TheBigTatanka

Air data computers are only accurate above a certain speed. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

That +10 degree limit is for the release limits of the jet's LAR calculations. The pubs state that the F-16 doesn't support greater than a 10 degree nose high release on the GBU-24 in the modes we currently have. If you want to loft GBU-24s (which should be a lot of fun), i think we have to wait for the implementation of manual release mode. And then it will be up to us to figure out at what range, speed, and angle to release the bomb for optimal flight path, and when to start lasing. Until then, I'm pretty happy with how closely the bomb is matching what it should do based on the publically available info out there. Point and shoot mode has been a lot of fun -- I'm always imputing +10 degrees into the control page to give myself the largest LAR window, and rolling in from about 5nm to the target to give myself a ~20 degree dive angle. Lasing the last 15-20 seconds works good too. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Also, don't forget to cursor zero your new Steerpoint once you are on it. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Aspect does matter for detection with Doppler, because it's not just your closure rate to the target that makes it stand out, but the difference in the closure rate to the target and the ground. The radar knows your own jet's ground speed, and it's comparing that with the returns it gets back from both the ground and the target. A hot return with 400 knots closure is going to stand out more than a cold return with 400 knots closure, because it's a lot more if a difference vs the background terrain returns. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I'm not sure I understand your method, but if HSD is SOI, you're going to send out your Steerpoint only. If you have TGP as SOI, you will send out the coordinates for whatever your TGP is looking at. We've done this a lot and it works great. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

As the OP said, terrain textures to low is the ticket. 40 frames solid in VR, where i was only getting 10fps with terrain textures on high. The tool-tip says that "terrain textures" controls the quality of "terrain objects" which i think means the textures on the buildings, not the ground. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Got it sorted -- I have to eat crow on this one -- no bug here. The contact I was shooting at (what I use for testing purposes) is a MiG-29S. He must have turned on his jammer as I was shooting. I didn't have pre-launch jamming indications, and by 25nm I must have been at a burn-through range. In my previous 7 tests, I didn't notice the jamming chevrons through the datalink symbols, but I did on these subsequent tests. So, as expected, the missile is not lofting when it is HOJ. There's no bug -- I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Thanks to all the testers who double checked this today, appreciate your work. Apologies.

Marlan, that's very possible. I've only been getting locks around 28nm because of the look-down penalty, so my go-to tactic has been a short skate from 25nm from the crank. No loft there, so it's not very viable anymore. I'll test more after SA map finishes downloading.

Thanks, will give it a try. I imagine it is hectic, looks like some things bungled, but overall, a lot of promise shown. Feels like we are on the verge of some really good stuff (and there was some great stuff added this patch). Already, I'm very much enjoying the new FLIR.

by late start -- do you mean late activated in the editor? Then adding a trigger to start them?

Taking 25nm shots in the mid 20s, AIM-120s are flying flat-line trajectories and thus bleeding lots of energy, resulting in ~400 knots in the terminal phase. Seems that the lofting logic is gone. There also seems to be a guidance problem with the active phase of the radar biting onto things outside of range gate, but I can't verify that yet. Perhaps the range gate is simply gone as well. Attached is a tacview clip -- tracks to follow. no lofting AMRAAMs on June Open Beta Patch.zip

The AMRAAMs don't loft after this patch! good god.... it's back to being a ~20nm weapon. Terminal velocities of around 300-500 knots on a 25nm high aspect shot. Does no one shoot a missile before they release a patch? I was pretty stoked about the battery timer moving in the right direction -- but then they removed lofting? Nuts! I'm an idiot -- they loft -- I was getting jammed as I launched, and didn't see the chevrons. My apologies.

Full internal fuel is 6 minutes in afterburner. Sounds like you might be in AB. If so, you may need to bring up the control axis display overlay (control+enter i believe) and calibrate your throttle so AB is where you want it to be. Good luck. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

The DTIC paper that Klarsnow posted lays it all out very clearly in 3 pages (for mode 1), and even gives you a nice graphical depiction at the end of the document showing the logic of the bomb based on dive/level release and altitude above and below 15k. Good on ED to add another weapon, but do it right based on the open data. We're talking about a few simple parameters here for the autopilot. Just increasing the range of a GBU-10 and changing the bomb model/warhead isn't the way to represent such a capable weapon as PWIII. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Hobel, it's not correct, but ED thought it was. They've coded in this 5% per degree look down penalty regardless of actual ground clutter interference. Should ground clutter produce problems for an F-16 radar? Yes. But.... What should that look like? It should look like false radar hits that get through the signal/noise filter, and it should affect the radar when your own jet is low (like below 10k feet). It should not cause problems when up high and looking down, as it currently does in DCS. I'm hopeful it will get fixed. There are SMEs trying to educate ED on how to read the manuals ED has. It's really just a problem of computer guys trying to interpret aviation stuff. Fighter Pilots can't code this sim, and software engineers aren't fighter pilots... But everyone wants the same thing, a realistic implementation, it just takes the work of interpretation. I'm confident the sim will get there. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Nope, i meant what i said. You can lock stuff as soon as you can see it, and you can hold that lock further than you can detect something (for instance if it turns around and moves away from you). Let's say you can see something at 40nm and lock it there. Then you crank and the locked contact turns around and drags away.... You can hold that lock further than the 40nm you initially saw it. This is because a lock focuses your radar energy and gives better returns than when the radar is scanning a wide area. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Google Korean F-16 basic employment manual. Go through it cover to cover and make yourself missions in the editor that allow you to train to each section in the manual. And find friends to do this with, since so much of flying tactical aircraft is about the arrangement of your aircraft and the management of weapons and sensors across multiple jets in a team effort. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

There was no improvement in today's patch when it comes to F-16 radar modeling. The key problems persist: 1. Look down penalty is applied as a 5% reduction per degree of look down regardless of the actual signal/noise ratio. I.e. ED isn't actually modeling signal/noise and is instead just applying the 5% per degree penalty. 2. The misunderstanding between detection and track ranges and radar energy for a 4th gen digital radar continues to be the opposite of reality. IRL, If you can see a contact between 40-45nm in scan, you can lock it right then and there, and there's a good chance you can track it well beyond that max detection range once your radar has it. DCS does this the opposite of reality. 3. The notching effects of a MPRF radar, like the one in the F-16, are much exaggerated in DCS. The result of these three issues is that the F-16 cannot be employed in BVR as it is meant to be (even in the limited DCA role that it has today). On a positive note, the AMRAAM changes in today's patch made the missile much more deadly -- it's on its way to becoming a more believable weapon. It still needs HPRF/MPRF modes and a significantly longer battery timer. But.... It's at least making progress when employed well. In the meantime, until this radar is fixed, I'll be moving mud. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I shot about 30 AMRAAMs today between 32nm and 20nm at MiG-29s carrying Alamo-As. PK was 100% for shots supported to active that were not kinnematically defeated. Shots snipped at 10 seconds to active were perhaps 70% effective when not kinnematically defeated. I'm happy with what ED has done. If / when we get longer battery life timers so we can take ~60nm shots, we will have a solid missile. Today's patch was a big step in the right direction though. (Off topic -- the 4th Gen radars that ED has in their F-16 and Hornet are so poorly modelled at the moment, that these 25nm shots against Alamo-A fulcrums are about all we can expect to accomplish in BVR). Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

The real question is, can tactics be set to match the role of the AI flight? If on an escort or OCA role, perhaps a banzai flow mentality. If on a DCA, a preference to turn cold and drag shots. If the AI could use red air pre-planned maneuvers, that would be really cool too (to overcome their fox-1 only limitations and shorter Fpole limitations). Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

OP is correct. The MPRF radar of the F-16 should be very hard to notch, and although it doesn't see fighters until around 45nm, it should see very well inside that range. DCS implemention is all kinds of wonky right now. Good news is, i think ED knows this. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Not working for us in the F-86. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

That downward track of the missile could be a good cue for when to pull up hard and defeat it, but alas.... It's not modelled. #wishlist Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Whenever they overhaul the ATC/AWACS, i hope they give some love to GCI. I don't know any scripts that do what you want. The Moose stuff isn't exactly what you're asking about. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

While I'm thinking about it..... Imperfect IFF for SAMs would be cool too... SAMs that shoot because they are skiddish and maybe shoot their own side. Also, SAMs that take a minute to try to figure out IFF instead of shooting right away. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk