like... yeah... And no, german ML's were technically MLA. Just IFF difference. N003E radar instead of N003.

Did some reading couple days back, the AE slats should to a large extent fix the aileron reversal issue. But tame in this context probably meant F-14 levels of tame. That said, there is no need to "believe" what the comparative performance is. Numbers tell us that with 45° sweep, they will be very closely matched. If you really want to game the Phantoms, push the sweep selector out of the detent to about 30-35° and rate at 7G's.

See, here is one thing that has been bothering me. IF the relation is wrong, then what specifically is the correct relation. And more importantly, according to what?