Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Martin2487

  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.
  16. No. It was a typo error. I corrected it in the text. Thanks for your post. But I use some mods in dcs. I deactivated them and performed a DCS repair. The result is the same. The maximum distance to which the E-3A Sentry is able to send an air track is around 140 nm. E-2D Hawkeye works correctly.
  17. Some time ago I created a thread (https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230410-investigatinglink-16-sends-contacts-to-a-shorter-distance-than-it-should-be/?tab=comments#comment-4501647) where I wrote that the distance to which contacts are sent via Link-16 is insufficient. This means that AWACS is not able to send a SURV contact at a distance greater than 125 NM from the receiving aircraft (F/A-18). A model situation was used on a map of the Caucasus of an aircraft standing on the ground at Senaki Airport. AWACS transmitted its PPLI (one of the Link-16 messages) but was unable to send a SURV contact to an aircraft that flew a parallel course with it at a distance of about 1 NM from it. The AWACS contact was detected by radar (verified via F10 maps using the fog of war function). According to the logic of how Link-16 works, this is nonsense. The air track is one of the messaging messages of this protocol as well as PPLI. Therefore, if the aircraft is able to send its PPLI, it is able to transmit other messages, including the air track. The bug report has been investigated. I also sent sources that document that the transmission distance of Link-16 is definitely greater than 125 nm. Due to the rules of the forum, they were sent by private message. 6. 12. 2020 came the user hein22 and I thank him once again with interesting information . He found that the insufficient transmission distance of the SURV contact (air track message) Link-16 in the DCS had apparently been corrected in the meantime. He found that the E-2D Hawkeye is already able to send contacts to correct distance. He did a test and I confirmed his findings. And so it can be said that the distance of air contact transmission is correct is correct for E-2D. It corresponds to the design of the SA page (320 NM page scale) in the aircraft as well as the available data. Another example of the F/ A-18 aircraft is at Senaki Airport and at a distance of 325 NM from it is AWACS E-2D Hawkeye. An airplane that is about 1 nm away from it flies with him on a parallel course. E-2D sends it to a distance of 325 nm. Screenshot of the test and the track is attached. I checked the E-3A Sentry with the same parameters and found that this AWACS is not able to send an air track (SURV contact) at a distance greater than 135 nm. Here, too, there were some changes before, it was certainly around 125 nm. But if the E-2D is able to send an air track at a distance of 325 NM, the E-3A Sentry must also be able to do so. It uses the same protocol for datalink, ie. Link-16. And as I stated, if the transmitter is able to send its PPLI (as one of the messages to the Link-16 data link) it must also be able to transmit the Air track message. It is simply within the required range for transmission so it is possible. I am very pleased that you have addressed this issue and basically solved it. It remains to solve the problem of insufficient distance to which the E-3A Sentry sends air contacts via Link-16. I think the thread "Link-16 sends contacts to a shorter distance than it should be." (https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230410-investigatinglink-16-sends-contacts-to-a-shorter-distance-than-it-should-be/?tab=comments#comment-4501647) can be marked as resolved. The problem is no longer with the Link-16 protocol but only with the AWACS E-3A Sentry unit. Screenshot of the transmission distance test (E-2D Hawkeye) Datalink range test E-3A track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fkmONs9tJhrC1ad1jnHtmcxxS1H3kivm/view?usp=sharing Datalink range test E-2D track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFha8ugCDUrElncfZTSAtsNEkDOt9OOX/view?usp=sharing
  18. Ok. And how can you display the SURV contact at a distance of 352 NM in an airplane or how did you find out that you were able to detect it. Is there a way to display this on DDI? The SA page only scales up to 320 NM. Thanks
  19. I did a test on the original mission from which the track is. The AWACS on my mission was the E-3A. I received the first SURV contact up to a distance of 126 nautical miles. This means that the problem still exists here. I exchanged AWACS for E-3D. Now there was a great surprise. Not only was I able to confirm your distance values but I even reached the nominal transmission distance. I obtained SURV contact from AWACS E-3D at a distance of 320 NM. The target flew in a parallel course with AWACS so that the test was not affected and it was easy to determine the distance for transmission. Really good job I think you found something interesting. I think we can say that with Link-16 itself as a protocol there is no problem in terms of data transmission distance. The problem will be in AWACS E-3A. But since it works correctly on another AWACS, I believe that the repair will be easy because it is already correctly implemented in DCS. I think this is crucial news for creators and participants of missions where they are battling over long distances. Screenshot from the test is attached. I think the thread can be marked as resolved and can be closed. I will create a bug report on AWACS E-3A.
  20. The checklist page shows a different weight of GBU-32 than in ME. In the mission editor, the weight of GBU-32 is 1030 lbs. In aircraft, the checklist page shows the weight of GBU-32 531 lbs. Evidence Two screenshots from ME. The first is an aircraft without ammunition on pylons. The weight is 36775 lbs. The second screenshot shows an aircraft with one GBU-32 on the hanger. The weight is 37805 lbs 37805 - 36775 = 1030 lbs https://i.imgur.com/JbHhndC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/LV9B9jo.jpg Next are two screenshots from the aircraft displays. The first is the weight of the aircraft without ammunition on the hangers. The weight is 36935 lbs. The second screenshot is an airplane with one GBU-32 on the hanger. The weight is 37466 lbs. 37466-36935 = 531 lbs https://i.imgur.com/TvZk2qb.png https://i.imgur.com/aovpehF.png Track link. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JVuIWeRF7GS9OG9pOqRsLDcu4LYJkJz8/view?usp=sharing
  21. If I want to get the TGT waypoint using the HUD, the AGR should be activated automatically. This is not happening. As can be seen on the track AGR does not activate when I give priority to the HUD (sensor switch FWD). Activation does not occur automatically even if I select a weapon in CCIP. I chose a cannon for the track. As soon as I put the sensor switch forward (on the HUD), the AGR must be activated automatically to measure the slant range and radar ground elevation. It should be automatic. In the current state, it is necessary to select the weapon and press the sensor switch FWD again and then the AGR will be activated. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3XOXAHSMlKeIANTmPt7z6qaVJH7gum_/view?usp=sharing
  22. I sincerely hope not. 100 nautical miles is quite a bit. AWACS simply cannot fly so close to the combat zone. And we don't have another sensor (SURV) that would contribute to the Link-16 network in DCS. Even an aircraft carrier does not contribute to the network. I wonder how it is with the transmission distance of Link-4 at F-14 in DCS (from AWACS to plane)? I don't have this plane so I can't test it.
  23. It is strange. However, the TWS radar mod in DCS performs NCTR. . On the radar screen in the TWS is the item named NCTR(boxed). So if according to your message the TWS radar can't do NCTR. So there is a bug that has a different name? "NCTR is available in radar TWS mode". Because as I wrote, if I move the radar cursor in TWS at a distance below 25 nm to the target, the HAFU symbol on the host will change. The only information that can be changed according to the ROE matrix is NCTR (an aircraft that is marked as a hostile in the library). I also don't understand why the topic is marked as Corect as is. The IFF ROE matrix is still the same in the aircraft. The aircraft receives a negative IFF Mode 4 response. And now watch out only below a distance of 25 NM identifies the target as a hostile in TWS. Based on what information?
  24. If I want to do NCTR in TWS the SA page will not show the aircraft type. The HAFU symbol is assigned correctly, but the aircraft type is not displayed even though it is in the NCTR library of the aircraft. The track is attached. Track
  • Create New...