MARLAN_

Attached are DCS EM diagrams for a lot of DCS modules, including the DCS F-18, I didn't make it, looks like the author is "Contact Light" Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS.pdf

It seems like the current algorithm is probably okay since as you said it is factoring in range/speed/etc. however it's not as aggressive as it should be, maybe some multiplier in the algorithm could be tweaked to increase the auto loft angle.

I did read your post, I was trying to clarify, no need to get hostile. Do you know what angles it currently lofts at besides the one case of ~7.5 degrees at 20nm? Does it ever automatically loft to 30 degrees or close?

Is your evidence saying that the auto loft doesn't reach 30 degrees but if you manually loft to 30 degrees it stays there and improves performance?

I don't understand the issue, is it that you think the loft angle for the missile should be greater than 30 degrees? As for manual lofting, that is something done in the real world and is expected to improve the performance of a launch.

If I understand you correctly, you're comparing the actual missile performance (launch in VISUAL) vs. the predicted missile performance (rmax in this case)? If so: DLZ has been bugged for a long time, hopefully something ED can fix soon. Possibly attributes to other issues like the LOST cue has been broken for a very long time.

To be fair, it can be normal for the missile to go directly to MPRF active, it depends on the aspect/closure of the target. That said, as far as I know, HPRF is not implemented in DCS, and even if it is, the symbology is missing in at least the F-18. (Should be a solid "A" for HPRF active on the ATTK page, and flashing "A" for MPRF active) -- It would be great if HPRF active was implemented into DCS, it's important to BVR!

https://youtu.be/V0QgHZuYx7Q Based on the other videos and this one I would say the contrails should be more visible at altitude

The problem isn't that the F-18 doesn't "bleed" speed, it's that its lacking pitch authority at higher speeds. It's not an energy problem so much as it is a FCS/FM problem, it can't pull hard enough to lose speed and prevent arcing. You can easily test this by starting at 380 knots, 15000 feet and going into afterburner and performing a split S. In the real world you'd be able to pull hard enough to maintain control of your speed, in DCS you'll end up exiting the turn at 500 knots due to a lack of pitch authority.

After looking into it a bit, currently in DCS: - EXP on air track -> Map layer zooms on ownship, but zooms link data on air track - EXP on ground track -> Map layer zooms on ownship, and zooms link data on ownship The map layer is clearly bugged and should be zooming on the link data, as seen with the expand on air track, it is still zooming the map data on ownship. Two completely different locations. This part of the bug shouldn't require evidence as it is simply a bug. As for what it should be zooming in on, it should be zooming in on the designated track or point (we should be able to expand on empty space as well), in the case of this report, it should zoom on the ground track, not revert back to the ownship. You can also see how when expanding on a ground track without the MAP enabled, nothing happens (aside from EXP being boxed) because it is incorrectly centering on your ownship (which is already happening without EXP) - turning on the MAP only reveals how the MAP layer is also bugged. Evidence PM'd SAEXP.trk

I got 0 degrees from our groups IRL Airboss, maybe different carriers do different things.

Looks like probably wind as BN mentioned (in which case this is normal behavior)

Should aspect matter here? Should only be closure as far as I know, and in the case of fighters RCS generally increases as aspect angle increases. There are some good public documents I can send to you about the topic if you're interested.

Without ED providing information its very hard to know what it does in DCS, or if it even matches documentation at all (same for a lot of implementations). The docs say WIDE will reject slow and medium speed targets whereas NORM will include all options. As far as I know, it is essentially widening the notch filter from for example 45 knots to 90 knots which can reject things like slow moving helicopters or fast moving ground vehicles but I haven't researched it very much. I haven't investigated this very much though, honestly I'm surprised this feature got priority compared to much more important issues like LOST, DLZ, ASE, etc. but I can't complain either when at least its another improvement! One step closer to completion.

Here's my first test from today, one missile is kinetically defeated, the reattack shot connects. Tacview-20221219-134216-DCS-Test_BVR.zip.acmi

MiG-29A, shooting RS-AA-10c (R-27ER), latest open beta version I am flying the F-18 as a client vs the AI MiG-29A's though, not doing AI vs. AI tests, so that may be where the discrepancy is originating. Edit: In both of your Tacviews, the AMRAAM does not appear to be guiding at all, only flying to last known intercept (and surprisingly, doesn't seem to acquire the contact at all even when it looks like it's in the seeker FOV, and the contact isn't maneuvering) it may be worth it to try repairing your DCS before follow on tests.

In my tests (35K vs 35K, Ace AI 2 ship MiG-29 Mach 1.0 vs 1.2, 30 degree aircraft loft shot at 35nm) I've seen 17/20 hits, of those 3 misses 2 were kinetically defeated and 1 was not supported to pitbull due to the look down penalty (hopefully this will be fixed as part of the F-18/F-16 radar improvments) causing drop track during a/c loft. Personally I'm very happy with it so far although that's not to say it's perfect or the test cases Rhayvn performed aren't accurate or anything When I was testing notching though, the AMRAAM often failed to intercept in close when it had sufficient energy, I'm assuming it's a guidance issue where it's not pulling enough lead.

LOST cue was reported 8 months ago (and has been a problem much longer), DLZ 4 months ago (also a problem for a much longer time than that) Do these bugs have any priority? The LOST cue flashing when missiles are in fact not lost is distracting, confusing for new players, and hides valuable information such as ACT XX or TTG XX. The DLZ being inaccurate still perhaps may be attributing to why the LOST cue is inaccurate, and the DLZ itself is very very important for knowing when your missiles are, or aren't valid but if the DLZ can't be trusted then it loses its purpose entirely. Depending how the code is coupled, the steering dot may also be relevant to these issues because if correct lead and loft angles are not calculated by the aircraft that will also drastically affect the predicted DLZ.

The HUD should display the longest ACT XX and once all missiles active (ACT = 0), then display the longest TTG XX or SL XX. Evidence has already been provided in PM. HUDACTTTG.trk

In our case, we could probably just add it to our mod list and start setting it up in missions going forward if it doesn't work correctly as a root mod.

Probability of detection is definitely a huge thing we are lacking in DCS. As another example of how it drastically changed how things should be: A dragging (cold) contact will have a lower probability of detection per hit, however because of the much lower closure rate compared to a hot target you actually have a higher probability of detection at any specific range, because you get more hits. This is talked about specially in a 1983 paper by Ringel on the APG-66. This is in contrast to DCS where a cold contact has a lower detection range.

This is great news, excited to see improvements for both the Hornet and Viper

Read ATP 3-52.4 which is a public document regarding air control. P-877 is another great public document.

IRL they target 0 degrees, no reason to make it harder. Offsets come into play when for whatever reason it isn't possible to have aircraft marshalling in that direction (e.g. airspace rules)

3/4 NM is only for CASE III (or CASE II when you go straight in) For CASE I you simply want a 15-18 second groove length.