Noctrach

Aye, I tested pulling just before the wings appear but the end result is pretty much the same. I've ran the same tests about 15 times each to make sure it wasn't an error on the part of my flying. If there's anything I'm missing in terms of expected functionality then I'd happily get enlightened ^^

As per title, when in a stable dive with pipper on target, rockets will go long. The first rocket will land roughly at pipper position, but the rest of the volley will miss by a good 50+ feet. Aiming the pipper significantly below the target will result in multiple direct hits. RocketsFallLong.trk RocketsFallLong2.trk RocketsAimShort2.trk RocketsAimShort.trk

It has VOR capability... -> Radio to ADF -> Nav mode to DF -> Tune to station using first 4 radio dials (T=1) example: Al-Ain International has VOR-DME station 112.6 Radio to ADF, Nav to DF, tune radio to T12.600 Voilá

That makes sense, it mostly stands out in comparison to how it used to be. Right now you can see it under any angle, even without sunlight, similar to baked reflections. Previously it seemed to be on a reflective layer only if that makes sense. You could definitely see it, but only when sunlight swept through the pit, which imo was a jaw-droppingly gorgeous effect. Viggen instruments used to be second only to the Tomcat in terms of pretty ^^

Was this already patched? My pit still has some pretty bad blue sheen on everything :( Open Beta 2.5.6.50979, after repair and removal of fxo+metashaders. ue glass.

No it'd slam the emergency afterburner and get the **** out of dodge, as real people are a) not keen on gambling their lives away and b) not as bloodthirsty as we can be inside a videogame. I don't get why people are always so obsessed with getting the bigger stick, the Fishbed is fine as it is. A slightly better missile won't help you kill 4th gens. Getting good does. It's like folks doubleracking R-60s... all you're adding is drag and weight. You probably stand a better chance keeping it as light as possible than you do with chunky R-73s weighing you down.

Kinda looks to me like you're describing a 3rd gen delta-wing interceptor aircraft with a less than 1:1 TWR... To me it sounds like you're just slowing down waaay too early in the landing pattern. With a good approach you only hit 300 kph, 10-15 units of AoA and less than 2 m/s descent, crossing the threshold prior to touchdown. All the way up to that point you'd be flying between 360-380 kph, throttle around 70-80% and slowing down, then on the last 50-60 or so metres of altitude slightly pull the nose up, push throttle to 85-90% and let her glide herself down. AoA never really gets above about 18 units. Aerobraking after landing requires a soft touchdown and light stick inputs but is still absolutely doable. Just don't expect the nose to go very high, couple of degrees is all you get without tailstriking in my experience. Likewise I have zero issues with the recovery mode, in fact I use it as a reliable "cruise control" for longer stretches of flight... it only wobbles if you're above 10,000m or at transonic speeds. Really seems to me there's either something broken for you on the software end or on the hardware end. Either that or you need to adjust your expectations from something like a 2000s Hornet or Viper... it's never gonna be a perfectly stable FBW platform and like the L-39, F-5, F-14 etc. will require constant attention for every change in speed, attitude or altitude.

@Fri13, I literally cannot relate to any of the criticism you level at this module... I fly every single module with a T16K no curves and I can refuel or hold a steady parade formation with each... it's simply muscle memory. All you get from a stick extension is more forgiving inputs. Again.. I can get her through a high yo-yo with a starting speed of about 500 kph or a loop at around 600... it's just a matter of flying in accordance with the manual... 2G pull-up, 4-5G loop entry, 14 units of AoA over the top. If you seriously think that a range of 4-33 AoA is narrow... I don't know what to say... many fighters would kill for this and it's one of the reason why modern jets (Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter) use canard-delta designs. The Fishbed is really an extremely forgiving plane to fly if you don't hamfist the controls. Personally I'm absolutely loving the latest flight model tweaks.

People forget that in real life the parallax of your eyes means you don't actually notice the smudges that accumulate during take-off and flight or crazing in the glass... The current version is perfect. There's just the right amount of translucency on the smudges so you can see there's some specks here and there, without getting your vision obscured in combat. If people honestly can't see the glass effects or residual smudges right now... I don't think DCS is the cause of your spotting difficulties ;)

This is not an F-14 specific issue. II've had this with a lot of other modules (F-15, F-5, F-16, Su-27, Su-33...) for more than 2 years now, even filed bug reports about it in the past but no dice. I think it has something to do with the fact that that the R-33 is supposedly SARH with ARH terminal homing, but supported by a PESA radar on the MiG-31. PESA should have reduced emissions compared to mechanical radars, but still generate all of the familiar warnings. There's some major jankiness in how this is simulated somewhere, resulting in missing RWR warnings.

If you want absolute realism the question you should be asking is whether they have enough control of the damage model to start bending/shearing them off at 280 KIAS+ What are you even doing breaking your flaps in a dogfight... that F-16 will thank you very much for the fact you just handed him the fight, no longer being able to accelerate or challenge in the vertical. "Outstanding move!"

The 4-5 seconds it is in DCS is still absurdly long compared to the short time it would have before it enters the doppler gate. From what I've read the main return is caused by the expansion of the cloud, after they lumped into the clutter filter for PD sensors due to their near-zero angular velocity. Still mess up pulse radars something fierce at that point though. RIP your daily weather report. ^ that's the other thing in DCS... pulse and PD response to chaff is identical...

Yep, active missiles actually pull the exact same amount of Gs for the same amount of time the instant they get notched... 13G if I recall correctly. I had a heap of tacview experiments at any altitude, with or without chaff, singleplayer or multipalyer. Same behaviour every. damn. time. You can notch a missile at 30,000 feet with zero effort by slowly turning through the notch because it will ruin its own intercept geometry with this move.

The top one in there is Radar Homing Guidance by DA James right? Iirc he talks about different ways of biasing modern PD filters as well to e.g. eliminate clutter appearing behind the direction of the tracked object or outside track plane of motion. There's a lot of ways in which the effect of chaff can be reduced. As GGTharos said chaff without a manoeuvre is mostly useless or at least, extremely easy to CCM. Don't forget that chaff is combined with jammers and other forms of electronic warfare. The goal is to deteriorate signal-to-noise ratio and reduce seeker sensitivity to the extent that it just can't acurrately track the target anymore. Within DCS this is very poorly represented. I get the simplification of chaff-as-flares... it's not too far-fetched as an approach. But the fact it has the same effectiveness at 30,000 feet as it does at 300 feet AGL, as well as the fact that it remains an effective countermeasure without aggressive manoeuvring LONG after it has been dropped is something that could definitely do with some serious tweaks.

With all due respect, from this logic can follow only two conclusions: a) The data is too classified to even reveal document names, paragraphs, sentences or snippets. Therefore there is no reality in which this data is accurately implemented in a consumer-grade simulator without being subject to the same legal repercussions one would face for sharing classified documentation online. or b) There is no reliable data, everything simulated is a best-guess approximation based on publically available snippets that can be freely shared. (I.e. all missiles, weapon systems and quite a few flight models in DCS) Both of these lead me to conclude that the simulation is not a perfect approximation and not based on hard fact. Pretending you hold all the knowledge but it's too secret to share, only detracts from your perceived trustworthiness. Especially when you are the only one with a financial stake in the debate. Don't misinterpret this as something that I'd feel detracts heavily from the product, as I see this as simply the nature of commercial combat flight simulation. To me it reflects exclusively on your position as a 3rd party vendor.

Yeah iirc this was specifically part of the 54C upgrade program to increase effectiveness against small and fast targets like fighters and cruise missiles. Someone correct me if this is wrong, but afaik the rule of thumb is to triple a fighter's instant turning G to reach a rough estimation of how much a missile needs to pull to still make the intercept. In that regard 18G for the 54A seems like a logical testing benchmark to guarantee ability to intercept targets executing a 6G break turn, which was the maximum capability of most fighters at the time of introduction. Later increases to 7.3-8G capabilities becoming more prevalent in the early 80s would naturally require improvement in this area as well. For similar reasons, AIM-120s can pull well in excess of 30G. Note that this in no way reflects their true maximum turning capability. They are simply benchmarks from test firing exercises to guarantee the weapon capabilities as required. Just like an E-M graph ending at 6.5 doesn't mean the aircraft breaks at 7.5G... its just where testing stops being safe, feasible or relevant. edit: hopefully the "phoenix was only for bombers" crowd takes notes. Imagine being the Navy and doing a live firing exercise on a combined 5+ million USD worth of equipment to prove a missile is capable of hitting a target you don't intend to use it against...

Missiles in DCS have a scripted behaviour where they will pull 13G lead for a couple seconds from the moment they start getting notched. This means that if the notch happens at reasonably close range the missile will be forced by this behaviour to overshoot, even moreso if the target changes direction. This can be replicated by putting a missile 90 degree aspect (notching) and keeping it there at any altitude, speed or range. The 13G lead pull will expend so much energy and put it in such a poor position that a follow-up intercept is essentially impossible. Note that this has nothing to do with seeker limitations, as missiles in DCS can reacquire during this "forced overshoot" period, resulting in an attempted U-turn once past the target. Clear example with AIM-120C at 35,000 feet, no chaff used: https://gfycat.com/SlightPoshEmperorpenguin This behaviour is identical between all missiles. Besides that, a test like this... with targets jinking, chaffing and notching, introduces an incredible amount of variables that can alter the outcome. In the future I'd recommend setting up cleaner tests, i.e. launch without notch, notch without chaff, etc. to isolate behaviours and get cleaner results. So @quigon @nojoe while I agree the shots were very long, missile speed has nothing to do with it in this case. Simply scripted notch behaviour that can be very easily reproduced regardless of closure.

Just for clarity, this has been a very long-standing issue but range gates/ground separation not being in any way simulated for missile guidance behaviour is a known issue? It's possible to notch a missile from any altitude without chaff so long as the missile is even looking a few degrees below its local horizon. Even if this means there's tens of miles of separation between its target and any possible background clutter. While I absolutely welcome the new lofting mechanics, they do shine a really bad light on this issue as notching missiles has become much easier at any altitude. Attached a track and tacview demonstrating this behaviour. Behaviour in sim: F-15C at 35,000 ft vs AIM-120C at 35,500 ft. No chaff or ECM used. AIM-120C looking down 10 degrees below the horizon, the missile loses me the second I pass through the doppler notch at 90 degrees offset, only to reacquire after having already passed me. Separation between my jet and the ground clutter from the missile seeker's perspective: 38 miles. Tacview analysis: https://gfycat.com/slightposhemperorpenguin Expected behaviour: Any sort of range gating simulation would entirely mitigate the ability to notch a missile unless close to a source of background clutter. HighAltitudeNotchNoChaff.trk HighAltitudeNotchNoChaff.zip.acmi.zip

Thanks for your reply! What you've mentioned seems to correlate with what one of the experts in the F-14 discord group hypothesized, namely fluctuating G forces during the shot. I don't think this is particularly caused by my stick inputs, as the shots I used for reference were only the steady tracking solutions. (although there's always some blame to put on my hamfisted gunnery attempts ) It seems likely the problem lies rather in the fact that these tests were done on AI airplanes flying their stupid stall-speed looping patterns. The shots were all taken in the up-hill/over the top part of the climb, where you have a simultaneous decline of effective G and a rapid positive attitude change. I could see how this would throw off both sides of the calculation in the WCS.. your nose and bullets are tracking up-hill while the registered G forces decrease. I'll repeat the experiment with a squadron matey in a level turning fight when I get the time.

Results seem slightly better but that might be imaginary. With the pipper stable on the centreline behind the flanker's cockpit, the rounds still definitely pass at least a full plane's length behind the target when fired from about 2500-2800 ft slant range. The shots that hit always have the pipper slightly ahead of the target's nose and register on the elevators or engines. Compared to my experience with the F-16, which lands shots exactly where I place my pipper, the difference is still way more than I'd expect even with old radar tech. In the F-14 I genuinely find the CCIP bombing/gunnery pipper more accurate than the air-to-air gunsight.

It's an airstarted mission and I haven't exceeded 8G in either attempt, I tend to fly her between 6.5-7.5 I'll give ground start + fine alignment a try The sight really is a laserbeam... but one that lags significantly behind the target until you hit the breakaway cross :\

Hey all. With an old analogue computer like the Tomcat's I'd expect some lag between the pipper position and the path of the bullets. There's a helpful targeting diamond to show you this difference. However, the lag on the sight in the F-14 seems quite excessive, where even if you're firing on a target pulling only a couple G, the bullets will land multiple plane-lengths behind the pipper. https://gfycat.com/snappycarefreeerne https://gfycat.com/oddperfectgrizzlybear Both these shots were taken at about 2-2.5G and both landed about 2 entire flanker-lengths short. Is there still tweaking to be done or was it like this in the real jet? Edit: as additional info, I do have my pipper set to +53 MIL. The pipper really only starts being accurate under about 2000 feet slant range, which is right about where the breakaway cross appears :/ In further testing it also doesn't seem to take sideslip into account at all. Which brings me to the question, does the target computer calculate the pipper based on G-forces or is it showing you where the bullets would be if the target was not turning at all?

There's also multiple textures stacked on top of each other, causing some Z-fighting. https://gfycat.com/OfficialMixedBlackwidowspider

Should be this one dcs.log-20200302-085439.zip

In mission 3 of the Ka-50 Deployment campaign, once you've destroyed all three bunkers and the ground troops start moving in, I get a consistent CTD once the troops start firing/taking fire.