Jump to content

Al-Azraq

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    388

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Al-Azraq

    What am I doing wrong with the CCIP?

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    I’m finding CCIP bombing with he Mk 82s inaccurate as well. I set up a simple escenario with Strelas and air start but my bombs miss a lot of time. I remember that while I was learning DCS I practiced with the Hornet in CCIP and had a high impact rate. Now I have way more experience yet my bombs miss although I do the 30 - 45 degree dive, line is aligned, etc.

    [CORRECT AS-IS] CCIP Bugged?

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    I’m finding CCIP bombing with he Mk 82s inaccurate as well. I set up a simple escenario with Strelas and air start but my bombs miss a lot of time. I remember that while I was learning DCS I practiced with the Hornet in CCIP and had a high impact rate. Now I have way more experience yet my bombs miss although I do the 30 - 45 degree dive, line is aligned, etc.

    [INCLUDE TRACK FILES] Aim-120 in range, but always missing

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    6 hours ago, dundun92 said:

    The Hornet and Viper use the exact same AIM-120s, so that isnt a problem here. I also havent experienced any of the issues here (note that I purely do PvP, so there could be some AI weridness going on such as detecting missiles off the rail). I think the first thing is that you simply cannot trust any of the DCS DLZ indicators. They, simply put, are very innacurate, and if you are using them to judge shot range unfortunately you will find a lot of "valid" shots missing because they in actuality were way out of WEZ. Its best to read up on DLZ definitions and test the missile yourself and find how they actually perform in game, until ED fixes them.

    Second, there is also a somewhat unrealistic expectation of shots fired outside of the Kinematic NEZ to hit defending bandits. As an example, at 40kft the NEZ for the AMRAAM is 14nm, and this drops to just under 4nm on the deck. Almost all of the avaliable RL BVR documentation (for instance, NATOPS P-825) makes it clear that if you want to make sure the bandit cannot defeat the missile kinematically you need to shoot inside the NEZ. Anything outside the NEZ and your giving the bandit a chance to kinematically defend it. You really shouldnt expect shots outside of the NEZ to hit a defending bandit.

     

    However, there definitely are some bugs with AMRAAMs, but these universally apply to all AMRAAM carriers. For example, with lofted trajectories, if you drop the lock before the peak of the loft it flies into space for some reason and doesnt guide towards the last known position. Also, if the bandits have ECM they may be abusing the ECM blinking bug.

    My issues are in a PvP server (Blue Flag). I don't think there's a problem with the AIM 120 because as you said, they are the same missiles for all planes but I do think that the F-18 might have an issue supporting the missiles. I'm always getting the LOST cue on the HUD unless I launch from very close and also in TWS, when I launch and notch, the scan bar in the radar gets kinda stuck to the radar contact gets lost and missile is wasted.

     

    Also ED nerfed the AIM 120 after improving them due to the Russian community complaining and I guess it will stay like that until the improvements to the Russian missiles come, but that's a separate issue.

    [INCLUDE TRACK FILES] Aim-120 in range, but always missing

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    57 minutes ago, CBStu said:

    I agree 120Cs seem much less effective than a couple months ago. I fly the included missions in SP mode and the 120C used to be nearly 100% using the HUD to aim and releasing on the 'Shoot' cue. Yesterday I shot a couple and then bugged out because there were 4 Migs nearby. I got a 'LOST' cue in the HUD and couldn't get rid of it. 'Undesignated', clicked 'AA' to off. Clicked 'Master Arm' to off. Each time, as soon as I got the 'AA' and 'Master Arm' back on, and the 120C aim cue back on the HUD, there was 'LOST' again. Shot another 120C and still 'LOST' showing. At this point the 'LOST' was referring to 3 missiles ago. Jeez, I get it, it was LOST, but I no longer care.

     

    Yeah same, I get the LOST Cue 100% of the time and also get ghost locked contacts. When I lock a contact in TWS and it drops, sometimes it stays locked and following an straight line. Sometimes they get to -77.000 ft.

    [INCLUDE TRACK FILES] Aim-120 in range, but always missing

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    Same experience. I usually fly Blue Flag and the F-16 AIM120 are way more dangerous. Sure the F-16 flies at Match 1+ everywhere and will be more dangerous than the Hornet most of the times but still, my launches are good and I find weird I don't have more connections. I try to get to Match 1 before launching, good altitudes, always supporting the missile, but my oponents are always able to defend.

     

    I observed some weird behaviour of the radar while in TWS AUTO as it seems to freeze after launching and start nothing. The search bar will stop and the launch is not being supported. After some seconds it will start working again but the launch is already dead.

    A humble opinion how should DSC WWII scene develop in future years

    in Western Europe 1944-1945

    Posted

    Thanks very much Fenrir for the valuable insight!

    Sadly, I guess, the time has gone too far from the WWII days, so we cannot count with the help of Tempest veterans anymore.

    Looks like restored flyable Tempest is the necessity.

     

    Anyway, do you know if there are some period wind tunnel tests for Tempest? It would be strange if we have late war Luftwaffe fighter tests but not the ones from the winner (i.e. allied) side... One would expect that archives on the British isles should be in a much better state of completeness than those in the Third Reich...

     

    I think that at some point, we will just have to settle with what wind tunnel tests, virtual tunnel tests, and written memories will give us in order to represent an old warbird in a simulation. I think that with this data it should be plenty to have a trustful simulated version of these great planes, and that when using them in combat you will exploit their real advantages and avoid the disadvantages in the same way as in reality. Of course you may not have all those small details, but at least you will get a picture of how that plane behave in battle.

    • Like 1

    A humble opinion how should DSC WWII scene develop in future years

    in Western Europe 1944-1945

    Posted

    It does amuse me when people say... Ah there is no Typhoon/Tempest flying.

     

    No K4 is flying however like Al-Azraq has stated there is G version about. That said we HAVE a Dora... No flying examples of the Dora exist. Yes they received a lot of data from Erich Brunotte I am sure they could do the same for the Typhoon/Tempest.

     

    ​​​​​​So I don't buy this reasoning. However if they are really really dead set against doing these aircraft then they have no excuse, in fact in light of the K4 and Dora I would say it is a must, create the Spitfire Mk XIV.

     

    Looking into the future we might be fortunate to have a genuine Typhoon flying again and with a Napier Sabre engine as well....

     

    You are right mate, I didn’t remember that the Dora has no flying example either. I hope that with the data we have and virtual wind tunnel is enough to create a Tempest.

    A humble opinion how should DSC WWII scene develop in future years

    in Western Europe 1944-1945

    Posted

    Completely agree, you made a very good list and I wouldn't be surprised if ED's plans were more or less in-line. After what you proposed, I would go to Battle of Britain afterwards but fleshing out the current plane set and the 1944 - 1945 setting should be relatively easy and will offer a cohesive experience. The 1943 - 1944 period would be great as well.

     

    Tempest would be difficult for DCS standards as there are no flying examples out there. It is true that neither there are for the K-4 but the K can be extrapolated from G variants.

    • Like 1

    JSOW-A missing target

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    Hi!

     

    In my last 3 sorties I observed this behaviour in my JSOW-A:

     

    https://i.imgur.com/l8aN3xs.gifv

     

    The bombs where aligned, designated by the TGP, and launched within range. GPS was in IFA mode and completely aligned.

     

    I didn't set the HT, but there should be a default HT right? i understand that there's no need to touch this option unless needed.

     

    The server was Blue Flag by the way.

     

    Thanks a lot!

    [ALREADY REPORTED]TACAN not working sometimes, multiplayer

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    TACAN for multiplayer has been broken for ages. It works fine for a while, but then it breaks and becomes completely unreliable, so much that I don't land in the carrier usually as TACAN is a much needed part of a carrier landing.

     

    Yep there seems to be an akward bug once in a while on multi-player i could never point out, though people says it'S you'Re far, you'Re this and that, i did a few test a few patches ago and latest patches also when it happened, and mostly has nothing to do from being far from it, as i simply loged out the server, open the Multi-Player track i was on in the Mission Editor and saved it as .miz, i then loaded on the deck, exactly where i was in the server, and the Tacan Worked, so basicly if it's bug it might had something to do with distance, but maybe something processing wrogn that the tacan folows the ship, but the original emitting source stays where the ship started in the mission, so after a few hours of server running at one point the tacan breaks as it's too far from where it started, dunno. But the few times it happenned to me on a server, i simply made the same test, and had no issues when loading it on my side.

     

     

     

     

    Same with the Hornet's exterior sounds, for some reason, on multi-player, when looking it side ways in F2 view, it has a properler sound, like the C-130, but watch it on single player, and normal sound. Go figure.

     

    Yeah the thing is that it breaks after a while and even ED hasn't been able to locate and fix the bug so reasons are unknown. Some people may have never experienced it because they could have been lucky, or the server they play doesn't trigger the bug. Anyway, I contacted Bignewy through Discord for this and the told me they were working on it and the last finding was that assignning a custom name for the TACAN in the mission editor may fixt it.

     

    Finally, it is not because the distance or altitude, I like to tune in the TACAN before take off from the Carrier and even being in the deck the TACAN station cannot be tunned.

    Feature Survey for DCS WWII

    in Western Europe 1944-1945

    Posted

    *New weather and clouds

    *Detailed damage model for ground units: we need mobility and gun kill, not every unit exploding when destroyed. We also need simulation in this regard, it is very arcadey now.

    *Central European map to accommodate the current plane set.

    *Bf 109 G-6

    *P-51 B/C

    *P-47 D-22

    *Ju-88 with bombs

    I wish, I wish to catch a fish

    in Wish List

    Posted

    This has to go on to the wish list, as it seems we'll never actually see it in DCS otherwise...

     

    https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/7d4/C-47-02.jpg

     

    This looks like a pretty advanced AI model but as many things, they are announced just to be forgotten and never to be seen again. We could make a long list of items like this.

     

    Have you heard about Freya radar?

    190 F-8 and G-8?

    Damage model? We only know about it because we ask many times.

    What about those clouds? They are my favourite mythological animal.

     

    Yeah I know that we hear about these things from time to time by buried forum posts, interviews in Russian and whatnot but clear updates to these announced items would be great. Especially because these items weren't a small drop of info in Discord or whatever, where I understand information of features in early development may slip and they are still a long way to go.

     

    These things were announced in Weekend Newsletter where I understand that they are already promises and should be updated periodically.

    DCS: de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB Mk VI Discussion

    in DCS: Mosquito FB VI

    Posted

    Thanks for providing something concrete. I went and looked it up. Here is the reference and start time, if anyone wants to listen to it for themselves.

     

    (starting 49:27)

     

    The transcript of the relevant section is:

    -- Katia Peredenko, ED CEO

     

     

    I think it is difficult to interpret what that actually means, but that's the actual quote.

     

    Nick Grey said in a Growling Sidewinder interview (I think it was the P-47 one) that the Mosquito was aimed for the end of the year. They wanted also to test the flight model with someone with experience flying the plane in real life, but then COVID hapened and these plans were delayed to October 2020.

     

    I don't know if this remains true or plans have changed.

     

    Didn't Nick say he wanted a friend of his who has an example mosquito try the DCS version before it could be released, and that that trial couldn't happen until at least September?

     

    THIS, but I think Nick said October.

    Razbam/ED please clarify - Is the Harrier out of EA and consequently complete?

    in AV-8B N/A

    Posted

    "No bugs" is always going to be a gray-ish zone really. I'd say something in the ballpark of the Belsimtek modules, Viggen or Mig-21 are decent spots to aim for.

     

    "No bugs" in software development is very difficult, especially in an ever evolving platform like DCS is. These bugs should be kept at minimum, but what I know for sure is that a product should be feature complete and the Harrier is not.

×
×
  • Create New...