Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Content Count

    32029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

2 Followers

About GGTharos

  • Rank
    Veteran
  • Birthday 11/14/1978

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    Earth
  • Interests
    Flight Simulation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How much further would you expect to see an eagle or tomcat?
  2. Except for PDSTT and STT being different, the RWR theory-crafting is completely wrong.
  3. This looks like an all-boost profile, not boost-sustain.
  4. Who says lower is better? The sparrow fires for longer and and doesn't reach as far as go as fast as a 120. The why are you posting uneducated opinion on things you don't even attempt to understand? It makes plenty of sense if you understand the basics of how rocket motors work. How is it possible? The large diameter allows a lot of fuel to be burned quickly. In the meantime, there is no need to know about it. ” Even if you look just at sidewinder, it has one rocket motor that burns for two seconds with very high thrust, and the current one
  5. No it doesn't seem weird. The gigantic PATRIOT and S300 rocket motors run for about 10 seconds and so does the Super 530D. It's all about what you want to do with the missile within the physical limits of what's possible. For the same mass of propellant, running at lower thrust will get you a longer burn time. Rocket science isn't anywhere near that simple but it's a fair rule of thumb.
  6. 'Stealth stuff' is about 1% for the simulation. You set a low RCS and you're done. You're going to get 25% of it because there is no data on any sort of systems integration (in fact, there's probably next to no systems integration) and no data at all for the flight characteristics. If you modeled this helicopter, to make it realistic you'd have to model it without any weapons at all.
  7. Setting the cm value to zero would cause the chaff to always be rejected, yes. No one's going to set it to zero, so it will always be a subject to the interesting things this leads to. There's no link and no plan to do anything about it in 2.7 specifically. The devs mentioned they're working on it but it's 'all in good time' and don't know when they'll get around to it.
  8. All pilots build SA in their head, the datalink makes it a lot easier and gives timely updated compared to other methods. So it isn't about the 'sim doing it for you' but about correctly simulating the capabilities. In DCS the AWACS for example is not really good at providing SA, which while not a real replacement for a datalink would add a lot of SA if done right.
  9. I don't know what and why you're trying to argue. This is a matter of literally changing a single number in one LUA file.
  10. Yep, it's not a bug but it is wrong, the detection ranges are shorter than they ought to be by a very significant margin.
  11. It's behaving exactly as the developer intended, thus not a bug. We're asking for a data correction, not a change of code.
  12. It isn't a bug. Bugs are software operating in a manner that is not intended. A piece of incorrect data is not a bug, it is incorrect data.
  13. There should be a warning. This is no different from other PESA radars when they need guidance quality data.
  14. The previous ones were. I don't recall if it was an option that was retained or something else.
  15. The AIM-7 is acting on its own (this is what homing really means), and it can home in on anything that's either in or even a bit outside of the beam (the beam definition is mathematical according to power fall-off from the center) - there are other options too, HoJ being one of them and EMI another although in both cases, Pk should be greatly reduced. The point is that there's still plenty of 'choice' for the AIM-7 to go hit something that is not the designated target as long as it's somehow 'in the way'. The aircraft doesn't make that choice - the missile does, the aircraft only supplies t
×
×
  • Create New...