Noctrach

I mean even with perfect damage modeling sometimes a vehicle will just get lucky. The weaknesses of the current modeling have been discussed at length, even in this thread. 2*BK-90-MJ2 will dispense 48 bomblets, if these land within "armor penetration range" it does a lot of damage. If they don't, they do no damage. So it's just a matter of statistics. Honestly, it still consistently takes out a good chunk of the area even with DCS's flaws. Just make sure you use the right variants, for 2x BK-90: Mixed targets, use the MJ1-MJ2 for a total of 24 HEAT and 72 HE-frag bomblets Hard targets, use the MJ2 for a total of 48 HEAT bomblets Soft targets, use the MJ1 for a total of 144 HE-frag bomblets Make sure you set the dispersal properly for target area (f1000 for long, 2000 for wide, 3000 for compact) Naturally you shouldn't be expecting to lay waste to a group of tanks, you'll take out 1-3 at most. IFVs will get damaged or killed pretty reliably. Trucks will pretty much get annihilated. SAM sites are affected the worst by the simple modeling, but if want to guarantee it to die, bring a wingman. 4x BK-90 MJ1 wide area... won't leave much standing. As @P61 says, don't expect Hollywood effects and temper your expectations for effect on armor to be quite a bit more binary than realistic. Do your mission planning and the Viggen's weapons (ARAK, M/71, BK-90, RB-05) will have good effects.

Idk man, it's known that DCS models no fragmentation so you'll always have some issues with area attacks on soft targets with stuff like HE rounds or unguided rockets. Then there is the simplified damage model adding another bit on top. But M/71 is one of the least "affected" I would say... The scenario you describe results in complete annihilation with a level release from 350m. Even against similarly grouped BMP-1s, the destruction is quite severe. Not bad for 120kg bombs. It only starts getting weird when you start involving T-55s and the like, but only because they can't be "mission-killed" through detracking/optics destruction etc. And any weapon that can do this to a conga line of T-72s is fine until we get a better damage model

Gun still consistently undershoots on Caucasus and NTTR. What's interesting is that it hits pretty accurately on higher elevations (QFE 850 or less), but gets worse the closer you get to sea level QFE. Seems there's something off in ballistic calculations for the gunsight. ViggenAKANShort.trk ViggenAKANShort2.trkViggenAKANAccurate.trk

Gonna bump this up, LYSBOMB profile is still incorrect. Bombs still fall vertically instead of horizontally.

Hey, The Viggen module corrupts random bindings for ALL devices if a virtual HID device is connected. I'm using TARGET to rebind some functionality of my Warthog throttle. This works fine in all other modules, including the F-14. Mapping all my buttons yesterday worked perfectly fine and persisted among sessions. However, after rebooting my PC, all Viggen bindings have become corrupted. As seen below, it also corrupts bindings that are not even connected to the virtual throttle, or even unbound entirely. They remain nonfunctional even if the virtual throttle is completely unbound. Only disconnecting the virtual throttle restores keybind functionality. Device ID remains the same between sessions, none of the other modules have ever had any difficulties.

As per title: What exactly is the logic for the LEVEL bombing modes? The following is described in manual for CCIP (PLAN/NAV, unsafe) This fragment zone warning is shown all the way up to ~150 metres AGL for mach 0.75+ release speeds. Is this correct/intended? As comparison, Mk-82S high-drag 500 lbs bombs in the F-5E weapons deployment manual have a listed safe release altitude of 100ft/30m at 0.75 IMN. This number is for a level release without pull-up. Which brings me to my next question, the manual states the following about the arming time: However, even at 50m and a fall time of less than 2 seconds, the bombs will explode just fine on impact. Is the arming time correct? Then with the low-drag mode (PLAN/ANF, unsafe) The manual states a release altitude of about 200m. When following the above steps at speeds of mach 0.75+ at 200m AGL, HUD symbology will rapidly slide below the lowered HUD glas. At altitudes below 200m AGL, it just disappears altogether. Pulling and holding the trigger will force the symbology back into the centre of the HUD. Fragmentation warnings in the low-drag level release mode aren't given until about 100m AGL, though you can't see it before pulling the trigger for reason mentioned above. This corresponds roughly to the altitude where you risk taking damage if not executing a 4G pull-up post-release. This further highlights the discrepancy in the high-drag fragment warning. What are the reasons for the weird behaviours in these modes? Bugged or working as intended?

An amazing update to bring the Viggen that much closer to completion. The highlights: That afterburner is ridiculously nice New EP13 stuff is excellent However, there's also some bugs and issues: Performance of game goes into the single digits when using 60 km radar setting at low level for extended periods. This is the only major/gamebreaking one I've found so far Lighting attenuation for external model means external lights and afterburner turn almost entirely invisible outside of about 5000 feet (impossible to rejoin at night) HUD glass is invisible on rainy days, HUD lines look odd and HUD lighting dial only seems to work one way Radar brightness is very overpowering, I need to dial it down to about 20-30% intensity during daylight missions to make out anything. Could it be ED changed something with the lighting model for 2.7 again right as you updated the internal and external lights to account for previous changes?

My issue is rather intermittent, a couple frames at a certain angle at most. I haven't found a way to consistently recreate it, but it looks identical when it happens.

RX 580, clean game, same issue in F-5 and F-16

You also do not expect every single missile to hit, and frequently lock stability is a greater concern than setting off RHAW gear. PD-STT has a couple advantages compared to TWS: Good range resolution, it allows sorting in most conditions. Ability to support multiple shots at the same target (TWS is limited to 1 missile per track until time-out). The target will not know when you fired follow-up missiles, so has to remain defensive until lock is broken. More flexibility with MLC. In TWS a sweep picking up a mountain peak in its volume will overloard the computer with ground returns, breaking the track. PD-STT is much more hardy against this happening, since you're tracking a much smaller volume of sky. TWS has a "silent" launch but the radar lock itself is much more fragile, even on modern fighters. Most doctrines expect STT inside certain ranges, once moving from sanitization to sorted. E.g. the Navy training intercept timeline for AMRAAM platforms still expects STT within 10 miles to ensure lock stability through the final conversion turn if I recall correctly. In fact, by supporting active missiles like the AIM-120 in STT you make notching virtually impossible, since the aircraft and seeker will be at different angles to the target. In the end, it's always about geometry and tactical considerations.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/259072-lower-lift-curve-slope-than-in-real-life-more-induced-drag/?do=findComment&comment=4540964

Yep, we're reading the same charts. ED originally designated our Viper as F-16CM Block 50, which translates to an F-16CJ with CCIP upgrade and the GE engines. It has a bit more thrust but also a bit more weight than the 16C. If you're starting on a HABFM (neutral) pass with some altitude and you go into 2C flow, I wouldn't stare myself blind on the sustained rate. Depending on gameplan I'd most likely go into one of the negative Ps curves for instantaneous rate and sustain my speed by going nose low. Gain some angles on the first turn, assess and follow up. (Nose-low sliceback is a classic rate fighter move) This is also incidently why I'm looking at charts of 10,000 ft or above. Altitude is speed, speed is life. Once you're below 5000 feet you should probably be ending the fight or escaping. Bottom line: horizontal sustained rate fighting is usually sub-par fighting, because you're not max performing your aircraft for either flow. Leave that for when you're still neutral by the time you hit the deck. In real life you'd just be exhausting yourself pulling G's for zero result.

It's not strange for aircraft to do this though. Every jet has a corner speed and every speed has a sustained G load. The discrepancy is in how fast aircraft lose/gain knots when they go above or below that G load. F-16 vs F/A-18C is a cropped delta vs a relatively straight wing with LEX, it's high thrust to weight vs high alpha. The results in-game just don't really add up. Honestly, once the drag gets adjusted for the F-16 to gain quicker, we're probably in a much better spot already. Would most likely even solve the acceleration discrepancies.

This is a DCS-wide missile issue with chaff/notching mechanics that ED has confirmed they're working on. Two Weeks™

Noted, thanks for the heads up I figured a header wouldn't matter but I'll remove it

F110-GE-129

I was indeed looking at the MIL charts, but the point stands... the thrust does not change the handling characteristics or FLCS laws of the aircraft. For 15,000 feet max AB, your best performance is between 400-450 KCAS (0.78-0.88 IMN) with about 0.5 deg/s variance. Go down to 350 KCAS and you drop another 0.8 deg/s. So more than 100 KCAS speed loss results in a 1.3 deg/s reduction in turn rate. Meanwhile exceeding 0.88 IMN and it drops off sharply at about 0.7 degrees per 0.02 IMN. At sea level we see a similar story, peak sustained at 0.7 IMN/460 KCAS, peak instantaneous at 0.54 IMN/360 KCAS. Above 460 KCAS and you run into the 9G limiter, meaning you will have to ease off of the throttle. What a surprise, those are almost the exact same results as in MIL, except the Ps0 line has moved up. I'll repeat my response to your comment about him being "way low on speed" at 390-400 KCAS: he's not, anywhere between 350 and 450 is a good speed to be flying that gives a lot of tactical options. It's not peak sustained for a perfectly level horizontal turn, but that's for deck-groveling-BFM. You're looking at the highest point on the Ps0 line and going "Yep, that's it right there! Faster is gooder" which is not a good BFM gameplan. Besides, the Viper's turn capabilities are pretty much accurate with the docs for the 5% error margins I expect in a sim. Especially on an EA module. Personally, I think people who are obsessed with 1-2 deg/s differences are making too big a deal out of it. Both pilots need to be flying a perfectly level rate fight for multiple minutes for that to decide the outcome. It's a huge DCS-ism that relies on high aspect 1v1 gunzo BFM until bingo being the name of the game. Normally the Viper could just run or reset at any time. With regards to the FM, the way I see it, there's a couple of facts: The Viper's FM underperforms in induced drag and energy bleed rates, especially at speeds below 350 KCAS (you know, the speeds you will end up when you do an instantaneous rate excursion). Meaning you can max perform exactly once and then you struggle putting the knots back on. This has been confirmed by ED and will likely change in the future. The Hornet's FM might overperform in induced drag and energy bleed rates. We have no hard data so who knows, all we know is the FM is being re-evaluated for release. The Hornet's FM might overperform in turn rate. We have no clue because again there's no docs so we're just gonna have to assume DCS is correct. Stores drag in DCS follows no reasonable logic. (Double racks incurring less drag than single racks, jettisoned ordnance reducing drag below clean numbers, etc.) We have a combination of Viper docs, multiple corroborating pilot accounts, aerodynamic shape and a known, universal DCS FM deficiency hinting at the fact the problem is probably in the drag model. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet. The Viper is a thrust-to-weight 9G machine. It excels at doing short energy excursions and then getting those knots back with its massive engine. If it's too draggy to do that compared to its slow-speed AoA-monster opponent, then you simply don't have much to work with.

Massive overstatement that the real life manual disagrees with. 380-400 KCAS is right in in the middle of the F-16's rate band. The Viper has a huge Ps0 corner plateau that only drops 2 degrees between 0.8 all the way down to 0.54 IMN at 5000 feet. At 15,000 feet, the Ps0 curve is perfectly flat between 0.88 IMN (450 KCAS) and 0.7 (350 KCAS). At sea level the Ps0 curve peaks at 0.59 IMN (390 KCAS), dropping off 1 whole degree down to 0.4 and 1 degree down to 0.8. Meanwhile the quickest instantaneous turn rate possible is 24.1 deg/s 8G at 0.54 IMN (360 KCAS) at a MASSIVE energy bleed of -850 specific excess power, sea level obviously. That means for best performance you enter the merge with a nose-low, 9G slice at 450-460 KCAS and bleed down to your rate band at 390-420 for optimal performance. This aircraft was literally built to rate over a very broad speed-range. The Hornet was built to have extremely high AoA spikes, meaning a single enormous rate pull at the cost of a lot of speed. The E-M snippets I've seen also reflect this. The Viper's is a plateau, the Hornet's is a peak. The vertical should be the Viper's playground with its supreme thrust to weight, the slow horizontal is the Hornet's. The fact that it rates better at whatever altitude that fight was than the F-16CJ block 50's absolute fastest instantaneous sea level, without absolutely hemorrhaging knots, should tell you enough about the state of either jet's current drag model. At the end of the day we're fighting F-16DCS vs F/A-18DCS so use appriopriate tactics to the state of the game. Currently that means blowing through the merge at extreme speeds and taking things vertical, there's no gameplan to be had in the horizontal against a competent Hornet driver.

I'd be interested in the ICP if its still available, Ill pm

The MiG-31 has a PESA radar implemented in that trade-mark simplified DCS AI way which means its interaction with RWRs can be explained simply as <loud noises and erratic hand motions> Its also nigh-invulnerable to notching, though that might be close to the truth idk how those arrays work.

For a longer term solution there's a lot of things that they can improve with chaff to simulate it blooming, dropping below doppler gates and out of beam limits. There's the pull-off interaction with aircraft radars to consider, interaction with pulse vs pulse-doppler, interaction with ECM, etc. For the short term, reducing the lifetime to a single second would be a decent mimicry of chaff's interaction with PD radars, while literally only requiring a Lua value change. It would solve all the current issues at minimal effort and then they can revisit the entire ECM aspect of the sim for a thorough rework in Two Weeks™ Maybe something to consider @BIGNEWY

...and just reducing the chaff lifetime value to <1s instead of 8+ would mitigate 95% of these issues and make everything behave much more believably at nearly zero developer time invested. But I guess thats too pragmatic a solution...

Pulse has its own issues you wouldn't have with PD though, such as ambiguous doppler information and high susceptibility to chaff. Pulse mode in the F-14 is LPRF (accurate range, ambiguous closure), where Pulse-Doppler is HPRF (accurate closure, ambiguous range) Both have their pros and cons but for providing target tracking at range, PD is definitely more reliable. 45 miles is a pretty long shot depending on geometry, altitude and target type. An aware target can just do a slice-back and outrun it. Or use a variety of other fun tricks to spoof either your AWG-9 or the missile. Against AI in particular you're probably just losing lock because the AI will always respond to a launch at a set distance, no matter whether the missile actually went active or not. I usually set the target size gate to Large against AI because that way at least I know the missile is active before they start their little freak-show. Not uncommon to see 50-60 mile hits this way if fired at decent speed and altitude.

+1 I know I'm harping a lot on this but I'd also love to see this extended to a more accessible radar azimuth/elevation settings. At least change the "Low, Medium, High" command to something sensible for your average engagement Currently the options are something along the lines of -30, -16, 0, +16, +30 If I'm RIO-ing, my settings will usually be more along the lines of -4, -2, 0, +2, +4 It'd be nice to have quick access to normal/regular settings, with the elaborate elevation-at-altitude to be used for specific cases. Right now the quick commands yields highly impractical results and the granular commands are too elaborate to quickly access during combat.

After another extensive PvP training tonight discovering how easy it is to notch or otherwise mitigate all advantages of the Phoenix, you're simply not doing it right. People who keep going on about how this is some kind of overmodeled superweapon just really need to learn how to fight the F-14, it's one of the weakest "gen 4 fighter" in the game right now. Definitely among the full fidelity ones. This doesn't make it a no-factor, it's still got dangerous long range missiles and is overall just a great airframe. However, an F-16, F/A-18, F-15 or Su-27 should emerge victorious the majority of times if flown properly.