Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I tried one of the few faults that can be set in the editor. I tested the left engine fire after the first minute of the mission. The engine fire caused a sharp rise in the left engine exhaust gas temperature. The fire protection system was activated automatically. Correct behavior. However, as the fuel supply to the left engine was not interrupted, the left engine caught fire again. Although the left engine was on fire and flames were visible on the left engine exhaust, the left engine's exhaust gas temperature gauge (2UT-6K) showed the normal engine temperature. Therefore, if the engine burns again, the engine exhaust gas temperature meter shows incorrect values. Therefore, it is not possible to identify a possible engine fire. It doesn't seem like the right behavior to me. I'm attaching a track. Mi-24 exhaust gas temparature not detected repeared engine fire.trk
  2. I think I have a suitable proposal to solve this problem. I think it would be good for you to modify the manual for Supercarrier or for Hornet and add this rule there with an explanation. It will be a guide for both pilots and how this situation is handled, as well as for mission and campaign creators. Yes, of course, the conditions are not always perfect and yet it lands. But there is a limit below which one cannot go or it is not necessary or appropriate. Of course, even if the ship is sailing against the wind, the wind may have a variable direction, etc. But I am afraid that some missions are already conditions beyond the border and it is necessary to consider their correction. All you have to do is change the speed of the ship, you don't necessarily have to change the wind speed. However, some of the most problematic missions will need to be adjusted. In my opinion, these are missions: Persian Gulf FA-18C Case I Carrier Landing.miz Caucasus FA-18C Carrier Takeoff.miz C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-COLD NIGHT START same as C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-COLD START.miz and C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-LAUNCH.miz Caucasus FA-18C Case III Carrier Final Approach Landing.miz Caucasus FA-18C Carrier Cold Start.miz Caucasus FA-18C Case III Carrier Landing.miz These missions are usually used by people who are learning to land using Case I. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to offer them a solution when the ship slows down. Even with Carrier Qualification, pilots are not exposed to such conditions. CNATRAINST 3740.9D page II-5 defines the tolerated limits for Carrier qualification. I enclose a picture here. Here you can see that as an absolute minimum Wind over deck for pilots who perform Carrier qualification is 20 kt. In conclusion, I would like to thank Gumidek for conducting a mission search and finding out how to resolve the situation. Thanks such a Vincent. I am very grateful to you boys because until today I did not have this information and I often had a very short groove time. Now, thanks to you, we know more. Thank you once again.
  3. If the airport has unlimited fuel set in the mission editor and the fuel tanks at the airport are destroyed, the airport is still able to refuel the aircraft. I noticed this change recently. It definitely didn't work that way before. Even if unlimited fuel was set at the airport, it was not possible to refuel at the airport after the destruction of all fuel tanks. The planes that had a spawn slot added at the airport were without fuel. The difference between setting up an airport with limited and unrestricted fuel was that if unlimited fuel was set at the airport, all fuel tanks had to be destroyed because the amount of fuel did not decrease. I sincerely hope it's a bug because most missions, even on MP servers, use unlimited fuel settings at the airport. If I take into account the speed of the runway repair, which is 1 hour, and the impossibility of destroying the fuel tanks at the airport, the airports become almost indestructible fortresses. Since I don't remember it being presented somewhere in the changelog as a change, I decided to report it as a bug. The attached track destroys fuel tanks at Sukhumi Airport. The airport has unlimited fuel set. After destroying the fuel tanks, as can be seen on the track, the aircraft that has the spawn slot at the airport has fuel in its tank and I can even refuel the aircraft. The attached track therefore demonstrates the problem described above. Destroy fuel depot with unlimited fuel setting.trk
  4. If you enter coordinates in the wrong format when creating an SLMR turnpoint (STP) and the message ERADA appears on the UFC, it will cause that I can no longer enter any coordinates into aircraft systems (not only STP) because even if I enter the correct format on the HSI page it still appears on UFC message ERADA. So if you make a mistake in entering STP SLMR coordinates, it is no longer possible to enter any coordinates into the aircraft system !!! I checked if this is not a problem only in the navigation system. Unfortunately, no. If I enter the wrong coordinate format on the HSI, the message ERADA will appear on the UFC, of course, but then the system will receive the coordinates. So it works correctly. Therefore, the problem is caused by the AGM-84 SLAM-ER. Coordinate input in the wrong format SLMR turnpoint(STP) causes can not enter coordinates on the HSI page.trk
  5. For standards with such a large RCS, it does not seem standard to me. Thanks for your work, but your test plane was a Su-27. The maximum target detection distances per fighter-type target can be +/- real. I don't want to speculate on that. Your Su-27 test aircraft had an RCS of 5.5 m2. I tested it on targets with an RCS of 80 m2. Of course thanks for your work, but my bug report doesn't criticize radar performance on fighter targets.
  6. Since one of the previous updates (after version 2.7) there was a problem with the fact that the air to air radar is not able to detect an aircraft with a large RCS above a distance of 80 NM. Tested on IL-76, C-17, B-52, TU-95, E-3A aircraft. The usual detection distance for aircraft of this type is from 72 to 78 NM. That's pretty little. The APG-73 has a theoretical maximum target detection distance of 160 NM. For targets with such a large RCS that I tested, I would expect a target detection distance of around 100 NM. I also performed a test of the maximum detection distance on an aircraft from civil aircraft mode Airbus A-380 which has an RCS (set in the lua file) 80 m2 target detection distance again did not exceed 80 NM. All tests were performed on targets that had an HOT aspect at an altitude of about 30,000 ft, PRF MED / HI interleave, azimuth scan 20 °. Hard to say where the mistake is. It almost looks as if the maximum target detection distance is set to some low value somewhere in the script. Although it is a different goal in terms of size RCS maximum detection distance fluctuates +/- several NM. It worked well in previous versions, I only see the bug in some update after version 2.7 Attached is a track file where the test target aircraft is represented by the C-17A. AA radar range detection test airplane C-17.trk
  7. I tried it but, unfortunately, without effect. The SA-10 did not fire on HARM. I don't know if they modified the RCS AGM-88C. But even in PB mode, HARM is detected by SA-10 at a distance of about 31 nm. If fired in TOO / SP mode, the SA-10 will shoot it down. As far as I know, the AGM-88C has RCS set to 0.05m² in DCS. This bug report is about a HARM that was fired at maximum range at high altitude (see Tacview in the first post). Terminal speed was 617 kts TAS, M 0.93, pitch 25 °. The HARM was definitely not outside the parameters of the SA-10. The SA-10 certainly has no problem shooting at supersonic targets. As I mentioned even though the HARM was not fired it was detected at a distance of about 31 NM. I don't think there will be a problem with the acquisition time. The TR 30N6 has an acquisition time of 6 seconds. I have noticed this problem with other systems that have anti radiation missile capability. It will still check it and possibly process a separate bug report. Finally, please stick to the topic. This thread is about SA-10. SA-15 shoots down HARM in PB mode (tested). You just need to set the skill of the unit to excellent (this affects the acquisition time).
  8. Yes, I switched to the tactical commander slot and set the RED status for sure.
  9. I found that the SA-10 is not able to shoot down an AGM-88C missile if it is fired in PB mode. SA-10 (S-300PS) is a system that undoubtedly has the ability to fire anti-radar missiles. If the HARM is fired with TOO (SP) mode, it is almost always shot down. I am aware that PB mode HARM creates a different trajectory missile. The missile descends to the emitter at an angle of about 23 to 25 degrees. Which is not out of range of elevation angle tracking radar (30N6). The elevation angle at which the TR 30N6 antenna is able to scan is +/- 60 ° degrees. One AGM-88C HARM missile was fired from the F/A-18 aircraft in PB mode (the missile was set to perform a loft (pullup HARM). The target that was chosen was SR 5N66M (Clam Shell). The mission had a set function. Harm was detected by SA-10 at a distance of about 31 nm. However, the rotation of the antenna in the direction of arrival of the target missile TR 30N6 occurred only a few moments before the missile hit. The TR 30N6 antenna was oriented in the direction of arrival for some time because it had previously detected an aircraft that fired a HARM. Then, although the SA-10 sensors detected an approaching anti-radar missile, the antenna was rotated to the default position. The rotation of the antenna in the direction of the arrival of the Missile HARM did not occur until a few moments before the radar hit. The test mission includes one F/A-18C aircraft, and 1x SA-10 (S-300 PS) in the following composition: 1x CP 54K6, 1 x SR 5N66M (Clam Shell), 1x SR 64H6E (Big Bird), 1 x TR 30N6 (Flap Lid A), 4x LN 5P85C. Map: Caucasus. Skill SA-10: Excellent I consider described behavior under very strange. I think that the parameters of the missile's arrival are not beyond the capabilities of the SA-10. SA-10 AGM-88C PB mode.trk DCS-SA-10 PB mode AGM-88C.zip.acmi
  10. Yes, I can definitely confirm this problem. It also existed before the DCS update to version 2.7. I mentioned it on ED BIGNEWY discord. I would like the ED to give it some priority. It quite affects the air-to-air mission with AI. The problem did not appear with the update, but it existed before. It didn't work that way before. AI knows about the AIM-120C missile almost immediately after dropping when the missile makes a loft. Performs defensive maneuvers immediately and fires chaff.
  11. The IGLA missile does not explode when it hits an AI aircraft. It flies through the center of the aircraft and continues to fly further up. In the game, the debriefing item shows the hit of an aircraft missile. But there is not the slightest damage on the plane. With an airplane piloted by a player, such a problem does not occur. It has been tested many times and always with the same result. I tested whether this problem occurs with Stinger and there is no such problem. The attached track contains a test with an AI F/A-18 aircraft and a MANPADS IGLA. As can be seen from the record, the missile flies through the aircraft without causing damage, even though the game (debriefing table) shows the hit. IGLA AI plane.trk
  12. This is a disappointment for me and at the same time I find it strange. It is strange for an aircraft to be forced to have a TGP and not be able to obtain the contact sent in this way other than through the TGP.
  13. Although I haven't had a chance to test it yet. But all the time I was afraid that this feature would do something similar to the SPI in SADL on the A-10 which I never really liked. Here I see several problems in integration and usability that were also seen in the video. I was surprised to be able to see TXDSG on AG target from all people on NET Link-16 and not just those I have on the flight. I don't want to see what the SA page will look like on some big mission where it will be performed by more aircraft. So the feature that it's being sent to everyone certainly didn't inspire me. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the opportunity to change the NET Link-16 for AI units or our aircraft, so we are on the same network. Adding this feature, including multinetting, would help eliminate it. I guess we all expected that this feature would allow you to send a TGT waypoint as a coordinate point to the aircraft's avionics. Compared to the A-10, this has the disadvantage that I could move the TAD there. Here, the SA page will be centered on the aircraft and outside the range of the screen it will be difficult to find the marked waypoint. Link-16 can send a waypoint selectively to a given subscriber. In my opinion, they do not have the avionics of the aircraft ready for that. Maybe we will see further progress with the arrival of the datacard, which I consider for MP to be one of the biggest gamechanger, and it is a pity that there is no discussion about it. The TXDSG function, although in AA, will be very important for sorting. So the benefit for AG is difficult for me to express. As far as the accuracy of the implementation is concerned, I am very surprised that without TGP I am not able to mark the waypoint sent to the SA page in any way. That's weird. It would be nice if ED shared the road map of Link-16 development in DCS with us. I started a thread some time ago hoping to get an answer. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/232161-roadmap-datalink/?tab=comments#comment-4445698
  14. Yes, the test was in the air. F/A-18 at an altitude of about 25,000 ft above Senaki.
  15. I performed the test, an airplane in the air above Senaki Airport at an altitude of about 25,000 feet. The same problem. Sentry is not able to transmit the position of the air contact above 140 NM. But here's the problem with not seeing or being out of range on AWACS. If you see his position on the SA page, he sends you his position and altitude + identification. This is called PPLI (Precise Participant Location and Identification). It's one of the datalink messages. So the connection between the aircraft and the AWACS E-3A Sentry is established. It's just not able to send air contacts above 140 NM. E-2D Hawkeye works without a problem. Therefore, the topic was merged and renamed. This is no longer a datalink problem but a bug with the E-3A Sentry.
  • Create New...