Xhonas

Hello there, is it possible to add both Soviet betty and German betty? currently in DCS the FC3 Mig-29G has a german betty which is very authentic, thanks.

I've been experiencing this bug for a while now, but its hard to reproduce on single player. If you can please provide a trackfile so this report isn't ignored.

In a multiplayer session, when a player controlled aircrat rolls and pulls fast (barrel roll), it starts teleporting, making the player invulnerable to missiles. Sometimes the teleporting is so severe that it can make you lose tally on the teleporting player during a dogfight or in a close range combat. This issue has been present in DCS for a long time and its a game breaking issue for the multiplayer community. On larger multiplayer servers, like Contention, GrowlingSidewinder or Buddyspike blue flag, the issue gets worse, sometimes even small amounts of roll can cause teleporting. I hope that ED takes a close look at this issue, because we reached into a point that MP servers are banning people from doing barrel rolls to avoid this problem. Even in serious competitions like SATAC this maneuver is banned. It's hard to grasp that in a flight sim game you can't maneuver your aircraft freely, in order to not risk making an unfair game to your opponents and avoid a potential ban on some of the most renowned MP servers. net_code_problem_2.trknet_code_problem_3.trk Here are some trackfiles of the issue.

No, flares should be able to decoy a missile even if it is in radar slaved mode. In the case of the Aim-9M tracking should be suspended for a brief time because of its irccm method (which is not modelled in dcs unfortunately). Another thing is that you still cannot decoy a missile in rear aspect by pre flaring, which is incorrect.

This couldn't be more far from the truth. Flares burn way hotter than the engines in mil power, with flare temperature peaking at an average of 1000-1100 °C, this generates a stronger IR signature than the aircraft being targeted. If flares are dropped in pairs or triplets the effectiveness should increase even more. The reality is that pre flaring will be extremely effective in shielding you against IR missiles at any aspect, even against the most modern dual band seeker missiles like the Aim-9X. Versus the 9M in DCS, you can flare it very reliably after it has been launched, so it makes no sense that it can't be decoyed pre launch by pre flaring.

The update is very welcome, however the pre-flare effectiveness is not where it should be yet. While you can decoy a missile pre launch when in front aspect, its impossible to do so in rear aspect.

@Chizh "Added method for IR missiles seekers to react on flares before missile launch (from cockpit)..." I am so glad to see the first steps of improvements in this area. Very welcome feature. However, the patch notes left me with some doubts "Each module needs to add usage of this functionality separately." Are all ED modules, including FC3, featuring this change? Will this affect the Su-27 or the F-15C? And for 3rd party modules, they will have to implement this feature on their own, is that correct?

@BIGNEWY @NineLine @Chizh Hello, old issue is back, its causing some problems in MP.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine @Chizh Hello guys, just bumping the thread, this issue is very persistent especially if you're fighting aircraft like the F14, the 120 often switches targets to the aim54.

Please, watch the trackfile, there you can check the details. The missile switch targets as soon as the F-14 fired the aim-9.

When an enemy aircraft launches a missile, the aim-120 switch targets to the missile that the enemy launched. Although its not unrealistic for radars to be able to track missiles, it makes no sense for the missile to switch targets in this situation, since the missile is flying in totally different parameters than the enemy aircraft. Speed, acceleration, los rate change... trackfile attached AiM-120 switch targets to enemy missile1.trk This trackfile is in MP and was used to test another issue regarding the 120. The problem described on this threat happens on the 2nd time that i spawn in the F/A-18.

AiM120 Jamming Tgt miss1.trk Trackfile attached. Basically what is written on the title. I thought this bug was fixed but apparently it is back again.

At the same time, for a target flying at mach 1 and missile fired at 70nm, impact speed is 3.15

Hello guys, something interesting that i noticed in DCS is the range of the Aim-120, and basically other missiles as well, when you're flying very high, 50 to 60k feet, basically every missile is limited by its battery time instead of aerodynamics. Take these examples below: Missile is lanuched at a target 80nm distance Peak speed is mach 4.22 But impact speed is mach 3.35!! So, it means that the missile is capable of flying way, way further than this.

Sorry, i meant adjusting which radars that the player RWR can detect, not the frequencies of the radars themselves. Like, if we could change the RWR threat database to show an Su-30 as "unknow" for example, or not show it at all, to simulate a scenario with limited intel on the enemy radars I'm glad to know that, thanks for the answers. Will be interesting to see how LPI radars will be handled when the F-35 is released.

Glad to hear, thanks ! Also, since we are already here, it costs nothing to ask: Would it be possible to allow the user to configure the threat database of the RWR for a mission in the ME or the future DTC functionality? The idea is, in the real world for threats to show up on the RWR they need to be on the threat database of the RWR, the frequencies of the radars need to be listened by specialized aircraft, and then those frequencies need to be inserted in the rwr software. The problem is that a single radar can have a lot of frequency channels, each channel in a very different frequency, depending on how many channels a radar has, it is impossible for intelligence to collect data on all of them. So, could we have an option to configure which radars are fully mapped in the database of the rwr, which are the synthetic "U" (unknow) and which aren't mapped and won't show up? Ik i'm really pushing it with this request but who knows Another option would be having presets. Like, we could have 4 presets on RWR database intel: full, high, medium and low, where if you choose full on the ME, every single radar will be on the database of the RWR, and for the other ones you could have percentage + a randomizer, e.g: medium preset selected, 60% of all the enemy radars in a mission will be mapped, which ones will be and which won't would be random. Something like this could be interesting to simulate a scenario with limited intel on the enemy, and even in a dynamic campaing, you starting with low intel on the enemy and as you progress you get more intel on the enemy radars. And lastly, something that i came across is that monopulse antennas (the ones in active missiles) uses little power and produce a very weak signal that is very hard to detect by the RWR, can you simulate that in DCS? Ik that the rule of thumb is that radars can be detected by an RWR 2 times the distance than a radar can detect a target, however it is more complex than that, it depends on the rwr antenna sensitivity and the type of emitter. In the case of monopulse antennas, the RWR will only perceive such emitter at very close ranges. In DCS you can detect a missile as soon as it goes active (around 8nm), can that be changed to a more realistic distance?

I'm aware, almost everything i mentioned in my post is simulated on the F-14, i hope ED is able to follow a similar approach to what HB did with their ALR-67 simulation.

@Chizh Hello there ! What about making RWR's more realistic in DCS? I've came across some OSINT documentation that can be used to improve the simulation of EW in DCS. Most RWR's in DCS, especially the modern ones like the ALR-67 and ALR-56 uses amplitude comparison to find the direction of a threat, with 4 to 6 directional antennas. Using this direction finding technique results in an angular accuracy of 5° to 10° however in DCS these RWR's are ultra precise, within 1° of angular accuracy which is very unrealistic. The only way to achieve such accuracy is by using a phased interferometer system, but no aircraft in DCS uses this currently. Here is the link to a very interesting PDF about EW, its unclassified with unlimited distribution: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA566236.pdf In the PDF there is nothing specific to the ALR-67 and the ALR-56, but knowing the real world angular accuracy for these systems is impossible because they are classified, although it is possible to estimate what the angular accuracy of this system might be because we know what direction finding technique it uses. Page 215 / 216 talks about the average angular accuracy of systems that uses amplitude comparison for DF. But why this matters for DCS? Implemeting such limitation in the RWR of aircraft in DCS will be good to have a more realistic approach to combat situations. Currently with ultra precise RWR's it is possible to notch active missiles every single time with a very high consistency. While notching a radar is a very real thing, in the real world pilots don't do this against active missiles for a variety of reasons, one of them being the fact that RWRs are not precise/accurate neither reliable enough to do this. Current RWR implementation allows you to do this: https://streamable.com/d0kxbf (perfectly notching an aim120 at 30k feet) null Also another interesting limitation to have would be the RWR being triggered (spike and launch warning) despite your aircraft not being targeted. It is already implement to some extent, but would be nice to see this area also improved. For example, if i'm flying in formation with another aircraft and this other aircraft is targeted by a SAM and a missile is launched on his direction, i won't receive the launch warning with the current implementation in DCS, only the spike warning, while realistically both aircraft in the formation would receive the launch warning. This behavior is already coded into the A.I, would be nice to see the player controlled aircraft facing the same limitation. In this video, an F-15E SME who has been shot by an SA-3 in real life explains how it happens: I understand that this might be difficult to implement in DCS, realistically the solution that would further improve the simulation of DCS short term is reducing the angular accuracy of all RWR's that uses amplitude comparison to DF. Other interesting things that could be added if time allows: RWR ambiguity - when multiple emitters with different frequencies are illumating an aircraft, the rwr can have ambiguities, showing a single contact as if it was 2 to 3 different emitters -. When multiple contacts are too close from each other they will show as one single contact on the rwr. And if you're flying low and a new threat pops from above, the rwr will show multiple threats from a variety of azimuths for a few seconds, those are the signals bouncing off the ground and reflecting back on the antenna, which takes a few seconds to correlate and show a single threat in the correct direction. I hope you can take a look at this matter, thanks !

@Chizh

Hello there, currently the grass / clutter option at max is at 1500 distance value, would it be posible to change this distance to be 3 to 4km? Because even at the current max value there is this very weird effect where you can see the grass and rocks literally growing as you get closer to them, its very visible when you are flying helicopters at low altitude. Checks this video: https://streamable.com/tfrdd9 Trackfile (just in case)grass weird effect.trk Game options image: null

Shouldn't be difficult to adjust this parameter. FC3 Flanker already has this limitation. False alarms might not be so easy tho.

Hello there, while its imposible to know the angular accuracy of the systems in real life because they are classified, there are some OSINT information that indicates what the accuracy of those systems might be (an approximation of course), based on the techniques that they use to find the direction of a threat, i can send you the link of this document in DM. The F-16C, F/A-18C, F-15C RWR, and basically every RWR modelled in DCS uses amplitude comparison to determine the direction of a threat, the accuracy of those systems can be at around 3 to 10 degrees RMS. In DCS both the RWR in the F/A-18 and F-16 are ultra precise, there are simply no innacuracies on it, they give the exact angle of the threat, which is very unrealistic. The only way to have the precision that we have in DCS is by using a phased interferometer system, which will give 1 to 0.1° angular accuracy. But we don't have any system like this in DCS, although you said that you will model this for the apache. We already have a module in DCS that simulates the limitations in direction finding that these systems using amplitude comparsion face, the F-14 Tomcat by heatblur, the HB ALR-67 simulation in DCS has an angular accuracy of 10-15 degree RMS. I will link the forum threads below so you can see how they modelled it. Furthermore, RWRs in DCS are way too perfect in discriminating who is being shot at, while in real life a single threat may trigger the rwr's of an entire squadron, even if only one aircraft of said squadron is being shot at. See this video, an F-15E SME who has been shot by an SA-3 in real life talking about how his entire squadron rwr was triggered by an sa-3 shot despite the jets being several miles apart (video is timestamped): You probably know this, because you coded the AI to react the same way these guys did when they have been shot at. The F-14 RWR in DCS simulates this problem, to some extent. So, is it possible to implement these limitations to the player RWR? 1. Reduced angular accuracy (way too perfect in DCS right now) 2. False alarms - triggering a spike / launch warning even if your aircraft is not being shot at, but the rwr is picking the signal of the enemy rwr either because your jet is near the jet being launched at or because the rwr is detecting the sidelobe emissions of the radar guiding the missile -. Check this comment by IronMike and these two other threads to see how Heatblur modelled their RWR: Some highlights of their modelling: The direction is reconstructed in the 2D plane (the local aircraft frame of reference). For threats significantly outside that plane, their reconstructed direction may be inaccurate, and it usually shifts towards the 12, 3, 6, or 9 o’clock from the true position. The direction reconstruction accuracy improves as the distance from the emitter decreases. For the scan modes of the emitter (RWS/TWS), it’s somewhere around 10-15° RMS. For the emitters in scan modes, a misassociation of a known-threat with a new signal can happen, and it occurs quite often, especially at long ranges. It can result in: ghosts (fake threats) appearing on the display – more probable if you or the threat do some manoeuvres; merging a group of two or more threats of the same type into one threat. For example, a group of two Su-27 flying in close formation, both scanning with their radars, can appear on the screen as one ’29’ until they get closer. IronMike comment

Still, you had to use data from other missiles to estimate a lot of important parameters, like propellant, motor burn, specific impulse.. its nowhere near 100% accurate. I'm not criticizing your model, its just that the aim-120 is a classified missile and there is never going to be accurate data on it, only estimations and guesses. So, if you don't have precise information on the PF, what difference it makes if you change it to the same values that the SD-10 is using (for example)? its not going to be any more or any less accurate...

Question: as many things in DCS are based on guesswork, why would you need this data to tweak the missile to solve this problem? the DCS Aim-120 perfromance is purely based on speculation (as per your white paper), so, why the approach to the PF needs to be so different? Sure, it would be very nice to have this data to model it more accurately, but if the data is not present, why can't you do an educated guess, just like everything else coded in this missile?

Watching the in game trackfile the only visible difference is that the SD-10 triggers the proxy fuze further away. If it had the same proxy fuze distance of the Amraam it would miss like the Amraam does now. Editing the game files to give the Amraam a proxy fuze distance like the SD-10 fixes the problem. I'm aware of the maneuver described, but the Amraam is a very sophisticated missile and the missile was fired inside the NEZ. If the defensive maneuver was performed vs a missile launched further away, sure, it is indeed very effective, and it works against every missile in DCS, but only works inside the NEZ vs the Amraam. Even SME's find this super innacurate. Well that is it then. Not really, must be a trackfile issue, they have been unstable for a while now. Tacview of this trackfile, miss distance is within 50 feet. A higher proxy fuze radius could've guaranteed a hit in this situation. Tacview-20250110-115246-DCS.zip.acmi