.jpg.a50d790cf3c4075fd9b7872fc7d44a57.jpg)
dundun92
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dundun92
-
-
1 hour ago, GGTharos said:
the '1g' is a non-bug that is here to stay
@BIGNEWY said its planned to be fixed, theres no reason if you break lock at say 40nm on a lofted shot the missile should fly into space, it should use the INS to fly to last known target position, its just one of those WIP things. But CSGO, it should NOT get new datalink if you regain lock, that is not realistic
-
If you have a track I can simply replay it when I get a chance
-
You cant use the TTA counter to base this entirely. Simply look at the tacview for that moment (use a flare drop), and see how far the missile actually is (active range is 15km, hardcoded), the TTA counter is not the most accurate.
-
8 minutes ago, Teknetinium said:
ER-family is effected by jammers and chaff already.
they arent by this bug, and I think you very well know that, as you know itd mean exactly 0 Pk for the ER under all circumstances
-
1 hour ago, Teknetinium said:
I think it works as intended, Chaff and jammers should mess up the missile to some extent. In DCS that has not been the case at all regarding active missiles.
So you want this to affect ERs as well? And R-77s? Sure if thats the case, lets make applicable to all missiles, as it "should" in your words.
-
Alamo Squadron was founded in 2020 as a squadron focused on excellence in the air combat (specifically BVR) arena. We are an air to are focused squadron, but we occasionally do A2G to chill. We offer a cadet program that progresses you through the various skills and concepts needed to excel at BVR combat. We also participate in and practice for PvP events, such as the upcoming SATAL 2021 tournament. Our specialty aircraft are the F-14/15/16/18, but we fly many others such as the FC3 jets, Mirage 2000C, and JF-17. Currently, we are looking for 3 more pilots to add to our roster. Our squadron forums group is here: https://forums.eagle.ru/clubs/320-alamo-squadron/ We hope to see you in the virtual skies!
-
14 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:
R-73
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:
Could you also upload the scan of the opposite site of the page? I think we have never seen the R-27T chart before.
And do you also have a chart for the R-27ET?
Thank you!
-
18 minutes ago, sylkhan said:
"The R-27R (R-27ER) can be fire before target lock-on is achieved.
In this case the missile receives mid-course guidance via a special link system to compensate for the target's movement until it comes within lock-on range.
The mid-course correction feature increase the effective "kill range" by some 20 km in pursuit mode and 60 km in head on mode."Do we have this feature in DCS ?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that we can launch outside of seeker range, what the radio correction is there, no in the sense that its not modeled properly. In DCS AFAIK it just models SARH as having infinite range seekers, rather than limited range seekers and a distinct radio correction phase. So for practical purposes it is modeled, just not technically correct.
-
2 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:
If you think that is "impossible" try flying an Su-27 where your own jammer does nothing to the F/A-18, but the Hornet's jammer happily clogs up the Flanker's radar.
Except that it does now
. And the F-18 wont jam unless you STT it, wont jam you in TWS/RWS
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, WelshZeCorgi said:
is the PH capable of pulse modes?
no, only PD
-
Just now, bies said:
Su-27S from 1980s would be my single No.1 the most wanted module possible, but as long as ED will not announce full fidelity one i assume the data are impossible to obtain or use in a publicly available software.
As long as it's just FC3 i withdraw from this discussion.
Have a nice day.
They stated a few years back (like 2012 or smth?) that they had the docs for a FF Flanker, its not the issue here. Its legal issues, as have been the problem for ED from the start
-
14 minutes ago, Max1mus said:
As you can clearly see on your graph, even the AIM-120B has a longer range than R-27ER without lofting.
This has nothing to do with what the pilots in linked videos were talking about.
Could ED please finally do the CFD research?If you call a M1.3 AMRAAM at 40k much of a threat compared to a M1.7 ER (those are the speeds when they hit the same distance, not accounting for target closure which will benefit the ER in a tail chase with the shorter TOF, but will benefit the AMRAAM in terms of Rmax as the target had more time to cover more distance for the missile) and are going off pure Rmax termination criteria well yea it will, thats just a consequence of the 20s longer battery life, has nothing to do with kinetics, CFD wont fix that.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Max1mus said:
It doesnt even outrange it in a straightline shot. Can provide tracks if needed.
Dont have tracks, but I do have tacviews and the telemetry:
From 40kft M1.5 the ER will beat any AIM-120 out to its battery lift of 60sec
-
10 hours ago, Blinky.ben said:
am I right in saying the issue is that if someone that is being fired upon by a Aim-120 that if they continually turn the ECM on and off that the missile will always miss? If this is the case then once the missile is within 10-20nm (burn through) then wouldn’t this tactics have no effect? So only affecting long range shots?
So if fired in TWS the defending pilot wouldn’t know they are under attack unless they suspect it. Once they get warning on the RWR this tactic still wouldn’t work due to burn through also?
not questioning anything here. Just clearing in my mind what is actually the problem that will effect me.
No, the bug happens after active only. Burnthrough doesnt matter to missiles. Any missile that has gone active can be trashed like this.
-
1 hour ago, THE KING said:
Could the missile not initially loft, and start to pitch over onto the target as the jamming signal becomes stronger? I would think that the AMRAAM can tell, as it approaches the target, the strength of the jamming signals coming from it and use that as a rough range estimate.
For relative range, maybe, for absolute range (what you need), nope
1 hour ago, THE KING said:Additionally, couldn’t the AIM-120 receive precise, (or far more precise), range data from the AWACS through data link? I recall reading somewhere that the Aim-120 can be guided via data link but perhaps I misinterpreted this though.
They can, but not the older ones we have in DCS (C-5/B)
-
It shouldnt no, but it does for some reason. After all, percise lofting (as implemented in DCS) requires range information. Ableit, simple G bias lofted could theoretically work even under ECM as no range info is needed, but thats not whats happening
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Max1mus said:
Minute 3:19. "Longer range Weapons".
In DCS, the AIM-120C at 50.7 miles arrives at Mach 2.6+ and destroys the target. The R-27ER fired at around 46 Miles from higher altitude and much more speed bleeds to less than mach 2 and falls out of the sky a good 10 miles short of the target.
How are people supposed to recreate real NATO doctrine and AMRAAM tactics when the number one reason for them, the range relationship between R-27 and AMRAAM, is flipped???
Do you plan on allowing people to use AMRAAM tactics to their advantage? Or still no R-27 rework until "all projects, including MiG-29A and Apache are finished"?Incorrect_Range_Relationship.trk 73.7 kB · 1 download Incorrect_Range_Relationship_2.trk 74.18 kB · 0 downloads
If you ignore the loft, the ER in DCS actually will beat both variants of the AMRAAM (B by a sizeable margin, C by a smaller one) in a straight-line drag race out to its battery life of 60sec, and this is at 40kft M1.5 launch. Im not sure how your managing to get an ER to run out of energy before battery life from any sort of high altitude shot profile, unless theres significant target manuevring involved here. The only reason you have shot profiles where the 120s beat the ER in DCS is the lofted kinematics (which only really matter above 20-25k, and outside 20nm), which begs the question, what "range" is being refered to here? NEZ? Rmax? MAR? There simply isn't enough context to declare that the ER-120C range imbalance is "flipped", at least in any significant way.
-
2
-
-
"Associate launched TWS AIM-54 with a track rather than object; to disambiguate multiple tracks with the same target object."
Slightly curious, what is the practical effect of this?
-
1
-
-
Alamo Squadron
Alamo 1-1 | dundun92
Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy
-
INTRO
Mutual Support is a 2v2 BVR Tournament. Naturally, the smaller team sizes often lead to more aggressive and interesting fights that are focused on solid mutual support.
Various editions of it will have various rulesets based on the approximate time era chosen; this edition is 2000s themed.
DATE AND TIME
This second edition of Mutual Support will start at 2030z on February 13th, 2021. The running time will be no greater than 3 hrs. If this is exceeded, the competition will be resumed one of the the following Saturdays at a similar time, based on the teams preference.
Registration ends on February 12th.
OBJECTIVES AND TOURNAMENT STYLE
Each match is conducted as best of three rounds. The objective is to destroy all enemy aircraft, and keep at least one of your aircraft flyable.
The competition is a knockout-style competition, with teams being eliminated after loosing a 3 round match. Time permitting, looser of the first round of fights will participate in a separate championship.
RULES
- A single team may be comprised of as many pilots as desired; however, only two may be used at a time.
- Only one pilot is allowed to change between rounds (note that for the F-14, changing RIOs is allowed as much as desired).
- Aircraft types may not be changed between the individual rounds of a particular match. They can, however, be changed between matches.
- Mixed fleets of aircraft are allowed (e.g, one F-18C and one J-11A).
- All spawns are air spawns separated by 80nm. There will be two arena's, so that two matches can occur simultaneously.
- The competition will be on the Caucasus map.
- Ping limit of 300 is server-enforced.
- Lonewolfs are allowed; the pairings are to be decided automatically the day before the matchup, and will stay that way for the tournament. Alternatively, you may decide on the pairings yourselves; in that case, simply state the agreed pairings no later than February 11th at 2300z.
- AWACS will be present, but WILL NOT have datalink enabled!
- To keep the event running smoothly, I would ask that suggestions/questions be kept until the end of the event, unless they are relevant to/will affect the remaining rounds (e.g, concerns about excessive lag/rubber banding).
- One squadron may enter up to 2 primary teams. Any further teams will be put on a reserve roster to allow space to accommodate more teams. If a team cannot show up, or registration is not full by registration end, reserve teams will be moved to the primary roster.
- ECM is banned
- Use of PH/ACT switch outside of 10nm is banned.
- More Rules TBD
WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS
This edition features a roughly 2000s rule set with some exceptions.
The BANNED weapons are: AIM-9X, Nukes.
Restricted weapons are: AIM-120 (all variants) to 6 total, AIM-54 to 4 total.
COMMUNICATION
All team captains must be present on the Alamo Squadron Teamspeak (server info below) during play.
IP: 73.32.85.67
PW: 5775
Questions are to be asked either in PMs, or on this thread.
STREAMING AND PRIZES
There is no anticipated stream as of RN. If you would want to volunteer DM me.
There are no prizes, its simply for the fun of it!
REGISTRATION
Registration format is as follows:
[Team Name]
Player #1
Player #2
Player #3
...
As an example
Alamo Squadron
Alamo 1-1 | dundun92
Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy
There will be a limit of 16 teams.
OTHER RESOURCES
For those that may be interested, but may not be familiar with 2v2 BVR, the 2v1, 2v2, and Tactical Intercepts of "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" are very informative. It is widely available as a PDF online.
==========================================
The default/alternate airspawn loadouts are as follows. Slots 1-2 use the default loadout, 3-4 use the alternate:
F-14: 4*AIM-54A Mk.60,2*AIM-7MH,2*AIM-9M. Alternate: 4*AIM-54C,2*AIM-7MH,2*AIM-9M
F-15C: 6*AIM-120C,2*AIM-9M. Alternate: 6*AIM-120C,2*AIM-7MH
F-16C: 6*AIM-120C. Alternate: N/A
F/A-18C: 6*AIM-120C, 2*AIM-9M. Alternate: 6*AIM-120C, 2*AIM-7MH, 2*AIM-9M
Su-27S: 4*R-27ER,2*R-27ET,4*R-73. Alternate: 5*R-27ER,1*R-27ET,4*R-73
J-11A: 2*R-27ER,2*R-77,2*R-27ET,4*R-73. Alternate: 4*R-27ER,1*R-77,1*R-27ET,4*R-73
JF-17: SD-10*4, PL-5*2
REGISTERED TEAMS (1/16):
Alamo Squadron
RESERVE TEAMS:
None
-
4 hours ago, bies said:
This are FC3 planes, there is lot of simplifications. Still i think they did some great job given they are low fidelity planes for extremally affordable price.
Consider just this one thing:
F-15 had been intentionally designed with requirement to have four semi-recess low-drag fuselage pylons, non-universal (they could carry AIM-7 missile only, and later AMRAAM) but they offered far lower drag increase when carrying a missile - semi-recessed inside the fuselage and within uniform fuselage aerodynamic boundary layer, this missiles had far smaller drag index, especially backward missile being additionally completely shielded by the forward missile.
(Other F-X competitors - North American and Fairchild shown below - also had to include similar solution)
In DCS if you put the missile i.e AIM-120 on semi-recess low drag fulelage pylon - it doesn't matter.
On forward (YELLOW) or even backward station (GREEN) AIM-120 still has full drag index exactly identical as AIM-120 on normal full drag under wing pylon (RED).
You can test by yourself.
What does it mean? If ED wanted to make F-15C close to real life chart with weapon they had to decrease clean aircraft drag to compensate for excesive weapon drag in semi-recess stations (4 big missiles) which are adding far more drag in DCS than they do IRL.
In full fidelity i.e. F/A-18C they are adressing such things and drag of the missile on semi-recess fuselage pylon is considerably smaller than under wing pylon. Similar situation with wing-end pylons.
Thay are still tuning this things, there are still some stations to include in different modules as i've noticed testing it from patch to patch but there is definitely work being done.
Im not nessecarilly doubting this, but have you tested vs the actual acceleration charts to see if the clean drag is actually too low, or it it just speculation (no offense intended here)?
-
On 1/22/2021 at 2:59 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:
If the manuals are publically released I will be all aboard. Until then I can't see the aircraft being developed.
Fortunately for us ED made the F-18 despite this
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, HWasp said:
Nothing bad can ever happen to me in the F-15 regardless how hamfisted I throw the stick around. Maybe that is the less realistic behaviour?
The F-15 is described as being that easy to fly and forgiving IRL with very few adverse characteristics like that, so no thats not unrealistic. And ive been able to induce plenty of "bad stuff" from intentional ham fisted flying, such as flatspins and such.
-
1
-
180TANONMANUEVERING.png.1201a6d7775780acc1f81933f4f79674.png)
The F-16 and F-18 lost head-on launch capability using AIM-9L
in Weapon Bugs
Posted
AFAIK no, id guess this is some sort of LOS rate limit but I really dont know, its pretty close to Rmin though, so its probably related to some pre-launch constraint.