GGTharos
-
Posts
33382 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by GGTharos
-
-
6 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:
It would be helpfull if autopilot hdg/alt hold would work with refuel door open. I can then join up on tanker, find the sweet spot, engage the AP then just worry about throttle. But no, AP kicks off when door is open, and won't enage until closed.
No, it won't work because:
6 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:Trim is kind of weird. Is there a perfect trim, where aircraft flies at constant alt and pitch.
No, this is completely dynamic.
6 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:Seems to me that I can get close but never stable. A single tick of pitch trim either makes nose go up, or down, then correcting with counter single trim just reverses. But never hold it at zero VV. At tanker, its really pronounced.
You need to be stirring the stick and you have to anticipate what your corrections will do. Lose a knot, nose drops, gain a knot, nose rises.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, TotenDead said:
Welp, then shouldn't TWS have problems when tracking targets that are jamming? I'm not saying it should be as affected as n001, but still
You will still have a strobe in TWS.
STT tends to be better at dealing with jamming, TWS would be better at not triggering it.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Hobel said:
The inverted flare is there to fill the FOV of the missile with as much flare as possible otherwise the flare will fly out of the seeker's FOV too fast. With Su27 you don't have to do this as the flare is thrown upwards in this scenario. So why is it unrealistic that many flares in the FOV have a negative effect on the seeker, that's what you're trying to do to best fool the missile.
Depends on IRCCM type. An AIM-9X (and missiles using similar digitally processed imaging) wouldn't care unless the flares and smoke can completely hide the target that is, like a curtain, and the target is able to escape the FoV at that time.
Other missiles may care, and in some cases it can overwhelm even certain older digital IRCCM (non-imaging or pseudo-imaging).
Flare effectiveness is proven against certain types of seekers, but not just by existing - release spacing can easily be important. There are situations where flare effectiveness is zero as well. None of this stuff is modeled in DCS AFAIK, other than some aspect and afterburner in/out effects and maybe distance from target.
Until such things are modeled, it would probably be fair to return the flare effectiveness where it was.
As for the inverted release thing, that's just silly. In some cases the aircraft itself may hide the flares but please point to a case of IRL advice to 'invert when flaring' - if it mattered, why not simply mount the buckets in the correct position? Why do aircraft whose biggest problem is stuff coming up from the ground have buckets mounted to shoot up?
-
3
-
-
Macross Zero, Shin in his F-14 looking at the Russian veritech that's about to shoot him down.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Granny said:
Anyone know a good way to tune radios in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft? I fly on a VR headset so tuning radios via keyboard is problematic, and in FC the cockpit is not mouse clickable. I have SRS but I don't if I can tune radios with it. When I toggle on the SRS radio controls, they appear on my desk top, not in the VR goggles, so that's not much better.
SRS works well with FC3 but you can't tune any radios with it - that is, the only input you have with FC3 with respect to AI etc, is to basically limit the radio calls to yourself or to hear them all.
SRS WILL tune you to the correct SRS frequencies for you to speak to other people, and I would recommend to make your life easy that you set up pre-defined channels and have a channel/comms plan. This way you can go up/down channels as desired, and you'll also see the frequency for the channel displayed on screen.
So basically, SRS to DCS interaction in terms of gameplay is pretty much none for FC3, but SRS to SRS works exactly as you would expect a radio to work.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:
I think that the blast zone is a dynamic thing in RL, but I am not exactly sure how it works.
The shape of it is, and it is AFAIK, set by the fuze/target sensor. A radar fuze will use the doppler effect to determine closure and therefore set off the primer charges in a given order. There are other ways to accomplish this, eg. the 'head on' and 'tail on' settings may affect missile settings, etc. Not sure if a laser fuze would do more than just 'reflected the beam with enough intensity, go boom now'.
-
1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:
How do you know the threat is exactly 90 degrees if not by RWR? Seeing missile with MK 1 eye ball?
Yes, you should be doing just about everything by sight. It doesn't have to be the missile specifically although seeing the smoke trail will help.
-
1
-
-
The maximum distances occur against high, FAST, non-maneuvering targets. Something like 20km altitude and mach 2.
-
Fair point, I only see them unfolded in images where they're mounted on pylons. Chances are they're not all captive-carry, in which case perhaps the folding mechanism is only used for storage and transport, but then ... how do you fit them inside the Su-57 bay? Maybe you don't.
-
11 hours ago, Irisz said:
Overall, I would like to make forum members aware that if someone searches or talks about R-27 missiles marked 1 on this forum, it is not about the OLD Soviet missiles. So in the case of ED, if you use these missiles as information about what it can do, you create a fantasy missile in DCS World. Because the Su-27 - Su-33 MiG-29 missiles use OLD Soviet Vympel missiles manufactured around 1990. However, if ED uses the data of the current EXPORT missiles, the homing head of the missile is from 2024, and its export engine is from 1990! Su-27SK weakened manual Export not oroginal and better Su-27S manual! MiG-29 9-29B Export manual (weakened export) not original and better Soviet MiG-29 9-12 or 9-13 or 9-13S product!
This is the problem, that's why the range of the missiles is reduced!
The '1' series of missiles are export weapons with a simpler (probably not very effective) ECCM system. The rocket, warhead and guidance modules are otherwise identical IIRC. Don't waste your time dreaming up of some sort of super secret super-superior soviet configuration.
-
1
-
-
On 5/20/2024 at 4:24 PM, Pavlin_33 said:
I think after seeing R77-1 in action IRL this is no longer an argument.
It is an argument but it also doesn't matter in this case - AFAIK the fins would be folded until the missile is launched. It's hard to say what the drag should be (eg. on some stations a sidewinder might have more drag than a 120) but it certainly seems odd that the R-77's would be that draggy on the pylons. I suspect it's a case of drag factor copy-paste OR maybe for FC3 aircraft, there's no real distinction for weapons on pylons.
-
22 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:
While I don't have hard data available right now (at work), the AIM54 had radar fallback modes which allowed it to continue to guide on reflections from the AWG-9 even if the active seeker lost the lock.
Since the AIM120A was effectively a smaller, digitized AIM54C (hence why TWS modes were tested on the F-14A), I'd be shocked if the AIM120C7 didn't have some sort of launching aircraft radar fallback mode in case the missile lost lock with its own seeker.
This is a bad assumption, and is counter-indicated by what's written in the weapons manual (it reads, keeping lock of the target after MPRF has no effect on Pk) . Also, the 120A is in no way some miniaturized form on the 54C. Sure the development may have come from there but the degree of commonality is both completely unknown and what is known is that these two missiles operated on different principles.
-
It does not matter, neither can dominate the other. Both give you the ability to get in the other's OODA loop.
-
On 12/19/2023 at 3:49 PM, Ramius007 said:
Do you guys think it's more important to have notch mechanic weakened over lets say random missile failures that happen even in most advanced weapons but are not modelled in DCS? TBF, I expect AMRAAM's to not be fooled by simple tricks mentioned here and palying a bit of devil advocate, but thare are many other variables that we are not awere of, but are decreasing missiles efficiency, those can be things like humidity, harsh field enviroment , poor production methods, decrypted by enemy guidance system and ECM jammers adjusted to make X missile near useless and so on, new avionics software upgrade making missiel to not work, and so on, most of those things never get modelled, and having missiles being not some sort of wunderwaffe is part of DCS selling point, and it's REALISM...
If you don't know the failure modes and statistics of said failures, where's the realism? It's nothing but another annoying 'feature'.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, intruder11 said:
> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 of the same era in dogfight.
Yeah, I think if there was a skilled pilot in the MiG-29, this is a plausible statement.
It isn't. Make the should a could and remove no problem, and you're good. Why did the USAF not implement something like this? 'Because they didn't have the technology' is out of the question ... in fact they did a whole series of testing to determine if they should do this. So why?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Cab said:
Unless the Swiss (and maybe the Finns?) made them for themselves, I doubt there are any.
But I agree they would be very interesting to look at if they did exist.
The most likely answer is 'yes and you can't have it'.
-
1
-
-
On 12/1/2023 at 6:45 PM, Pavlin_33 said:
If you look at the seeker's point of view, you can see that on two occasions it goes for the plume of the afterburner, just aft of the engines.
I am not sure if there was any image recognition in those cases. It looked like the seeker was going for the hotest thing it could find.
Image recognition yes, it just might not mean exactly what you think it means. It can classify a thing as a target (not this is an airplane, or whatever, just target) and 'these are parts of the target' in some respect and then classify other things as 'not my target' or 'false target'. Generally without very modern countermeasures a 9X should not be getting decoyed if the decoy isn't making the target IMHO.
-
4
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:
It's better if I let this question go, because the discussion goes to a level it shouldn't go to!
It is good to ask questions, but not good to accuse of errors in many cases - the R-27 range, engine, and other issues have been discussed for over a decade and the data for this are good. If you want to discuss strange rocketry, the SD-10 in DCS is a good candidate with a rocket set up with a 6s boost and 4s sustain resulting in a missile that is far faster than it ought to be.
ED stated that they will be working on what remains to be worked on for the R-27 family which is guidance. I hope they will significantly enhance ECM behavior and the 'RF environment' in addition to other things (for example sparrow and AIM-120 have brought new guidance mechanics in terms of the physical motion of the missile)
-
On 2/26/2024 at 6:13 AM, darkman222 said:
Thanks. And thats the point. So you have the 10 overpowered unicorn F18 world wide vs a mass produced F16 Block 50. Quite sure that these two aircraft types did not see a lot of dogfights against each other in real life.
F-18Cs were getting delivered with the EPE since lot 15 IIRC, so I don't see the unicorn thing.
-
MPRF does 3/8 and going of very distant memory it is required due to multiple doppler bands being eclipsed as well as resolving other ambiguity, but again ... don't quote me on that.
-
I would personally prefer QOL improvements to the radar and navigation.
-
20 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:
I think Flanker's capable of tracking targets down to 150km/h in look-down, but I am not 100% sure. I will need to investigate further.
Yep, so that's the closure component which allows you to easily be in the notch compared to going faster, basically the angle off 90 degrees to the radar opens up significantly.
-
At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, mazex said:
Mmm, finally got the hang of it by making sure to get it trimmed at the right AOA (~22), speed around 170-180 when heavy and the velocity vector at the touch down point (just at the edge of blinking), controlling the glide path with the throttle... And then cut all power, flare rather boldly and full air brake while keeping the nose wheel in the air as long as possible. And then full wheel brakes...
But having grown up in Sweden where I have seen many Viggen and Gripen aircraft stop after 400-500 meters on small highways it feels a bit silly
The Viggen is fun to land in DCS, but the easiest in my opinion is the F/A-18 on a regular airfield... No problem jerking around with high alpha in some steep turn to bleed off speed, and just slam it down in the end
~21, as in 20 to 22 ...this is important because above 22 you get into heavy AoA-induced drag used for aerobraking (And this is a type of approach you can use for minimum ground run but there is more to it than just AoA). Throttle probably shouldn't be cut because you're made of inertia and makes a touch-and-go harder in case you need it. Reduce yes, but cut only when you touch down.
If you have to apply full brakes before 60kts, ideally 40-50 if heavy, the runway you have chosen is too short and you'll have a hot brakes problem (N/A DCS).
-
1
-
F-15 Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MSIP)
in DCS: F-15C
Posted
The APG-v3 which is an AESA radar would implement SWT, but for the older MSA (v1 or older), RWS is the primary search mode and you certainly can go STT from it.