Jump to content

MARLAN_

Members
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MARLAN_

  • Birthday 10/01/1993

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World
  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    CVW-8
  • Website
    https://virtualcvw8.com/

Recent Profile Visitors

1540 profile views
  1. Thanks for the response. It's always a good reminder for everyone to hear that the most realistic sim is desired and the team is passionate. We all love this sim and want it to be the best it is. I only mentioned it because I notice a lot of support is wavering in the past months/year (times have been really tough globally though), I didn't mean to offend. I am sending some proof your way about MIDS/Data Link shortly.
  2. With respect, I am confused -- we know the F-18 is capable of sharing its sensor information to the network to support track files (as confirmed by Nineline, ED already believes that an L&S designated target should be shared, so the capability is already there) so why would the F-18 not also share non-L&S sensor information? It's purely common sense logic. As mentioned by others, L&S is only applicable for TXDSG for designation line and launch line (we are missing launch line) and all sensor information contributing to track files is shared to the network. I 100% totally understand not simulating the exact parameters of classified material because you'd then need to prove how you knew (for example) an AMRAAM can fly 123.456NM and wasn't just a lucky guess, but this is common sense logic. Is not allowed for the public to apply deduction & logic? Seems really silly to me. I understand ED needs to be very careful, but sometimes this just doesn't make sense to me and it sounds like from what I hear in various DCS community portals that it feels like excuses to avoid dedicating further development.
  3. I'm not familiar with the nuance of how this applies to the F-16, but I can explain how it should work in the F-18 (not necessarily how it is currently implemented) and this may help clear up some things possibly. Keep in mind this does talk about the F-18's MSI so parts of this won't apply to the F-16. -> When an AMRAAM is launched, it guides towards the track file designated as the L&S at time of launch. -> Losing radar to that targeted track file by itself is not relevant for losing support to the missile. As long as your radar can still see your own missile (because this is (simply put) how support is data transferred with the C5) it can continue to support it based on other sensors, such as offboard track information (AWACS, Fighter-To-Fighter, etc.), FLIR, etc. albeit at varying levels of track quality. -> If you lose radar contribution to a track file that is only supported by your radar, the track file is marked for deletion (MEM/RMEM) after extrapolating for some time (I believe it is 1 radar frame, but I can't find a source on that part right now). If radar support is regained before the track file is deleted, that track file is still correlated and the missile can continue being supported. If the track file is deleted, even if the target is reacquired by your radar, it's too late, correlation has been lost and support for your missile cannot be regained. Correlation is very important in real world to ensure interlopers aren't accidentally targeted. AIC/ABM's are very important for this part of it. Other notes -> An active AMRAAM can still be supported by your ownship radar. I believe this is already correctly modeled in DCS because supporting to timeout does increase Pk. -> Track files are not created at launch, they are created by various different sensors and the track file is maintained by those sensors. In the case of the F-16 I believe this may only be the radar (but again, I'm unsure of the specifics of the F-16).
  4. I would add though, if we ever get a faster TDC speed like we should have, it'll become less likely to invoke this bug unintentionally. (Not that it wouldn't be good to be fixed anyway s of course)
  5. Thanks for finding it! Hopefully it can get fixed soon.
  6. To add though... TDC Depress in RWS should center the scan volume, not command a the mini-scan that DCS does. I've sent proof before, I think I made a report that was accepted but I forget now. I could make a new one.
  7. As mentioned in that old thread does seem quite strange that an advanced missile has a battery life that doesn't cover its kinematic potential. That said I do not have access to proof that says otherwise, so I guess it's a moot point.
  8. I've had the same issue before, previously fixed it with a 2% dead zone, was having issues lately again, noticed my stick pitch had drifted to ~3%. Recalibrated today, everything is hunky dory again. I don't believe this is a DCS issue, there's a good chance it's your hardware, recalibration would be my first bet.
  9. Thank you! Would be really helpful I think if it was done, either way thanks for putting in the request, appreciate it.
  10. This is awesome news. Could ED consider doing this for radar as well? Would help us understand why some changes are made that sometimes results in discussion. Thank you!
  11. Did a couple tests vs. the SA-5 system (x1 Gammon, x1 Tin Shield, x1 Square Pair) F/A-18C 35,000' Mach 0.9 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 89 NM, Missile Intercept @ 70 NM / 1800 KTS F/A-18C 35,000' Mach 0.9 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 89 NM, Missile Intercept @ 70 NM / 1800 KTS KC-135 35,000' Mach 0.81 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 88 NM, Missile Intercept @ 71 NM / 1800 KTS KC-135 35,000' Mach 0.81 0 ATA - Missile Launch @ 88 NM, Missile Intercept @ 71 NM / 1800 KTS I also tried moving a second search radar closer but it had no effect (perhaps because there is a limitation for how far away a group member can be?) but in either case, you would think the RCS difference between the F/A-18C and the KC-135 would have changed the launch range if the bottle neck was the radar. It appears that the bottle neck is when the system thinks it is has a valid shot, but considering in all tests the missile intercepted at 1800 KTS / Mach 3.1 perhaps the issue is with the defined DLZ for the S/A systems? The group was set to launch at 100% range. I'm not sure what specifically is defined as an acceptable intercept speed for an Rmax shot, but I would imagine Mach 3 is well above that, perhaps something closer to >= Mach 1 to be considered a valid Rmax shot. Does anyone here know how Rmax is defined? Edit: Did some reading, gets a bit confusing but essentially Raero is actually "Rmax" as in, the range where the % chance the missile successfully hits is >0%, what we typically refer to as "Rmax" is actually known as Rmax2 on the back end, additionally it can be defined as percentages of expected Pk, e.g. Rmax,90% or Rmax,70%. So long story short, it's based on percent of expected Pk based on various parameters (e.g. Rne / Rtr assumes the target maneuvers 180 degrees away and descends). All that said, whatever the DLZ is based on currently in DCS seems to be undertuned because if a missile is intercepting at Mach 3.1 it still has plenty of energy to intercept at a further range. (P.S. could certainly have misunderstood what I read if anyone knows better, was skimming a lot of complex papers late at night)
  12. If you assign TDC priority to the SA page you will not be able to blank or unblank the HMD with the recce/mark switch because that functionality commands EXP instead.
  13. As far as I know DCS will divide an object's aspect into 4 quarters (hot/beam/cold) for the purposes of things like the chaff/flare random% to decoy so I wonder if that's also happening here. This current behavior doesn't much much sense to me, the aspect of a target should be irrelevant to a radar except for a change in presented geometry and thus likely RCS. Which as far as I am aware, RCS in DCS is static so this wouldn't be the case. This could potentially also be part of the culprit for why notching in DCS is overtuned, its possible it is taking into account the beam quarter instead of/or in addition to closure. Anyway, I'm just speculating as to the cause, great find!
  14. I can totally understand ECM and maneuvering causing issues with acquiring a solid track on a target, but if I recall correctly the targets in my track files did not maneuver or using any ECM. If this was truly what ED are doing, a blanket reduction in radar range to account for these situations really isn't the way to go. What you are describing are different ways the radar may have issues and fail to acquire a solid track and would be awesome if this was modeled but a blanket reduction in range isn't a great temporary solution until those things can be fully realized. Personally I feel like what others in the thread have been talking about is the more likely situation - being that ED likely sourced information on a different radar or very old radar model. Hopefully ED's team can look back into this and consider rolling back the change.
  15. I've noticed S/A in general seems to have a very short range lately, maybe something to do with recent radar changes? Maybe they affected all radar in the game drastically reducing performance across the board? Just speculating.
×
×
  • Create New...