Jump to content

MBot

Members
  • Posts

    3768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by MBot

  1. Sure it is difficult, but should the Rb 04E really be the least interceptable anti-ship missile in DCS? If the Swedes really found the holy grail of anti-shipping in 1975, you do have to wonder why navies to this day continue to use SAMs as primary means to defend against missile attack. If all it takes to defeat a warship is to fly a missile at 10 m, AEGIS would not be deployed on 110+ ships today. Just to put Rb 04E into historical perspective a bit. The Swedish Air Force was expecting to fight mostly transports and second-line units. The Soviet Baltic fleet's most numerous and capable units where Krivak class guided missile frigates with SA-N-4 and a few Kashin class DDGs and a Kynda CG with SA-N-1. All the "good" stuff of the Soviet Navy was with Northern and Pacific Fleet dealing with NATO. I guess it really comes down to the rather crude game mechanics, which Rb 04E happens to exploit to the max (even if not intentionally). SAMs have a defined minimal engagement altitude value and they will not engage a target that is below it (or explode if the target dives below). I highly doubt that there is such a hard and specific boundary between engaging and not engaging in real life. I think the SM-2 in DCS has a set minimum target altitude of 10 m. The Rb 04E happens to cruise between 9 and 10 meters. Each time the Rb 04E dips below 10 m, the SM-2 explodes mid-air. This makes the missile uninterceptable by the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke in DCS. rb04_vs_aegis.trk
  2. Yes I re-tested it. The missing hitbox (or whatever the true issue is) only seems to affect guns, not missiles. Not that too many SAMs in DCS will engage Rb 04E in the first place. It's cruising altitude of 9-10 m seems to be below the minimum engagement altitude defined in DCS for most SAMs. So for example between SM-2 not properly engaging and Phalanx going through it, even the AEGIS cruisers are currently completely defenseless against the mighty Swedish AIr Force. It's quite comical
  3. Yes, player F-14 getting DL from Ticonderogas is something that Heatblur has implemented on their own. This is not related to the core-game EWR functionality (radio calls for players, giving target data to AI).
  4. Another oldie but goldie request. Please add the EWR task to ships, so that ships can act as EWR and provide target information to AI aircraft. Doesn't seem like this should be too hard to implement. Carriers/ships controlling aircraft is a common concept.
  5. Bump. According to ED this seems to be on Heatblur to fix. I would not classify this as [ART]. Actually this makes the Rb 04E vastly overpowered.
  6. Good post. In the US Army this firing technique is apparently called Volume Fire. Check out the date of the post
  7. That may be one of the problems. The 57mm AK-725 on the new Ropucha class in DCS actually engage both air and surface targets and in either case it uses the same ammunition. Which is fine as the AK-725 only has impact fused shells. But it shows that dual purpose in DCS is possible in principle. Another problem may be that DCS cannot handle proximity fuses for shells. Some DP naval guns shoot time fused anti-air shells though, which already exist in DCS.
  8. The player launched Rb04E anti-ship missile cruises at 9-10 meter above the sea. In DCS this makes the missile uninterceptable by SA-N-4 (Osa), SA-N-9 (Tor) and SA-N-6 (S-300). Even SM-2 launched by Aegis cannot intercept it in DCS (SAMs are launched but explode shortly after, probably because the target oscillates around the SAM's defined minimum engagement altitude). The Rb04E cruise altitude of 10 meters seems to be correct. Now I do not have any hard data about the various naval SAM's minimum engagement altitudes. But I find it extremely hard to belief that a Swedish missile from 1975 is uninterceptable by modern warships. rb04_vs_aegis.trk rb04_vs_s-300.trk
  9. This is an old request of mine which I keep depositing every few years. Most of the high caliber naval guns in DCS should be dual purpose, capable to engage both surface and air targets. I would like to see DP naval guns engage aircraft and missiles with time fused or VT shells. Now that the land based KS-19 AA-gun is in the game, the code might be there to make the naval guns anti-air capable finally.
  10. The Rb04E anti-ship missile (both the player and the distinct for AI version) doesn't have a hitbox. This makes the missile invincible against CIWS. This is an old issue that has been present since the first release of the Viggen. This been reported to Heatblur originally but was never fixed. rb04_hitbox.trk
  11. It is my experience that when guiding a AIM-54A in TWS and the track goes in extrapolation mode, the missile gets trashed. It never seems to go active. It is my understanding that the missile should continue to be guided and getting an activation command on the extrapolated track but that is currently not possible in DCS. I frequently get track extrapolations when attacking non-maneuvering bomber formations when close targets start to get resolved individually. The extrapolated track frequently continues to be close with newly created tracks and if the missile would continue to guide it would probably detect a target in the bomber formation when going active. Is it planned that this will eventually work in DCS?
  12. AWACS datalink in DCS has a transmit range of about 180 NM. If the receiver is within 180 NM of the AWACS it can receive datalink contacts. But AWACS will not share any which are beyond 180 NM from itself, even though AWACS can detect them on its radar. The attached track starts with an enemy bomber 220 NM from the AWACS. It can detect the bomber as evident by making a BRA call. But the target is not shared via datalink to the player's F-14. Only after the bomber closes to within 180 NM of the AWACS will it start to share the datalink contact with the F-14. Datalink range should be relevant only for the distance between the AWACS and the receiver, not the distance between the AWACS and the target. AWACS should share any target which it detects with its own radar (which can be at distances up to 350 NM). Datalink.trk
  13. Fair enough. I will just say, personally I have a hard time beliefing that making 420 jokes is a very common occurence while an enemy is actively maneuvering to kill you.
  14. I don't understand why this argument is kept being made. I don't think this is what people want. When listening to the Gulf of Sidra tape, I remember that the voices are very tense and emontional. But I do not remember anyone making silly jokes in that situation. That is in my opinion the point. When the master arm goes on, the jokes stop.
  15. This is still a problem I notice in almost every fight.
  16. That is still an issue. Has this been acknowledged by Aerges?
  17. I am not aware of that either unfortunately.
  18. In terms of DCS mechanics, what is actually happening here is that the AI MiG-19 detects your radar emissions on RWR. I quickly tested it and an AI MiG-19 will detect and engage a F-15E at a distance of 210 km. Considering the quality of the MiG's radar warning receiver this is obviously completely ludicrous. When the F-15E is not emitting on radar it is actually possible to test the AI MiG-19's own radar performance. It will then detect and engage the Strike Eagle at 50 km distance in either look-up or look-down situation. This is still waaay over the top. According to the RAZBAM manual it has a maximum search range of 12 km. Also it should not be look-down capable at all.
  19. These are generally pre-planned targets with known coordinates.
  20. Optically cued systems (most IR SAMs and non-radar AAA) can't see you at night. So fly at night whenever possible. In DCS, anti-collision lights and strong nav lights will make you visible to AI at night. Formation lights and weak nav lights are ok. Popping flares will also make you visible to AI. Afterburner usage is ok. Most SHORAD can easily be outranged by lofting bombs. The slow reacting radar SAMs like SA-2/3/5/6/8 can be defeated by lofting LGBs (including the rather lenghty designation phase). The double-digit SAMs like SA-10/11/15/19 react too fast to keep designating for LGBs. Once some issues with AUTO releases are solved (bombs landing long, pattern not centered on target designation, faulty wind correction of ASL), lofting dumb bombs/CBUs with imediate break-off will offer some limited options against these systems.
  21. This is still an issue. Now year 7 since first reported. See you next year...
  22. Just a little heads up, this is still a problem.
  23. Here is an option I would like. Serious Jester mode tied to the Master Arm switch. As soon as we are going to kill virtual people (or are about to get killed ourselves), Jester should stop to make jokes. Around the boat, at the tanker and when doing training dogfights with the master arm safe, he can make his comments.
  24. Did some initial testing and it seems to be actually useful in A-G. It does the usual reduction in burn-through range which I have never found to be tactically significant (burn-though usually happens when you enter the WEZ of a SAM). But in addition it also seems to increase engagement time of SAMs by about 50%. So for example a Roland with average skill normally requires around 12 seconds from training the launcher on target to fire a missile. With Barax jamming this time is increased to about 18 seconds. This actually buys sufficient time to perform a pop-up bombing attack.
  25. That is actually pretty important feature to me. I frequently fail to get a visual on bogeys I lock up before the merge.
×
×
  • Create New...