VTJS17_Fire

They were folded, like the Hornets outer wing. :D

Good explanation of the pulse repetition frequency (PRF). But why should the low-PRF good for "look-up" situations? The clutter filter in high-PRF only filters out clutter below your altitude (notch gate). Above you, only clouds are filtered out by the system. Other contacts are shown on your screen.

I agree on both.

:beer: Phantom confirmed. :D

As a sign of the will, but not strategically seen, yes.

Here's another good read about LPI Radars and countermeasures of PLI Radars. http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456960.pdf I don't have read all of your website now, maybe there are some news for your which you want to add to your blog.

It was, until a patch a few weeks ago. There was the new GUI for the external views introduced and with them, the IAS in the external view.

You address two different points. A) The speed you see in the cockpit and external view is your indicating airspeed. This is the speed, which indicates the performance of your aircraft. The indicated airspeed is normally lower at high altitudes than at low level, because of the thinner air. What counts, is our ground speed. The F-5 hasn't any indicator for ground speed (AFAIK). B) With the afterburner enabled, there should be an acceleration. Maybe a bug?

If you use a tighter Radar cone, you can use more Radar energy at a specific point, which increases detection range. You can compare it with a flashlight and the range of its light spot. Besides that, your sampling rate is higher, because the radar antenna has a shorter way from one side to the other and can scan the bars faster. Yep, 30° for each side, 60° in total. This is my experience from LOMAC to DCS 2.0 in the F-15, the TDC procedure as well. And it worked for us fine, no problems with radar work and finding (low, medium/ high) targets at all.

Sie bräuchten nur die realen Frequenzen in DCS verwenden, dann könnten sie sich die Arbeit sparen. Dann kann man nämlich die realen Charts nutzen. Ich verstehe einfach nicht, warum dies nicht umgesetzt wird. :huh: Ich bin der Meinung, das ging auch schon vorher. Wir haben das vor langer Zeit mal genutzt, sind aber wegen der höheren Flexibilität auf den Kneeboard Builder umgestiegen.

I suggest to minimize the azimuth limits to 60° (instead of 120°) to get contacts earlier. I set the scope to 80NM, the TDC to 60NM and search normally from 0 to 25.000 ft. (4bar). I then flatten the Radar cone and search from 0 to 12.000 ft. and from 25.000 ft. to 50.000 ft.. I also switch sometimes from high PRF to interleaved PRF for maneuvering contacts and those, which beaming me. If you're in a 2-ship, you overlap the search pattern (in elevation). For example: Lead search from 0 to 25.000 ft., the wingman search from 20.000 ft. to 45.000 ft.. It's important, that both players use the same scope and TDC settings.

Ok, thanks.

@Texac: Very nice, can't give rep. :( Training Friday afternoon:

The airports on the Nevada map have those taxi signs. Some airports on the Caucasus map have them, too. For example Sukhumi.

Danke für die News. Ich denke da darf man gespannt sein. Dem Pressetext zu urteilen, schätzt Logitech das kommende Marktpotenzial von Peripheriegeräten für Simulationen - auch im Hinblick auf VR - wesentlich positiver und ernster ein, als Madcatz das getan hat. Die Ehe mit Madcatz hat dann ja nicht so lange gehalten. Aber wie ihr - und andere Kunden auch - schon festgestellt haben, ist das wohl auch gut so. Wer an Qualität spart, spurt das irgendwann am Umsatz. Das ist überall so und kein Geheimnis. Dann darf man ja gespannt sein auf die neuen Produkte, bzw. ob aktuelle Produkte qualitative verbessert werden. Evtl. ist das ja auch der Grund, warum keine Pedale mehr verfügbar sind.

Das liegt doch am fluiden Magnetfeld der Erde, oder? Denn soweit ich gehört habe, fliegen die Dinger gar nicht. Die sind aber so hässlich, dass sie von der Erde abgestoßen werden. :D

Ok, thanks. But are there aircraft (Radars) in DCS which are more difficult to jam? Or is jamming generic? In the past, we had only (steady) noise jamming for all aircraft. The A-10C is limited to its lock breaker and can't jam continously as far as I remember. Then came the M-2000C with deception jamming (false target generator). Sadly, its simulated by the Radar of the M-2000C, not by the ECM of the target. So, only the M-2000C see false targets, while all other aircraft with Radar see strobes. And IIRC, the DCS F-117 is harder to detect, so stealth is also modelled to a certain point. Right?

Are such scripts used in SSM (AI/ flyable) only or in ASM as well? For instance, in the M-2000C.

Yep, you're right. Sorry. I checked the picture from Bushmanni again and saw the difference between these two. Thanks for the hint.

We observed the same yesterday. After deselecting the jettison switches you have to press the PCA button - on which the fuel tank hung before - once again, to lock a target. I don't know, if this is correct or a bug.

As you can see, I already wrote that. But thanks for the detailed explanation. But the radar signal technology - in general - is the same: It sends a radio wave, wait a death time and gets the echo. Ok, thanks. I read that a few minutes before. But: Has the (DCS) MiG-21bis does not also have an clutter filter (Declutter switch) to hide ground/ cloud clutter?

Hi, I currently read eBooks and articles about Radar technology, scan and antenna types. While reading here and there, I wondered which scan (and antenna) types are modelled in DCS? In reality, modern 4th generation fighter are usually equipped with a pulse Radar and a parabolic dish or AESA antenna. For instance, the F-15C, F/A-18C and M-2000C. The MiG-21bis with its RP-22 radar, in contrast, uses conical scanning and a twist-cassagrain antenna. Because of that, the look-down, shoot-down capabilities are limited. I didn't understand why exactly yet, but it's a fact. I also read, there are older fighters with continuous wave Radars and Monopulse antennas. But I can't find any sources, which fighters/ Radars use(d) such technologies and antennas. And I read, some of this older Radars were immune to some (or most) jamming techniques (IIRC, it was the continuous wave), as well. Is anybody fit in this topic and can help me a little bit to understand it? Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Fire

Ich glaube, solche Meinungen immer nur von TM Warthog Besitzern zu lessen. Oder von denen, die mit einem günstigeren Modell mal richtig Pech hatten. Die Saitek Reihe (X-45) gibt es seit Mitte der Neunziger und war damals (vor dem TM Cougar) bestimmt nicht für Battlefield und Co. gedacht. Nur weil etwas teurer ist und aus Metall ist, sagt das wenig über die Qualität aus. Das zählt wohl eher die Technologie im Inneren. Ich habe drei Kollegen in der Staffel, die sich kurz nach dem Kauf ihres Warthog gleich einmal ein Ersatzteil für zusätzliche 50 Euro kaufen durften. Das war so 1-2 Jahre, nachdem es den Warthog gab. Was genau der Defekt war, weiß ich nicht mehr, habe aber auch hier im Forum davon gelesen. Ich kann über die "kauft zweimal" Aussagen nur lächeln. Mein (Saitek) X-52 (non Pro) ist seit 9 Jahren im Dauereinsatz und last mich immer noch feine Manöver, sowie Luftbetankungen fliegen. Kostenpunkt: 120 Euro. Nebenbei zu den Saitek Pedalen: Beide (Pro und Pro Combat) scheinen nicht mehr produziert zu werden. Bei Amazon sind diese entweder nicht mehr verfügbar oder für richtig viel Geld (1.200 €) zu haben. Bin gespannt, ob Madcatz hier demnächst ein neues Modell vorstellt.

Some more from our squadron training. Here shown: Pepsi Flight with IFR departure FYTTR on runway 03L, formation flying (inner group/ outer group) with A/A TACAN and an intercept exercise. Landing on runway 21L after HI TCN Y approach with pitch-out.