Blinky.ben
-
Posts
399 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blinky.ben
-
-
14 hours ago, unknown said:
The only other thing that comes to my mind beside what Mustang25 said is that you have mapped the Antenna elevation function to an axis(double assignment?) that puts your radar antenna to the lowerst/highest position preventing you to see any contacts. But this is all just guessing, post a short track or video/screenshots. The radar works fine for me.
This is my first thought also, I have my antenna elevation mapped to a slider and it is usually pointing all the way down or up until I adjust the slider.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:
AFAIK AGM-154B never entered service and was cancelled.
Damn...... would have been awesome
-
14 minutes ago, Sinclair_76 said:
As I understand it the JSOW-B was a US Navy only model. After testing it was shit canned. So it follows we won't be able to use it.
You are right except the AGM-154B was a airforce only project. The navy didn’t get involved in this variant.
But this is my understanding from a little research so I could be completely incorrect here.
I found a old post showing the AGM-154B as a planned loadout
-
14 minutes ago, dundun92 said:
Yes, but is there any evidence that it cannot carry and fire 8, regardless of how inadvisable it would be? The F-16 HARM issue is a completely different issue, this is a discussion of whether you can actually fire the weapon from the pylon; the F-18 issue your describing seems to be more of an advisory limitation, as in "you can drop them alright, but they may hit your jet". The correct solution for the F-18 issue wouldnt be to remove 8 JSOW, but rather make it where if you carry more than 4 theres a high chance of you getting hit by it. For the F-16 HARM issue, this is either the plane physically can fire 4, or it cant.
I do see your point but I think it needs to be considered on the same level. The military does.
-
On 2/21/2021 at 3:16 AM, Ignition said:
I love my 10 AMRAAM and 8 JSOW F-18!
Yep this is what is really weird for me. The community is very passionate about the F-16 not having 4x harms (I have absolutely no idea if it can or not) but if you look hard enough there is a document on the internet that’s was the testing documentation for the AGM-154 on the F-18 which I showed ED along time ago. It goes into how the F-18 under no circumstances (not even total war) is it to carry more then 4xAGM-154 due a few issue particularly aerodynamically. But even still you can not find anything that supports 8x AGM-154 on the F-18C
-
I also read a long time ago the F-16 was getting the AGM-154B. I’m assuming that’s not on the planning list anymore?
-
11 hours ago, Chiron said:
thx so much can u tell me what is the max range
I’m not exactly sure. From memory it’s something like over 200km but I always fire within 100nm and that always works for me. There is a graphics bug at the moment tho caused by the release of the SLAM in the F-18 but ED will hopefully fix it when the F-18 gets the SLAM-ER. So maybe wait till that comes out.
keep in mind also that at the final stages of the missiles flight the JF-17 with the Data link pod needs to be within 120degrees of the missile tail to keep the link.
-
As for how DCS works I can’t really speak for. However as for GMTI which is the A/G radar mode that would be using Doppler, It works fairly different to A/A radar mode for lots of reasons. But without going into depth in real world normally a speed of around 6-8knots is required to detect a contact. So even if it is in a notch so to speak it will be very short lived due to it not travelling in a perfect notched circle around the aircraft. As for MAP mode it wouldn’t use Doppler so this is an entirely different mode altogether.
-
It has certain parameters you have to be within
Allowable Launch Altitude 1600 ft to 24600 ft
Allowable Launch Speed Less than Mach 0.9
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:
Aircraft 30 to 40nm 35000 feet shoupd not be able to lob radar guided missiles on aircraft parked on the floor (not moving) not at 2000 feet or 10000 feet on the floor not going any where the missile looking dowm into that ground clutter should not track end of, Ive never seen this happen before in DCS ever ive been about a loooong time its happened twice on servers both being bluelag buddyspike. And funny enough track replays beimg bugged for over 2 years i cant get a track because a bug stops me.
Totally agree
-
I’ve learnt a lot from the community so might be a good time to give back. I thought I might try and clear something up about Doppler. Feel free to tell me to never post something this big again. This isn’t to point out how radars in DCS work but some people seem to compare DCS to real world and demand what is actually false.
First thing to make clear is we are talking about Automated Air radars and not ground based radars. Ground based radars are a lot more complex and don’t share a lot of disadvantages that Air based radars do.
However the Radars we are exposed to mostly in DCS are fairly simplistic AUTOMATED radars with one antenna. So they can’t as we like to call it “talk and listen” at the same time (PRF). So if the radar is currently sending out a pulse it can not receive any incoming pulses at that time, so a lot of pulses are returning back to the radar are not actually being received and are completely missed or only some of that pulse is received. But my point is here that the radar can miss up to more then 50-60% or less of the pulses but that comes down to timing and distances. But no matter what it’s never registering anywhere near 100% of the pulses. But it is sending out a gigantic amount of pulses per second which is why the odds games says this system works. Most Ground based Sam sites don’t share this issue and normally register most of the pulses cause they work in a network where they can send out pulses and listen at the same time.
When the pulse is sent out it will be modulated in such a way the radar can identify one pulse to the other, however some modulations give benefits over the others but I won’t be going into that. We are a long way before Doppler has even started to be processed. Cause we need to deal with the amplitudes and energy coming back. pulse/energy hits something it bounces back. Now a small amount of a pulse can bounce back at a different time before the rest of the same pulse bounces back, some pulses run out of energy and never make it back, this is where PRF and modulation is important because what part of the pulse did the radar get back or are two pulses coming back at the same time but one has a lot more energy then the other pulse but has the weaker pulse detected the jet your trying to find and has now been ignored?. Let’s say a jet is flying 1000ft above ground and your looking down at it. Your radar pulse is going to send almost the entire pulse back at you but with much less power in it due to attenuation. So within that pulse will be hundreds of energy spikes being the ground, rocks, trees, the jet, clouds....... So now the radar needs to start interrogating the pulse to find out what is within the pulses and what needs to be ignored. HOWEVER the radar has to protect itself first. So any pulses that are bouncing back with too much energy will automatically adjust the gain and reject the pulses with too much power in it. So instantly we have lost some pulses or parts of pulses that may or may not have the jet were looking for (KEEP IN MIND DOPPLER Considered yet).
Now we have the pulse making it’s way through the system and this is where certain modulations will play into their benefits. With what ever pulse we have left let’s imagine we are looking at the old TV that have no reception and the screen is just full of static. Now we need to find that white dot and track it which is Impossible. So we need to tune the reception more to remove the overwhelming amount of static. The radar is doing the same thing but these are called anti-clutter circuits which there are many types that all benefit in certain areas. Some are for detecting things in weather but some times the clouds are just too dense and the radar ignores those pulses to protect itself or the attenuation is too much. Some are good for ground clutter but again it will set a threshold to the point where the jet we are looking for will remain under that threshold and will always remain hidden cause the radar is ignoring it. It could be going through as many as 5 different clutter circuits. This is why Automated radars have a disadvantage to raw based radars cause the operator can set the threshold as they can still see the contact with the extra noise around. And again how much of the pulse are we getting back that have the jet in it? Once all this has been done then we are still left with a lot of spikes in energy/amplitude that the radar needs to determine is the target we are looking for, but we still don’t have enough information for that to happen (AGAIN DOPPLER/frequency still not considered) so now the radar sends out more and more pulse and does this whole process again and again until it builds a memory bank of the same spikes and NOW WE HAVE DOPPLER so the radar now says I have a lot of spikes above the threshold after removing a lot of other things but this spikes keeps coming back with a different frequency so it must be moving. So now we get speed gates to remove other moving objects like birds or tress blowing in the wind and so forth. Now the radar looks at a particle part of the sky and decides to track it. But WAIT something got in the way let’s say a flock of birds cause depending on a few things a radar can’t determine between multiple contacts within a certain distance from each other so a flock of birds can mean one big contact, I’m not going into those distances cause I don’t know if this is open knowledge or not. However get this there is also something else that can get in the way CHAFF!!!!! which yes radars have features to help it not to track chaff but we don’t need it to track chaff we just need chaff to introduce many of the problems I have mentioned above NOW FORCING the radar to go through the whole process again cause the radar is now ignoring more and more pulses cause chaff is introducing multiple problems. and now the memory bank starts decreasing. Now it can predict where to look and if it finds the target quick enough it will build up that memory bank quicker but if it looses it for let’s say 3-5seconds or it moves outside the FOV then we have to start all over again. Now this doesn’t mean the radar will never find a contact in these situations but the truth is there is a good chance the contact will remain hidden if it is close enough to the ground below the horizon with the aspect your looking at it.
So you can see here DOPPLER is not actually this magical thing that has cured world hunger but simply a tool that’s way down the bottom of the tool box that the radar uses after much complex situations have been dealt with first. But again a pulse may never even get to that point.
This is why putting the object above the horizon is sssoooo very important to increase your chances of detection.
So with all this in mind we can’t have all this in DCS or maybe we can I know nothing about coding. But to make something like chaff to have more of an effect or look down penalties have more of a influence to account for other disadvantages not within DCS sounds more like a simulated environment I think.
-
3
-
-
23 hours ago, Coxy_99 said:
IR missiles i understand they go for the heat, But why should active missiles ignore ground clutter if your on the ground, Or am i missing something?
Is the aircraft 10,000ft above the ground with the missile looking down? Or is the aircraft at 200ft? Cause then Doppler basically has nothing to do with it. And yes in this case a contact can be lost within the clutter and other things. But it depends on more things then I think DCS could programme. But the lower the contact to the ground with a look down aspect the more influence the ground will have.
-
I have been playing on servers a lot lately that have limited resources available. I came across a odd thing where the list will show 30 rocket available. When I load the 4x standard 7” rockets it counts 4 rocket pods and now I have 26 available. But when I load either the BRM-1’s or UG-90mm it counts the rockets and not as pods. So I start with 30 BRM-1 and I load 2x pods. I now have 0 in the resource list and 14rockets in one pod and 16 in the other.
is the resource list meant to reflect 30 rockets it 30 rocket pods.
-
Once you have selected APP, you need to press CRS on the row below and on the left column where you select APP to get your wpts to appear again on the HSD
-
3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:
Yeah I've seen those charts, and those are against older less capable "cold war" era opponents IIRC. And certainly 1 hit from an ASM could render a modern surface combatant inop, you are gonna need to shoot half a dozen or a dozen to get through was my point. And when I'm seeing a whole CVBG in a tight formation take the occasional AK802 hits (i.e. 1 missile out of 2 fired), I kinda cringe. I mean I get it that its "possible" that the world luckiest missile gets through like 1% of the time, but its more like 20% in DCS.
I assume no one has come across charts showing the likely hood of hypersonic missiles hitting? If we do get the CM-400 that will be a interesting capability.
-
1 hour ago, SlipHavoc said:
OK, I tested the fuel tanks and found that all the fuel tanks (wing and centerline, 800L and 1100L) can withstand 6.0 Gs, and so don't seem to need the AG/2 switch.
And I tried the C-701T and C-701IR (one of each), pulling 6.0 Gs for about 30 seconds, then firing each one, and they both locked on, fired, and hit their targets.
Editing my original post above to show the current results.
Just thinking out loud here but when it comes to G limiting weapons I imagine that they wouldn’t limit the G on the very limit right? Cause they would be considering wear and tear also not just breaking point. So I would imagine there to be a buffer above what the limit of the FCS and a duration of time at the higher G limit too e.g 9g being a very quick time to break over 6.5-7g being a longer time frame before issues start to unfold.
I tried this myself and found both fuel tanks on the wing pylons break as soon as you get to 6.3g no matter the size, but would 300lbs make such a difference? But at 6g you can hold that all day long. The MK83 breaks as soon as you hit 5.5g and the MK84 breaks just over 6g.
however even tho they need some tweaking with the info we have I still don’t believe they should break at the very limit either due to what I stated earlier. But to stop people abusing the system perhaps Deka could implement the G limit up to just before what the next switch is limited to. For example if the 1100lbs fuel tank has a limit of 5g then maybe program them to break at the 5.5-5.8 limit which will still force the user to select AG/2 but break if they go to the limits in AG/1, this will avoid those moments where you will pull hard and the FCS let’s you go over the limiter for that brief moment where in real life the stores would handle the higher G for the small duration of time.
-
On 2/8/2021 at 11:35 AM, SlipHavoc said:
Both the quickstart guide and Chuck's Guide say some weapons can be damaged by high G loading, but it doesn't say which ones, so I did some testing and found some odd results:
No G limit, can be used with A/A master switch:
• All pods
• All A/A weapons
• LD-10 ARMs
• Any bombs on outer wing double pylons only (I'm assuming this is a bug?)6.0 G limit, needs A/G master switch but AG/1 or AG/2 doesn't matter:
• Centerline drop tank
• GB-6, GB-6-HE, GB-6-SFW
• C-802AK, CM-802AKG
• LS-6-500
• C-701T, C-701IR
• TYPE-200A
• Mk 82, Mk 82 Snakeye
• Mk 84 (bug? since Mk 83 is 5.5 G)5.5 G limit, needs A/G master switch and AG/2 switch:
• Wing drop tanks
• GBU-10/12/16 on outer wing single pylons, inner wing pylons, or centerline pylon
• Mk 83 (bug? since Mk 84 is up to 6.0 G)It looks like the outer wing double pylons give incorrect G resistance to anything mounted on them, and given that the Mk 84 is twice the weight of the Mk 83 it seems strange that it would have a higher G limit.
Been having a lot of fun with the plane though, great work overall!
Do you remember what size drop tanks you used? I’m now wondering if the 2 sizes have the same G limitation.
-
3 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:
I just tested the C-701T and C-701IR again, and they can withstand up to the 6.0 to 6.1 G that the AG/1 mode allows. That was surprising to me because both the quick start guide and Chuck's say the C-701 is particularly susceptible to high Gs. (Although I only tested to see if the weapon said FAIL on the MFD, I didn't actually try firing it afterward...)
I also tested the BRM rockets (both guided and unguided), and they withstand AG/1 as well,
Not sure I have read your post correct, are you saying rockets and missile as supposed to be limited to AG/2?
From the manuals they all state the 701 can’t stand high G, I take that as even tho it’s a light missile due to the seeker it needs a G limiter unlike the SD-10’s I don’t take that to being a 5g max limit being inline with CM-802 and 2,000lbs bombs, The manuals don’t go into what to select for the BRM-1 however I also wouldn’t expect them to be in the same G limit as the heaviest weapons either I’m under the impression something over 6g is the intended limit? From online tutorials and manuals it seems only heavy bombs CM-802, 2,000lbs (don’t know about 1,000lbs but they break real easy) require AG/2 and external fuel tanks. No?
On 2/9/2021 at 11:30 AM, uboats said:fixed the G limit for dual-load pylon
what is the new G limit for this? Should we still be setting AG/1 or now AG/2? Also is it possible to implement a option to be able to jettison the dual rack?
-
Is there a update for this issue? ED?
-
Apologies if this sounds like a dumb question but just making sure.
Did you press the STBY and SIL button on the top of the radar page? If they have a box around them then you need to press those buttons so there is a line through the letters to make the radar work
you also have to wait till your in the air before you can select STBY and SIL
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, nighthawk2174 said:
As was discussed in the other thread on this the AMRAAM should be incredible resistant too chaff. I just don't see how it could defeat the missile outright based on all the documents i've read on this. Beyond this there are pilots on various discords who have talked about this and the opinion is always the same chaff has very little (likes less than a .01% chance according too one guy) chance of ever outright defeating something like an amraam. Helping get into the notch sure. But not what were seeing right now.
Might want to check my post again, not sure why I’m tagged in this. Has nothing to do with what I said.
But sense I am tagged in it, The statement you posted sounds like a fair statement. It does state air defence radar seekers that to me sounds like air defence sam sites which is a fairly different piece of equipment cause of how the entire system works and being supported by a much much more complicated system/network compared to a missile only using its own radar (which I believe is what we’re talking about here). But I would suspect this to be fairly true for the Air to Air missiles but not to the same extent. However there is so much more to it, cause even tho people seem to think Doppler is everything it’s actually not, cause there is ssssooooooo much happening to the pulse before the Doppler processing has even started. So with that in mind yes I would agree there are many situations chaff would have little effect for sure but not completely made useless, like I stated before there are many things happening before Doppler or range gates have even started to be processed
as for this bug, I mostly just ground pound in the F-16 and JF-17 which both are using the same guidance files for their BVR missiles. But I don’t do too much Air to air so I haven’t gone through the motions enough to see what’s being reported here. but I’m being successful with missile hits in both aircraft in servers like GR. But I would have absolutely no idea if the other guy was using chaff or ECM. There was this one guy tho that dodged all 6 120’s but I again they might have done everything by the book for dodging missiles.
my personnel opinion I believe everything that involves radar is just too much to program, so is changing such things like chaff resistance to help simulate other factors that are not coded isn’t such a bad thing. Maybe better then it is now from reports but maybe not at the same level of real life cause of other un-simulated factors
-
1
-
-
On 1/30/2021 at 3:31 PM, Stearmandriver said:
The standard recovery angle on the boat is 3.5 degrees. Factoring in boat motion, this works out to an effective 3.0 degree glideslope. This is what the FLOLS and ICLS are both set to. 5 - 8 degrees is far too steep and wouldn't jibe with any guidance.
So what values need to change for this? Is it too much drag?
-
1 hour ago, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said:
To end, frankly, there are many of those out there in the DCS community that are afraid to go up against a “beefed up,” ARH missile because they don’t know how to properly defend against it using kinetic defense tactics. As a result, THEY are the ones who go and complain to ED to get the missiles nerfed in the areas of kinetic performance and EW resistance.
Your kidding right? You honestly believe it’s only the people that go up against it want it nerfed? No your right no one ever complains for it to be over the top with unrealistic expectations.
just to be clear my last post had nothing to do with bugs or what it should be. It was me pointing out to someone asking why this is still a ongoing issue and me pointing out people will always find a way for the 120 to be a problem. Don’t go the down close minded opinion only people who go up against it are the only ones here with an agenda. These forums are littered with agenda based facts from both sides. Hence why there will forever be a issue with the 120.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Terzi said:
I find it hard to believe that we still have problems with most-widely used missile in the digital combat simulator.
But we do still have problems with most-widely used missile in the digital combat simulator.
Let’s be honest here the Aim-120 will never stop being a bug report or having problems in people’s opinion. A huge amount of people here have no idea other then it’s been drilled into them American made means an unrealistic missile. Some people demand that the Aim-120 should be nothing but a God missile that actually shoots lasers (sarcasm) a very large group of people believe it should be 100% resistant to any type of counter measure or tactic which is just laughable to anyone that actually works within a industry involving some type of modern radar (yes this doesn’t include all the Wikipedia warriors) . Some people believe it should be the best compared to any other missile in game but still have some chance to be spoofed (which could be correct but can also be wrong which most here won’t accept but no one here knows the answer either). Others heard it can go 60nm and don’t know why when they fired at 100ft it didn’t go that far so scream for it to be fixed, most seem to be happy with its current range. But no matter what ED does with this missile it will always be a bug report because there will always be a someone that demands it must be the greatest and run many many test so they can find the one time they didn’t win the fight and report it as a bug. Thankfully there are some very knowledgeable and reasonable people that call BS in the beta testing community that ED listen to with their own locked reporting forum, and let’s not forget the SME’s who guide ED in the right direction that again cause someone lost a fight so they can’t accept what the SME has to say.
So again this missile will forever in someone’s opinion have problems and will always remain in the bug forums.
-
1
-
3
-
Help with A2A radar
in JF-17 Thunder
Posted
Good post.