Military Assets for DCS by Currenthill

[Pede]

30 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Well, targeting land targets wouldn't make it a very effective carrier killer (not counting the mockup USS Ford in the Chinese desert).

I meant because you used the term CEP which is for ballistic trajectories and not for weapons with active terminal guidance because precision guided weapons don't have a normal distribution. 

[currenthill]

17 minutes ago, Pede said:

I meant because you used the term CEP which is for ballistic trajectories and not for weapons with active terminal guidance because precision guided weapons don't have a normal distribution. 

I'm by no means an expert. Correct or not, I used the term CEP as its often used even when talking about the precision of guided munitions, including those with active seekers like cruise missiles. Nevertheless, I was talking about the weapon's accuracy and precision in hitting its intended target.

[currenthill]

Even more assets for the China pack update...

[Joey_Destroyah]

25 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Even more assets for the China pack update...

chinese mlrs?

[currenthill]

6 minutes ago, Joey_Destroyah said:

chinese mlrs?

Correct, it's the PHL-16 firing the FD280 370 mm guided rocket.

[Kormorant]

В 31.01.2024 в 01:15, HighMaintenanceB сказал:

Speaking of missiles, would you consider giving the SM-6 aboard Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke iii a range increase to around 250 nautical miles?  I understand you want to avoid falling into the trap of creating wunderwaffe but I thought you might be interested in making these changes.  Also, do you think it'd make sense to do a ballistic missile defense payload on the Arleigh Burke, with, for example, 48x SM-3, 16x SM-6, 24x SM-2, and 32x ESSM (with the Tomahawk excluded altogether) or is that not really a thing that the US Navy does? 

Judging by the little information we have, that 250nm test (against a ground target) was more of a missile RAero rather than Rmax, so it is almost impossible that an air target could be engaged on such a distance (still can increase range for ASh SM-6s). Besides, they used guidance from other vessels, a thing that is notoriously absent from DCS (to be honest, the whole way sensor and weapon guidance logic works here makes any Aegis simulation... extremely arcade. No AESA multi-tracking, no problem with terminal AN/SPG-62 guidance bottleneck, etc,etc). In-game Tico radar gives 200nm detection range against aircraft (Burke has 240) which is waaay better than RL ranges (at least from open sources). And ground targets are capped at 100km (~50nm). So, expanding range to AA SM-6 will turn them into wunderwaffe (and also will be much less realistic that the numbers we have now due to the whole sensor thing). And making AShM SM-6 250nm would require expanding SS radar range to 250nm which in turn can break a lot of other things in unit logic. So... not really worthy.

Sadly, in DCS we always have to compromise between realism and game engine limitations, and I think CH got it right in case of SM-6s.

Anyway, SM-3s still break realism and engage lofting ASMs (like Tu-22M X-15s) at 25k+ while in reality they are purely exoatmospheric. But since DCS engine has problems with exoatmospherics and missiles have to "flatline" themselves, you again have to compromise.

I tampered with the config file just a little (hope Currenthill will forgive me for this ahahah) testing SM-3s with their H_min set progressively to 30k, 40k, 50k - and I still have no coherent answer as to which one is better (personally just for me, I think 30k will do a bit better but still).

[Kormorant]

В 30.01.2024 в 23:48, currenthill сказал:

But I'm going through all the asset packs, one by one, and updating all weapons. To make them even more realistic.

Any plans, by chance, to tweak Swedish IRIS-T (RBS-98) into using proper heat-seeking guidance? Right now, it is active radar seeking (Head_Type = 2) which is a bit odd, to say the least. Thought at first it is again caused by sensor limitations, but you did a perfect job with NASAMS AIM-9X with correct heat-seeking head (Head_Type = 1).

[currenthill]

8 hours ago, Kormorant said:

Any plans, by chance, to tweak Swedish IRIS-T (RBS-98) into using proper heat-seeking guidance? Right now, it is active radar seeking (Head_Type = 2) which is a bit odd, to say the least. Thought at first it is again caused by sensor limitations, but you did a perfect job with NASAMS AIM-9X with correct heat-seeking head (Head_Type = 1).

I spend a lot of time configuring and tweaking my assets, so anomalies like these are most likely deliberate. I try my best to emulate the characteristics and performance of the real thing. But sometimes it's not possible without too many drawbacks. Like in this case, DCS doesn't handle non-trainable IR missile launchers very well since I can't use LOAL. The NASAMS launcher is trainable and can therefore point the seeker towards the target. Pretend it's an IRIS-T SL which uses an active radar seeker.  

[Kormorant]

2 часа назад, currenthill сказал:

I spend a lot of time configuring and tweaking my assets, so anomalies like these are most likely deliberate. I try my best to emulate the characteristics and performance of the real thing. But sometimes it's not possible without too many drawbacks. Like in this case, DCS doesn't handle non-trainable IR missile launchers very well since I can't use LOAL. The NASAMS launcher is trainable and can therefore point the seeker towards the target. Pretend it's an IRIS-T SL which uses an active radar seeker.  

Thanks for the explanation! Well, that's pretty much what I expected. Trying to circumvent limitations of DCS is not an easy task.

[Guest]

How do I get the BAL LBASE to fire a volley (8 missiles), and not two at a time? I tried different settings, but I can't get a full volley.

Edited February 2, 2024 by dimabzz

[Chris22]

Can you make tos-1a?

[Abburo]

16 hours ago, Joey_Destroyah said:

chinese mlrs?

Making China great ! 

I'm afraid at this moment with all these assets the red forces became stronger as never  ! 

Edited February 2, 2024 by Abburo

[BrzI]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before.

Core DCS antiship missiles track targeted ships fine.

However, all CH antiship missiles from the Russia pack track the targeted ship position at launch. They do not adjust in flight for the target ship movement and always fall behind the targeted ship.

Thanks

[currenthill]

22 minutes ago, BrzI said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned before.

Core DCS antiship missiles track targeted ships fine.

However, all CH antiship missiles from the Russia pack track the targeted ship position at launch. They do not adjust in flight for the target ship movement and always fall behind the targeted ship.

Thanks

It's most likely an issue on your side. I just tested some of the Russian antiship missiles, no issues in tracking and hitting moving targets. 

[currenthill]

18 hours ago, Kormorant said:

Judging by the little information we have, that 250nm test (against a ground target) was more of a missile RAero rather than Rmax, so it is almost impossible that an air target could be engaged on such a distance (still can increase range for ASh SM-6s). Besides, they used guidance from other vessels, a thing that is notoriously absent from DCS (to be honest, the whole way sensor and weapon guidance logic works here makes any Aegis simulation... extremely arcade. No AESA multi-tracking, no problem with terminal AN/SPG-62 guidance bottleneck, etc,etc). In-game Tico radar gives 200nm detection range against aircraft (Burke has 240) which is waaay better than RL ranges (at least from open sources). And ground targets are capped at 100km (~50nm). So, expanding range to AA SM-6 will turn them into wunderwaffe (and also will be much less realistic that the numbers we have now due to the whole sensor thing). And making AShM SM-6 250nm would require expanding SS radar range to 250nm which in turn can break a lot of other things in unit logic. So... not really worthy.

Sadly, in DCS we always have to compromise between realism and game engine limitations, and I think CH got it right in case of SM-6s.

Anyway, SM-3s still break realism and engage lofting ASMs (like Tu-22M X-15s) at 25k+ while in reality they are purely exoatmospheric. But since DCS engine has problems with exoatmospherics and missiles have to "flatline" themselves, you again have to compromise.

I tampered with the config file just a little (hope Currenthill will forgive me for this ahahah) testing SM-3s with their H_min set progressively to 30k, 40k, 50k - and I still have no coherent answer as to which one is better (personally just for me, I think 30k will do a bit better but still).

Yep, there are a lot of limitations and workarounds in play here, haha. 

I implemented the SM-3 more as a novelty because of the issues you mentioned. I've tried different configurations for it to at least make some sort of sense, and still differentiate it from the other SMs. And I agree with your assessment, I will probably change the parameters with updating the USA pack.

6 hours ago, dimabzz said:

How do I get the BAL LBASE to fire a volley (8 missiles), and not two at a time? I tried different settings, but I can't get a full volley.

 

Unfortunately it's up to DCS to decide. I had more luck with this in earlier DCS versions. Might be a DCS bug? The only way to get more missiles launched is to have more target ships. 

5 hours ago, Chris22 said:

Can you make tos-1a?

Might do one when I update the Russia pack. 

2 hours ago, Abburo said:

Making China great ! 

I'm afraid at this moment with all these assets the red forces became stronger as never  ! 

 

Haha, yep. But only until I get to updating the other packs.

[gabriel]

What do you think adding the Type-05 would be very interesting for Taiwan invasion simulations?

[Kormorant]

3 часа назад, BrzI сказал:

Not sure if this has been mentioned before.

Core DCS antiship missiles track targeted ships fine.

However, all CH antiship missiles from the Russia pack track the targeted ship position at launch. They do not adjust in flight for the target ship movement and always fall behind the targeted ship.

Thanks

This is a weird thing actually.
I had the same problem at first (and well... all sorts of things with them missing ships by a narrow margin, tracking problems, etc). Then out of a sudden, it all stopped and they began to hit them normally, track, lead and home in as they should.
I have no explanations why they behave this way.

[currenthill]

40 minutes ago, Kormorant said:

This is a weird thing actually.
I had the same problem at first (and well... all sorts of things with them missing ships by a narrow margin, tracking problems, etc). Then out of a sudden, it all stopped and they began to hit them normally, track, lead and home in as they should.
I have no explanations why they behave this way.

There were issues with tracking due to issues with some of EDs DCS missile schemes, but they've been fixed. I create and test my assets with the latest DCS Openbeta. Other versions may have strange issues.

[flag02004]

3 hours ago, currenthill said:

There were issues with tracking due to issues with some of EDs DCS missile schemes, but they've been fixed. I create and test my assets with the latest DCS Openbeta. Other versions may have strange issues.

Hi @currenthill , I jump in about this, i performed some testing and i need to update this problem of "guidance"....
I never experienced a tracking problem, but some weird tracking....example, multiple missiles are fired at a ship from different sites ( @dimabzz make this if you want more missile on one target), ship is defending well but at some time some missiles passing through and the ship is sunk....but more missiles at still flying toward that ship but instead of trying to find a another target they are all trying to reach the sunk ship...all missiles went in water ???? why ??? finding another target, no....auto destruction, no....

[daskjdhjah]

11小时前，currenthill说：

是的，这里有很多限制和解决方法，哈哈。

由于您提到的问题，我将 SM-3 更多地作为一种新奇事物来实现。 我已经尝试了不同的配置，至少在某种程度上有意义，并且仍然将其与其他 SM 区分开来。 我同意你的评估，我可能会通过更新美国包来改变参数。

不幸的是，这要由DCS来决定。 在早期的DCS版本中，我在这方面运气更好。 可能是DCS错误？ 发射更多导弹的唯一方法是拥有更多的目标舰艇。

当我更新俄罗斯包时可能会做一个。

哈哈，是的。 但只有在我开始更新其他包之前。

还是很棒的工作，你制作的中国模块包已经为营地的红方增加了这么多的战斗力，这些伟大的套件很快就会和我们在一起吗？距离中国农历新年还有一周的时间。如果中文模块包能在春节前发布，那将是送给中国玩家最好的新年礼物。我谨代表全体中国选手感谢大家，同时祝大家新年快乐，也祝大家在新的一年里身体健康，生活愉快。我再次向这位伟大的艺术家致敬!!!

Edited February 3, 2024 by daskjdhjah

[BrzI]

I did a full repair of current stable version of DCS...took a while

Removed all add-ons except TacView and latest Russian asset pack ( CH Military Asset Pack Russia 1.1.0 )

Running MT version of DCS - same thing...the AntiShip missile flies to where the target was at point of launch..

CH - would it be possible to note the versions of the Open Beta and Current Stable that your packs are tested with ?

Thanks

Navy collisions2.miz

Edited February 3, 2024 by BrzI

[currenthill]

8 hours ago, flag02004 said:

Hi @currenthill , I jump in about this, i performed some testing and i need to update this problem of "guidance"....
I never experienced a tracking problem, but some weird tracking....example, multiple missiles are fired at a ship from different sites ( @dimabzz make this if you want more missile on one target), ship is defending well but at some time some missiles passing through and the ship is sunk....but more missiles at still flying toward that ship but instead of trying to find a another target they are all trying to reach the sunk ship...all missiles went in water ???? why ??? finding another target, no....auto destruction, no....

That is an core DCS issue. Units in DCS are doing a poor job of deconfliction when launching their missiles, so a lot of them will go for the same target. Even if that target is sunk. There is nothing I can do about it. 

2 hours ago, BrzI said:

I did a full repair of current stable version of DCS...took a while

Removed all add-ons except TacView and latest Russian asset pack ( CH Military Asset Pack Russia 1.1.0 )

Running MT version of DCS - same thing...the AntiShip missile flies to where the target was at point of launch..

CH - would it be possible to note the versions of the Open Beta and Current Stable that your packs are tested with ?

Thanks

Navy collisions2.miz 7.87 kB · 0 downloads

 

Hm, I thought I was clear but apparently not. 

TL;DR: I only create and test my assets with the latest DCS Open Beta version.

Edited February 3, 2024 by currenthill

[currenthill]

Another asset for the China pack, it's the PLZ-07 122 mm SPG.

[Gogi12]

12 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Another asset for the China pack, it's the PLZ-07 122 mm SPG.

Wow this update will really bring many good assets to China!,  I hope UK pack will be next

[chen]

Hi ,currenthill , are there much more types of ballistic missile in chinese pack ?

Edited February 3, 2024 by chen