Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kapsu

  1. Real problem here isn't look down range reduction. Real problem is that after certain look down angle (around 15 degrees) radar won't see or track anything in RWS or TWS even if you had solid track on the contact, after that angle radar will just loose the contact without reason.
  2. Did some testing and found out that when look down angle is higher than 14-15 degrees radar won't see anything in RWS/TWS. That combined with look down detection range reduction scaling based on altitude difference or angle means that from 40k feet it won't detect low flying fighter sized target before the look down angle gets higher than that 14-15 degrees so you won't ever detect the contact in that scenario.
  3. Blue GCI, LotATC: SF_Farrago SF_MikeMikeJuliet
  4. SF Squadron: 2x F-18C (maybe more) SF_Kapsu SF_Hevy Supercarrier: yes
  5. It does that because radar is starting to lose the track file before it does another sweep over the contact thanks to the bugged track file memory system. Increase age out setting from 4 to 8 in the DATA sublevel (aim120 selected) and use smaller scan zone to make it a lot better.
  6. It's not a bug. All ACM locks are STT locks in the first place so you are in STT mode if you lock something with any of the ACM modes. Also ACM condition will stay active until manually exited one way or another. And as long as ACM condition is active it will override the other functions of the sensor control switch.
  7. Added MMJ to the roster.
  8. SF_Kapsu F/A-18C SF_Hevy F/A-18C SF_Huntercamo F/A-18C SF_MikeMikeJuliet F/A-18C Supercarrier: yes
  9. Squadron: SF Squadron Timezone: 15 - 20z (weekends) Aircraft: F-18C, F-16C Maps: Cauc, PG, Syria
  10. How i haven't noticed this until i read this? :D Anyway there is a way to fix that. In RWS press TDC on empty space (radar tries to take STT lock on that bearing) and then when radar is doing that narrow sweep trying to find something switch from AIM-120 to AIM-9 (just switching from one missile to another should work) and things should get back to normal when radar goes back to normal search. Your scan center might get offset to where your TDC was but switching weapons again or selecting to 140 degree scan seems to fix that.
  11. SF roster updated: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/dcs-world-topics/tournaments/7115959-red-flag-14nov2020?p=7116433#post7116433 I'm not sure if anyone from us can attend red side briefing today.
  12. SF Squadron, Blue side (red is fine too) 3x F/A-18C, 1x F-16C, 1x GCI SF_Kapsu SF_Huntercamo SF_Hevy SF_Razer (F-16C) SF_Farrago (GCI)
  13. Really would like to see that real world data you used as well. Well that explains few things. In 2.5.6 drag for pylons was added which explains differences in top speed and FCS weight bug was fixed which explains your turn test results. So yeah you're right, just 5 months late. :D According to the GAO report, yes.
  14. Nope, i don't see any change at all. STR, speed and acceleration numbers are the same as they used to be. I don't see a reason (and i'm too lazy) to revert back to an older version so i could do side by side comparison to be 100% sure, but there's no significant change for sure. Your stable track doesn't seem to playback correctly on OB, you have a video of it by any chance? Oh and don't accelerate tracks, it increases the chance they get corrupted.
  15. I haven't noticed anything different on the Hornet FM, especially when it comes to BFM performance it feels the same as before. But i will do some tests and see if i can spot any differences.
  16. Squadron Name: SF Squadron Teamspeak/Discord: S1G Contact person Discord ID: Kapsu#1176 Aircraft Selection. F-18C Pilot: Finland - SF_Kapsu (Donation is for the Finnish site of the doctors without borders)
  17. I started to wonder that those fuel flow figures for Hornet can not be right and after checking both DCS manual and NATOPS i noticed that IFEI (and ENG page) only show fuel flow of the main engine, it does not include FF for afterburner so no wonder those figures seemed so strange. :D EDIT: Disregard, tested with scripted mission which calculates fuel flow and it seems like DCS F-18 does include afterburner FF as well (which also should be reported) so those figures are correct after all and indeed very optimistic. For example at sea level A1-F18AC-NFM-200 manual's (-400 engines) combat fuel flow chart gives FF of 79200lb/h and in DCS F-18's FF is 69318lb/h so pretty huge difference. And since -402 is more powerful it probably should have even higher FF at full afterburner.
  18. Those charts can not be for per engine?
  19. Pylons have drag now and if i'm not mistaken drag was added to existing FM, not taken away when pylons are removed. Care to explain what's wrong with that turn rate? It matches the turn rate mentioned at GAO report, is the speed where you get that 19 deg/s wrong?
  20. With 2x AIM-120C, 2x AIM-9M and 60% fuel i got pretty much exactly that 19.2 deg/s at SL and 0.6 mach, both with and without pylons.
  21. This topic has been discussed before with more details here as well. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252095
  22. NOT true, not at all. If you know your BFM and your jet you won't need paddle switch in DCS neither.
  23. AFAIK he never flew an EPE hornet though, only A model. In 2.5.6 drag for pylons was added so now that's also a factor, i haven't tested how much it affects turn performance but speed wise difference is clearly noticable. Also F-16 STR is limited by pilot G- modelling right now which REALLY hurts it's effectivenes in BFM so don't draw any conclusions based on that.
  24. I agree with Maverick here. Avoid the WIP AACQ mode for now and the radar is really strong in any scenario. Sure it has a few minor bugs here and there but nothing that prevents you from owning people on PvP if you know what you're doing. :)
  • Create New...