Jump to content

Kapsu

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    172

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kapsu

    Radar look down problem - Low flying, fighter size targets not detected from high altitude

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    20 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

    Ive spent time testing it today and it seems to be working as intended,  ( degrades range based on angle. It only reduces range by 0.035 for everyone 1 degree down )

     

    I have tested with Tu160 and Mig-29 and have been able to find and lock targets. 

    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. 

    • Like 2

    Radar look down problem - Low flying, fighter size targets not detected from high altitude

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    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.

    F/A-18C radar the vertical and horizontal inverted after gun fight (NOT IN ACM)

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    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.

    • Like 3

    [NO FM CHANGES IN UPDATE] Flight Model/Engine Thrust Tweak?

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    About 6 months ago I made some EM diagrams for a few aircraft in DCS, and compared then to real world data. The hornet was grossly over-performing for the test conditions.

     

    Really would like to see that real world data you used as well.

     

    So, my Stable version in the tests above is the last 2.5.5 branch of Stable

     

    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

     

    **another little test and question: A clean jet with pylons and only 4000lbs of internal fuel cannot achieve Mach 1.2 at 5,000 ft MSL. It only achieved Mach 1.12. (and at 10,000ft MSL, Mach 1.19.) Is the real Block 20 that draggy and under-powered?

     

    According to the GAO report, yes.

    [NO FM CHANGES IN UPDATE] Flight Model/Engine Thrust Tweak?

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    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.

     

    Just give those tests in post #25 above a try and you'll see there's a significant change somewhere (FM, power, drag, something). :thumbup:

    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.

    FUEL CONSUMPTION IN ME FLIGHT PLANNING

    in Wish List

    Posted · Edited by Kapsu

    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.

    • Like 1

    FUEL CONSUMPTION IN ME FLIGHT PLANNING

    in Wish List

    Posted

    Isn't the fuel flow in hornet measured in lbs/min?

     

    The info for F404-GE-400 engines shows about 900lbs/min at 30,000ft, MACH 1.54, Max power per engine.

     

    Interestingly the charts don't go to MACH 1.6 at 30,000ft.

    Those charts can not be for per engine?

    [CHECKING] Turn Rate

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    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?

×
×
  • Create New...