Blinky.ben

I see, my apologies

This would make sense, ED are confident they have the modelling right compared to the charts which it seems they are very close, fairly strong evidence including experienced pilots indicate somethings off. So something like this makes sense. So is it mover isn’t your friend or is it mover doesn’t have 4000 hours in the viper that means he’s not a respectable SME?. I personally would like to keep listening to what ALL pilots would have to say.

And how many people that say I know a fighter pilot that says….. yeah I’m sure you know one there must be billions of pilots or maybe everyone just knows the same one.

Yet…… so I can expect it to come. Thanks for the heads up

I haven’t been in the F-18 for awhile now, I’ve been learning the F-16 however I am trying to get back into the F-18 now just to confirm we don’t need to align the MAV’s like the F-16? I’m not missing anything?

This is actually on almost all armoured vehicles also.

This was also the same time ED stated the Aim-120 was too resistant to all types of counter measures. Can you show me where the Aim-20 was restricted? You can’t it has too much popularity so we have a biased state.

SATAL are never fair they have always been biased towards the JF-17. The JF has always carried heavier restrictions then any other aircraft. I wouldn’t worry about it your not going to change SATAL biased opinion.

I’m a little confused about all this. The SD-10 is forced into a loft manually by the pilot pitching up by 8degrees or more. So I would think ranging information is irrelevant for the lofting feature for the SD-10 cause it’s up to the pilot if that should happen or not. You can Loft a SD-10 at a target 5nm away it won’t loft much but it will do it. as for the Aim-120 the system determines when it should or shouldn’t loft correct? You can’t force an Aim-120 to loft on something only 8nm away like you can with the SD-10 or you can’t force the Aim-120 not to loft on a target 30nm away but you can make the SD-10 fly straight at targets at longer ranges. So I don’t get why the SD-10 would be forced not to Loft when the pilot manually decide when to loft or not with or without range data?

This is the case for all MLRS

Is it the same round as the Ka-50 30mm HE? Cause then it would be just a cut and past would it not to add this round to the Mi-24 gun?

I think this comes down to damage modelling more then weapon effect. Anti-armour weapons particularly bomblet types don’t have a big blast and fragment radius but a very narrow shaped charge and unless it strikes are area on the vehicle that is critical, then the weapon just leaves a small hole e.g if it hits the engine bay it may damage the engine under the armour but it doesn’t cause a nuclear catastrophic explosion that wipes out the whole vehicle. If it gets into the crew compartment it will most likely kill or injury most the crew but the engine and running gear will more then likely function just fine. As for DCS no ones happy until the vehicle is a complete smouldering mountain of flames which is not accurate at all but simply is should be a fairly intact vehicle that doesn’t function anymore or more likely some parts will no longer function while other parts do e.g it can’t move anymore more but the turret and weapons are still functional. so I guess my long winded point is do we want a fairly accurate weapon that leaves little sign of damage meaning a realistic level of damage reporting will need to be conducted or a unrealistic weapon effect with a wall of flames and destruction making it easy to see that the vehicle is totally destroy being the unrealistic approach but a work around DCS shortages?

GR did a comparison when they did some adjustments awhile back, keep in mind the Aim-120 has had changes sense this video was made

I don’t know the answer but I have always assumed the HUD just doesn’t support that much graphics/cross. So if the cross displayed while petro’s targeting then when you switch weapons he is still targeting but now the graphics just changes to show CCIP instead.

Does anyone know if 30mm HE rounds are going to be a option? Or is AP rounds all the Mi-24 would carry? edit: sense my post got merged with this post it answers my question. Thanks

Just had a look at the page you have done so far. Great work would be nice to have the link pinned somewhere on the forum.

I wasn’t finished with with working on that post but didn’t realise it posted. But no I gave the detection ranges for one radar and stated that the ranges we got with the new radars are less. exactly what your have stated through your questions my point was that antenna size has a influence but it is not the main cause for maximum antenna ranges hence why all the important factors were left out.

So I wonder how the 20inch antenna We used to have got us 256nm maximum detection ranges or about 48nm detection ranges for 2m2 surface vessel, before we upgraded the radar system that had a 22inch antenna with almost half the detection ranges? after 18 years with working with military radars I know the answer. I’m just trying to prove Wikipedia in terms of radar theory although not completely Wrong but can be extremely miss leading i ask questions about radars on these forums cause of trying to understand DCSisms and also I don’t want to dig through charts for radar theory for each different radar. I already work 100 fourth nights that just feels like more work. So I wonder how the 20inch antenna We used to have got us 256nm maximum detection ranges or about 48nm detection ranges for 2m2 surface vessel, before we upgraded the radar system that had a 22inch antenna with almost half the detection ranges? after 18 years with working with military radars I know the answer. I’m just trying to prove Wikipedia in terms of radar theory although not completely Wrong but can be extremely miss leading i ask questions about radars on these forums cause of trying to understand DCSisms and also I don’t want to dig through charts for radar theory for each different radar. I already work 100 fourth nights that just feels like more work.

Interesting have they stated what to expect from the viper? It’s currently has a fairly good range advantage compared to the JF so if it stays relatively the same as the F-16 I’m assuming there won’t be much of a change.

The JF-17 has always had less detection ranges then basically everything so far. Best I have ever achieved in the ideal environment is 63nm. I have definitely noticed a difference in the F-18 but I got a lock at 81nm yesterday. The JF is still less then both F-18 and F-16 how much less do you want it to be?

Thought I would give this ago. I'm launching in TWS at 30,000ft the missile that hits is fired 40nm away against an f-18. The first missile goes way beyond the battery life, The second AIM-120 that hits the fighter destroyed the F-18 2 second beyond the battery life so this shouldn't happen but who cares about 2 seconds the third missile also hits the burning wreckage shortly after. I can easily repeat this. DCS F-18C AIM-120C Lofting test (Beyond Battery Life) 02MAY21.zip.acmi

Uummm can I suggest you read my post again, or maybe a third time I’ll quote it here so you don’t need to scroll up. I highlighted some areas to help you out. So after that time did you notice how I’m basically agreeing with your original point, however I wanted to point out that the damage model shouldn’t show them exploding with a Hollywood explosion but just simply they get damaged and no longer function. Did you notice any massive balls of smoking explosions seen from space in the video nighthawke2174 posted? This will Make a level of realism that your not really sure that you have in fact destroyed (or neutralised to be more accurate for this case) the unit, not without some kind of battle damage report. I personally would love to see a modelling with mobility kills but the turret still working or vis versa. ED staff have pointed out a number of times they are addressing this issue at the moment and with my very minimal knowledge of coding I would assume this wouldn’t happen over night but I’m more optimistic then it taking 5-10 years and as for this This is people mistaking Hollywood for a educational documentary.

I hope its not tweaked to just make everything explode.

In my opinion the weapons are modelled fairly accurately in that they shouldn’t make a vehicle go up in a Hollywood explosion, but this is where the damage modelling needs some work. These types of weapons don’t cause vehicles, particularly armour or equipment to explode into a mushroom cloud. But they do neutralise vehicles and equipment by shredding tyres and antennas or possibly fragging the engine and fragging personal in light skinned vehicle's however a vehicle isn’t downed just cause it has a hole in it. But for a cluster attack there wouldn’t be too much visual indications from a aircrafts perspective to indicate that a vehicle has indeed been neutralised other then it has stopped moving or it is smoking cause a lucky hit into a fuel tank. I think the modelling will get there one day which will be awesome but expecting an entire convoy to explode into flames would be incorrect and very wrong for a realism point of view. It’s a big deal trying to confirm an attack has indeed been successful which I think is a very big part of DCS that is lacking and a huge part most people in DCS take for granted.