Snappy

Hi, recently started to get aquainted with the RIO seat and diving into the radar basics (still just scratching the surface) and have watched /read some of FlyandWires excellent material and the Heatblur manual part on this but I still have problems understanding the two filters. Both filters seem to aim at filtering out returns that are within certain ground speed range, but what exactly is the difference between them? I know the following contains massive oversimplifications and potential misconceptions on my side, but I thought the big advantage of Pulse Doppler vs classic Pulse was, that (besides different working principle) the PD radars were not suspectible to ground clutter returns since this gets filtered out inherently by removing everything that is own-speed +/- a certain variance. But the two filters have me confused and raised several questions: The MLC makes sense to me, as it filters out the ground returns, the ground is "moving" relatively at my aircrafts own groundspeed , so filtering that speed range out in a look down situation makes sense. But the Zero doppler doesn't make sense to me yet. Heatblurs F-14 manual states it is applied for targets with negative closure, i.e. moving away from ownship , but then when its talking about the filters speed range it says quote: "The resulting blind area is 200 knots wide, meaning that a chased target moving at a speed of within 100 knots(+/-) of own groundspeed will be invisible to the radar" Quesstion 1 : That +/- has me confused.If a target is moving at -100 kt of own groundspeed it is actually not longer moving away its coming closer, or am I getting somethign wrong ? Question 2: Also that speed range of +/- 100 kts of the is within the speed range of the MLC filter with +/-133 kts. So why the need for an additional zero doppler filter if the value is already included within the MLC filter band? Question 3: And is the Zero Doppler Filter a Filter at all? Because in the manual it sounds more like a hardware/physical limitation of the radar that it just can't detect targets without a doppler shift. Sorry if those questions are somewhat dumb. I'm not too technical a person and having some difficulties in getting my head wrapped around this radar stuff. If somebody could explain or answer my questions in a semi-simple way that would be great. Kind regards, Snappy

There I was, thinking you were asking a true question with an interest in learning.. Regards, Snappy

Moxie , you re not completely wrong, sometimes the DM is off big time. But then again, the Mirage is far from the only module with issues regarding DM. Can't say how many times I've poured round after round of 30mm into the F-16 and the thing still keeps flying fine in MP. So it averages out somewhat. Guess this hopefully is getting a re-work across the spectrum, when ED implements the new DM for newer jets, should be around 2024 or so. Kind regards, Snappy

Sure, mission editing can be interesting and open up the horizon some more. But it is a very valid point , that sooner or later you re noticing the very limiting effect of DCS' abyssmal AI and its performance. It really gets annoying. You can offset it some with cleverly designed /scripted missions, yes. But nonetheless AI and its FM severely limits DCS once you start interacting with it, whether its in a fight or your -supposed to be helpful wingmen- and it really becomes annyoingly repetitve to see them make the same dumb moves or overpowered maneuvres again and again. For a sim thats supposedly is heavily focused on its single player userbase this is a sorry state and has been for years. Well , lets hope things get better once the dynamic campaign gets out, because I really cant see that working without a significant upgrade to the AI behaviour in general. Regards, Snappy

Hi. IFR = Instrument flight rules IMC = Instrument meteorological conditions. IFR refers to the set of aviation rules a flight is performed under/in accordance with, as opposed to VFR , visual flight rules. In simple terms, there are different requirements to a lot of aspects of a flight. Pilot certification, aircraft certification and necessary equipment, routing, alternates ,weather minima and so on.The list is rather long. IMC refers only to weather conditions. In IMC the weather is such that you can only do a flight in under IFR , you can no longer fly in VFR, because the weather is too bad to meet the requirements of VFR/visual flight rules There is also VMC, visual meteorological conditions, meaning the weather is sufficiently "good" enough to perform a flight under visual flight rules. You can fly IFR in VMC, no problem ( no one stops you from flying on instrument rules in cloudless sunshine) , but you can't or lets say shouldn't in the strongest sense of the word, do the opposite, fly VFR in IMC. (because besides the legal issues, in the worst case , you re now in a cloud area , without an adequately equipped / instrumented aircraft and you as a pilot might not have the necessary qualifications for navigating/flying safely under these weather conditions) here are a few links with some deeper information on the topic, if you re interested. The official FAA one (last link has lots of good free book material on all that stuff), check their "instrument flying handbook" it gives a good idea of what flying IFR entails. https://skybrary.aero/index.php/Instrument_Meteorological_Conditions_(IMC) https://skybrary.aero/index.php/Visual_Meteorological_Conditions_(VMC) https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ Kind regards, Snappy

@Alpenwolf, thank you very much for your in-depth reply and explaining / giving a bit of a look inside your thinking . I appreciate it man! I agree, it's "unfortunate" ( in the cold war context that is ) that ED is doing the -D instead of -A Model, or even better the AH-1 (though I guess, even when or if it comes , it will be one of its newer versions). The wait & see approach is fine for me. In a more general sense, (this is now my personal opinion only) I much prefer having less modules available and more authenticity in regards to cold war era, including the problems arising from that. I mean, whether people like it or not, Helicopters being a major problem for fighter jets isn't necessarily unrealistic, especially not with cold war technology, Just look up the results/conclusions from the J-CATCH (late 70s/early 80)s experiment if you haven't already . Pretty eye-opening I'd say. Nowadays it might be different, with improvements in radar & filter computing technology and ability to detect even small targets over ground. But during the cold war things were different. Yes, unfortunately we are far from complete equipment for both sides, so gameplay will always be somewhat affected , but personally I'd prefer to keep it strictly CW- unit wise. So for helicopters that would mean UH-1 for blue, Hind and Mi-8 for red. Yea, I know, blue 's got a disadvantage with limited attack capability there, but hey then again, they get the F-14A on the jets side , which is a major asset with its radar. Either way, each side likely has to focus on their respective strength and try to exploit the others weaknesses and some advantages can be reduced or offset by quantaty management . I guess you 're already doing good job at trying to keep things from getting to shifted into one sides favor . Well, as I said, in the end its your server, that was just my personal position on what constitutes a real cold war server. On the positive side, it looks like quite a few cold war era aircraft are coming our way, with Mirage F-1 , Mig-23, F-8 and so on. Hopefully that will allow a gradual phase out of all the non-CW units like the Harrier as you mentioned. Sorry for the long rambling discourse. I'm not that often on the server, mostly due to time constraints on my side, but I very much like that you're focussing on CW scenarios and find it very re-freshing compared to all the generic 2000 & post 2000 setups usually around. So thanks a lot for your server and the efforts you put in there. Kind regards, Snappy

What again is exactly „cold war“ about the AH-64D? I mean the KA-50 is already stretching it thin with a lot of creative imagination. But the AH-64D? Sorry no way. The first prototype flew only in 1992 and I think it entered regular service in 97. Both events definitely well after the end of the cold war and the soviet union. I mean , of course in the end its Alpenwolfs server and he can decide what he wants to do or not, but I really have problems seeing why you want keep calling it a „cold war“ server when there are plenty units and their avionics that simply didnt exist in any form during the cold war. Probably it’s supposed to be a cheap stand-in for the original AH-64A, but the capabilities the thing has, even in single digit numbers and the tactics it’s capable of due its avionics simply do not belong into that era.. I don’t really understand where the limit is for the cold war definition. At some point its better to drop the cold war pretense and rename the server. Otherwise how about accepting that some shiny new toys just cant be used here and strive for some authenticity instead? This is not an attempt at trolling ,just trying to discuss what the sense of a CW server is, when lots of newer stuff is pushed in. regards, Snappy

Be that as it may, it doesn’t seem to stop them from keeping constantly promoting it, just see the latest newsletter. I find that pretty annoying, given the bugs present in many FC3 modules , which have been there a long time. Regards, Snappy

Ok, just in case anyone else has the problem with getting directly into F10 view,being unable to get into cockpit view and fly the aircraft after starting any mission. My problem was solved after installeing this library package. It is different from the one Reverend Kyle linked earlier on. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/the-latest-supported-visual-c-downloads-2647da03-1eea-4433-9aff-95f26a218cc0 Thanks a lot to the very helpful & friendly guys in the A-4e Discord server, they sorted me out with that one. Great support there ! Kind regards, Snappy

@Reverend Kyle, yes it does. @ Baco the folder structure is as you mentioned . Inside the mods/aircrafts/A-4ec/ and then the various subfolders. Not sure about the source code. I downloaded the upper most file of the 3. Not the Tar and not the source code. I'll try their discord channel now. Thanks a lot anyway for your ideas guys. Kind regards, Snappy

Strange, I have the same problem, with being put directly into F10 map view after loading any mission. However I definitely installed into saved games folder and when I tried to install the aforementioned c++ library I got message saying that my system already has a newer version of the library installed. Any other ideas? I followed the instruction for install and deleted the old A-4 and keybinding folders first. regards, Snappy

@ED, can we please get an update for this? Its getting ridiculous. The aircraft was released years ago and despite Wags claim that this is going to be fixed you still can't navigate, since you dont know which waypoint you 're going to. Regards, Snappy

Thanks man, I'll gonna try that technique out! I think I was under the Miss-impretation, that the Skhval TV sensor was housed in the mountable pod on centrestation, hence my question to Ironhand above, but it seems the pod is only for IR/LLTV enhancement. The manual isnt all that clear on the sensors. Regards, Snappy.

@Ironhand& @MAXsenna, maybe you're right , I really hadn't thought that the problem might be that I'm min-ranging the Antiradiation missiles. Can't really say since the range bar on the left shows no markings , could be the min range is actually above the scale and therefore no tick is shown on the range scale. That would explain it. @Ironhand: Excuse my ignorance, what exactly do you mean by the Skhval? The LLTV system for targeting? Unfortunately it seems I can bring either one or the other (fantasmagoria or LLTV pod ), but not both , since the centreline station supports only of them. Kind regards, Snappy

No I think we re talking past each other. Its not that the Shilka turns off its radar ( sure in real life something the operator might try) the radar is on and emitting, otherwise the fantasmagoria pod couldnt pick it up. You can even designate it in the HUD and is stays on/cued as the target and is tracked the whole time. And well within range of the two types of anti-radiation missiles. But I can't actually launch the missiles, because I never get the "NP" launch authorization. Or were you guys actually able to launch either the KH58 or KH22MPU at it? Regards, Snappy

Hi, is there a reason why you can't engage the ZSU-23-4 with the KH-58 or KH-22MPU antiradiation missile? After all it has a search and track radar, which the fantasmagoria pod picks up and you can even designate it as a target with the pod. However you never get launch authorization for the missiles, so you can't fire them. I'm not sure whether there is a technical reason for this, i.e. a real limitation of the weapon system (i.e. Shilka uses different frequency band which the missiles cant lock on to , or something along those lines) or is this a bug? It would definitely come in handy to be able to pick them off with stand off missiles. Kind regards, Snappy

@Rex Hi Rex, yes, air combat against human opponents is vastly different to fighting the AI. Besides the DCS AI is suboptimal to put it mildly. That people change slots once in they are in a disadvantaged position to avoid getting shot down seems to be a bad trend lately, but usually either in the guns only area or air area, not so much in 1v1 fortunately. to your questions: Regarding 1v1 fights in the 1v1 areas, the usual procedure is after winning a fight you should eject too or at least re-select your aircraft slot. That way you and your opponent both are reset to a neutral start head to head. Otherwise its usually unfair, like you said , either you are low on fuel/ammo , but also in the opposite sense, you are now much lighter and therefore more maneuverable, plus you could get into an advantageous position before your opponent gets into the game again. As for the canopy rule, I never noticed that, strange, can only imagine that some people for whatever reason open canopy in midflight to make it rip off and fly convertible-style. So just fly like normal people with canopy closed and you should be alright. so welcome to the server, have fun. BTW , if you re using tacview to analyse your fights, I think the JDF server in greece doesn’t support it ( there is a workaround with replay tracks) but the other JDF server in germany does .Just so you dont wonder, why your tacview file might seem corrupted when you fly on the (usually more popular) server based in greece. kind regards, Snappy

Nice graphic, but there is close to zero information under which exact conditions with which loadout for which aircraft the comparisons were made. Of course a bomb truck F-15E with its typical AG plus AA self defense loadout plus full conformal fuel tanks will be sluggish and fare worse compared to a spritely F-15c with only air to air loadout for a CAP in those rated areas. No suprise that the Strike Eagle got worse marks all around. However (if you just wanted to use it for air to air) and would give it only an air to air loadout, with maybe 2 missiles less and only 75% fuel, you'd get much better performance out of it. The airframes itself are very very similar. Yes slightly more weight for the -E, but also an uprated engine, which however not completely offsets the weight I think. Thats why I wrote 80-90%. Point is, someone who wants to do air-air with it, can do it almost as well with the Strike eagle. Question is, are the people who want the remaining few % capability , plus the purists who want to specifically have a -C Model enough to warrant developement? ED doesnt seem to think so. Regards, Snappy

While it would certainly be cool to have , I think ED stated in one of their recent interviews ( can't remember which one exactly) they have no intention of doing it. Guess the potential market share is too small after the Strike Eagle, since apparently the majority of people want AG / multirole capabilities and the -E will cater to that much much better while still retaining roughly 80-90 % of the air-to-air potential of the F15c performancewise when equipped with and air to air loadout. Don't get me wrong. Personally I'd much prefer the pure Air to Air -c Variant ,or even the Vintage -A , but the chance of it materializing is very very small in my personal opinion. Regards, Snappy.

@fat creason Ok, thank you very much fat creason for your efforts and the quick reply to my question! Very kind of you. Glad to hear the slat schedule rework made it in . Kind regards, Snappy

@fat creason, did the subsonic slat schedule change make it into today's fix? I can't find it in the F-14 patch notes, but I know not everything is listed sometimes. Kind regards, Snappy

Hi Flighter, is there any chance to give the Mig-29 A&S a bit more fuel for the 1v1 slots? They spawn with only around 1.5 Tons, which unfortunately is next to nothing for the guzzler that the Mig-29 is. You usually get the first cautions after one or two turns. If that could be increased to 2.5 tons that would be kind. Otherwise a lot of fights end soon because the Mig is simply out of fuel. Kind regards & thanks for the fun server! Snappy

"More balanced"? Theres near-zero danger of that.. You're already once again getting the most advanced kit in form of a very modern attack helicopter for blue side , while redfor needs to make do with a flying (admittedly famous) battle tank from the 70s&80s and a one-off Attack helicpter that has neither radar nor RWR for that matter, and you re still talking about balancing in your favor ? Lets not get into all the arguments against balancing, its a simulation, but the way things are odds are heavily tilted into blueforce's favor in DCS and will be for the foreseeable future , so really , I don't see the need to add even more capability. Personally I hope ED does not cave in again at this as with the F-16 triple maverick racks & 4 HARMS points , but not holding my breath for that. Maybe for once, just take it as you get it and make do with what you have, through tactics or piloting skills.It's not like you have to stick only to ground targets even with the projected equipment for the module Regards, Snappy

Hi, sorry if this is a dumb question. I know next to nothing about the details of the F-14 variant delivered to Iran but am curious about this one and if by off chance, someone knows this one. I know the F-14s used by the Navy cannot receive signals from civilian ILS , only the carrier-based ILS. However I wondered whether the iranian cats had different receivers installed with money probably not being much of an issue in order to fly land-based ILS approaches in inclement weather ? Guess not, probably they could make do with just TACAN or PAR approaches . This is not about the features of the persian Tomcat version we get from Heatblur, its more curiosity about the real aircraft that were ordered back then by the IIRIAF. Kind regards, Snappy

@3WA I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them? Also, if really 90% of their customers are playing SP ,its really ridiculous that they haven’t fixed the AI and their FM years ago. Its so broken that it really takes the fun out of SP air to air. ok if you re content with zapping them BVR with Aim 120s is likely doesnt make a difference.Lets not talk of the antics your supposedly friendly wingmen pull off. @Aburro You misunderstood me. I don‘t expect to get served for free. Personally , I have don’t have much interest in ground units anyway so I dont care if they are modelled in detail or not, or whether specific units are available in game or not. However the future IADS module project showed that you can still find a way to sell the module while not excluding people who don’t own it from participating in missions that feature it. In my opinion that the is a good way to forward. Its not my problem or my business model, but I don‘t think DCS will thrive in the long run if it becomes solely focused on ultra hardcore simmers that buy multiple asset packs and addons just to participate in MP missions or to make use of certain SP campaigns. And btw about that „getting served for free“: ED already got money from people who bought CA and still has not gotten that module done well it seems. Or just sell DCS 3.0 for price X and include all that stuff in core. regards, Snappy