foxwxl

It's still using beam riding scheme at the moment, and if you treat it like the beam riding, the BRM should work fine within 4.8NM

Plz upload ACMI for further investgating, I've done my test on OB branch today. The BRM is working fine on most case even firing at 4.8NM.

I've view the ACMI, the MISS is usually occur when the plane is maneuvering at 3-4G. Plz note that, the BRM is currently using a beam riding scheme, which does not support a hard movement for targeting laser, since the rocket may not able to chase the laser beam thus miss the target.

Considered PL-5 as your only SRM, boresight could be used when you have the idea where the target is, otherwise HA should be considered. Once the VS is fixed, it is the best suiter for turn fight.

SAM now have 2 sub mode implemented:NAM/ASM, and SAM mode will command the radar to do a spot scan on HPT & SPT on every frame to increase the accuracy of tracking(the addon spot scan pattern and FCR animation is currently under construction). In NAM, you can command a 30deg 4bar scan pattern if you like. TWS can provide a 25deg 3bar scan pattern(EL coverage smaller than RWS 4bar), but it have a better SA on FCR. TWS can not switch AZ by hotas, the real manual says it works that way, so be it.

IIRC, DTOS works quite like the combination of F-16 DTOS and the SU27 CCIP->CCRP process , the DATA page can define the relative position of the aimming cross. After the attack point is set, it works as the AUTO mode. DIR mode is like the manual mode, no WCS support, release data is pre calculated.

Jeff F/F DL does not cooperate with F16 or F18 is an intended feature. They use different DL protocols.

SD-10 and AIM120 has greatly improve its high altitude range with the new LOFT API that is recently intrduced by ED. The aero dynamic part of the missile is not touched. HB AIM54 and all other missile is still using to old loft API which is well known to consume A LOT of energy on the loft turn and PN turn, which is basically useless on preserving energy. U can also figure that out on the ACMI. The new API has VERY GOOD trajectory and AOA control, no more useless high G. If you have no idea how good it is, I can tell you that it boost at least 40-50% high altitude range for AIM-120C. Once the new API has fitted onto the AIM54, it will surely guarantee a deadly range around 60-80NM at high altitude. So, there is nothing need to be fixed. If you want to test the range, do it on low altitude and WITHOUT LOFT, you will see the true kinetic range of any missile. (PS. I've done missile range test too many times once a big change occurs:D)

Actually the HHQ-9(Naval version of HQ-9) has already be introduced into DCS by 052C destoryer. But, the ARH seeker of HHQ-9 is not currently supported in DCS(have strange behavior), so currently it works as a SARH missile like SM-2. Land base SAM might have the same problem.

So, do U actually know that AIM120 can score a PVP kill over 60NM and of course out range the MK60? Should this be fixed too?

Since DCS do involved a lot of modern stuff(a lot of people do like modern stuff, so do I), there is no prefect solution on missile modelling, since too many info is not accessable to the public. I think which matters is that DCS can provide a reasonable modelling platform, like missile dynamic, seeker, guidance, etc. And not focusing on the value. From LOMAC to FC1,FC2,FC3,DCSW2.5, the parameters and values have changed a lot, some time ER get better, some time 120 dominate the sky, thing aways going on like this. If the basically modelling platform is good enough and the value setting is not so unacceptable, then things should be fine. And one small tips on the final, If you have tested the seeker instant FOV(or seeker search speed) recently, you will find it is complete off at the moment, missile can capture target off boresight over 40 degrees at the moment seeker get activated(with totally no in-flight datalink support, radar turned off). And AIM120,AIM54 all get affected by this. I think this kind of problem is much more important than some value adjustment.

IMO, it's basically impossible to make different missile performance to hookup for a proportional performance error VS the RL. If one know how to hookup the performance in the DCS, he must have to know the real performance of the weapon, and we have classified weapon for all over the world. Even if ED would like to do this job, all development team have to donate and share their intel source into ED, which may not acceptable in lots of cases. So, I don't think it is possible. If all missiles are created based on solo public source, the only thing might be accurate is the missile's shape, and you can try CFD the missile to get a general idea of its drag. But another very important matter, the propellant volume and propellant type, is basically unknown(especially russian & chinese missile), thus the specific impulse is unknown. There is no "gernal idea" of the propellant type, different missile from different countries can be very different(even with different years, this can be different). Then, the only thing left is guessing and balancing, no more place for simulation. And this DO greatly matter to the range which players do care a lot. Now new OP/UP problem is created, and players start to complain if their weapon is not on the top grade.

It's hard,man. Standardized missiles need all the missiles to be created with an standard way,but the source of ED and every team are different. Even one trying to gather all info by public, it is still like to be a mission impossible(basically), since different countries have different attitude or definition on opening weapon info. And we have US,UK, RUS, CHN weapons all over the DCS, some are the most advanced weapon they can offer at the moment, it can be hard to get the info, since no public info may be availiable. It's truely the problem, and consider DCS has mixed aircrafts & wpns from 1990s(Su27S) to 2005(F-16 F18) to 2010s(JF-17)(only consider those most involved in MP combat), it is already covered over 20 years, and 20 years is really a long time for weapon development.

And do note that CFD is not 100% accurate(model, assumption, limitations), that's why wind tunnel and test flight is still needed in RL. Also a small parameter change (ie. missile's Cx0) is already enough(very easily) to cause OP/Underpowder problem in DCS. So, there are serval ways to obtain data, CFD is just one of them.

Sorry man, if U are asking the background source to prove whether a performance is accurate or not, it's no going to happen. Like I stated above, RL performance data is not meant to go public, even if it is only the battery life. And battery life of the ARH missile DO indicate some of it's important performance data(like gernal range, Seeker operation time, gernal seeker operation range, etc.)

Flaps is not needed on normal T/O, if you have heavy wpn loaded, then use the flap. Beeping is a reminder of 10degs AOA, if you pull gently on the rotate and let the plane slowly leave the ground, it may not be triggered.

SCA means you fly complete VFR for the landing, not instrument support is provided.

Credibility? So you are claiming that ED's AIM120 performance is matching the classified information of the real missile? I doubt that.:D The actual performance of a weapon/plane that is still in service is classified and it is not supposed to be written into an civil game, unless your want the development team to be sent into jail. If you have any problem of this, you can consulting ED why they had tweaked the F/A-18's FM data to not matching the real plane.

There is FP-A and FP-B for Jeff on the real aircraft. The FP-B has finished basic coding but has some bug and is interfering with FP-A, so it is currently disabled.

80 seconds for next build.

PAC-2 is for aircraft, PAC-3 is needed for terminal missile defence. And S-300(PMU) has very limited capability for missile defence.

A subsonic man in loop weapon can be easily intercepted by SAM. A supersonic fire & forget weapon which and not be intercepted by current SAM system and have a range over 400KM. I think I have pointed out their difference.

It's not the LD10 creating a balance issue, it's the LOW SPEED HARM that creating the issue. The HARM will meant to be HIGH SPEED, is now flying with airbreak on, thus give SAM enough time to react and intercept:D

Negative, INS drift has already be applied to LD10 ACT launch mode serval patch ago, it will NO LONGER hit SPI precisely. If the illuminator does not captured by LD-10, solo INS guidance will guarantee a miss in most case.

True, in the real world, war is never a fair trade. But, you are now inside the DCS WORLD.:D