GGTharos

The situation with RWRs (SPO or western) is not this simple as you may believe: The beams are not very narrow - note that the definition of the beam is the half-power point, so there's a lot of RF energy to go around when you are outside of the beam. When two aircraft are reasonably close and one is attacked, it makes sense for both RWRs to squeal. Also, a lot of radars have significant side-lobes, so the second situation is being close enough to the emitting radar (which may not be close at all physically speaking) and the RWR should squeal even if the radar is pointing in a significantly different direction. Obviously DCS does not model such RF physics.

I mean any smokey missile, be it R-27 or AIM-7/54 etc. In-game, those are plenty smokey, no real need for contrails which is why I say that this is moot for them.

We don't know what the radar would do exactly but you can sort of guess and there'll be no need to roll dice: If you get a reflection within the specified search area (raster size and range gate) you lock it They were not but I can tell you two things about them: a) they basically follow the radar equation and b) for FC3 at least they operate on the game's object ID, not on the basis of reflection.

You shouldn't, because it's arbitrary and doesn't take gross weight or time into account. I get why you like it, but you shouldn't, it doesn't even come close to corresponding to reality. It's a good start of an idea of one, but not good all on its own. That doesn't mean anything. Look at the Su-27 manual, IIRC in there they have something that I think answers you question above (how do you determine the limits?): Somewhere in that manual it is stated that the flanker's g-limiter is tuned to permit you a certain amount of g for a certain GW, and that number changes based on the GW. While this doesn't completely answer your question it gives you the necessary hint because of how the limiter is tuned to prevent structural failure, or at least aging out of the aircraft. To understand when/how the aircraft will actually fail you need to see documentation from either structural testing (Good luck with finding that, at least I've never seen it for a fighter) or from IRL experience with the aircraft. When the aircraft has a 1.5 engineered over-g tolerance, it isn't just going to come apart or get damaged because you pulled 1.3x the g limit. That's going to depend entirely on the airframe and how it's constructed, and there's no rule that says two aircraft have to act the same. To give you a simple example, you could bend a carbon fiber wing all you want as long as it's under the ultimate load limit, but when you reach that limit it'll just snap. This isn't the same for the aircraft we're talking about - ie. you could deform the fuselage - but that doesn't mean one aircraft will tolerate the overload the same way another will.

The radar range is tweaked based on supporting documentation and understanding of the radar equation, and general behaviors of similar radars. I don't see why anyone would agree to not tweak that radar when the knowledge for it is there and it's literally the act of changing a single number in some file. Here's more food for thought: The radar equation is known. There's a reason why that mathematical relationship exists, and why it predicts detection range under the best of circumstances; it's valid for everything and anything, and it doesn't take atmospheric attenuation into account or attenuation due to weather. The only things taken into account are the emitted power, reflection power, system gain and sensitivity all the system. The fun part is that if ED really wanted, they can make the sensitivity variable which would simulate the changing noise floor due any type of natural or certain types of artificial ECM.

These are the F-15A-D FAST packs, not the CFTs like the F-15Es. The difference has to do with weapon stations etc. I believe the USANG/USAF air sovereignty eagles will be mounting them now. You lose a bunch of BFM performance but your flat dash intercept and loiter gets more efficient. IMHO the g-tolerance of the DCS pilot is too low generally. The devil is really in the details but, if pilots had better tolerance then I'd be more partial towards fatigue systems, higher quality g-tolerance simulation etc. I think while the F-16's ergonomics regarding g-tolerance are believed to be superior, realistically there is some question as to whether they really provide something better. Anyway that's a huge discussion in and of its own and with its own science. The current investments seem to be going into better g-suits rather than reclining seats.

There may be some motor formulations that don't leave contrails but I don't recall any 'smokeless' motor being in use, but 'reduced smoke' instead all of which should cause some form of condensation under the right circumstances. This includes all the really smokey rockets, it's just sort of moot because they're already smokey.

There may be things that are off with the AIM-7 motor in DCS, but it's not going to be too far off. We'll see, this is a matter of a lot of research. Regarding max range, for the 7F it is 53nm when launched at 50000' mach 2, vs a non-maneuvering, head-on target at same altitude and speed. At lower altitudes and speeds the ranges are shorter and, again, against non-maneuvering targets. As well, saying that the missile has speed x means next to nothing simply because the missile's top speed varies considerably based on launch conditions, and of course it varies considerably during flight as well.

It just doesn't mean what you believe it means. Ie. it's not any kind of structural strength document. And not 'cause there was an eagle', there are GLOC studies showing multiple over-g incidents for the F-15, that being defined (IIRC) at 9g or more, with the number of incidents inversely proportional to severity. Ie. there aren't a whole lot of 12g incidents, some more 11g incidents and most will be between 9 and 10. All aircraft are engineered to take x g at y GW, with a 30-50% margin. The flanker breaks according to such a schedule, and you can pull 10g if you're light enough. The eagle has a 9g limit when OWS is operative, and 7.33 when it is not ... why do you think that is? The OWS doesn't do anything other than indicate your allowed g based on current conditions. So why are you insisting on ignoring indisputable facts? Eagle with OWS is a 9g aircraft. Eagles have repeatedly exceeded the posted g tolerance without falling apart. Yeah, but you're using reason x for purpose y instead of reason x for reason x. No one is feeding you lies or trivial truths here, you're just stubbornly refusing to understand the error of your ways. It seems like people are thinking the question is 'should the eagle break from over-g' ... but that's not the question. It absolutely should, under the right conditions. There's no over-g DM implemented for the eagle, nor other FC3 birds other than the flanker AFAIK. I don't see anyone complaining that the MiG-29 won't break, or the A-10A or Frogfoot. Or maybe my knowledge is out of date and those do break now. And when ED does put this DM in, the flanker will still break when the eagle doesn't because hello, different airframes with different tolerances.

Missiles using the legacy FM will do this. Most missiles use the legacy FM.

The title of the thread is simply wrong. 'Missiles don't have contrails' is what it should be.

I agree, likewise TWS should present actual tracks but then TWS would need to have its actual modes implemented.

In the F-15 with sparrow in flight signal loss should dump the system into FLOOD.

Which should allow you to get max 12.5g ... which did not break the aircraft. This will be GW dependent but the point is this: No one disagrees with you that over-g should break the jet under the right circumstances. You're just not likely to encounter those circumstances if the jet isn't heavily loaded. DCS allows you to pull more than 12.5g and the results of exceeding this should be very bad. No one is arguing with you on that. However, if you're thinking that an unsustained or even series of high g-spikes are going to break the jet, you should be in for a bad surprise. Likewise, people who load 3 bags and pull 13gs should be in for a bad surprise on the other side of the spectrum. So let me repeat, and get this straight: F-15s have been over-g'd up to 12.5g and only one over-g instance of many is known to caused catastrophic in-flight failure. So does HB's solution apply reasonably to the eagle, if ED chose to do this? Sure ... just at a higher value than you probably want it to.

You're trying way too hard. None of these is over-g.

Someone has already broken down the list in this thread. I only know of two over-g incidents resulting in airframe write-off or disintegration. That doesn't mean there aren't more, but they're not in your list. Am I going to count the faulty longeron in? Of course not, you've got no faulty aircraft spawning anywhere in this game, and this longeron didn't have an effect until the airframe was reasonably aged.

This is the chart when the OWS is not operational or, before it was installed. Again, let's be very clear that F-15s have been through multiple over-g incidents up to 12.5g. Only one is known to have structurally failed because of over-g (as in disintegrated in mid-air) and the information on that incident is quite thin - IIRC the aircraft was fully loaded and attempted a high-g pull over the runway. The 12.5g jet never flew again. 12 g was pulled in combat (not too much unlike the presented gif here) and flew again. No amount of chart posting will take this fact away.

Nope, you don't need to trust me on this one. I have no direct links to share and no time to look for them right now, but you will certainly be able to find information to make the inference for this. * Clocks are synced for coordinating attacks, and being precisely on time is a valued skill * There are described or written procedures for changing the IFF keys every day. So you may want to look into this sort of thing by searching for IFF key change procedures, aircraft clock sync and possibly the USAF PKI infrastructure. The IFF key is crypto so it would fall under crypto distribution I believe.

Well it gets exceeded IRL in aircraft that aren't limited to a specific g by their FCS. The flanker can pull 11g without breaking, but you need to have it suitably light. It's simply built different. Neither of those things says no. You came here to have an eagle beef, not because of physics or common sense - at least that's what it looks like to me That's fine, can you prove that an eagle doesn't have that g-onset or can't pull more than 9g? Don't bother, these are questions that were asked and dealt with well before your time here. ED didn't build those FMs in some kind of vacuum, same with the pilot g-tolerance model; proof has already been provided regarding g-loading for whichever aircraft it could be found for, and the eagle in particular had a few interesting examples. But TBH, I don't think there are a lot of people who want to keep rehashing the same. It's a difficult topic because the answer we seek aren't available publicly. Basic descriptions and rules and ideas yes, but no information on how to model such a thing because the research isn't concerned with modeling g-tolerance in a simulator, but rather understanding the factors in order to help pilots tolerate more or at least to understand the limits and why they're there.

It's not saying anything different from what was stated before. Digging this stuff up is a good (great actually) start, devil's always in the details here. So yeah, your statement about napping pilots is not correct, proven wrong by IRL over-gs. That's not to say that some of those have not resulted in g-loc, in fact they have, but at a minority (and fun fact, plenty of g-loc happening at lower g too). This can occur for a good variety of reasons that DCS does not and probably will not model (pilot was a bit dehydrated or didn't do AGSM correctly etc).

Yep, the eagle is known to have on of the fastest g-onset times IRL. Maybe it's because there's no FBW to get in the way? Compared to jets with a similar control scheme, maybe it has more hydraulic power? Who knows. There's no g-onset graph unfortunately (well, not one that is available to us. I used to know the book to look for but it's not available to the public) None of this matters. The E-M diagrams are useless for this, you want to look at over-f studies. 1. Why not? Because you said so? Maybe the g-tolerance model for the pilot needs to account for a couple more things, but the bad news story is that IRL slow onset eats away your available time at high g as well. The USAF at least 'overcame' certain g-tolerance problems by weeding out pilots who can't take the g. You might be surprised as to how recent this is. 2. You would have to show that ED implemented the STOHL curve incorrectly. It's possible that something more complicated than the STOHL curve would have to be implemented, but I don't know of any resources that indicate a better/different model for g onset personally. What is out there is either behind paywall or kept by airforces to themselves.

You're calling me a politician, but what does IRL eagle experience have to do with 'other modern jets in DCS'? How about you frame your question like 'Why aren't other DCS jets modeling a better g-tolerance?' ... anyway dundun92 has explained it. There are a lot of things that DCS doesn't take into account or doesn't model, and those show up in complex situations which aren't going to apply equally to all jets.

Some can get higher than 9g, some not so well (eg F-18). We're talking about the STOHL curve and the brain oxygen reserve of ~5 sec (more g = less time). There's one for sustained turns. It holds loads of water, there is training and combat over-g incidents. The pilot who bent the air-frame had it at 12.5g for ~5 sec, but he was also bent over the stick, different from the combat experience which was just a spike.

Again, bad news time: Separating tail sections in high speed dives have happened and will probably happen again. There was no g involved. Guess which other DCS planes do not model this failure mode? That's right, pretty much none of them. More bad news time: There is one 12g over-g, yep, that famous one, that the aircraft did not walk away from. It did land, but it never flew again. On the other hand, we have 11 and 12g over-g in training and combat that put the aircraft back in the air. Even more bad news: Manufacturing defects, ie. the bad longerons, are just that. Nothing fell apart because of them UNTIL that one aircraft, and they were replaced elsewhere. I don't see any 16g transitions but ok. It's also known that the eagle shouldn't be able to reach that g (12.5 is the most recorded).

It would look like this: Clocks are reasonably precise onboard the aircraft. They will be hacked on the ground and in the air they can be hacked still using GPS. You don't have to imagine it, it's something that has been done for decades. The methods, distribution of keys and other fun things have been figured out in terms of logistics as well a long time ago. You don't have to imagine it, it's something that's simply done.