Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zergburger

  1. try closing oxygen valve like 15-20 degrees from full open, so the arrow is pointed to your 7 o clock, should not allow you to grey out and should cut down on o2 use, i guess our regulators dont work too well.
  2. even if pirate doesnt work, ther must be some merits to these systems as IRST/DMT/FLIR sensors continue to be designed into modern jets. Is this just a result of theoretic > reality?
  3. the mk82 AIR is generally more flexible as you can drop it in a slick config, and it is pilot configurable. The Snake-eye can only drop high drag, but it is a cheaper and more reliable system since you are relying on a spring instead of a pyrotechnic inflation. The MK82AIR is also cleared to higher mach, the mk82SE is limited to ~550kts and i forget what mach; i am certain it is lower though. If i had to speculate the drag index of an SE is probably higher as well.
  4. yeah, the circling amraam phenomenon is certainly one of the weirder parts of these clips. My only theory is that once the missile is past the target the control surfaces are locking up in the config that they were at when they passed the target. If you look the arc scribed by the missile after the target, it is in plane with the endgame turn the missile was doing as it missed
  5. First off, thanks ED for this change to amraam, the community is pleased. Just wanted to leave these videos of some fringe cases for your inspection so that you can decide if there is a bug here or these are "working-as-intended" scenarios. First, an AV-8B goes into a full departure resulting in the defeat of an amraam. https://i.gyazo.com/5286382f8bfddba2b0bbcc43d5135e8f.mp4 Second, a Su-27 Cobras his way out of an amraam death.
  6. A2A missile desync is not a new phenomenon. The reason it is becoming more prevalent is that the longer the missile is in the air, the more desync can occur (think INS drift). With the introduction of the aim-54 and the increase in aim-120 capabilities, longer and longer shots are becoming possible; thus more desync is introduced.
  7. seems working as intended, statys on jet at 5.5, falls off jet at 6......whats hte problem here?
  8. THIS I see so many of these GLOC threads it's laughable at this point, peeps in the eagle pull 13 instant onset G then wonder why they GLOC in under 3 seconds. Theres a few reasons no jets after the viper have such a silly angle on the seat. It doesn't alleviate G as much as internet fan boys wish it did, and it causes a fair amount of other problems, mostly associated with neck positioning. i dont know about you, but i've been on roller coasters and had the grey out, and thats 4-5g. You probably couldn't pull 9g, i probably couldn't pull 9g, cherry picking 1 super human that can do some dragon ball z level shit doesn't really do much for your argument. Actually, DCS is pretty mild when you compare it to the real simulations of what a high speed eagle pulling max deflection would do to the jet and pilot. (hint: be happy your wings stay on, and 13g is the max you can pull) when you take it big picture, GLOC is a small issue compared to some of the other glaring things in the sim. netcode, drag modelling, damage modelling, and much else comes to mind.
  9. Zergburger


    thats why our 2005 lot 20 US Navy hornet has a center line litening pod........because realism if they want people to take realism seriously, ED needs to start realistically modelling shit.... after that we can start talking about autistic rivet counting and specific ordnances. in the mean time i'll be pulling 9g at mach 1.6 with 3 bags and a pod on the jet. LMAO
  10. to elaborate on the previous posts, F/A-18s have a feature called "HARM pullback mode" which will override whatever mode you are in if you get spiked by a SAM radar and have a harm on board. If you do not have HARM OVERRIDE boxed, HARM pullback is enabled. Typically it will put you in SP mode with the spiked radar already designated so you can just press the pickle and call slapshot. HARM pullback is not currently working in DCS.
  11. there's a reason harms are a SEAD weapon, not DEAD. they dont incinerate a radar station, they damage it.
  12. have you tried this with missiles that arent so slow they are basically falling out of the sky? a phoenix doesnt handle well at 300 knots, nor do A models deal welll with chaff and notching
  13. i read somewhere the f4 was about 7.5lbs per G with the bobweights. you would not be able to pull 8-9g without using both hands
  14. Awesome to see this feature finally being rolled out in a finished capacity. Question for the devs: Currently in TWS-M it is easy to lose tracks while cranking, even if the RIO keeps the scan volume centered on a track. I have not done specific testing for causality but i notice that it seems to lose the track easier if the pilot cranks faster, and it seems that once you get past about 40 degrees off boresight the tracks drop regardless of how gentle the crank is. Is this a bug or some aircraft limitation I am failing to comprehend? Will TWS-A have this same limitation? Whether its a bug or WAI, can someone explain why this is happening?
  15. funny, because my understanding of the changes is that they DECREASED induced drag.
  16. in its current state we will never have 100% accurate flyout info because a real amraam has HPRF and MPRF active. the DCS amraam onhly has one stage of active guidance the "H" time is time til HPRF active Brevity: Husky the "M" time is time til MPRF active Brevity: Pitbull
  17. there is a bug, if you turn it on, do the alignment, then powercycle off->on the timer will reset and never count down even though the alignment still shows "Quality: 0" (aligned)
  18. Guys, i would love real simulated ECM as much as the next man. But outside of basic noise jamming, we will most likely NEVER see any ECM in game; Reasons for this include: 1. EW is some of the most top secret tech on the battlefield today. Seeing as we can't even get reliable missile kinematics data with publicly available info; how would we ever get enough information to accurately simulate the capabilities of each pod/device? 2. The simplistic radar simulation in DCS does not allow for the more complex ECM techniques to be used. More or less any kind of DRFM techniques don't work because of this. there is no range gate, thus no range gate pull-off can be used there is no velocity gate, thus no velocity gate pull-off can be used inverse gain, multiple false target signal injections (cross eye jamming), bin masking, etc..... 3. there is no actual ECCM being processed, its just a simple if X radar is looking at Y target, burn-through happens at Z range. Even if there was actual ECM and ECCM being simulated, we get back to the original point; Where do you get accurate info to simulate these systems? 4. from a gameplay perspective nothing would be more frustrating than going up against a target with a full suite of ECM techniques. lets give an example: First your screen is just a green mess of noise saturation, when you finally burn through that, the ECM is switched up so you have so many false contacts you cannot possibly hope to lock the real return. If by some chance you manage to lock to correct contact, you would immediately be given false ranging, velocity, and angular data causing the radar to either drop lock(best scenario) or the ECM would have fooled your radar so thoroughly you would be shooting a missile a TD box with no plane even remotely close to it. leaving you wondering if your radar had a stroke. AFTER ALL THAT, if your fox 3 manages to get close enough to the enemy to begin terminal guidance, it is also being jammed, with the full complement of shit previously mentioned, so it goes into HOJ mode, but the jamming is coming from a towed decoy; so it misses the plane and destroys the decoy (assuming it fuzes at all, because we all know how reliable ED's proximity fuzing is) Meanwhile the enemy's fox 3 is now probably close to fuzing and explosively rearranging your parts. leaving you with nothing to do but go back to the ED forum and file a bug report or some pseudoautistic complaint thread.
  19. i imagine the system has blind spots, didnt look at the track; but just some food for thought considering the system's limitations.
  20. mig29 takes a LOT of practice, you have to learn to be your own stick limiter or you will just AOA away all your speed. Maintaining corner velocity is key. It took me a bit of practice, but i was able to hang with the AI in the mig.
  21. m247 warhead is old, APKWS uses m282, a warhead designed with the express purpose of armor penetration; and video evidence of it penetrating straight though armor. This is all with a 70mm rocket.....BRM-1 is a 90mm rocket. Lets take a look at well known weapons that are closer in size.... the PG7-VL from the RPG-7 is 93mm (<500mm RHAe the Mk 6 Mod 0 from the SMAW is 83.5mm (600mm RHAe) the AT-4 HEAT(round designation unknown) is 84mm (500mm RHAe) and those are just the single stage warheads..... I am unable to find info on construction of the HEAT warhead in the BRM-1; but if, for instance, it has a tandem warhead....shit gets much worse for the armor. if we are talking about tandem warhead analogues in the 90mm range, the RPG-29 has VERIFIABLY hit and penetrated multiple Abrams' side armor. It has also hit and penetrated lower glacis of a challenger 2. In each of the above instances of the rpg-29 penetrating these, crew members were killed. also the PG7-VR tandem from the rpg-7 that has pentrated an abrams, luckily the fuel tank dissipated the jet and they only had a tank flooded with JP-8 instead of a dead tanker(s)
  • Create New...