TLTeo

Considering the CFTs won't be coming off in DCS, this conversation is pointless anyway

RWS displays just the radar returns, rather than trying to process those returns into tracks like TWS, so it's much simpler in terms of data processing. This means that in general RWS allows you to scan a wider area of the sky, which is why it's useful if you want simply to build SA. TWS on the other hand is more limited in the combination of azimuth/bars you can scan, so it's a bit less flexible. That said if you already know exactly where you want to look at, and you don't need to scan a particularly large area, then sure, TWS works just fine.

As a rule of thumb (with every jet really, not just the JF-17): VS for long range search, RWS for general scanning and building SA, TWS to maintain SA while tracking/intercepting/attacking something.

Makes sense, thanks. I still think it's unlikely this would be something a missile can do when it detects no heat sources though. Unless the text meant that it was detecting both vehicles despite them having their engines off, which I guess may be possible depending on how long they had been sitting in the Sun?

I have no idea what "it goes for center mass" means in this context (it's not even correct - in physics it would be the center *of* mass, which you can't measure with an imaging detector), so yes, it sounds like BS, mostly. If there is no signal detected above the background in the single pixel of an old AIM-9 the missile should just not guide, I don't see how it could magically see an image of its target(s) with a non-imaging seeker, even more magically measure the mass distribution of said target(s) despite not being able to detect them (and imaging data giving exactly zero information about the distribution of mass in whatever is detected), and guide itself to a part of a target it is neither detecting, nor capable of imaging should it be detected. I suppose it's true that if one of the engines had been on, it may have been detected by the missile though.

This might be a slightly controversial take, but it is in fact possible for DCS modules to be really, really good without turning every single one of them into precision guided weapons trucks. Just sayin...

Yeah this makes sense. At the time (2000, when the first squadron formed) the Super Etendard was likely perfectly adequate, but the Crusader had been retired the year before and that aircraft was obviously waaaay outdated by the 90s.

Depends on the new fancy FLIR system I guess? Even the R-60 is supposed to have some sort of capability like that, which the Hind used, so if that becomes a thing I don't see why the IRIS-T (or the AIM-9X, which also should have that capability) wouldn't either.

Well yeah, the situation is "4 bandits are approaching the carrier group and they need to be shot down asap", not "you're escorting a strike package". Of course you will use your most aggressive tactics in that scenario.

There is only one method to designate an air to ground target, the button on the stick has nothing to do with that. As far as I understand, the HUD symbology should change automatically after you designate to guide you to your target. I don't know about the HSI but frankly, I don't see why it would be useful to look at it when, at that stage of a mission, you really should focus on what's outside of the cockpit and using the HUD as a primary instrument.

Unless things have changed since the last time I flew the Mirage: The Nav Update/Magic Unlock button on the stick is used to update the INS when overflying a point, to unlock the target the Magic is looking at, and to toggle through its search modes. The A2G Designate/Magic Slave button on the throttle is used to designate targets in a2g modes, to slave the Magic seeker to the radar, and to use the radar to update the INS. Their names are almost identical and both are used to update the nav system in different ways, which makes it super confusing, but it sounds like you are using the first instead of the second.

Yes, which is why for example you will experience significant Mach tuck in the Viggen at Mach ~0.9-1.1.

As far as I understand, countermeasures in DCS are just a dice roll on whether the missile tracks or not, and the probabilities are entirely independent of geometry or target speeds, much like RCS is independent of viewing angle and aircraft loadout. Which, of course, is extremely unrealistic and will only be changed when/if we get a whole new EW model.

"bis" and "ter" are both Latin words. What I find ironic is that of all people, afaik that nomenclature was first introduced by the Italian fascist regime to label some aircraft variants (the CR32 and SM79 being the most common aircraft with bis/ter variants) due to their ideological link with Imperial Rome.

Holy crap that is the most Soviet thing I have ever seen

Yep. Believe it or not, FACs and JTACs were a thing before buddy lasing. For more context, I'm modifying most of the single and quick missions from the modules I own so that they are more complete, and so that they can be flown with different aircraft. Some of them are proper CAS missions with friendlies in close contact with the enemy (like the one above), so it makes sense to add a JTAC to guide the player to its target.

You misread my post. In DCS, I do see that happening frequently, but only under specific circumstances. In the other sim, the AI is even worse and it doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the vertical plane. I just wanted to put things in perspective - yes the AI in DCS is mediocre, but we could be doing much, much worse.

@IronMike At this point this thread is entirely useless, could it please be closed?

Why, thank you for the free lesson. I'm not saying 1v1 dogfights in that sim are impossible to beat, but that they are worse because they don't even exist. Lining up to something doing a shallow turn doesn't count as a dogfight. I have never, ever seen a vertical maneuver from the AI in 1v1s. You are right about their FM though.

Honestly as bad as the DCS AI is, it's nothing on another ww2-based sim. 1v1 dogfights in that are literally impossible because the AI just flies around in a shallow horizontal turn after the merge. One thing I noticed about the AI never-ending vertical loop is that it tends to only happen when the AI identifies that you're low on energy, which it always does almost perfectly (e.g. if you try to force it to overshoot by bleeding speed and going for a flat scissors). At this point, one of two things happen: either the AI FM of your opponent is broken enough that you get stuck in lag forever, or the AI slowly loses angles until you can gun them. If you keep your energy up, I found that the infinite loop doesn't start nearly as easily - although whether you can win that fight or not is entirely a function of AI aircraft and especially difficulty setting, with "Ace" aircraft being essentially invincible.

Meh, it's ready when it's ready. I'm perfectly OK with not having a constant stream of meaningless 3d renderings or pretty screenshots that don't actually tell anything about the state of development.

https://trello.com/b/HsMiJggJ/heatblur-public-roadmap It's in the roadmap.

Naaah, the goal of every fighter pilot is to single-handedly shoot down the entirety of the opponent's air force in one sortie, by engaging 69 targets at a time with TWS shots. Everything else is a waste of time.

Yeah I honestly can't tell whether the aircraft in that picture is a Typhoon or (more likely?) just a Jaguar

Hooray I win the prize for the dumbest post of the month!