antagonist
-
Posts
269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by antagonist
-
-
If you're numbers are correct, I'd rather see a gun that is 8 mil, ~90% to replicate a typical "well used, well loved" gun, as opposed to a brand new gun. We have a well worn cockpit, well worn skins, lets get a well worn (but still serviceable) gun too. Just the jump from from 8mil 80% to 85% would be very noticeable, and to 90% even more so.
And I suppose you would also want missiles' rocket engines arbitrarily fail to fire because DCS should simulate end of service life components there, too?
Or wait, let's start simulating worn out engine components, too! That would really enrich gameplay, wouldn't you say?
-
In all honesty the whole radar is WIP at this point. :P
-
The Radar does scan up and down a fair number of BARS and back and forth, so it goes up one 'step' for each time it goes right and left, so yes, it should take a few seconds to lock.
It's a VERTICAL SCAN mode.
For reference, this is vertical:
|
And this is horizontal:
-
-
Something peculiar happens to the AIM-7 when I fire it at a target crossing my nose at a constant speed and heading.
What I assume should happen is the missile's seeker head calculating an intercept point along the target's course, then moving towards it in an almost straight line.
What I see happening instead is the missile at first behaving just like this, and then the rocket motor burns out.
Immediately afterwards, it attempts to acquire a different intercept vector due to the sudden and totally unanticipated loss of thrust, and in doing so, losing so much speed it falls out of the sky.
Shouldn't the seeker be aware of how much burn time its rocket motor has and calculate the intercept vector accordingly so massive course changes don't become necessary?
E: The target in question was beaming me at less than 13 nm, going less than 400 kts. The missile travelled around 15-18 nm before it encountered loss of control due to drag. This is a ballpark figure unless someone would be kind enough to tell me if and where Tacview may store this kind of information.
-
This should probably be in the bug report subforum.
-
Same for me, X55 throttle.
-
Perhaps re-read the OP.
The OP talks about Max range.
Quoted max range figures are for a non-manoeuvring target with high closure speed, at high altitude.
That's what I reported back on.
It's true that if he'd beamed, the missile might not have hit.
That's part of the purpose of beaming* - so that where before beaming you were inside the effective** engagement range of the attacking missile, after beaming you're not.
That's why the NEZ is the NEZ, because outside that range, the target might defeat your missile by doing something like beaming.
There are definitely issues with the missile guidance, but - without wanting to be rude to the OP - expecting to get a hit with a 38 NM launch against a slow target at sea level doesn't bring the conversation forward in any real way.
My experience playing around against AI MiG-21 last night while trying to continue a mental transition from the Su-27 was that a launch at somewhere inside 15NM would probably get you a kill regardless of their manoeuvres / chaff.
There were occasions where they beamed & dropped chaff and the radar lost lock & the missile went ballistic, but again, that's the intended effect of notching and chaff (the tracks were pretty good at picking up the lock though).
*(I'm at work and not going to watch your track. maybe the poor guidance caused excessive speed loss, maybe they notched / decoyed you, maybe they were just too far away for the shot you made to hit them if they manoeuvred.)
**(Put whichever type of range from max aerodynamic through to anything outside NEZ you want to talk about here)
But the target did not react to the missile threat in any way, shape or form. The missile should have been able to get within attack range according to the HUD readout, and it failed utterly to do that.
-
I just tried @ 15000m alt, F/A-18 1366 km/h TAS head on against B1B 1500 km/h TAS
Options set to no reaction to threat, by the time I moved the designator & locked I had a launch cue so launched at 47km (26 nm ?), missile hit half a second after the motor burned out.
It worked because the missile didn't have to do any sort of corrections to its flight path. Try firing at a target beaming you, where an additional ~10 seconds of flying time would have let the missile hit and see it start to flounder immediately after burnout.
I fired from well within the effective range, but outside the NEZ. The target plane never maneuvered to counter the missile and never meaningfully changed speed.
-
He seems to have it right :thumbup:
[Edit] Jabbers did this video and he deserves credit for that :thumbup:
Should the hook go back up into the fully retracted position after catching a wire?
-
Is it just me or are the runway lights really dim at night on Persian Gulf map? I can barely make out the runway lights when a couple miles out on approach. They should be much brighter.
Have you tried setting your HUD to night mode? I couldn't see anything past the reflector plate until I did.
-
The F-18 alignment stops with an error if you disable the parking brake.
Well yes, but what prevents you from using applying the parking brake after you've moved out of the way? :P
-
It's just a flesh wound!
-
Why would the plane care if it's stationary at the parking spot or ~50 m further down towards the catapults?
-
AIM-7 intercept behavior
Something peculiar happens to the AIM-7 when I fire it at a target crossing my nose at a constant speed and heading.
What I assume should happen is the missile's seeker head calculating an intercept point along the target's course, then moving towards it in an almost straight line.
What I see happening instead is the missile at first behaving just like this, and then the rocket motor burns out.
Immediately afterwards, it attempts to acquire a different intercept vector due to the sudden and totally unanticipated loss of thrust, and in doing so, losing so much speed it falls out of the sky.
Shouldn't the seeker be aware of how much burn time its rocket motor has and calculate the intercept vector accordingly so massive course changes don't become necessary?
E: The target in question was beaming me at less than 13 nm, going less than 400 kts. The missile travelled around 15-18 nm before it encountered loss of control due to drag. This is a ballpark figure unless someone would be kind enough to tell me if and where Tacview may store this kind of information.
-
Sometimes it works, sometimes it won't see an IL-76 one nm ahead of me.
-
I just checked the Steam DLC page, I don't see that "VR headset required" message.
E: In the Steam software, that is. Going to check Steampowered now.
E2: And not on Steampowered's store page, either.
-
Bit heavy for landing so I thought I would dump some fuel.
Has there always been an effect for aircraft in DCS? I cannot remember ever seeing it.
Did you attempt to light it off with your afterburners for...science?
-
In the Cold Start Training mission, for one of the steps, the voice switches to Chinese (I think)...pretty funny though.
Yeah, the step about enabling the OBOGS is in Chinese for some reason. :P
-
There's also something apparently wrong about the plane's behavior after going to full flaps.
-
The confusion probably stems from the fact Russian planes use a system working the other way around.
-
Well, if they're going to extend the map towards the north, they might as well go all the way and go for a merge with Caucasus if at all feasible.
-
I just want to welcome the ten AIM-120 overlord.
=)
-
It is quite likely - but we still need to launch the A/B and everything that comes with it.
Hypothetically speaking, would we be talking about the possibility of an F-14D update to the existing A/B pack, an expansion pack style addon or an entirely separate module?
-
Is anybody else having issues getting the J-11's engines to start?
AIM-7 stencils have multiple issues
in Release Version Bugs and Problems (Read only)
Posted
In the first line here, a 'CROSS WT' of 220 lbs is specified. I'm assuming it's meant to read 'GROSS WT'.
In the second line, the 'ROCKET MORO' is specified as an 'MR 58 MOD 5'. I'm assuming it's meant to read 'ROCKET MOTOR' and 'MK 58 MOD 5'.
In the third line, an 'MSN' is mentioned, followed by a numeric code formatted like a NATO Stock Number (NSN). Therefore I'm assuming it's meant to read 'NSN' on the missile, too.
(Also, is the classification group for AAMs really 1337? I mean, seriously?)
BTW this is entirely your fault, ED. You modeled the pylons and lauch rails in such detail I couldn't help but take a peek. :music_whistling: