falcon_120

Is adhesive tape what i'm seen in the canopy of that su22? o.o :/

Just as a side note maybe worth considering: The SD10 is an export variant of the Pl12. I really have a hard time imagining an export weapon as capable as it chinese counterpart (either in electronics, engine or whatever area they decided to tune down). As a similar example US only export its latest variants of the AIM120 to tier 1 allies (UK, Germany...) or not even that. Although maybe this is not the case and the SD10 is just as good as the PL12, i don't know. I am just trying to apply weapon export "general" practices, here. Btw do we have any official confirmation of what C amraam are we seeing in DCS (C2/C3/C5...)? Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I understand your frustation and I will throw the only last solution you may have not tried yet... how if you give Rift S a try with Amazon so you have 30 day trial? What you could solve with it is: -Plug & play and working wondefully for a lot of us without all the problems you have described (caused by WMR or god knows what) -Acceptable frames at this expense of slightly worse visual quality ( i say slightly cause the difference is not as great as the numbers may indicate at first sight). -Enjoy the beauties of VR. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I think that would change once we have F4 and mig 23. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Nineline what are you expecting exactly? As already explained RAID mode works ok, since it cannot do what is designed to do in DCS. -For it to make any sense you should sometimes see singles contacts for more of one aircraft flying in tight formation, WHICH NEVER happens in the DCS F18 radar. Or am i missing something? Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Nope, if you go TWS, offset the antena x degress to the left (or right) and then you go RWS again, then whatever azimuth degress you select in RWS is offset x degress to the left (or right). So basically you could end with a 140 degress RWS scan pattern that do not scan the full 140° only the left side. This means a non centered RWS scan pattern. For me this does not happen always but it happens a lot if you mess with auto or bias mode in TWS and then you go RWS. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Really intensive chaff programs does have an effect and are able to defeat missiles. You should try with something like 20 chaff 0.25 seconds apart combined with some notching. In that case you have a very high probability of trashing a shot. On the other hand chaffs while cold are not very effective because im DCS missiles are "decoyed" for only a small fraction of time after which they reengage (or try to if you are still in his FoV), if you are cold you are moving in the same direction with respct to the FOV of the missile hence making really easy a re-engagement. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I think ED is making a wonderful job of recreating the most realistic consumer combat simulator available, however the EW side of this is quite simplified and it is starting to be very apparent due to level of detail achieved in other areas of the simulator (iff, radar modes, flight model...). What I would like to do is create a small list with some minor/medium improvements that could enhance the simulation even more but still would not mean a massive work from ED. So basically anything that falls within the realm of what is achievable with limited resources in a medium to longterm roadmap. Let me begin with some things i'd love to see, hopefully you could add some more ideas on your own or even qualify my own if you think they are not feasible or realistic. Let me start with some ideas: 1- Introduce some minor randomnes regarding false target detection. Basically this would mean to introduce if its makes sense regarding type of radar and operating mode, of some (very small % posibility) false target echoes caused by for example large quantities of chaffs or other phenomena. It is my understanding that the most simplistic yet achievable simulation would be to limit this only to chaff, as explained before, or in some cases to a specific type of jamming (though this could be too complex...). 2-Basic standoff jamming. Without getting too complex, this would mean making the first introduction of dedicated EW aircraft (EA6b, F/A18G growler...) in DCS. The most simplistic way I can think of that yet adding to the gameplay it is that the existence of this aircraft in a mission is able to reduce detection/tracking range by a small amount, or introduce some randomness of loss of radar tracking cappabilities. This would mean that they become HVA like an AWACS and killing them becomes top priority for the opossing side. Having this aircraft could mean random jamming of radio communication (specially now that in-game voice is being developed by ED). 3-Doppler cell resolution. This mean that depending of the type of radar long range target flying very close to each other can only be detected as a single contact. I think that the only developer that has simulated sometihng like this is HB in its AWG-9 but I could be wrong though. This would give meaning to the use of modes like RAID addessment in those ACs with this option. 4-Improvements to EW. The only type of jamming now existing in DCS is noise jamming up to a predefined range. Without getting too complex a nice addition could be the use of some deception jamming techniques in fighters that instead of denying long range tracking, they work by causing radar tracking problems with a predefined random distribution (so its high at long range and very very low but possible at short ranges). What do you guys think of these ideas, would it be too complex or unrealistic? What else would you love to see?

You are right, on the other hand the problem is not that RAID is not working properly, the problem is it cannot work properly if doppler cell resolution (2 targets in close proximity appearing as a single contact) is not simulated. So I would ask ED to please simulate this effect in order to improve realism and radar management fun :).

I will share no problem, just cant until january 2nd since i'm away. I will also share a layout so its easier to understand. Bear in mind that you may find it strange at first but one of the strong points is that once set to my liking i've managed to keep the same buttons for the same function across different aircraft (eg. The selection of a2g mode, a2g weapon selection and scan/bar radar setting is the same for f18/f16/jf17 so its easier for me to switch airframes). Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Actually they have it in latest suites. They can use their helmet to look and create markpoints to later employ weapons on. But basically the HOTAS concept is something more related to USN/USAF difference in priorities and employment concepts as far as i've been told, or even related to different manufacturers for the aircrafts, i dont know really. What i know is that i think that perfect hotas integration is something that sometimes is not prioritised enough, even for newer planes, maybe due to not clear requirements in this regard or lack of knowledge on which the final systems will be during development, which cause that this is normally integrated later on in the life of such aircrafts/system. To give you an example i've recently heared an interview of an eurofighter typhoon pilot which explained that hotas integration was actually much worse in the typhoon over a viper (to the surprise of european f16 pilots) and because of that they needed to make change later on when they upgraded SW suites. In the case of the typhoon the reason was an excesive confidence in the VTAS (voice control inputs) for weapons enployment and other related task, which finally is not so adopted or liked by crews... (i've hears rumors about only recognising perfect british accent to the desperation of spanish and italian pilots XD) Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Many of those are not possible in the hornet, unless you are imaginative with mode and buttons asignments... i've managed to get all the functions ive need including a2g mode, waypoints and weapons switching without taking my hands of the hotas (warthog +twcs throttle). But you are right the A10C is a joy to operate with real HOTAS concept. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

You should not, or maybe yes, what I mean is... if a "downgrade" is a result of factual/scientific evidence its not such downgrade and no one should feel offended by it, as far as all the process is totally transparent and acknowledge by both ED and DEKA. I would prefer that people dont get too carried over and emotial on this since all the perception i've always received from ED is that they are quite an engineering/data oriented group of people which is the best thing you can get in a genre like this. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

This Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Yes sure, I know eventually ED will adress it, which does not contradict that right now is quite inconvinient when everything goes wrong and you get to a merge. But i can live with that. Hopefully it will be solved in January/february. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

When you are in a dogfight inside 4 nm your 9x slaved to your helmet gives you a 180 degree of "lock and shoot capability" OTOH when using your radar this shrink to "only" 120 degress. Additionally he will know your position on his rwr had he lost you for a second during the merge, not to say that you dont have time to use tws in a dogfight and you will probably need to stt him. So let me put it the other way: why wouldnt you use your 9x seeker slaved to your helmet to kill a bandit without even a rwr search warning? ;) (I have lots of 9x kills in the hornet in MP and i can tell you that its by far one of the best features) Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I think so, that rolling is excesive from my non expert pov. OTH you should try a repair first because i cant recall experiencing such a extreme roll after aim 9 launches (sorry not at home for some days so i cant test it myself). Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Great, so there's actually a button for that... I've just posted a similar question in another thread because I find the current behavior so inconvinient that I could not believe that functionality does not work in the real aircraft

Shouldn't the DOGFIGHT switch default to the 9X when loaded? This is by far the most inconvinient thing i've found the in F16 which btw is great in the hornet. Also why by default the aim9x is not slaved to the JHMCS and you need to go press the OSB? Basically when i'm in a situation when a bogey is really close and i need to go DOGFIGHT mode i need to do the following: Step 0- Go long press of weapon selector switch to change 120C to 9X, the A or B A: Go TMS-up to lock the bandit and launch the aim9x (Warning the bandit if he has not seen me yet) B: Take my eyes off him in order to go press the OSB from slave to Bore, in order to acquire him with the 9x seeker and JHMCS (Cage/uncage). How do you guys do this? For the time being i've mapped the OSB switch to my HOTAS but it is a lot of buttons presses in such situation. The hornet is so simple... you just select the 9X look at the bandit, uncage the 9X and boom he is dead in 1 second.

The hornet do some weird thing at times regarding weapon launches and roll tendency, I guess its WIP.

Ok so you are comparing it to the current f16 version of the PAF. I say this because a block 70 f16 is an AESA equipped fighter. But even though take into account that Jf17 being so light it comes with many operational limitatios, specially range and weapon payload, which would not be the case in a block 70 f16. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Not at all, you are right, it should be a very scientific and factual discussion rather than a political one, poor wording on my part.

As far as I know PAF is plannimg to buy block 70 f16 as his main fighter. And what do you mean by superior in ALL aspects..., i can already tell you more than 3 main aspects of a fighter in which the jf17 cannot be superior no matter how good the weapons and electronics are, even electromics are limited by its size (ej. Radar aperture and kw) Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I would love to see and hear about that kind discussion. I'm sure you will all get to a middle ground. Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Not at all, the SD10 as of the latest OB clearly outperforms the 120C by a wide margin. The AIM120C is better now though.