Search the Community

I know Razbam did what they could with it before control of weapons went to ED, but it seems to just have been thrown in a closet and forgotten about since the Harrier is the only aircraft that currently carries the AGM-122. A number of us have been discussing it in the AV-8B discord for some time, and came to the realization the reason the AGM-122 has never been fixed, is because nobody has reported just how inaccurate the current version of the missile is compared to the real missile. So I gathered a bit of things that had been mentioned in our conversations to post here. Hopefully more knowledgeable people can chime in on some of these that I list off. Although it may be unpopular to fix the missile. Based on how people currently use it, in a sense of it being a tiny HARM it needs to be properly fixed in comparison to all the other work done on other missiles in the sim. The AGM-122 is based off the very unsuccessful AIM-9C Sidewinder. The AGM-122 has a very limited range, limited usage window, and unique features that are missing from the missile even currently. The issues that should be addressed are some of the following; 1) Range: Currently the AGM-122 in DCS can be lofted to ranges of 20+nm. This is entirely inaccurate for this missile by a significant margin. This is based off the missile specifications as well as documentation of the missile being far less capable than it's being used currently. 2) Missing features of the missile. Self lofting feature of the missile is also missing. The AGM-122 was designed to be fired at very low altitudes. When the missile is fired at a certain altitude, it will, loft itself for a top down attack onto the targeted radar emitter. Also, a lesser documented option mode the Sidearm had, which allegedly was not used much if at all, was an automatic launch feature. 3) Limited Bandwith usage. I cannot speak to the this in great detail as I am not fully aware as to this specific limitation and how it’s put forward in DCS, but the AGM-122 has specific bandwith windows that have to be selected prior to take off for it to scan for in-mission. I know this feature isn’t available, but the scan range on what the 122 can engage I don’t believe is implemented either. It simply can be fired at any surface radar site, which is also allegedly inaccurate to the missile. Addressing the range issue which arguably is the largest issue with the missile currently. It is vastly out performing the real missile. Which is a short range, self defense ARM. The AGM-122 shares the entirety of the AIM-9C, except the seeker. The AGM-122/AIM-9C is equipped with a thermal battery that is powered off the exhaust gases when the missile is launched. Which stores heat to the battery and provides at a maximum, of 60 seconds of guidance time and a maximum range cited on paper of 18,044 yards, or about 9 nautical miles (8.9 and change). This is because of the thermal battery limitation. Once the 60 seconds is up, the missile is dead, as there is no longer guidance power. No more guidance, no more control surface control or detonation ability, it’s dead as a door nail. Therefore, lofting it 20+ nautical miles onto SAM sites is not possible with this missile. In numerous documents of use of the AGM-122 the paper cited range of 9nm is in best case scenario launched at high altitude. In typical launch at low altitude from helicopters or the Harrier, ranges were much lower, around 5-6nm at most. Again, it was a short range ARM. Documentation of the thermal battery guidance limit is noted in the NAVWEPS OP 3353 Declassified Document on the AIM-9C/Parent platform of the AGM-122. (which I wont link here for obvious reasons). It is publicly available. This article also cites the limited range of the AGM-122 being much lower than a cited 9nm. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12009/the-agm-122-sidearm-came-to-be-from-a-novel-missile-recycling-scheme Addressing the missing pop up feature. The missile was entirely designed to be launched from low altitudes aboard helicopters primarily and therefore, a “pop up” program was input into the programing of the Sidearm that if it was fired below a certain altitude it would pop up and attack the radar emitter in a top down attack. Similar to the Javelin missile. Currently the missile in DCS does not do this. If fired at low altitude the missile will nearly in all situations hit the ground or trees. This is precisely the reason why the missile was given the pop up feature in real life. The article cited above also describes this feature. As for the self launch feature. This I think “could” be left out given there’s not much documentation on it other than some tertiary sources from interviews talking about how pilots didn’t like that mode (link to an interview about that mode below), but it had it. But in this mode, if the missile picked up a threat on one of it’s 7 bands it would be set to prior to take off, if a threat passed in front of the seeker in range when the missiles were armed, the missile would automatically leave the aircraft and engage the site on it’s own. Addressing the limited bandwith the seeker could see. Coupling it with a considerably shorter range, the bandwith receiver on the missile had to be set on the ground prior to launch. Now we don’t have this feature in DCS. However, the limitations in what types of sites it can see I think should be implemented based on what bands it can see. The missile can detect and engage things like the ZSU-23 and other fixed site type emitting dishes/signals. However, given it's limited seeker, it had problems with rotating dishes, as anytime the radar beam pointed in a direction not in the cone of detection, the 122 would lose track of it. The missile based on sources is stated to be most effective against the ZSU-23 style radar and SA-8 sites. This has been discussed in detail in the discord by people that have a much better understanding of the restrictions in this category than I, but I wanted to at least mention it and anyone else who sees this can chime in on more detailed knowledge on the matter. The only other thing addressing the seeker on the 122 would be the fact of the limited seeker it was easily fooled by countermeasures.

Hello. When having 4 different groups and each group is a singelship. Trying to get them to be in the same network as members, I would like to be able to rank them, (rearranging them). Example, if I add members to the first ship, let's call it Hornet1-1. Add the rest of the flight, Hornet1-2 (B), Hornet1-3(C), Hornet1-4(D). Hornet1-1 will be A, etc. ONLY Hornet1-1 will have the members, while the rest won't have members att all. Hornet1-2 won't be able to have ABCD to the same group. Trying to resolve this, I tried to open Hornet1-2 to add the members to that group too. Again singelship, the issue now is hornet1-2 Can't be B, since it's second in that group. It will only be A. LONG story short. We should be able to rearrange the ranking, right now we can't.

Noticed that in air refueling with KC130 and F18 is very slow. Almost to the point that I am burning just as much fuel as I am taking in...

All liveries shows the 101st shoulder patch and the 229th Helmet patch With the only exception of the IAF and the Ghostriders Photo attached with an example of the Indian one where you can see clearly something is wrong with the luas, as they overlap

I've discovered that if trim hat CSS is used to bias pitch hold in either ATTH or A/P mode, it induces a permanent pitch input relative to the location of the TVV to the horizon line at AP disengage. This does not seem to be caused by stick CSS inputs, nor does it seem to effect roll using either method. Once it happens it seems to be irrecoverable, engaging another autopilot mode will stabilize the aircraft as expected, but the unwanted pitch input will return once autopilot is disengaged. Neither T/O Trim nor FCS Reset will correct the issue in the air. Reengaging an attitude hold program and using the trim hat to set a new attitude will cause a new bias when autopilot is disengaged, but seems to do so in a way that compounds, rather than overwriting, the previous bias. I attached two tracks. In the first track I engage ATTH and use the trim hat to set a nose low attitude. I disengage autopilot with the paddle switch with my hands completely off the controls. The aircraft pitches down. I pull the aircraft back to level and again release the controls, and the aircraft pitches down. I pull the aircraft back to level and engage BALT, which holds level flight. Again disengaging autopilot with the paddle switch, the aircraft pitches down. In the second track I engage A/P and use the trim hat to set a nose high attitude. Just like the first track I disengage autopilot with the paddle switch without my hands on the controls, this time the aircraft pitches up. Like in the first track I pull it back level and let it pitch up again. I engage BALT which levels the aircraft, and disengaging autopilot again causes a pitch up. Tracks were made on current Stable version, 2.5.6.55960 Hornet A-P 1.trk Hornet A-P 2.trk

After 2.7 there was an update to AI pathfinding, and now they have huge trouble getting through wooded areas. A group of vehicles will split up and drive in different directions, in circles, back and forth and sometimes completely losing their way making it impossible for them to reach the other end of the wooded area, driving back and forth forever. Before 2.7 they never had this problem in wooded areas. See AI_Pathfinding_Problem1.trk The next problem is related, but it existed before 2.7. In the plantations in Syria, the vehicles do the same thing as stated above, but it's much more prominent. See AI_Pathfinding_Problem2.trk In my personal opinion it would be preferable if ground vehicles could simply drive through bushes and trees, because the way it is now can completely break a mission that involves ground units moving. In this video the vehicles are supposed to move from the viewpoint of the camera, straight up/forward. DCS Pathfinding problem - YouTube AI_Pathfinding_Problem1.trk AI_Pathfinding_Problem2.trk

When watching from F4 engine sound goes funky. Closest thing it sounds like is a oldschool audiotape being fast forwarded. Own airplane, buddy airplane and AI planes affected.

Hi guys, Pretty sure you already plan to do it but just in case it gets through ... The rotor blades should have a negative twist, like let's say at minimum ground flat pitch +8° at the root and -3° at the tip ( random numbers, don't know the actual value ). It's visually important to give a realistic appearance, not like plastic model " flat/straight ' blades. Currently it looks to have the opposed, increasing twist from root to tip. Please also take note of the blade bending motion, both drooping down at rest, and coning up on load. The major part of the bending happens in the first thrid of the blade lenght, not at the tips like it is now ( typical effect of plastic model where heater are used to soften the plastic and the blades bend evenly, while in reality it's not ) Nitpicking a bit for sure but these are little details that while bring it to geometrical perfect accuracy. Good luck ! Hueyman

Hi, When feeding wrong coordinates into the INS, the TPOD still displays the correct world coordinates of the point being looked at. In the attached track, the INS position is updated to induce the error (a separate bug in that process can be noted too), but the TPOD coordinates still show the correct world coordinates. coords.trk

The A-10C II startup mission was not updated with the 210 radio update. This results in the mission not being able to progress due to the mission requiring the old radio to be set which is no longer possible. This step does not have a skip option and waits for the user to set the radio which cannot be done.