dundun92

Source? Lets not start the baseless, evidenceless Heatblur hate train that you like to start?

~ignore, webpage had not updated to latest post when I made my message~

I know that, the point is that they are radars from a similar era on comparable aircraft, that also have similar specs for two important physical characteristics, its not supposed to be a perfect comparison. Its to give a ballpark at where we should reasonably be expecting the APG-63 to see, e.g, its not gonna be like 50-60nm vs 5m^2 (like in game rn).

been like that forever. Id speculate its lag causing jumps in speed due to the extrapolation but just a guess.

Actual tests showing that the APG-63 can detect a T-33 at 85nm hot, lookdown is somehow "guesses and interpretations"? Heck, id take actual test results over manual numbers in many cases because thats actually accounts for environmental variables, which theoreitcal numbers dont alawys. Also, you can compare to the F-14 radar to get a feel for how powerful the F-15 radar is, it has a higher peak power and the same size dish as the AWG-9. They also both use HPRF. The AWG-9 is quoted at 90nm vs 5m^2 in PD TWS/RWS. So, again, 85nm for 6m^2 is very reasonable and expected for the F-15s radar, infact for post PSP this would be rather conservative.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/645686/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/645693/

Yes, it means that at one test point, a lookdown hot aspect shot, it detected a T-33 at 85nm. This is just test data, its not representing the absolute limit. You arent gonna be able to test every possible range/aspect/lookdown/lookup combination. Anyway, whether it seems "plausible" to you, its what was actually observed during testing, so id be inclined to believe that over what "feels" right

which TBH doesnt mean a whole lot, just because you can physically put the missile on the pylon has nothing to do with whether it can actually be used/employed

the widespread ignorance on proper AMRAAM tactics and BVR employment really shocks me. If you think ARH BVR is simply about thowing AMRAAMs "from the other end of the map" without tactics, or that kinetics dont matter, you really have no clue what youre talking about.

Theres also this, GG has the full doc IIRC, but for the record this is pre PSP and significantly earlier than 1980, i think 1973? Removed 1.16 Image -NineLine For reference, T-33 RCS is 6m^2 head on, a bit more tail on

Any specifically? Other than the obvious like ECCM and stuff which simply isnt happening.

It used to be on here for normal users but it dissapeared some time ago, perhaps its an admin thing?

I wouldnt quite say useless, but it is a major problem. It causes issues, for example, with HOBS missile shots not syncing between clients (HOBS shots fly straight off the rail for server/defender, but guide perfectly from client). Or with usage of the PH/ACT switch in the F-14 causing AIM-54s to desync. Its generally just a poor netcode. And to note, its not like even, say, a quarter of missile shots desync. Id say less than 5-10%. But considering how many missiles you may fire/defend in a single sortie, you can quickly see how this becomes problematic. Yea, but the shooter-side event calculations + lack of sync makes this far worse than it needs to be.

A quick explanation of the topic I made for my sqn:

Apparently not

SP PD refers to using PDI illumination, which still gives a launch warning. It has nothing to do with chaff resistance (in DCS anyway). Yes it can, because remember the AIM-7 has an onboard radar reciever that itself can be spoofed by chaff. Remember, the AWG-9 radar beam is not infinitely small; it still covers quite some volume at the target distance, and its totally possible for an AIM-7 to go after illuminated chaff, or even ground clutter. And if when the AWG-9 stops illuminating the chaff, the target may well be out of the missile FoV, and/or it has no idea where to look for it and the missile will loose guidance.

According to a RuAF pilot on the forums they are not Raero, they allow for 2-3G maneuvering; whether this is referencing just endgame or the entire TOF im not sure, but needless to say these arent Raero:

Bump

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The F-18 cannot jettison the whole pylon, just the rack that that the weapons are attached to

After all of the major missile changes for each missile (e.g, AMRAAM data is post the major AMRAAM changes, same with R-27). Sparrow/Sidewinder data is older as not much as heppened to them in a while.

What kind of missile, AMRAAMs?

Made a doc a while ago from some tests ive done: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1In3JaNj17IRoTlVFrM3AWy7JLO2OEMcZ/view?usp=sharing

Would you mind linking any? And can you confirm that this has any effect on its actual effectiveness (which is the point in question)? EDIT, by the above I mean, as far as im awarw DCS doesnt care about how fast the chaff is moving, it simply rolls a dice for the chaff it sees in the FoV, the only factors it takes into account as far as im aware are aspect, lookup/down, the number of chaff in the FoV, and the ccm_k0.

correct. Its laregly been fixed for the other AAMs, but (presumably) the intricacies of the AIM-54s guidance API are causing desync issues, which have been reported BTW and are being worked on. doubt its the primary reason, most people have no clue how to properly notch a non desynced missile, let along a desynced one. Anything thats not shooter perspective has potential for desync. I do know that often client side (other than the shooter) can itself be desynced from the server, and both are often desynced from the shooter. DCS netcode really is a mess.