Jump to content

Bearfoot

Members
  • Posts

    1628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bearfoot

  1. Caveat that all the following applies to the GAME and any resemblance to real life is purely coincidental.

     

    In this game, SA-10 alone -- no problem. Same with SA-11, SA-6, SA-3, and (when we get them), SA-5's. Because they have a minimum engagement zone that you can fit the Ever Given through (60 feet is the lowest, for the SA-10).

     

    I've taken out SA-10's, solo, with: LMAVs, rockets, Mk-82's, Mk-82Y's, JDAMs, etc. etc. In fact, you don't even need the boom-boom stuff: your guns do the trick just as well (and can be easier to put the thing on the thing as well) As long as you hit the tracking radar, you can then waltz out any way you please. JDAMs are the easiest, of course: you don't even need to be pointing at them or even know where they are. But where's the fun in that? Most fun is the rockets and 82Y's.  

     

    The attack profile is the same for all: come in at <60ft and pop up around 2-3 nm. No need for terrain masking. In fact, works best on flat ground -- forests, cities, low hills etc. that force you to fly >60feet for your approach put you in the SA-10's kill zone.

     

    I have no idea how your server sets the SA-10 up, but if the SA-10 is defended by SHORAD/MERAD (= "layered defense"), then the story is different. 

    • AAA makes thing s a little spicy, especially on with 82Y's. But most of the time I seem to get by OK?
    • MANPADS/IR missiles definitely bring up the pucker factor. I have my counter-measures set to pop a flare every 1/2 second on my attack run and that and a couple of jinks/rolls seem to get me by.
    • SA-15 or SA-19? Fuggedaboutit. I mean, really. With a minimum altitude of 0, it doesn't matter if you are literally in the weeds or going Mach 1, jinking or janking. They'll take you out, probably twice, the moment you come within their range ... which will be long before they come within your range.

    If you server's SA-10 sites are undefended, or defended only by AA/MANPADS, go forth and conquer!

     

    Now, if they have some nasty SA-15's or -19's in the mix (which would, as far as I can tell, pretty much in line with doctrine), then the only approach is saturation.

     

    Which means Lone Wolf Solo needs to rethink his life choices. 

     

    For a saturation attack, you need to figure 1 x Harm per missile tube, then +1 HARM per radar. The point of all this is suppression and distraction. While you close in with your gifts to do the DEAD. Obviously, it takes multiple aircraft and coordination. If your server runs Skynet (and I hiighly recommend that they do -- completely changes the dynamics/tactics), then this coordination needs to be in time as well as space, because the radars will shut down when they see the HARMs, and they will neither deplete the launchers nor hit the radars. So your attack run has to be within a few minutes of the HARMs TOT, absolutely no earlier and not much later, to coincide with the time the radars are down.

     

    The other approach is with TALDs. This one is fool-proof, and needs way less coordination. And you can easily set up the AI to do it. The AI SAM's just cannot control themselves when they see a flight of these puppies, and let fly with everything they have. Right now, only the Tomcats carry TALDs, and they are usually the centerpiece of my approach in SP. A flight of 4 tomcats, launching 4 TALDs each, will deplete an entire SA-10 site defended by 2-3 SA-15's/19's in seconds: the moment they see the TALD's the AI dumps their load, with 2-3 missiles per TALD. In minutes they are done, and ready for a cigarette, cuddles, and just want to talk. Then you can come strutting in, pretty much at any height and speed you please to pick them off one-by-one, using whatever you please. This is why next to our GBU-24 actually doing the fancy low-level flying it's famous for, the Hornet TALD is the ordnance I'm looking forward to the most.

     

    • Like 1
  2. 27 minutes ago, ultrablue2258 said:

    I believe you are confusing the Attack Radar or SA page with the AZ/EL page, ED confirmed AZ/EL wouldn't be getting datalink contacts.

     

     

     

    Do you have a source for "ED confirmed AZ/EL wouldn't be getting datalink contacts"?

     

    Because, if anything, it seems that while ED has indicated that we will not be able to bug/lock donor MSI tracks (for better or worse, erroneously or not), it seems like they plan to do something  with donor MSI tracks and the AZ/EL) 

    unknown.png

  3. 4 hours ago, Tippis said:

    Quite. I don't remember the full list off the top of my head, but almost everything altitude related has at least three different overlapping parameters. So good luck 😄 

     

    Some have that min_alt, some have something along the lines of “minimum target altitude”, some have altitudes defined as elevation angles, and I'm pretty sure there's at least one more way of defining it — maybe it was minimum flight altitude of the missiles…

     

    When I dug through the old database to figure out the numbers for https://www.airgoons.com/w/DCS_Reference, I had to do a whole lot of cross-referencing to make it all fit together, and only rarely was something set up the same way for multiple systems. The self-contained single-vehicle ones were usually the easiest, but even then, it wasn't consistent.

     

    Well, you did an excellent job!

     

    All the info is at that link, very clearly presented, and with lots of nice, enriched detail!

     

    Thanks!

    Screenshot from 2021-07-09 22-42-49.png

  4. 8 minutes ago, Tippis said:

    For the most part, that's because the limitations are set up somewhere else — the systems you're mentioning are all multi-part, so the limits may be set up in the search radar, the tracking radar, the CC, in the individual carrying vehicles, or just in the missiles themselves. The SA-11 has this too, as it happens, it's just that the “LN” is a TELAR with its own guidance and thus needs to also be handled as if it were a single-unit system (because it partly is).

     

    To figure it out, you have to sift through all the components, and even then, each component will generally apply limits to specific situations or modes — search mode will have better (or worse) target tracking limits than the track mode, and both might be more (or less) than the missile itself is then capable of.

     

    I'm searching through the entire repo though for text patterns, so it should pick it up.

    The key issue is whether or not I've got (and am understanding) the parameter name correctly.

     

    For example. here is a a search through the entire repo for all occurrences of "min_alt"

     

    Screenshot from 2021-07-09 18-06-20.png

  5. Thanks.

     

    That database has lots of info. 

     

    It's a little tricky to figure out. I see many unit types have "min_alt_finding_target" (e.g., "SA-11 Buk LN 9A310M1", given as "20", or "Gepard" or "HQ-7_LN_SP", given as "0"), but many others do not (e.g., SA-10, SA-2, SA-6 etc.). Which does not make sense.

     

  6. 4 hours ago, Harker said:
    4 hours ago, Bearfoot said:
    Wasn't there a bug where if you WPDSG while TDC is assigned to the ATFLIR, the designation goes crazy? Sky, clouds, random point in the ground, etc.
     
    Has this been fixed?
     
    Work around is (was?) make sure TDC priority is on some other DDI when pressing WPDESG.

    IIRC this was fixed

    Good to hear. It was such a fuss sometimes.

  7. Wasn't there a bug where if you WPDSG while TDC is assigned to the ATFLIR, the designation goes crazy? Sky, clouds, random point in the ground, etc.

     

    Has this been fixed?

     

    Work around is (was?) make sure TDC priority is on some other DDI when pressing WPDESG.

  8. 8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

     

    I'm actually finding the GUV pods to be quite effective (including against light armour)... so it is making me suddenly want an Mi-24V to be modelled someday... even with the issues related to the gun jamming... it'd be great for taking out more vehicles in a single pass or suppressing infantry without having to turn the helicopter.

     

    DCS infantry cannot be suppressed.

     

    Only killed.

     

    They are recruited from solid lunatic stock and are pumped full of angel dust and 1000000% grain alcohol before being sent to the front. They will stand their ground calmly firing at you with laser accuracy even as the entire planet disintegrates around them in a haze of smoke and fire and shrapnel.

     

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
  9. For me (and RL might vary), I like the double ugly because:

    • It keeps the left inboard station clear or at least not having a huge fuel tank your view if you have the ATFLIR or some other TGP loaded.
    • It frees up one "smart" (not sure of the correct word) pylon (center pylon can only take dumb bombs, I think, while wing pylons support the full range of ordnance). So you end up with 3 pylons to take the special toys, while a tank on either wing only leaves 2.

    If I am doing anything on the ground I typically take the ATFLIR, unless it is a totally pre-planned JDAM strike.  For a general A2G loadout, I typically carry:

    1. Left wing: sidewinder
    2. Left outboard: weapon 1
    3. Left inboard: optional weapon 2 (or datalink)
    4. Left cheek: ATFLIR
    5. Center:  fuel
    6. Right cheek: AIM-120
    7. Right inboard: fuel 
    8. Right outboard: weapon 3
    9. Right wing: sidewinder

    Where:

    • If I am carrying Walleyes: I usually have a Walleye on station 2 and the datalink on station 3. This balances the fuel.
    • Typically Station 8 (and 3, if not occupied by the datalink) is empty or has double rack of AIM-120's if I'm self escorting (or do not trust the AI escort 🙂 ), or maybe a HARM or something (a little bit game-y maybe ... but hey, it is a game!).

     

     

    For A2A or CAP, I don't typically do the double ugly,I take 6 AMRAAMs (two doubled racked on each wing + 2 on the cheeks), an either 1, 2, or sometimes even 3 (!!! I get thirsty! don't shame me !!!) bags.

     

    All the above is within the context of the game. For real life loadouts, you need to speak to someone who knows what they are actually talking about! 

     

  10. Ok, some progress.

     

    Adding the following line

     

    {action = id2163a_commands.ID2163A_SetMinAlt, cockpit_device_id = devices.ID2163A, name=_("Push to Test Switch"), category = {_("Right Vertical Panel")}},

     

    into "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Input\FA-18C\joystick\default.lua"

     

    exposes the control to be mapped to a key in the game, and the control responds.

     

    So ... yay!

     

    Problem is when assigned to an axis, the axis control acts as an incrementer/decrementer rather than a slider. That is, pushing the axis past the center continuously increments the value until the axis is centered again. And vice versa. For example, setting the axis at 25% does not result in an altitude at 25% the range, but continuously decreases the altitude down to zero and beyond until the axis is brought back to 50 %.

     

    Of course, I've tried clicking the "slider" box inside the game in axis tuning for the control, and that doesn't seem to have changed things. So maybe I'm missing something.

     

    The "id2163a_commands.ID2163A_SetMinAlt" is defined in "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Cockpit\Scripts\clickabledata.lua" as:

     

    elements["pnt_291"]        = default_button_axis_extended(_("Push to Test Switch, (LMB) activate BIT checks/(MW) rotate clockwise to apply power and set low altitude index pointer"), devices.ID2163A, id2163a_commands.ID2163A_PushToTest, id2163a_commands.ID2163A_SetMinAlt, 292, 291, 0.1, true, nil, {30, -145}, {0,-60})


     

    Maybe some of those numbers at the end need fiddling, or maybe I need to define a new element ("default_button_axis_limited"?) Is any of this documented somewhere, or does anyone know how it works?

     

    • Like 1
  11. 19 minutes ago, Harker said:

    If the designation is on/close to the target, good. If it's not, you need to update it and make sure it is, by using the TPOD offset cursor (if you want to stay in AUTO/PTRK).
     

     

    Yep. That's exactly what I described (I think? If not, then I did a bad job of describing it). All the other stuff was just to provide a way for folks to convince themselves that there is, in fact, no hand-off!

    • Like 1
  12. What I see in your video is that you switched the TDC to your MAV format immediately after acquisition of the point track. This is the case I described above:

     

    Quote

    switching to MAV DDI or caging/uncaging simply slews the Maverick head to where the point/auto track was acquired. If this is close enough to where the vehicle is currently, then you are in luck.

     

    Once the Maverick independently locks on the target, it doesn't matter if the vehicle moves or not -- the Maverick will independently track the target.

     

    The situation I describe is the case where the tracked vehicle moves significantly from the position it was originally acquired before you switch to the Mav page:

     

    (1) Acquire point/auto track on a vehicle

    (2) Wait a while, while the TGP continues to successfully track the vehicle. Allow some good travel time (maybe 10-20 secs) so that there is no doubt the vehicle is no longer in the original position it was acquired.

    (3) Then switch to the IR Mav.

     

    You will find that the Maverick head slews to the place where the point track was first acquired, not where the vehicle is now. 

     

    If your vehicles are in a convoy, you might be lucky enough that there is another vehicle in the same position where your original vehicle was acquired, and the maverick picks up and locks and tracks on that one.  In this case, a launch will result in the vehicle being hit, but it's not the one you are tracking. Otherwise the Maverick will blow up dirt.

     

  13. For Mav-F, even if the TGP (whether the LITENING or ATFLIR) has an outstanding solid point track or auto, that the latest target position is not automatically handed off to the Maverick: switching to MAV DDI or caging/uncaging simply slews the Maverick head to where the point/auto track was acquired. If this is close enough to where the vehicle is currently, then you are in luck. If not, SOL. As far as I can tell, there's no formal hand-off from the TGP to IR Maverick head as such: the Maverick head just looks at the last designated position, which is many times NOT where the point track is looking. This means that it is impossible to have a workflow where you, for e.g., acquire a point track and then wait a bit (for whatever reason) before launching the IR Mav.

     

    What you need to do is (on the TGP page), after acquiring a point/auto track, depress the TDC twice. Once to get the offset cursor (which will be superimposed on the point tracked vehicle), and a second time to designate the current offset cursor position as the target. THEN immediately switch to the Mav format page to launch (cage/uncage if needed to update the seeker head position) . If you find that the IR Mav has not locked on the vehicle or is on some spot behind the vehicle, then switch back to the TGP page, TDC depress once to redesignate the current offset cross (which should still be on the vehicle) as the target point and switch back the IRMAV DDI to get the head to look there.

     

    TL;DR -- use the offset cross to designate the current vehicle position to the Maverick instead of just relying on the point track.

    • Like 1
  14. Same thing happening to me -- crew ignores me, cannot hook-up to the cat.

     

    This is a bug introduced in 2.7.

     

    Someone who has a track should post the bug in the bug section. Unfortunately, I don't. There's another thread about the same issue happening in MP (only), but this one here occurs in SP. 

×
×
  • Create New...