MARLAN_

In addition to notching what I've also noticed is that radar guided missiles in DCS (more than just the AIM-120) are often defeated merely by maneuvering at all. Break turn, or split S/emmelman and the incoming missile is immediately defeated.

Did some more testing, even with bandits flying at 50 feet off the deck they are detected at exactly 31NM I also tested 5K and 1K, same result.

Awesome, thanks for your work on these cards, they're all excellent (F18 suite too)!

Absolutely. The realistic fight is becoming less realistic as time goes on and it's frustrating for those trying to simulate realistically. I've heard almost the exact same exclamation you made OP "Who would want such a weapon?" from our squadron's real F-18 pilots. - Modern radars (aircraft or missile) should NOT be easily notched. It should be very difficult. These aren't old radars that were very vulnerable to it. If you even want a chance to notch you'd need to be within 1 degree of accuracy to reduce closure, then add in ground clutter, chaff, jamming, maneuvering and luck. Right now, you simply notch within 10-15 degrees and it works 95% of the time. It's funny to me when a tanker making a gentle turn notches you almost every single time. Based on various parameters the radar notch filter should dynamically change. The "notch" exists because the radar allows it to in order to filter out clutter. If the target is very close and extremely obvious to the radar, it won't have a hard time filtering it out from clutter and narrowing the notch filter. - The AIM-120 currently is easily spoofed by simple maneuvers (even worse this patch) but even in previous patches for example things such as AI fighters jettisoning their fuel tanks. The fuel tank being released from their aircraft has an completely different vector than the aircraft, a modern missile would not be so easily spoofed by this (perhaps when bullseye nose high/low it may have some effect, but certainly not relatively perpendicular to the ground). - Radar lookdown currently is atrocious. A modern radar look down should have essentially no effect when the target is over water, and when the target is over land the effect will be noticeable but not greatly so like it currently is. (48NM detection shrinking to 31NM ?) - STT Lock-on currently has a 85% reduction in track range which is nonsensical for a modern radar. This is probably based on source information from a very old radar, but is not applicable to modern radar. You should be able to track further than you can detect with a modern radar (of course in order to initiate a track the target would either need to enter your detection range and then leave it, or you would initiate STT via a offboard track like with the F-18's MSI) but simply having a radar hit on your RDR ATTK means you 100% should be able to STT that target. All of the passionate members of the DCS community want this simulation to be the best it can be.

I felt like the burble had an extremely excessive pitch up effect when I first tested it in the F18 Supercarrier Case I mission However, during my last full mission landing the burble felt totally reasonable. I wonder if that instant action mission is out of date/bugged or something or perhaps the WOD in that mission is wrong causing an exasperated burble because it felt fine in my mission. I'll have to look into to further.

Had a mission tonight, 5 aircraft, 18 AMRAAM fired, 3 hits. 16.7% PK. Almost every single was missing ridiculously easily, something is definitely very wrong this patch. Hopefully this gets fixed soon! An AMRAAM should have a very reliable and high Pk vs. a target that does not kinematically defeat the missile (drag away/turn cold), missiles are being defeated right now by gentle descents hot aspect.

DIRT = RWR indication of a S/A threat in SEARCH MUD = RWR indication of a S/A threat in TRACK SINGER = RWR indication of a S/A threat LAUNCH -- NAILS = RWR indication of a A/A threat in SEARCH SPIKE = RWR indication of a A/A threat in TRACK or LAUNCH -- They should not be conjoined together and is purely a DCSism, would never be done real world (and if the error was made it would be debriefed as it is incorrect)

I was asked to make a new thread regarding this issue: The LOST Cue in the F/A-18C should be displayed when: a) Missile Launched outside of Rmax b) Target Maneuvers outside of Rmax post launch -- If the target maneuvers back within the kinematic capabilities of the missile during TOF the dynamic TTG cueing will return. c) Dynamic TTG cueing has reached a count of 0 and the radar is still tracking a target. The purpose of the LOST cue is to inform the pilot when it is highly unlikely his missile will impact his target, typically unless the target under attack maneuvers back into the incoming missile. Because the LOST cue removes your Dynamic TTG cueing (TTA/TTG) if it is displayed incorrectly it can be disorientating for the experienced pilot and totally confusing for the inexperienced pilot who will now believe his missile is unlikely to intercept. It is hard to test all of this piece-by-piece but it does appear ED has got this mostly correct which is awesome, thanks to the team for implementing this feature. The issue currently is that the LOST cue is displayed despite the missile having enough energy to impact the target. It's not even close with the following Tacview & Track file showing an impact at Mach 2.21 with the target under attack at Mach 0.76. If needed I can provide proof to one of the ED CMs, but it does appear ED is modeling this correctly already, albeit with a math error somewhere in the DCS code causing this issue. EDIT: To add: The MC displayed LOST at 043232Z with the AMRAAM at Mach 2.75 with 12NM to go with the target under attack in HOT aspect. The target had not maneuvered at all yet. Tacview-20220428-125234-DCS.zip.acmi LOSTCue2712.trk

Tested before and after this patch with these results: 2.7.11.22211 BLUE ALT / RED ALT -> Detection Range (NM) 35K / 35K -> 48 35K / 30K -> 46 35K / 25K -> 31 35K / 20K -> 31 35K / 15K -> 31 35K / 10K -> 31 2.7.12.23362 BLUE ALT / RED ALT -> Detection Range (NM) 35K / 35K -> 48 35K / 30K -> 46 35K / 25K -> 31 35K / 20K -> 31 35K / 15K -> 31 35K / 10K -> 31 So radar look down wasn't changed this patch, unsure if the "Slant Range" fix meant this or something else, but regardless the look down penalty is grossly excessive currently. Look-down penalty should be nearly non existent over water (where this test was conducted) and over land should have a small effect due to ground clutter but not a -35% radar range across the board as soon as the bandit is greater than 5000 feet below the nose. As far as I'm aware, DCS uses the degrees of radar look down, I didn't record that here though. It does appear however that this is a bug and not intended. The 48NM to 46NM is reasonable for a 5K difference in altitude, and then the flat 31 NM across the board perhaps could be a bug in the code somewhere. I didn't want to record & include 12 tracks but it's easily reproducible 100% of the time. To reproduce: place yourself and the bandit at the noted altitudes and L&S (undesignate switch) the bandit as soon as detected to get an accurate reading.

It should be nearly impossible to notch an AMRAAM (or a modern radar at all for that matter) as far as I am aware. It's a notch filter, it chooses not to see things in the notch due to clutter, but that filter will narrow down as range closes. At the point the missile is pitbull it should be nearly impossible to notch. Perhaps with some luck, a nearly perfect notch, and chaff + jamming you can get lucky against a pitbull AMRAAM, but the "lazy" flying into the notch with the very rough heading guesstimation that most do using via RWR or SA is definitely insufficient. Even for an aircraft radar much further away you'd need to fly within 1-2 degrees of error to limit closure enough to enter the notch filter, using the RWR or SA page is not sufficient real world (check RDR ATTK BRAA or AIC BRAA callout to bandit and add 90 degrees exactly) It's ridiculous how you get notched by an AI tanker lazily turning almost all of the time when trying to rejoin. I'm not a radar expert as much as someone like @Beamscanneris, so I'm happy to be shown wrong, but what I've heard from F18 pilots is this behaviour is totally unrealistic (but of course they can only talk very generally) - certainly DCS can't be a perfect representation of the APG-73 but radar isn't a secret, it's just physics, right? I mean really I bet people would be happier if things were unrealistically more effective than unrealistically ineffective (assuming it can't be accurate; of course that is best!), at least then real world tactics could still be practiced. It throws a wrench into things when equipment is way less effective than it should be.

Agree totally, very well put.

Hornet seems to match pretty well in DCS as far as I can tell, the only thing missing is some g onset/pitch authority at higher speeds.

https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/db/Sensors/Sensor/ANAPG-73.lua It believe this may be the AI version of the sensor though (didn't realize initially). I would have expected that the AI would use the same one since they are the same radar and all, but sounds like they have a different version for the AI Radar. There are notable differences such as gimbals being incorrect on this file as well.

Yea a reference would help put our minds at ease since I assume ED is trying to create an accurate representation of the F18. Perhaps a "intended" or "legally unable" tag would work better than "correct as is" for some features.

Yea that's right, my comment was referring to DCS only. Hopefully that's how they have it implemented!

In the real jet yes, it seems ambiguous if this is what will be implemented in DCS this coming patch. Hopefully it is!

That's right, subsequent presses of the UFC D/L button should cycle between L4 and L16

Oh, yea. It seems that code snippet might be for just the AI version of the APG-73, not sure. But I imagine it's that easy still even for the player version of it.

Not sure what you mean

Looks like fixing this issue would likely be either deleting this line or setting it to 1.0. edit: It could actually probably be set higher, not sure what value, I'm sure a radar SME could figure out, but for example 1.15 -- This wouldn't do much right now since we don't have the capable to designate an offboard track yet, but would future proof a bit. (Unless you STT a contact and then they run away or something like that) edit 2: this code snippet sounds like it may only apply to the AI F18's, appears it was a coincidence or perhaps code duplication that it appeared to match the 0.83 test mentioned here. I'm sure a similar value probably exists elsewhere that ED has access to.

I'm confused, do you mean the D/L button will display this: or this? If the former, how will we access VOC A & VOC B? If the latter, how will ACLS work? Is there a way to toggle between the menus? To clarify, this comment is regarding the DCS implementation. The real jet can switch between L4 and L16 by pushing the button again.

So we have lost the ability to adjust AIC, F/F 1, F/F 2, VOC A, and VOC B or am I misunderstanding?

Having the same issues here, happened 3 times now during events with 10-15 players with 1/2 to 1/3 having their games hang.

As I understand, the track file will enter a MEM condition when all sensors contributing to the track file are in memory (currently in DCS this is only the radar and offboard, but if/when MSI is improved this would be many more systems), and it will display RMEM if the radar was the only sensor contributing. If that track file was your L&S it will display a segmented box when in RMEM. There shouldn't be a "SHOOT" cue when in RMEM. So to answer your question: if the track file is in memory and the radar is the only contributor you should get a segmented box, but if an AWACS or another fighter was contributing to the track file it may not be in memory and you could still be displayed a solid box. With the aforementioned bugs like the ghost track, it's possible something was still seeing the "ghost" but it's hard to say without knowing the exact logic behind it in DCS. Currently in DCS target aging is tied to track file memory, but it should only affect the display.

As title, PM'd Bignewy. Lock should only be displayed when the radar is in track (STT).