deadpool

It's actually the most fun with multiplayer. Let's say you have two people, then you have three Tacview files (You can view either one of them to see all people and all missiles and stuff). But having all three gives you the ultimate pleasure of seeing how missiles that you saw and recorded behave in one way (your tacview), behave differently on the server .. and even more so on the other clients. A pure joy :-)

Whatever it is tracking is outside the seekers field of view in the beginning for sure.

AA for F-16 is good, but quickly turns sour given: - Datalink with AWACS does go on and off - Datalink with AWACS generally means everyone is your friend (that's a lie btw) - Datalink with buddies only works if you're on BLUE side (wtf?) - AIM120C missile guidance is just kek at the moment, but it's reported and let's see what's happening - ACM modes, especially boresight and helmet mounted locking are an insult - Radar drops target when switching to DGFT mode - Some other smaller radar bugs that will drive you nuts at times - IFF is unrealiable (you need to do multiple IFF checks, as they sometimes just don't give you any result) - RWR not having proper sounds And since this has been the status of the F-16 for the last few months, I don't expect much to happen there. So yeah .. don't go with the F-16 unless you are already loving it and stomach a bit of frustration and the game actually trying to teach you wrong techniques to get things done. Which is the most horrible thing a so called simulation can actually do. But ACM, TPOD, they all teach you wrong things about how it's supposed to be.

The F-16 and F-5 are similarily sized, while the F-5 is only about half the weight of the F-16, making it more susceptible to wind. Yet the F-5 in DCS doesn't show this behaviour. Either the F-5 also needs to be made a feather in the wind (even more strongly so than the F-16) or it's a defect. I tend to lean towards the defect bit. But hey, this is going to be the most realistic F-16 simulation on the market so let's see ...

Dwell time! Yes! Precisely! Thank you!

Track file added for an STT lock that generates a warning on both sides. Then the SAM lock doesn't generate a warning all the way in. Also in this track file are the famous defects: - Helmet boresight ACM is broken - My car distance beeper reacts quicker than my scan modes - My FPM goes up and down when changing speed TAW_PG_TOP_GUN_DGF_v1.2-20200519-003931.trk

tables fixed.

Simple logic: SAM is a mode that combined RWS with STT. It does so by interrogating a target like in STT for an amount of time (t %) and then commands a RWS of the surrounding area for (1-t %) of the time. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it's 50/50. Now the math is simple: You transmit something with a steady power, and the resulting energy at range is dimished by the square for each increase in range. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law ) Lets have an example of just the STT portions of radar energy at different distances: The unit of power doesn't matter as this is just comparative. STT (100% duty cycle) +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | distance (nm) | received power | duty cycle | received power (average) | RWR in DCS | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 1 | 1.000.000 | STT (100%) | 1.000.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 2 | 250.000 | STT (100%) | 250.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 3 | 111.111 | STT (100%) | 111.111 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 4 | 62.500 | STT (100%) | 62.500 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 5 | 40.000 | STT (100%) | 40.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 6 | 27.778 | STT (100%) | 27.778 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 7 | 20.408 | STT (100%) | 20.408 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 8 | 15.625 | STT (100%) | 15.625 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 9 | 12.345 | STT (100%) | 12.345 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 10 | 10.000 | STT (100%) | 10.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ Now for SAM with 50% duty cycle +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | distance (nm) | received power | duty cycle | received power (average) | RWR in DCS | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 1 | 1.000.000 | SAM (50%) | 500.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 2 | 250.000 | SAM (50%) | 125.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 3 | 111.111 | SAM (50%) | 55.556 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 4 | 62.500 | SAM (50%) | 31.250 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 5 | 40.000 | SAM (50%) | 20.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 6 | 27.778 | SAM (50%) | 13.889 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 7 | 20.408 | SAM (50%) | 10.204 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 8 | 15.625 | SAM (50%) | 7.813 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 9 | 12.345 | SAM (50%) | 6.173 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 10 | 10.000 | SAM (50%) | 5.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ And now mix it and sort by received power (average): +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | distance (nm) | received power | duty cycle | received power (average) | RWR in DCS | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 1 | 1.000.000 | STT (100%) | 1.000.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 1 | 1.000.000 | SAM (50%) | 500.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 2 | 250.000 | STT (100%) | 250.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 2 | 250.000 | SAM (50%) | 125.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 3 | 111.111 | STT (100%) | 111.111 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 4 | 62.500 | STT (100%) | 62.500 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 3 | 111.111 | SAM (50%) | 55.556 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 5 | 40.000 | STT (100%) | 40.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 4 | 62.500 | SAM (50%) | 31.250 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 6 | 27.778 | STT (100%) | 27.778 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 7 | 20.408 | STT (100%) | 20.408 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 5 | 40.000 | SAM (50%) | 20.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 8 | 15.625 | STT (100%) | 15.625 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 6 | 27.778 | SAM (50%) | 13.889 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 9 | 12.345 | STT (100%) | 12.345 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 7 | 20.408 | SAM (50%) | 10.204 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 10 | 10.000 | STT (100%) | 10.000 | beepbeepbeep| +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 8 | 15.625 | SAM (50%) | 7.813 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 9 | 12.345 | SAM (50%) | 6.173 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ | 10 | 10.000 | SAM (50%) | 5.000 | silent | +---------------+----------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------+ Now this doesn't sound right.

new engineer = unexperienced = more bugs? I am by now just hoping that every new release doesn't bork the things even more. Also that the supercarrier won't tank performance more than it already is.

We did a BVR training this weekend and I just want to take the missile shots from that and put it into a wall of text. I understand that this thread is about drag and lift, so the Flightmodel ... But the guidance is a joke as well. It's as if the AIM-120 (and I hear the Phoenix is using the same base "AI"?) is really absurd. While I can only estimate how close this is to reallife, I would fear for NATO pilots if this is close to the truth.

Thank you for the effort of confirming this. I want to buy you a beer now, please PM if you accept :-)

Don't hope too much or you'll be disappointed! :-) I just hope that not too many new defects get introduced and that my sense of humor helps me with the rest.

The radar in DCS in general is *very* abstract and great cause for not calling it a simulation but a game. If you are in an F-16 flying within Line of Sight of another F-16 which is cold at supersonic speeds, you will despite the VERY VERY hefty doppler component NOT be able to pick up that F-16 after exactly 20nm ......... (at low altitude and thus (i suspect) automated medium PRF conditions) Just "WTF" things. What notching does to missiles (especially in look up conditions) is a joke as well and adds a very strong arcade component to the game. But you have to accept these things I guess.

Do you mean this kind of stutter? at 2m07s into the video? If so I might still have the track from that and it would be reasonably short.

That bit about it raising the nose should be compensated by the FLCS immediatly, as it trims you for 1g regardless of your speed in change. This is currently something that is quite pronounced in DCS and I reported it as a defect for the time being.

Hi Wood. Whose solution are you using? HC_official's? Deadpool

The FLCS is damn fast and it should stay exactly at level. Yes the tendency would be to pitch when thrust changes, BUT the FLCS would work that out quicker than later.

The radar "power" (effective emitted energy) is both the same for TWS and RWS. The only difference is what is done to the return signals and the quality it needs to be integrated over time into a track.

SAM is essentially a time shared STT lock with limited RWS around it. It should behave the same as STT in terms of launching. It is no TWS just a time shared STT lock and launch essentially.

You would use SAM because it is essentially a more stable lock (not just track) as TWS, while also having marginal coverage of the surrounding area. Basically RWS and TWS scan the whole volume you selected ... RWS gives you dots. what TWS adds is "connecting the dots" over the dimension of time (creating tracks from them). And STT is basically you focusing solely on that one target. Here comes SAM. SAM essentially does an STT on a target, but then switches to RWS to scan a small block around that target .. then goes back into STT. Afaik the cycle is every 2 seconds. A RWR would usually pick up on that and give you the same warning as for an STT, as it detects a high pulse repetition frequency, combined with a lot of energy in a short amount of time (you're being focused). Hope this helps, Deadpool

LTWS is Hornet. SAM is Viper. In general, the alarm bells of a target will go off only if you lock them in STT and only STT (which is also that what ACM modes result in).

Yes, it should be having a caret, but that notation isn't in, yet. I think. Also you should be able to hear the audible differences of both radars if they lock you. But that's a whole different story.

To be fair, we had a wednesday patch after it was reported as internally fixed. And it was not in there, so .. can happen .. It's there when it's there. :-)

My sources which I will not post here tell me nothing about a change in master mode when doing selective jettison. :-) They would usually do write that there if it would happen.

ah, gotcha!