F-22A Raptor mod enhancement mod

[Mach3DS]

2 hours ago, Nightstorm said:

The new model has new details and corrections.  I've not had any issues with it.  And the LO drop tank was created by Spino and heavily modified by me.  The vertices are most certainly welded along the centerline.  It's not two separate halfs.  The texture I used to create the tank was derived from the IRST pod, as was the pylon.  That said, do whatever you want.

I'm not sure if it was noticed or not.  It's not a texture problem.  It's a 3D geometry issue.  So everyone will have the issue.  It's not a criticism, just an issue.  That mod itself is awesome!  I really appreciate the efforts to bring it all together!  The new pods and tanks are just awesome. 

My only question is are the tanks supposed to have the line or are they supposed to be smooth over the top?  I genuinely don't know.  It could be the design.  I know the Raptor obviously isn't suppposed to have it.  Maybe we can get GD to fix it.  I can ask....
Currently I'm just using the old model since it visually is correct.  Seems like everything is working correctly?

[Nightstorm]

16 minutes ago, Mach3DS said:

I'm not sure if it was noticed or not.  It's not a texture problem.  It's a 3D geometry issue.  So everyone will have the issue.  It's not a criticism, just an issue.  That mod itself is awesome!  I really appreciate the efforts to bring it all together!  The new pods and tanks are just awesome. 

My only question is are the tanks supposed to have the line or are they supposed to be smooth over the top?  I genuinely don't know.  It could be the design.  I know the Raptor obviously isn't suppposed to have it.  Maybe we can get GD to fix it.  I can ask....
Currently I'm just using the old model since it visually is correct.  Seems like everything is working correctly?

The tank is based on the Low Drag Tank and Pylon being developed for the F22.  There are only a couple of references out there.  A blurry rear aspect and a drawing.  The model was an approximation of that.  You can search for LDTP and find them.

[Nightstorm]

Just looking for feedback on the missiles.  I'm still trying to adjust them to see if there is ANYTHING we can do to make them more reliable.

With the 2.9.16 issues resolved with the added line to autoexec.cfg  See here:  

I've been doing more extensive testing using primarily the AIM-120E.  Sometimes it's perfect, sometimes it misses by just a bit.  It's hard to tell if it's chaff or not.  I've had them work great to short, medium and long range and I've had them fail to connect.

So, I don't know if we have a problem or not, and if we do, what if anything, we can do about it.  What are your experiences and/or suggestions?

[CarbonFox]

11 minutes ago, Nightstorm said:

Just looking for feedback on the missiles.  I'm still trying to adjust them to see if there is ANYTHING we can do to make them more reliable.

With the 2.9.16 issues resolved with the added line to autoexec.cfg  See here:  

I've been doing more extensive testing using primarily the AIM-120E.  Sometimes it's perfect, sometimes it misses by just a bit.  It's hard to tell if it's chaff or not.  I've had them work great to short, medium and long range and I've had them fail to connect.

So, I don't know if we have a problem or not, and if we do, what if anything, we can do about it.  What are your experiences and/or suggestions?

Had one of my AIM-120D-3s make a sudden right turn for no reason whatsover. It was kind of funny to watch.

Have you considered adding the AMRAAM-AXE? Basically an air-launched NASAM-ER.

[Nightstorm]

50 minutes ago, CarbonFox said:

Had one of my AIM-120D-3s make a sudden right turn for no reason whatsover. It was kind of funny to watch.

Have you considered adding the AMRAAM-AXE? Basically an air-launched NASAM-ER.

I saw that missile, but don't know if there's a 3D model of it available.

[Wiggo]

52 minutes ago, Nightstorm said:

Just looking for feedback on the missiles.  I'm still trying to adjust them to see if there is ANYTHING we can do to make them more reliable.

With the 2.9.16 issues resolved with the added line to autoexec.cfg  See here:  

I've been doing more extensive testing using primarily the AIM-120E.  Sometimes it's perfect, sometimes it misses by just a bit.  It's hard to tell if it's chaff or not.  I've had them work great to short, medium and long range and I've had them fail to connect.

So, I don't know if we have a problem or not, and if we do, what if anything, we can do about it.  What are your experiences and/or suggestions?

Could it also be possible that enemy puts ECM on after TWS launch towards them (not necessarily because me shooting em, they could just be "early" defending to "normal "BVR situation..?  Does missile, in dcs, which has already been shot with certain LA calculation, still lose height etc information if / when ecm is put on after the TWS launch / launches? Normally when we play dcs msl is usually shot after burntrough, but when we are in area of high ranges like these..? TBH I dont have a clue how that works with missiles already shot after "burntrough", as normally I have been shooting em - well after the burntrough.

[Nightstorm]

2 minutes ago, Wiggo said:

Could it also be possible that enemy puts ECM on after TWS launch towards them (not necessarily because me shooting em, they could just be "early" defending to "normal "BVR situation..?  Does missile, in dcs, which has already been shot with certain LA calculation, still lose height etc information if / when ecm is put on after the TWS launch / launches? Normally when we play dcs msl is usually shot after burntrough, but when we are in area of high ranges like these..? TBH I dont have a clue how that works with missiles already shot after "burntrough", as normally I have been shooting em - well after the burntrough.

I know that if the targets aspect changes, it can cause the missile to miss.  Particularly if it's just in range.  It was in range when you fired, but the target turned 180 and accelerated away, missile will not catch it.  So, it's possible the ECM affects them post-launch.

[Nightstorm]

-------UPDATE 250610
Adjusted missile code for improved accuracy, experimenting with some of the code that used to help.
Minor change to the check list page to indicate which list is being displayed.

 

The odd behavior that I'm seeing and don't understand with missiles is when it's a rear aspect shot but you are well inside range.  The DMZ shows in the no-escape range but the reticle will suddenly shrink down to a very small circle.  The missile will generally miss, and it shouldn't.  You can see that the target is in range, inside the DMZ but the maneuvering circle shrank to nothing.

If anyone has any ideas....

 

 

[Archangel44]

I’ve seen the same thing but not using the Aim-120 family of missiles but the long range types and figured it was the minimum distance is greater than the 120’s which we are all used to.

I wish I could help you out pard with the coding. 
Thank you for your personal time and effort with this endeavor. It’s greatly appreciated.

[The Stick]

I'm drawing on experience from the F-15C here...for rear aspect 20 miles is still too far out - you need to close that gap to about 10-15 miles even with the C8 and D3 AMRAAMs.

[Nightstorm]

I'll do some testing with the stock missiles again to see if they're doing the same thing.  The DLZ logic is coded for each missile based on its capabilities.  From what I understand, in the screenshot above, even IF it was out of range, it should have thought it was in range based on that DLZ logic.  For whatever reason, it said it wasn't.  And the missile had plenty of energy to reach the target, its just like the seeker never turned on.  It guides to within very close range of the target and flies on by it.

[Wiggo]

7 hours ago, Nightstorm said:

I'll do some testing with the stock missiles again to see if they're doing the same thing.  The DLZ logic is coded for each missile based on its capabilities.  From what I understand, in the screenshot above, even IF it was out of range, it should have thought it was in range based on that DLZ logic.  For whatever reason, it said it wasn't.  And the missile had plenty of energy to reach the target, its just like the seeker never turned on.  It guides to within very close range of the target and flies on by it.

yes. pretty much same behaviour just tested. My ai hits pretty much perfectly but I didnt even with STT anymore. Vut  Might ofc also be my oldie customised testbed msn, but as replyable problem, naah..  But yes, it seems that seeker never turns on, among every AIM msl. The IR msls work fine whatsoever. Python sometimes does funny things, but still mostly works. What comes to default DCS wpns, atleast yesterday flown couple of HN and f-15 msns (fighter sweeps) without any problems, with AIMC´s. Hmm. Has anyone tried what happens with those AIMB -> AIMD mod msls?

Edited Wednesday at 06:44 PM by Wiggo

[Nightstorm]

I tested with stock RADAR and Radar range on the F22 with stock 120C.  No modifications were made.  The picture speaks for itself.  RADAR guided missiles are broken right now.  Sometimes they'll still hit.  But, it's not the mod.  It's the core missile code, at least for BLUEFOR missiles.

Edited Wednesday at 07:40 PM by Nightstorm

[Nightstorm]

-------UPDATE 250611
Re-enabled stock missiles for testing purposes.  The issues persist with stock missiles and Radar settings.  The mod is not the cause.  If you have another missile mod installed, you may see duplicate entries.  You should be able to figure out what is what.
Adjusted the system pages slightly to move gear and flaps status messages as I didn't want gear to be an "advisory" type message on that page.

[daniel 11111]

I found that modded missiles using the old missile script (the script without the boost, march, fm, autopilot, etc.) work well. They can hit and track the target accurately on long and short distances without issue. The only thing is that I can't get them to loft. 

Maybe someone with more modding experience could work out how to model one realistcally. 

Edit: The missile script I'm talking about is from the AIM120D from Spino's F15EX mod.

Edited Wednesday at 09:47 PM by daniel 11111

[Nightstorm]

15 hours ago, daniel 11111 said:

I found that modded missiles using the old missile script (the script without the boost, march, fm, autopilot, etc.) work well. They can hit and track the target accurately on long and short distances without issue. The only thing is that I can't get them to loft. 

Maybe someone with more modding experience could work out how to model one realistcally. 

Edit: The missile script I'm talking about is from the AIM120D from Spino's F15EX mod.

Thanks for the information.  I think that was based on the old AIM-120D code from a couple of years ago, which I was told was not working any longer as it didn't have the schema or ammunition type entries.  I will experiment.

The Lofting thing, check for the line "Loft Factor =" Default is 4.5.

From what I'm seeing, I don't know if not having the schema would be a solution, but it's worth looking at.

[Wiggo]

Hmm. I still have that autorotate problem with my sead basic f22 testpayload. 4x MAKO on the wings + full bays. (2xsidewinder etc Irmsl + 2xjatmb+4xaimd´s.) Autorotate seems to work fine without those makos on the wings but with them it needs little pull, other wise it just rolls on  I can reply this as many times as I want. I will try with zero wind and see what happens then, but I bet its not about that - or it seems that only those msls on the wings causes problem which isnt big. Also with little pitch trim nose up seems to also rotate, atleast try (its very near to pull off the ground. If somebody has time plz test full payload + makos x4 (antiradar version!) on the wings - does autorotate work for you guys with that payload. But yeah, thats why I had problems earlier and other not. When I remove Makos from wings-> autorotates fine  I can though get into air ofc just by pulling with hands but very easy to crash bottom on the runway... 

Hope they will get that TWS multiple launch working. clearly now first msl seems to track more or less fine (if it tracks :P) into the first /#1 TWS lock target but second one seems to fly more or less into same target but for reason or another misses everythig. but yeah that is ofc known "oldie" problem. TWS still seems to work to first target so one can ofc thumbe with unlock tws and drop the first one off from lock -> second one comes the first one, as we know. Have still test more but i think that is the way one can somehow go around that multilauch problemo pretty crappy, one can ofc stt everything, but with that way its TWS locked shot ofc.. (or atleast should be :D). Thanks again for your work. I truly had fun again multiroling that same beartrap msn 3 SEAD TARCP msn. And btw MAKOS work VERY nice now. Got whole sead operation done just by shooting 4 msls before f-16´s had even pushed. 

BTW is there some autorotation also in landing. In which speed should raptor come into the runway on landing. f-15 style?

Edited 19 hours ago by Wiggo

[Nightstorm]

Other than it being heavier with that loadout and stores on the wings there would be no difference.  The extra drag and weight could understandably require you to pull back on the stick.  I don't know what the exact auto-rotate parameters are as that's in the EFM, but it makes sense.

TWS issues seem to be related to the same missile issues, I've seen what you described.  Sometimes TWS works on multiple targets, sometimes they both go for the same one.

Landing speed is 160-180 kts.  To be honest, I'm still getting the hang of it myself with the new EFM.  I've bent the gear a few times. 

[Wiggo]

2 hours ago, Nightstorm said:

Other than it being heavier with that loadout and stores on the wings there would be no difference.  The extra drag and weight could understandably require you to pull back on the stick.  I don't know what the exact auto-rotate parameters are as that's in the EFM, but it makes sense.

TWS issues seem to be related to the same missile issues, I've seen what you described.  Sometimes TWS works on multiple targets, sometimes they both go for the same one.

Landing speed is 160-180 kts.  To be honest, I'm still getting the hang of it myself with the new EFM.  I've bent the gear a few times. 

Yeah same here (gear down pretty few times as shot msls like hell   but now when done few times it seems to glide pretty nicely but gotta have to stay in pretty accurate "fork" with speed and nose. I have had superfun today with Makos and AARGM´s. As mentioned earlier antiradar msls seems pretty nice now. Have hit also to "smaller" targets lately. Though it might be ofc luck / timing / msn activations. But still - have surprised me many times..