Military Assets for DCS by Currenthill

[ivan-ivanov-1902]

1 час назад, currenthill сказал:

They are configured to use as few missiles as possible. Then it's up to the DCS AI to make the decisions, nothing more I can do to affect this.

I understand, and the sounds and tracers for anti-aircraft ships?

YJ-21 1000km range-will you do it?

 

[currenthill]

1 hour ago, ivan-ivanov-1902 said:

I understand, and the sounds and tracers for anti-aircraft ships?

YJ-21 1000km range-will you do it?

 

What do you mean sounds and tracers for anti-aircraft ships? All weapon systems in my assets are modelled as close as possible to the real thing, based on open source intelligence of course. If we're talking about CIWS, in modern days they rarely use tracers. Since they're radar tracking and tracers are mainly for visual cues. It doesn't look as cool without tracers, but I try to stay as real as possible. 

The YJ-21 on the Type 055 is configured for 1000 km range, but needs AWACS coverage which is a problem with the standard DCS AWACS aircraft platforms. 

[currenthill]

MIM-104 Patriot SAM 1.0.0 released!
Changelog Version 1.0.0

• Release version

[RustyGunner]

Currenthill,

You had an oops!  The link for the MIM-104 goes to the 142 HiMARS 1.2.0.zip.  Download link need to be updated.  

Looks like another great Mod.  Thanks.

 

RustyGunner

[AvgeekJoe]

1 minute ago, RustyGunner said:

Currenthill,

You had an oops!  The link for the MIM-104 goes to the 142 HiMARS 1.2.0.zip.  Download link need to be updated.  

Looks like another great Mod.  Thanks.

 

RustyGunner

Can confirm, bad link.

[currenthill]

2 minutes ago, RustyGunner said:

Currenthill,

You had an oops!  The link for the MIM-104 goes to the 142 HiMARS 1.2.0.zip.  Download link need to be updated.  

Looks like another great Mod.  Thanks.

 

RustyGunner

 

Just now, AvgeekJoe said:

Can confirm, bad link.

Godammit! Mixing up the links again, the amount of assets (and links) are getting out of hand.

It's been fixed now, thanks guys!

[KLEPA]

43 минуты назад, currenthill сказал:

MIM-104 Patriot SAM 1.0.0 released!
Changelog Version 1.0.0

• Release version

for a place MIM-104 PATRIOT link to M142 HIMARS!

[currenthill]

1 minute ago, KLEPA said:

for a place MIM-104 PATRIOT link to M142 HIMARS!

Just refresh browser cache to be sure, the link has been fixed.

[ivan-ivanov-1902]

21 час назад, currenthill сказал:

Что вы имеете в виду под звуками и трассерами для зенитных кораблей? Все системы оружия в моих активах смоделированы как можно ближе к реальным, на основе разведданных из открытых источников, конечно. Если мы говорим о CIWS, в наши дни они редко используют трассировщики. Поскольку они отслеживают радары, а трассировщики в основном предназначены для визуальных подсказок. Без трассировщиков это выглядит не так круто, но я стараюсь оставаться как можно более реальным.

YJ-21 типа 055 рассчитан на дальность полета 1000 км, но нуждается в системе АВАКС, что является проблемой для стандартных авиационных платформ DCS AWACS.

In my opinion, the Chinese CIWS have no sound, we need to look again, yes, the tracer for CIWS,YJ-21 falls through 250km into the water, I wrote to you how I did to fly 1000km.

 

sorry, internet translator

[currenthill]

1 hour ago, ivan-ivanov-1902 said:

In my opinion, the Chinese CIWS have no sound, we need to look again, yes, the tracer for CIWS,YJ-21 falls through 250km into the water, I wrote to you how I did to fly 1000km.

 

sorry, internet translator

I just re-tested the Type 1130 CIWS on the Type 055, the sound works as intended. There is no evidence of the Type 1130 using tracers. It fires a 30 mm armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot projectile. Fun fact, it launches around 170 lbs of ammunition per second. Which also results in a cost of around $50.000 per second of firing.

[RaptorFighter]

3 hours ago, ivan-ivanov-1902 said:

In my opinion, the Chinese CIWS have no sound, we need to look again, yes, the tracer for CIWS,YJ-21 falls through 250km into the water, I wrote to you how I did to fly 1000km.

 

sorry, internet translator

Make sure you have the latest audio codecs installed.

[RustyGunner]

Currenthill,

Just tried the SAM mod and indentified a couple of issues.  First, the "drawArgument1 = -1"  in both the ANMPQ65 and ANMPQ65A lua files needs to be changed to "= 0" for proper animation tracking of the radar units.  The second issue is the "FOV" line shown for the launchers in the ME are 180 degrees out of sync with the radars.  I have attached a miz file for your review.  Note which radar and launcher fire at the aircraft in reference to what is shown in the ME.  Hope this helps in seeing the problem I am having.

RustyGunner

sam direction test.miz

[currenthill]

9 minutes ago, RustyGunner said:

Currenthill,

Just tried the SAM mod and indentified a couple of issues.  First, the "drawArgument1 = -1"  in both the ANMPQ65 and ANMPQ65A lua files needs to be changed to "= 0" for proper animation tracking of the radar units.  The second issue is the "FOV" line shown for the launchers in the ME are 180 degrees out of sync with the radars.  I have attached a miz file for your review.  Note which radar and launcher fire at the aircraft in reference to what is shown in the ME.  Hope this helps in seeing the problem I am having.

RustyGunner

sam direction test.miz 6.63 kB · 0 downloads

Hey! Yes, I'm well aware of the code syntax. The biggest challenges making these assets are mainly; 1) Working within the DCS core limitations, and 2) Getting accurate information on how the different systems actually works. 

In regards to your questions:

1) In my belief the AN/MPQ-65 shouldn't traverse (unless it was in real life where you would use the traverse feature to point it at a sector. That's one of the main limitations of the Patriot system), in DCS we have to do same setup in the ME by pointing it at your selected sector. The MPQ-65 will then detect and track targets in the selected sector (60+60 degrees), which also is what the FOV lines show in the ME. So if a target sneaks up from behind (outside of the 120 degrees sector) it won't detect it. You combat that by either using more batteries with different target sectors or using the improved MPQ-65A which has the AESA radar with 360 degrees coverage.

2) I don't see the issue with the M903 Launching Stations FOV lines. They can traverse 110+110 degrees which is what the ME shows. 

When I tried your test mission the result was that the MPQ-65 facing the target used the M903 LN already pointing at the target to launch. No launcher traverse needed.

[RustyGunner]

Currenthill,

Thanks for the response.  I understand the radar should not track the target and that drawArgument1 should remain  -1.  Great write up on that point.   However, I don't follow the radar vs launcher "FOV" problem I see.  Note the picture below.  The radar that is spotting the plane is shown circled in red.  The ME shows the corresponding yellow "FOV" properly pointing towards the aircraft.  The launcher that fires the missile (shown in the red circle) has its "FOV" pointing (red line) in the other direction.  This is what I don't understand.  If you use both a launcher and radar unit with the "FOV" pointing in the same direction, no missile will fire.  I am missing something here in using these assets?

RustyGunner

[currenthill]

11 minutes ago, RustyGunner said:

Currenthill,

Thanks for the response.  I understand the radar should not track the target and that drawArgument1 should remain  -1.  Great write up on that point.   However, I don't follow the radar vs launcher "FOV" problem I see.  Note the picture below.  The radar that is spotting the plane is shown circled in red.  The ME shows the corresponding yellow "FOV" properly pointing towards the aircraft.  The launcher that fires the missile (shown in the red circle) has its "FOV" pointing (red line) in the other direction.  This is what I don't understand.  If you use both a launcher and radar unit with the "FOV" pointing in the same direction, no missile will fire.  I am missing something here in using these assets?

RustyGunner

Does this help? The trainable Launching Station can cover a wider azimuth by design.

Edited March 29, 2023 by currenthill

[RustyGunner]

Currenthill,

Yes it does.  Should have been obvious to me.  One needs to zoom way out in ME when putting these units in place.  Thanks for the great Mods and excellent customer support.

RustyGunner

[currenthill]

3 minutes ago, RustyGunner said:

Currenthill,

Yes it does.  Should have been obvious to me.  One needs to zoom way out in ME when putting these units in place.  Thanks for the great Mods and excellent customer support.

RustyGunner

Thanks!

New asset in the works... Tor M2K.

[ivan-ivanov-1902]

11 часов назад, currenthill сказал:

Спасибо!

Новый актив в разработке... Tor M2K.

Apparently ED did something that does not allow the player to use missiles in small and medium-range air defense mods.

[ivan-ivanov-1902]

currenthill,isn't it possible to make the gmlrs chimars shooting for the commanderplayer?like other mlrs in the game

[currenthill]

2 hours ago, RotoFly said:

wer is Armata T14

 

Nowhere to be seen.

8 minutes ago, ivan-ivanov-1902 said:

currenthill,isn't it possible to make the gmlrs chimars shooting for the commanderplayer?like other mlrs in the game

The DCS core MLRS fires rockets, my HIMARS fires missiles (in DCS terms).

[VFA41_Lion]

10 hours ago, currenthill said:

Nowhere to be seen.

 

Just like in real life!

[Vegabond]

Hey CurrentHill,

I have been messing around, as per usual, in mission editor with your wonderful mods and have noticed that the USA PAC-3 MSE (not the Swedish version) is having serious issues hitting targets...and I have no clue why. Basically my test had a dozen or so R-17 scuds launch to a point close to the Patriot site itself. I had a combination of PAC-2 GEM/T and PAC-3 MSE at the site, the AI decided it best to launch the MSE's at about 50nm, they seem to guide properly until they get close, they seem to go 1nm above the scuds then jerk trying to correct, miss, and self detonate. The AI will launch a few PAC-2 GEM/T which will all mostly hit their target, while the MSE's continue missing by about 125-100ft continuously (even at 10nm out) until the Scuds eventually impact the assigned point.

Do you have any idea why this might be occurring? I tried both radars (didn't change anything), and the Swedish PAC-3 MSE's which worked perfectly!

Thank You as always for all your hard work.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Vegabond
forgot some words

[currenthill]

5 hours ago, Vegabond said:

Hey CurrentHill,

I have been messing around, as per usual, in mission editor with your wonderful mods and have noticed that the USA PAC-3 MSE (not the Swedish version) is having serious issues hitting targets...and I have no clue why. Basically my test had a dozen or so R-17 scuds launch to a point close to the Patriot site itself. I had a combination of PAC-2 GEM/T and PAC-3 MSE at the site, the AI decided it best to launch the MSE's at about 50nm, they seem to guide properly until they get close, they seem to go 1nm above the scuds then jerk trying to correct, miss, and self detonate. The AI will launch a few PAC-2 GEM/T which will all mostly hit their target, while the MSE's continue missing by about 125-100ft continuously (even at 10nm out) until the Scuds eventually impact the assigned point.

Do you have any idea why this might be occurring? I tried both radars (didn't change anything), and the Swedish PAC-3 MSE's which worked perfectly!

Thank You as always for all your hard work.

 

Thanks for the feedback!

Firstly, the US MIM-104 assets are configured differently than the Swedish version. I've learnt a lot since I made the former, knowledge I implement in all new assets. For example, I'm working really hard trying to implement a more realistic approach to accuracy (Ph/Pk etc). This means a lot of calibrating and going back and forth with the settings. I try to look at all available open source intelligence to get a feel for the asset's performance and features. I then try to emulate those as best I can, with the limitations within DCS.

For example, the Swedish LvS 103 version were too accurate. More or less a 100% Pkill. In real life, the PAC-3 MSE is a hit-to-kill missile with added titanium fragmentation (lethality enhancer) combined with a pretty short range radar. I think I've dialed in the Pkill at a reasonable level when it comes to non-ballistic missiles and aircraft. But as you point out, it seem to have made its anti-ballistic missile performance somewhat lackluster. In reality though, THAAD would be the better choice for anti-ballistic engagements. We've seen the PAC-3 MSE being used together with THAAD to fully make use of its kinetic performance.

Short answer: this is no 'bug' as it's been configured this way consciously. But I might have to fine tune the performance a bit for the next release. Though, I'm pretty happy with its performance against non-ballistic missiles and aircraft, which is my main focus.

Edited March 31, 2023 by currenthill

[AvgeekJoe]

Damn good target if you ask me...

[ivan-ivanov-1902]

Advice or desire, it would be better to have a laser rangefinder on an artillery installation and not on an anti-aircraft one, but if the laser works only at a maximum of 5 km, then there is no sense from it.For ships.

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by ivan-ivanov-1902