Harlikwin

Well, maybe the new patch broke stuff again... Certainly wouldn't be the first time, though you'd hope the testers would catch something that obvious.

Yup, the IADS guys bailed, no one knows why. I think they took one look at the spaghetti and bailed myself, or maybe not. While most of the earlier missile systems are known, plenty of the later ones are still sensitive. But ultimately its a very non trivial task. Consider the DCS SA-2, like literally the oldest, widest used SAM system in the world, totally disrespected in DCS. In DCS the model of how an SA-2 processes targets and engages them has little to do with reality. Its like a hold over from whatever 90's sam code they have. In DCS its oh look mr search radar with the 2 picks you up lat ti dah I'm flying along and there is that 2 over there, whatever. Oh and then see this it locks you when you are in max range [2]. That might be worrysome but I have time, and finally brrrring there goes the launch and here comes mr telephone pole so I have to do drop a few chaff and point at the ground. The missile will "lead" me and crash into the ground long before it hits me cuz its using prop-nav. In reality, the actual site would not be radiating at all, the fan-song is an engagement radar only, you wouldn't know it was there (unless intel told you). The EWR "search radar" would literally be miles away from the site, and it would likely be a set of EWR's some transmitting some held in reserve some moving to a new location. So, then the battery commander gets a call, hey you've got some poor hapless schmuck inbound, he will be in your engagement envelope in 5 minutes, currently heading is 345 speed 500, altitude 10k. Battery commander trains the Fan-song radar at the location where you will as reported by the EWR. When the in-range command is given, boom lights on. In "search mode" they will localize you fairly quickly, since they already know fairly well where to lock, and bang "track". Now launch, but your RWR may or may not know about it since the missile is command guided to an intercept point using one of 3 "lead modes" that I will over simplify to Prop nav, 1/2 prop nav, and the 3 point (draw a line between the radar the missile and you) mode. If the lead is actually enough the command channel for the missile is a narrow beam the RWR may not catch initially. What that SA-2 launch looks more like this, oh well, yep there are some search radars out there... La-ti-dah... Oh a 2 on the RWR uh... And few seconds later the [2], hmm thats a problem, oh look I see big smoke trails... Wait smoke trails, crap... Now the RWR goes brrring when they are more than halfway to me. Dive and chaff, crap they are headed straight for me since the SAM operator isn't a moron and has switched them to 3 point so it won't fly into the ground... BIG boom, now I'm dead. So even for a simple and extremely well known system its really badly modeled, both from the engagement sequence standpoint and especially from the missile guidance standpoint. This is also assuming a modern RWR that knows the missile, knows all the frequencies used and so forth. VN era RWR's would not always know this stuff, for example the launch detect stuff had to be added to earlier RWRs that only could detect the track radar, and of course none of them cared about the search radars. And then modeling the ECM to use against these, you have to consider ok, how good is the operator, and oh wait which version of the sa-2 do we have to consider because for example some of them had ECCM to angle jamming techniques that were commonly employed and so on and so forth. Or another common technique is actually to mess with the radio-prox fuse to get it to detonate early (also why everyone went to optical fuses) etc. So it gets stupidly complicated stupidly fast. And I think the average joe DCS player clamoring for better ECM modeling has 0 clue.

Yup entirely this. Like ED could do VN era ECM/EW/SAM stuff, but its a huge task. Frankly I think they will come up with some rock/paper/scissors solution, which if done well might be ok. But it also means getting every 3rd party on board and having realistic jamming effects etc on their scopes. And it also means updating the entire way SAMs/IADS works in DCS as well. And then adding AI standoff jammers and so forth. I.e. crazy complex and debatably "fun".

Yeah, thats the interview I'm referring to. And the fact there were training plugs for it means that the capability 100% existed if needed. And really thats all that matters for DCS. In reality, the germans never bought the ER/ET. The soviets were mostly using them on SU-27's and so forth, but "it could" if needed. I mean this is DCS after all and we have triple mav racks on our vipers for this exact reason. TBH, the way the AGM-88B was likely used was just in a pre-plan mode. So literally all the 29 pilot did was fly to a WP, and yarf it off on a predetermined heading.

What the other guy said, the crowd that wants the most modern most capable module.

Neat, learned something today, thanks.

I've used the gaz on PG MP servers at least sorta recently without issue. And aside from the hilariously terrible sight modeling it was fine.

Yeah exactly. I expect the FF mig will actually be "harder" for most players to use compared too the over simplified FC3 stuff. Which well is a good thing, aero-quakers and the "my capabilities" crowd aside. The radar IF modeled well (and I have serious doubts here based on the current trajectory) should be far harder to use from both a switchology and human engineering standpoint, and it should have a variety of issues such as clutter down low, and also in lookdown in certain terrain, the signal processing computer on the base 9.12 would overload in various situations which I hope is modeled, but I doubt it will be. Also if its modeled correctly, (again doubts/reservations), the KOLS should be significantly less capable than the magic IRST it is in DCS. According to RL pilots the IRST functionality was mostly useless due to various issues such as clutter, its also a PbSe sensor which means its gonna be limited/problematic/glitchy when dealing with frontal aspect targets. What KOLS was actually good at was cueing missiles to targets via the HMS and providing passive gun solutions. Which is what it was actually designed to do, not work as some sort of uber-IRST. Also for this to work at all ED will have to put some serious time into improving their entire IR simulation, which again I have my doubts will go well. Overall if the sensor modeling is actually good, it should put an end to the various cockroaching FC3 memes we see in MP. I do also expect some improvements (or maybe downgrades in reality) to the FM as well, there were various limits on the jet that aren't represented in the FC version. And honestly ED does IMO make pretty good FM's for their modules in general. In the context of the DCS environment and MP. I think its just gonna depend on the server and server owners ultimately. While this jet will be more capable than most red jets, its not a modern jet, so its going to suffer there. I think it will work very well on pre-fox3 servers like tempests/blueflag that limit the fox3 side of the game. And I think the 29 will be lethal at the merge as it was IRL. At any rate I'm excited for it and the 23. Interesting. However they couldn't get AAMRAMs to desert storm for live fire testing? At least this is what recall hearing. It absolutely could and did. There are interviews with USAF exchange pilots using the training plugs for the ER/ET in the 90's with the E. German 9.12s. Now the E. Germans didn't buy any ER/ET, kinda like the CZ 9.12s only carried R60M, but the 9.12 could use ER/ET. E. German 9.12 had training plugs for the ER/ET. So they could use them, just didn't buy any.

Yup, altitude and an overloaded chopper don't work. Which is realistic. Previously the gaz was pretty immune to "physics". But the new FM absolutely accounts for weight and altitude, so it can get ugly. Weight and altitude are major issues for the Gaz. I seldom take more than 50% fuel, esp if carrying missiles etc.

Just to pick a nit, you can hardly consider the KOLS a 2nd gen IRST. It was a 14 element line scanned PbSe sensor... Which means it had severe limitations with all aspect engagement of targets. For what it was supposed to do (lock/cue missiles in a dogfight) this is fine. But calling it a "2nd gen" IRST is a serious stretch.

I mean, they could have low key been working on it the past few years which means it might be soon, but I'd expect more like 2025/2026 if not.

Too bad ED is not using those models for their stuff and has doubled down on FC3 quality radars.

Still largely irrelevant IMO. We got the J8PP cuz it never served, I'm sure IF they could have done a similar era J8 that did they might have done it.

Given that you can goto a library and check them out, yeah I'd say they are open source.

Mostly just rumors. Supposedly they are going back to the Fox1 API and finally putting the R27 etc on it. Hopefully they fix the 530's as well.

From the soviet side, tons of documents are available on ECM/EW/Sam stuff well past VN... Literally manuals are out there for all of the single digit soviet sams, with EW stuff baked in. Same for red ARM's, same for jammers like the 141, etc. The way ED/DCS handles sams/ECM overall is generally really bad and mostly IMO it is not a documentation problem, its a developer/talent problem. I mean, when your "simulator" can't simulate clouds, how good is it gonna do with more complex things.

So I posted this resource for SAM sites, and any other associated modeling. Sat images from the 1970's, so it should generally cover fixed sites there. Honestly the best historical map for this would be circa ~1970. I'm sure there is a ton of declassified Corona imagery of the area due to the fact you had 2 wars there 67/73 in very short order so while not quite "google" maps ease of access, the actual imagery does exist to pretty good levels of resolution (6 foot resolution). https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-declassified-data-declassified-satellite-imagery-1 And aside from doing the airbases, you'd basically just be deleting most of the cities on the map and maybe adding farms, as the were like 1/5 the size or something like that in terms of population. Yuup... Here are some "large" area photos, there a ton more in more detailed resolution too. Like 37 pages worth with IDK how many images per page 50? null

Yay this worked! Thanks!

I managed to fix it. the new SteamVR update was screwing it up.

Mine was working fine in 2.9. However now OpenXR and DCS are not playing nice as of today, the only thing that changed was the steamVR update as far as I can tell. DCS now is locked to 10fps. Anyone else seeing this?

Oi vey So DCS is broke. Something updated today (steamVR?) and now DCS is locked at 10fps on the damn load screen and everywhere else using the Varjo OpenXR. This was also the case for MSFS (11fps there). MSFS will work with the steam version of openXR back to normal. DCS will work with the Steam version only on the load screen (90FPS) but then promptly crash if trying to load anything even the ME... Anyone else seeing this? I literally reinstalled 2.9 2 days ago and it was FINE. Also, OpenVR does work, but its all distorted (cross eye?) IDK.

With regard to the seeker settings. I'm pretty sure this had to be set on the ground, which could be set via knee-board stuff. You guys are doing the shrike, which this is more or less a miniaturized version of that last seeker with some improvements, albeit with a much smaller antenna which isn't going to couple well to lower frequency radars. It is a bit of an assumption but the 7 "bands" are likely pre-sets for various soviet systems in use at that time, or at least portions of a given band that would contain one or more threats that would be differentiated by things like freqency/prf etc. Given that the operating frequencies/prfs of most of these radars are known (and I assume you or HB have them in the new RWR model) if not I can point you to them. The key distinctions here would be that its very likely this missile can only engage "track" radars rather than search radars that are of course much lower in frequency. Given that, the most likely systems its going to be looking for on 1980's battlefield are going to be primarily on the SHORAD side of the equation, so stuff like ZSU-23, SA-8, sa-15 as likely its primary threats (which also both conveniently operate at around 14Ghz). I'd also assume systems like Sa-6, and Sa-11 would also be of interest, and then possibly Sa-2/3 with the various sub-variants of this likely eating up different bands it could pick up. I very much doubt it could/would target stuff like the SA-4/5/10 etc.

I think there is significant demand for the older 70s/80's "red" modules, which you guys have shown you can do well (i.e. the Mi-24).

Ah yes, the famous sukhoi runes.

Well, its pretty apples and oranges. Aerodynamically the F-13 was much lighter and more maneuverable than the bis, but had a weaker engine. The bis is kind of a pig compared to the F13 aerodynamically and much heavier. Otherwise the F13 was basically a guns fighter, but in VN service it could carry 2 R3S (improved aim9B) missiles. Unlike the Bis it had no radar beyond a rangfinder for the gun, and weird canopy arrangement as well (poor forward view). The DCS bis is a very poor stand-in for a VN era F-13... And overall the bis in DCS is quite dated and has a bunch of problems and inaccuracies with alot of its systems.