Naquaii

As has been mentioned above, DCS does not currently have a way to simulate IFF in a realistic way. The aircraft that can interrogate other aircraft simply look at the coalition in game and cheats. The panel you describe is a transponder which IRL would control what responses the aircraft give to radar interrogators, and as I described this is not implemented in DCS. The Viggen cannot interrogate other aircraft for IFF if that's what you're after and that's true to life. As for the anti jam filters, that knob isn't really relevant for DCS as ECM and jammers isn't modelled to a point where it's useful anyway.

That's actually incorrect. 161 MHz is in the marine VHF band, that's absolutely FM only. The only band that you can choose manually is 225 to 399.975 MHz.

If the missile has taken over and is active then it's the missile you're notching, in SARH it's both the missile and AWG-9 in a way. But I'm not 100% it's both the missile and radar in DCS. Not an expert on that part of it. As for RWR if the missile is active you should see it there. The only limitation is that in DCS the active seekers are limited to 10NM both way, so the missile can't see the target until at that point and an RWR can't see the missile either until then.

The two most noticable points atm would be more control over how and if a missile goes active (allowing us to correctly do AIM-54C SARH) and better control over the guidance logic. We believe we're close in regards to actual aerodynamic and motor performance but guidance is still somewhat lacking. Having more control over the guidance logic or getting help to tune it would, imho, be the way ahead for more realism. But I also know that's an ongoing discussion with ED. Apart from that being able to launch the missile at a selected point in space instead of being locked to actual targets would also increase accuracy as to how the missile should behave but I'd say it's a lower prio and likely harder to achieve.

Yes, you can't launch at TWS tracks in ACM as the missile will be active launch in boresight if you don't have an STT with ACM cover up.

Read that as you will but when pilots and aircrew with 2000+ hours in the real thing says we're good we're going to listen to them. And thank you for you praise for the module! And also, like I said, afaik an official cockpit with less wear will happen.

The only intent here was to represent the aircraft modelled as realistically as possible. And no, our SMEs were not museum curators, they were all aircrew or technicians with many hours under their belt in realistic, deployed (at sea) conditions. And like I've said, they've multiple times verified the look and that they're happy with it. It's always possible to argue the different points about playability and I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. But we chose what we did because of realism, not the contrary. Granted it makes the learning curve harder until you've memorised all the controls but again, this is not willfully excluding what you're asking for, it was a matter or priority. And afaik the intent is to eventually release a cleaner cockpit but it's not a quick job. The two years I saw someone posting in another thread seem a bit taken out of thin air but it's gonna take time and reasources to make a new set of cockpit textures with a cleaner look that's up to the expected standard of the official module. Until then a mod like this is a perfect stand-in while you wait if you need it or wish for it.

The current cockpit is intended to be representative of how the actual cockpits of the represented aircraft looked. This has also been verified by basically all of our SMEs.

The whole reason for the AIM-54A being one of the first missiles to have an active radar guidance is to allow for TWS. There's simply not enough time for the AWG-9 to illuminate multiple targets with enough of an update rate to allow for robust guidance, they had to make the missiles themselves take over. In PD-STT this is not an issue as there's just a single target to illuminate. The onboard radar is ofc gonna hit a point where it will have an advantage in power and signal strength due to being closer to the target but at the same time it kinda needs its "hand held" by the AWG-9 to get to that point. PD-STT with SARH is likely preferred because of the better tracking logic of the AWG-9 compared to the onboard radar. It's harder to throw off or fool the AWG-9 than a simpler radar in the missile.

Correct, the D disappeared somehow. Edited

The AIM-54C will always go active if it hasn't already if you stop guiding it so yes, if you fire it in PD-STT it will go active if you break lock. The AIM-54A will go stupid like you say. When you fire in P-STT the AIM-54 will always launch active as the AWG-9 can't guide the missile in pulse mode so the two missiles will behave the same. And yes, the only missile you technically have to guide all the way to the target is the AIM-54A in PD-STT. It is however still recommended to always guide them to target regardless if you can. No, afaik the AIM-54C going active with lost PD-STT guidance is accurate. What isn't is that the AIM-54C in DCS will go active in PD-STT even if you keep the lock. IRL it wouldn't unless you break lock, but that is a DCS-ism as it is.

Yeah, that's true. That's also regulated via the ACM-cover. Easy to forget as that normally doesn't really matter for the intended use. Thanks!

Not to Jester as he can't read the DDD image. He can flip the switch to show it yes as it generates track indications on the TID. But he really needs to switch back to TWS for any meaningful targeting.

The cover is basically a short cut for setting up the WCS for ACM. I.e. activating the missiles, setting gun to high etc. The only unique functions with the cover up are that if the AIM-54 is launched at a target within 15 degrees of boresight the LTE will be 1 sec instead of 3 secs and that the WCS automatically selects BRSIT if no track is present. The quick acquisition modes are available regardless and ACM is possible without the use of the ACM cover as the switch itself is just the above mentioned presets and those two functions.

TWS/SARH/ARH: The manual does not say it will continue to be guided in SARH, it says that the AWG-9 will continue to transmit the guidance. There's no way to have a situation in which the active transfer command is missed and the missile continues as SARH to the target in TWS. All commands sent to the missile after it hits the active criteria also sends the active command so if the missile later reacquires it will then go active. SARH in TWS isn't exact enough that the missile can hit the target reliably. For DCS the tl:dr is that if you don't guide the AIM-54A it will miss in TWS. PD-STT: You're correct apart from that the AIM-54 in SARH is not "just" a very expensive AIM-7 even if it stays in SARH. ARH: IRL setting PH ACT will make the AWG-9 immediately send the active transfer command and IRL the missile will then still use the semi-active guidance until it finds its target. But if used it will also alert the target of an active missile and use up the missile battery more quickly. In DCS, due to limitations, it will just set the missile as basically a maddog shot. The exception is that if a sensor track is present (either radar or TCS) it'll launch a long the direction of the sensors line of sight. So kinda a directional maddog. Having an active missile which also uses SARH is not currently possible in DCS. Additionally, what the PH ACT switch is set to is separate from the range criteria, the range thing is always present in the Pulse-Doppler modes. This is due to the missile needing to be active immediately at short range and this will always happen even if you haven't set PH ACT. ACM-Active: And ACM active launch can be achieved in multiple ways but in DCS it's basically analogous to other active launches. The only difference is that if you have the ACM cover up you can get a shorter launch-to-eject time of one second if shooting at a target within a certain angle of ADL (15 degrees). Other than the 1 sec LTE the ACM cover is simply a short cut to preset the missiles for ACM. The difference of the ACM mode and the BRSIT button is that ACM mode sets the missile to boresight if there's no sensor track, BRSIT sets it to boresight regardless. As for the PLM, VSL, PAL and MRL they're all pulse modes leading to a P-STT lock. ECM-mode: The missile itself will switch to ECM home on jam if a target starts jamming while in flight and switch back to normal track if the jamming stops. This is a DCS missile function and works the same as other missiles in DCS. If you want to launch in home on jam from the start you need to lock up the jammer on the DDD using the AGC-trace. Missile-Operation: Depending on exactly which symbology you mean yeah. Dropping an STT track will drop the radar back to the corresponding search mode, so from PLM it would drop back to Pulse Search or with Jester TWS. But given you're talking PLM you're likely to be so close as to that not really working. AIM-54 in DCS: Your read is basically correct yeah. And yes, this section tries to detail what is actually modelled in DCS, the other sections describe a simplification of the IRL system. Unfortunately some stuff was updated after the last manual revision and as I left as the manual author and editor before this it hasn't been updated to reflect this yet. The new manual editor is naturally focusing on the F-4 atm. But the two big major changes since last update are basically the change in how the AIM-54C works due to new information being available and the addition of the ECM modes in the AWG-9. Other than that the information is correct as far as I know.

Jester can't use Pulse Search, that's why it's not included on the wheel. Even if you jump back and push the button yourself, Jester would then deselect it and go back to TWS. TWS is really the only search mode Jester can use as it is.

No, like near_blind mentioned above the computer wasn't smart enough for that. It'd have to be manually set then.

The wing sweep mechanism wasn't designed for assymetric sweep at all. The computer could only control wing sweep for both, not individually. The test with the assymetric sweep was mechanically modified to even allow for it.

Yeah, that's the main difference between USAF and USN AIM-9s. I was however talking about the actual interface controlling the missile, not the launch rails. As long as that works the other parts are more trivial if not easy to fix. And yup, other than that that's what I was talking about. Aircraft not being designed for SEAM could still use those missiles, just without the SEAM functionality. The earliest docs we have for the F-14 lists the AIM-9D, G and H, with the D not having SEAM. But don't worry, we do know about the different variations and their capabilities. If they are already in DCS or added by ED the IRIAF version of our F-14A will likely have them.

I haven't seen anything that says they were but I can't say for sure.

Missile prep does nothing for AIM-9s, it's for AIM-7 and AIM-54 prep only so I don't see why it would be.

Well, it's a combination of factors. And keep in mind a lot of this is my personal opinion. But it feels like a lot of long range and older SAM systems are way too good at shooting down other missiles. And as for the AGM-84 it seems like it just doesn't really sea skim and it used to do way too little damage. At least the damage part has been much improved. The main issue is that in DCS there's not much middle ground between shooting down everything and nothing which is also what the height issue boils down to. Increasing the height would afaik make something like the SA-10 or SM-2 shoot down most if not all RB 04 which is more unrealistic than not at all.

It all depends on the CIWS and amount of it. But yeah, the RB 04 shouldn't be better, the RBS 15F should be slightly better if anything.

Yeah, that's what it boils down to in the end. What I can tell you is that I work with stuff like this and there's a reason the russians moved away slightly from high and fast diving missiles and started producing sea skimmers of their own and that the Standard system continued to evolve this functionality. If we're talking non sea skimming missiles like the majority of the earlier soviet systems I'm 100% with you. And in the end I guess we can just agree to disagree. I don't want to see foolproof missile shields in DCS that shoots down everything, from my professional standpoint that's just silly and unrealistic. My main answer to that is that the AGM-84 is way underperforming in DCS. But circling back to the initial topic of this thread. Yes, the gun CIWS should be more effective against the RB 04, it should not swat every one of them but it should have a decent chance.

The RBS-15F is a much later missile and much more of an extreme sea skimmer than the Rb-04 so that's no unreasonable. And yet they continued to improve that exact thing. There's also a reason for many allied ships using Standard having complementary systems like the ESSM as well. But again, like I've mentioned above, I'm not saying they should be completely ineffective against something like the RB 04, especially as that missile is not that extreme of a sea skimmer like the RBS 15F. The problem is that if you increase the height above the minimum engagement height of long range SAM systems on ships in DCS they'd become way to good at downing them. In some cases those systems shoot down every single missile launched at them unless you completely saturate them which is more unrealistic than them having issues with them.