dundun92

@musoloI believe has done something similar?

afaik not yet, but its planned

The competition is in 30 minutes! Please try and join the TS about 10mins prior!

^this, it means zero RN. Ive seen it show LOST for valid shots and normal TTI for 60nm shots at 20kft Just support to active and its all good, the DLZ cues as a whole are fairly useless RN.

its not about pushing the nose 3 deg down, its about getting a 3 deg lookup or more, relative to the horizon (not quite the horizon but imagine it like that) For example, you nose can be pointed above a target, but if he is over 3 deg above the horizon/lookup from your perspective it counts as lookup, as it should. Lookup/Lookdown is determined in DCS by altitude differential, not by where your nose is pointed.

on the specific loft issue, it appears that the AIM-54 isnt using the new loft code that the AMRAAM/SD-10/Sparrow does. The new loft code on those missiles smoothly transitions unlike on the old loft that the AIM054 uses. As for why the AIM-54 isnt using it, I have no clue.

You arent gonna remove all the clutter like that though, you still need a notch filter. Theres a reason its in the 50-100kt range for most 4th gen fighter radars. (F-15, F-18, Su-27, etc)

Alamo 1-3 | Griffin Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy

100%, what im referring to is that some modules are unnafected by ECM, some are, some can jam and yet dont have ECM affects, etc

The fact that you cannot find a -34 for the A lying on the web doesnt mean ED cant get one.

I dont think anyone is disagreeing that ECM should affect radars negatively, thats the point of ECM, but a) its not just to ARH missiles, and b), its not some EMP pulse that just kills the radar upon activation. HOJ/ECCM exists for a reason. But yes, ECM effects in game are overall very poor, inconsistent between modules and need some serious improvement, that I do agree with.

you need far, FAR more than just a -1 to model an aircraft and all its systems. That being said, I dont think this is a documentation issue, ED just thought a Block 50 would be more marketable, and TBH it is.

this isnt "my" advertising paper, this is actual USAF/USN documentation, and/or research papers. What else do you want? Note that this has nothing to do with general trends, but rather a specific detail of a certain IRCCM technique. The AIM-9P/L/Ms in question filtered out flares by energy rise time, or how quickly they intensified; US flares intensified much faster than Russian flares, so while it rejected US flares, the Russian flares did not intensify quickly enough to trigger the IRCCM (on a related note, there was one notable disadvantage to the russian flares. From a beam aspect, the flares exited the FoV before they could intensify, which caused them to be ineffective from that aspect). The point being, this is not a general trend, this is a specific consequence of a certain IRCCM technique. Might there be other areas of CCM where you could see a similar effect? Perhaps there are. But this is not some blanket trend you can apply to all countermeasures without specific reasons/evidence. Whether you "assume" so is irrelevant.

99% sure its 10nm in DCS

pretty sure comparisons to other sims like this are against the rules anyway, use actual info from RL F-16 manuals

Im not sure if this is trolling or not, but here are several of countless sources describing HOJ capabilities for the AIM-120: "Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the F/A-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM": From "AMRAAM Test Program Overview" What appears to be the biggest issue is not whether the AMRAAM can HOJ, but rather the fact that jamming can cause bad datalink signals to be sent, which will make longer range shots almost impossible, but in terms of ECM magically killing AMRAAMs, no that simply isnt how it works at all.

So ECM is a magic EMP pulse that disables ARH missiles, yet should leave SARH and aircraft radars alone, merely forcing it into STT? yea no thats not how it works

Thats not correct, STT vs TWS has zero difference. The issue has to do with the missile once its already active

So on the topic of AIM-54s, for now AIM-54s are allowed, BUT use of the PH/ACT switch outside 10nm is prohibited, as it causes major desync issues

Its not, but the net effect is much more realistic than the current broken implementation

Its not F-14 only, and AIM-54 isnt tha only unaffected missile. Just stop with the conspiracies, its helping nobody

can you like give up the anti HB bias? If you looked a few threads down you would have realized that, 1 it isnt an F-14 bug but an ECM bug concerning any plane with blinkable ECM, and 2, its not just the AIM-54 unnafected, any missile on the old API (S530, R-27ER, R-77, etc) are not affected. This is an ED problem with ECM.

The issue is that you are going on PvP servers expecting people to play by your rules. In this case, not reslotting after getting hit. The fact is, unless the server admins enforce this, theres literally nothing to be done here. And yes, I can go in a PvP server and do w/e I want, within the server rules. I dont have to play by your rules. And to be clear, I dont do this reslotting business, its just being a bad sport. But theres no reason to be blaming HB for it.

I believe this is the doc in question, though I could be wrong (it doesnt list fuel mass directly though): If i'm interpreting this right, the bottom row seems to be total impulse/missile weight. Assuming an Isp of 250s, it gives 133kg propellant mass for the ER, and aroumd 56kg for the R-77, which lines up very closely with EDs values. For fuel fraction, for the ER it would be 0.37, and for the R-77 its 0.32. AMRAAM for comparison is 0.32 for the C, and 0.3 for the B, so not that much of a difference actually.

Are your flaps down?