Jump to content

Noctrach

Members
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Noctrach

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Or to paraphrase slightly, some of us train like we fight, others of us fly poor BFM... :music_whistling: Not getting back to the boat because of flap/slat lockout sounds like a case of "dead" to me. I suggest unless people have something substantial to add, these threads get locked and we move on.
  2. Yup, our testing confirmed the same. If a false track is created during missile flight, the missile stops guiding altogether and just goes stupid. This happens a lot. Head-on target, over sea, 3+ degrees lookup, light crank or some chaff et voilá, false track and consequently a lost missile. Most of the time this false track is flying side-by-side with the real contact, so the missile seeker should still be pointing at the right piece of sky when going active. I'm led to believe it never goes active, considering TTI 16 currently flashes when the missile goes active in game, which doesn't
  3. From my own testing, above 230-240 KIAS and/or 3-ish G they tend to start breaking, so pretty much as per NATOPS
  4. Yeah, upon further testing I noticed waypoints and similar actually do give BRG so I started to figure it was intended :) Thanks for your input
  5. CAP BRG is currently using the aircraft heading as reference. This means that a contact bearing of e.g. 270 with ownship heading of 300 gives a CAP BRG result of 330. As such, the current number is a very weird representation of antenna train angle, rather than contact bearing. This behaviour is the same in ground and aircraft stabilization modes. Is this intended behaviour or a bug?
  6. Hey at least we've moved the goalpost from "The Phoenix Was A Bomber Only Weapon And Never Hit Anything" to something even less substantial or relevant to the DCS situation. Time to complain about people dropping their tanks when they're empty. They tend to be in shorter supply than missiles on most carriers and forward airbases. Anything else strike your fancy? The only "reality" I see being problematic here, is the one where we pretend any of us are in the know on the actual capabilities of these weapon systems. I'm being facetious but you get my point, the discussion is just nonsensi
  7. Exactly. But then again, airquake has taught me the AIM-7 is a useless missile so I don't see why they ever employed them. Regardless, it was always disgusting to me how the navy spent millions in extensively testing Phoenixes against targets they never intented to use them against. Taxpayer millions. :mad: 3 actually. :smilewink: 2 failed to ignite due to human error involving the arming pins. 1 got kinematically defeated by an egressing MiG-25. Yet people keep bringing this shit up, ohwell.
  8. Thanks, I'll see if I can also do something of a script for this. For now I just roll with two pods I think, twice the flares, twice the fun.
  9. Yeah I noticed it was off, the values on the AIM-120 and AIM-54 wouldn't make sense either. So no idea. It might be something related to the Fi/phi values which iirc relate to sensor tracking but I'm just guessing at this point.
  10. @dundun92 That would be missiles_data.lua, P_77, but since most of that is in cyrillic, it ends up gibberish for me.
  11. @dundun92 I'm pretty sure the notch values are defined in missiles_table.lua, by seeker = { height_error_max_vel } in KPH for "half" the gate. This is would result in +-32 knots for the AIM-120B, +-27 knots for the AIM-120C, +-75 knots for the AIM-54 (not sure if this is the HB one, most likely is) Correlates pretty well with what I've seen in TacView
  12. Ya but in that case you can just fire it in any of the PLM/PAL modes, which will give it an azimuth and altitude and tells it to go play fetch.
  13. I think the bottom line is, it can be used but effectiveness will be very low :) it would be a freaky instance of luck, but I've seen it happen The reason it works so well against notching targets is that from a "game" perspective the missile will check every X milliseconds whether it can still see the target and whether it will go for chaff. During a notch, the target isn't eligible as a valid result, so the only possible outcome is to go for one of the chaffs. I feel this can still sometimes be influenced by chaff rejection, resulting in the missile finding 0 valid targets until it re-e
  14. Considering the age of the missile and the size considerations of batteries... Would launching it active not just cause the the battery running dry mid-way through the shot? Active scanning costs a whole lot more juice than homing SARH or flying on DL. As such I highly doubt that was a possibility.
  15. We know for a fact it isn't tbh :book: Most, if not all radars since the 60s had some form of range gate processing. The MiG-19 in DCS iirc has a radar that didn't do this and as a result it is completely blind in a look-down scenario under something like 3-4 km altitude. Similar to doppler gating, you have different "bins" for range, if you detect a target at a slant range "5 to 6 miles" and there's clutter on a slant range "7 to 8 miles" the radar will just ignore that. To really be able to benefit from background clutter you'd have to get the ground inside the range resolution of the rad
×
×
  • Create New...