Ракеты в DCS

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

18 minutes ago, Chizh said:

You forgot to mention that there is no datalink on the F-15 at all. So the Su-27 has a big head start here.

I wonder why that logic didn't carry over to the F/A-18 and F-16?

Maybe because its a Simulator?

 

In spite of that, its a capability that exist irl in the plane being modeled, why is it not present?

When will it be present.

It is present in SP I might add.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[BlackPixxel]

12 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Thats an issue with the R-27, not the radar interaction. Its reported and they say that they will put it on the same standard as the AIM-7.

The interaction you are asking for (memory mode instead of OLS) will lead to the missile being defeated by chaff nearly 100% of the time in that spot. If youre not convinced, test it in the current patch with ECM on.

I dont know if the real N001 radar is supposed to go into memory mode instead of OLS. But the missile would get the most benefit from the current radar modelling and the promised changes for the R-27 itself. So if there is no mention of this radar/ols interaction in any manuals, please do not implement it.

And if you do, for semi active missiles,please transfer some of the chaff coefficients from the missile to the aircraft radar.

 

 

The Su-27 radar is propably completely blind to chaff, since it has massive notch gates.

 

Radar/OLS work together in the real aircraft, the pilot can select such combined modes.

And with such a mode it is almost safe to say that the target illumination signal would never shut of in the first place if the target was changing aspect, as the radar will be slaved to the angular coordinates from the OLS.

[Max1mus]

9 hours ago, Chizh said:

You forgot to mention that there is no datalink on the F-15 at all. So the Su-27 has a big head start here.

 

DCS is a simulator. The real F-15 did not have datalink, while even the oldest Su-27 did. If you counted the Alaska exception, then DCS MiG-29 would have a tactical radar/datalink display. They dont, making them worthless due to the lack of proper GCI in DCS.

 

Regardless, the F-15 has always been the superior aircraft in DCS. You gave it a 2000s AMRAAM and excellent track-while scan, aswell as a way better RWR aswell as ability to tell different aircraft types on the radar (NCTR). Meanwhile, we have the old soviet Su-27 with the old SPO-15 (is it an F-14 or F-18 in front? Dont know, now you're dead) and no proper multi-sorting abilities with the radar. Missiles aside, your argument would only make sense if it was a SU-27SM. But you cannot put the missiles aside, as such even then, there would still hardly be much of a head start.

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

DCS is a simulator. The real F-15 did not have datalink, while even the oldest Su-27 did.

You're wrong. The F-15С received a datalink as part of the MSIP II modernization program, the first aircraft flew in 1985. This is much earlier than the Su-27 received similar capabilities.

 

2 часа назад, Max1mus сказал:

If you counted the Alaska exception, then DCS MiG-29 would have a tactical radar/datalink display. They dont, making them worthless due to the lack of proper GCI in DCS.

The MiG-29 never had a tactical display. There is no need to compose fables.

 

2 часа назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

Regardless, the F-15 has always been the superior aircraft in DCS. You gave it a 2000s AMRAAM and excellent track-while scan, aswell as a way better RWR aswell as ability to tell different aircraft types on the radar (NCTR). 

This plane is the best in reality.

 

2 часа назад, Max1mus сказал:

Meanwhile, we have the old soviet Su-27 with the old SPO-15 (is it an F-14 or F-18 in front? Dont know, now you're dead) and no proper multi-sorting abilities with the radar.

The Su-27S is made the way it was and is in real life.

 

 

[nighthawk2174]

3 hours ago, Max1mus said:

 

DCS is a simulator. The real F-15 did not have datalink, while even the oldest Su-27 did. If you counted the Alaska exception, then DCS MiG-29 would have a tactical radar/datalink display. They dont, making them worthless due to the lack of proper GCI in DCS.

 

Regardless, the F-15 has always been the superior aircraft in DCS. You gave it a 2000s AMRAAM and excellent track-while scan, aswell as a way better RWR aswell as ability to tell different aircraft types on the radar (NCTR). Meanwhile, we have the old soviet Su-27 with the old SPO-15 (is it an F-14 or F-18 in front? Dont know, now you're dead) and no proper multi-sorting abilities with the radar. Missiles aside, your argument would only make sense if it was a SU-27SM. But you cannot put the missiles aside, as such even then, there would still hardly be much of a head start.

If we had fully modeled the F15 in the early to mid-2000s (to match the era of all other American aircraft), it would have been much better than it is now. And yes, it will have a data link, it was the first American jet to be integrated, not to mention it was also the first to deploy the 9X and jhmcs. In addition, TWS in the game lacks a ton of additional modes and features, including track memory. On the other hand, let's be fair here, the version of the Su-27 we have in the game has been the most common variant of the SU-27 for quite some time, even in the 2010s. Now that's no reason not to add SM. But it's not like during the period of the new bluefor planes, the current planes in the game wouldn't be the most common threat. And, ultimately, more importantly, the 77-1 were only bought after a deal in 2015 and are still far from the most common missile.

Edited June 10, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

You're wrong. The F-15С received a datalink as part of the MSIP II modernization program, the first aircraft flew in 1985. This is much earlier than the Su-27 received similar capabilities.

 

The MiG-29 never had a tactical display. There is no need to compose fables.

 

All sources i can find do not mention the addition of MIDS datalink in MSIP II. 1-way datalink for the AIM-120 - sure. It is required for midcourse guidance.

 

For some reason, there is a TAKT switch right above the MFD in the MiG-29A and S. And MaxMPower confirms that it had it, but it was not used/installed unless it would have been needed.

 

The MiG-29 in DCS is a 1980s aircraft, if you count the R-77 on the S, 90s. The relevant MiG-29s in use in the late 2000s were way better than any variant in DCS. They all had a tactical display.

 

Furthermore, it is weird how the MiG-29S radar is more modern than the Su-27S standard N001, with TWS2, yet does not even display aspects of the targets without locking them. That makes very little sense.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Max1mus

[Max1mus]

30 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

If we had fully modeled the F15 in the early to mid-2000s (to match the era of all other American aircraft) [...]

 

Now that's no reason not to add SM. But it's not like during the period of the new blue color for planes, the current planes in the game wouldn't be the most common threat.

 

At least you have a half 2000s F-15. We get only soviet aircraft.

 

Su-27SM was not the most relevant flanker at the time. Imagining any war between the russian air force and western countries at that time is nonsense - they were allied in the fight against terrorism. The US was even allowed to have military bases in ODKB (Russian NATO equivalent) countries. Its like comparing the german and and turkish air force in a hypothetical war. It makes no sense. Imagining that you would not be faced with the most sophisticated aircraft the enemy has to offer is nonsense too.

 

In the 2000s, the best and most common Flankers were not the soviet DCS Su-27s. They were infact the modernized Chinese and Indian variants, that were arguably superior to the Su-27SM in the 2000s. The Indian Su-30 had a PESA radar with 100-120 degrees of total gimbals off the nose, allowing to support missiles while almost extending from the target. The Chinese J-11B and Su-30s had PL-12s and even a mix of PL-12 and russian missiles on the SU-30MK2 variant.

 

DCS does not have any of that. Even the russian SAMs are all soviet variants. But this does not explain why ED is using the F-15 as an argument to not fix the Su-27 Datalink. Following Chizhs argument, the only logical answer is that they seek some artificial (im)balance.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Max1mus

[Chizh]

1 час назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

All sources i can find do not mention the addition of MIDS datalink in MSIP II. 1-way datalink for the AIM-120 - sure. It is required for midcourse guidance.

JTIDS

The F-15C/D aircraft going through the MSIP II were fitted with the wiring needed to give them the capability of carrying and launching the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, which was introduced into service in the early 1990s.

Another part of the MSIP II was the Seek Talk program, which was designed to reduce the vulnerability of the F-15's UHF radios to enemy jamming by introducing spread spectrum techniques and the use of a null steering antenna. Yet another was the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), which is intended to provide high-capacity, reliable, and jam-proof information distribution between various elements of deployed forces and command and control centers. Another aspect of the MSIP is the integration of the F-15 with the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS). A new multi-function display armament control panel was introduced. New stick-top and throttle grips were added. The ECM equipment was improved, with ALR-56C RWR, ALQ-135B internal ECM system, and enhanced ALQ-128 being introduced.

 

 

Цитата

For some reason, there is a TAKT switch right above the MFD in the MiG-29A and S. And MaxMPower confirms that it had it, but it was not used/installed unless it would have been needed.

It's just that the same indicator is used on the Su-27 and MiG-29. But there are no such functions on the MiG-29.

 

Цитата

 

The MiG-29 in DCS is a 1980s aircraft, if you count the R-77 on the S, 90s. The relevant MiG-29s in use in the late 2000s were way better than any variant in DCS.

We are modeling two MiG-29s, product 9-12 and 9-13S. Its are all from the USSR until 1991.

 

Цитата

Furthermore, it is weird how the MiG-29S radar is more modern than the Su-27S standard N001, with TWS2, yet does not even display aspects of the targets without locking them. That makes very little sense.

This is not a question for ED.

[dundun92]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

You're wrong. The F-15С received a datalink as part of the MSIP II modernization program, the first aircraft flew in 1985. This is much earlier than the Su-27 received similar capabilities.

Are you then implying we are supposed to have DL on our F-15, and that its why you havent added P2P DL to the Su-27 yet? Otherwise im not sure how its relevant to the topic of bugs/missiles, specifically the Su-27 P2P bug?

Edited June 10, 2021 by dundun92

[Chizh]

8 минут назад, dundun92 сказал:

Are you then implying we are supposed to have DL on our F-15, and that its why you havent added P2P DL to the Su-27 yet? Otherwise im not sure how its relevant to the topic of bugs/missiles, specifically the Su-27 P2P bug?

 

You are confusing the concept of bug and lack of feature modeling.
The player is always the leader of the flight AI planes and everything works within this flight framework. We did not implement exchange data between the flight leaders in multiplayer. There is no bug here.

[dundun92]

1 minute ago, Chizh said:

You are confusing the concept of bug and lack of feature modeling.
The player is always the leader of the flight AI planes and everything works within this flight framework. We did not implement exchange data between the flight leaders in multiplayer. There is no bug here.

Even within a flight P2P does not work in MP for the Su-27. And even still, if it works differently IRL, doesnt that still classify as a bug even if its due to a lack of feature modeling?

[Chizh]

3 минуты назад, dundun92 сказал:

Even within a flight P2P does not work in MP for the Su-27. And even still, if it works differently IRL, doesnt that still classify as a bug even if its due to a lack of feature modeling?

Of course not.
In our light aircraft from LOMAС, many real systems and procedures are not modeled. These are not bugs, but simply the concept of a light, simplified module.

[Max1mus]

11 minutes ago, Chizh said:

We did not implement exchange data between the flight leaders in multiplayer. There is no bug here.

It does not even work inbetween wingmen!

 

 

28 minutes ago, Chizh said:

JTIDS

It was tested with a small minority of F-15s in Alaska, one squadron to be exact. The MiG-29S is as capable of using TAKT, but not implemented in masses probably due to the same reasons why most F-15Cs did not get Datalink until much later. Both in DCS dont have either capability. I assume because you dont count these exceptions.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Max1mus

[dundun92]

2 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Of course not.
In our light aircraft from LOMAС, many real systems and procedures are not modeled. These are not bugs, but simply the concept of a light, simplified module.

You've modeled it in SP. Is it too much to ask for it in MP as well? Its the same system/mechanic that works in SP, we arent asking for a new form of DL or something, or some new DL features.

Edited June 10, 2021 by dundun92

[Chizh]

18 минут назад, Max1mus сказал:

It was tested with a small minority of F-15s in Alaska, one squadron to be exact.

You are probably confusing it with the Alaska squadron that was the first to receive the AESA APG-63v3.

 

Цитата

 

The MiG-29S is as capable of using TAKT

No

17 минут назад, dundun92 сказал:

You've modeled it in SP. Is it too much to ask for it in MP as well? Its the same system/mechanic that works in SP, we arent asking for a new form of DL or something, or some new DL features.

 

For multiplayer, a complete overhaul of the system is required. It takes time, which we do not have.

[GGTharos]

10 minutes ago, Chizh said:

You are probably confusing it with the Alaska squadron that was the first to receive the AESA AGP-63v3.

 

Hi Chizh,

 

  Max1mus is correct on the history at least as we know it:  The Alaska (Elmendorf airbase squadron) F-15Cs were the first to receive the JTIDS terminals for testing (JTIDS are the physical radios used to implement link-16) and this test showed that the terminals were not ready to be put on something as small as a fighter for a number of reasons, including reliability problems.

 

The F-15C received MIDS/LVT in 2004 IIRC, which finally corrected a lot of the problems found in the test above.  However, the MPCD always had the SIT display which was also ready to receive data from a JTIDS radio; obviously we are missing the SIT in our FC3 eagle which would be useful even without the DL

 

I have an F-15C manual that indicates the lack of DL in the 90s, you may have it also.

 

Regarding the radar:  The Elmendorf squadron received the v2, which was a test platform and the v3 improved on this.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

12 minutes ago, Chizh said:

You are probably confusing it with the Alaska squadron that was the first to receive the AESA APG-63v3.

 

No

For multiplayer, a complete overhaul of the system is required. It takes time, which we do not have.

You are mistaken the Elmendorf Eagle's had the APG-63v2, the rest of the fleet got the v3 later on.

 

Back onto the topic of JTIDS I do believe you lack the full picture to talk about such things

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf15_1.html

This source explicitly mentions "Provision for a "Joint Tactical Information Display System (JTIDS)" datalink, to be fitted later. However, JTIDS was cancelled in 1989. "

If this source does not satisfy you how about official USAF Documentation?

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=448394

 

Snippets worth discussing.

From page 18

Spoiler

-(U) Air Force F-15 air defense fighter aircraft will lack a high-capacity information distribution system that would increase overall force effectiveness and provide pilots with increased situational awareness and target allocation capabilities. The Air Force has decided not to procure and field the JTIDS for its fighter aircraft. In addition, DoD has not developed a long- range strategy plan for transitioning to the JTIDS message standard. As a result, joint and combined command, control, and communications interoperability will not be fully effective in the mid- to late 1990's as the other Military Departments and Allies move forward with their acquisition and fielding of JTIDS.

from page 19

Spoiler

(U) Fielding of JTIDS on F-15's. The JCS JTIDS Concept of -Operations and JCS MROC documents identify a requirement for JTIDS on F-15 aircraft. The Air Force initially planned to install JTIDS in two fighter wings (144 aircraft). However, due to reliability test failures in the JTIDS initial terminals, Air Force funding for 38 terminals was terminated. In February 1990, a Program Management Directive was issued requiring installation of the JTIDS terminals in 20 F-15 aircraft. An additional 14 terminals were to be procured; 9 were to be used as trainers and 5 as spares. The 20 modified aircraft were to be used at Nellis Air Force Base to support testing for future production decisions and to develop Air Force doctrine and tactics for JTIDS-equipped aircraft.

34 aircraft with JTIDS until superseded by MIDS LVT in 2004

@Chizh

 

 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

2 hours ago, Chizh said:

This plane is the best in reality.

I am inclined to agree with you here, this doesn't change the fact it didn't have Link 16 for most of the 80s and 90s, the version which ED is modeling

Also it would appear that your statements on the Su-27 DL seem to go against the party line for whatever reason

I hope you understand I have no horse in this race either way (I'd only be biased if he had an F-35 ), I'd like consistency on behalf of ED on how it models its aircraft.

 

Please make all aircrafts as true to their real life counter parts as possible.

Edited June 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 6/9/2021 at 7:23 AM, Chizh said:

You look somehow one-sided.

You know, I have been thinking about this for some time, remember that incident where you redrew official R-27ER graphs in the manual to your own interpretation with a blue pen.

Swore up and down the draftsmen were wrong and then now the graphs were kosher again.

 

How do you explain that? Questioning what should be the most authoritative source?

 

Or even, you being the only person in ED who seems to think the P2P shouldn't be on the Flanker as a result of game balance

To me that looks like one sided behaviour unless you can share information on why that source is suspect or how an outrageously small number of the Su-27S/P in service actually have such F2F DL capabilities.

Edited June 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Vladimir_V_T]

Вопрос по ракете Гарпун. Прошу прощение, если задаю его не в той ветке. Сегодня попробовал обстрелять "Москву" четырьмя Гарпунами с целеуказанием по радару и столкнулся с интересной ситуацией: одна из ракет (на треке две ракеты) сразу заняла(ли) высоту 49 футов, в то время как остальные ракеты до включения ГСН шли на высоте 4999 футов. И это при условии, что для всех четырёх ракет был выбран профиль LOW. От чего зависит то, займёт ли ракета предельно малую высоту сразу после пуска или будет лететь по комбинированной траектории? Ещё интересно, что С-300 "Москвы" не сбил ни одной ракеты, хотя пытался, но ни одна из пущеных противоракет не попала по Гарпуну, хотя летящий на высоте 4999 футов дозвуковой Гарпун, по идее, должен быть относительно не сложной целью. Или нет? Ещё не совсем понял логику работы АК-630. Во время игры эти установки вообще не стреляли по Гарпунам, а на треке они сбили первые две ракеты, а по остальным двум не стреляли, хотя все ракеты в этот момент летели на одной высоте и с одинаковой скоростью.

AGM84D.trk

[Chizh]

6 часов назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

You know, I have been thinking about this for some time, remember that incident where you redrew official R-27ER graphs in the manual to your own interpretation with a blue pen.

Swore up and down the draftsmen were wrong and then now the graphs were kosher again.

How do you explain that? Questioning what should be the most authoritative source?

What manual and what graphs you mean?

 

 

[Chizh]

4 часа назад, Vladimir_V_T сказал:

Вопрос по ракете Гарпун. Прошу прощение, если задаю его не в той ветке. Сегодня попробовал обстрелять "Москву" четырьмя Гарпунами с целеуказанием по радару и столкнулся с интересной ситуацией: одна из ракет (на треке две ракеты) сразу заняла(ли) высоту 49 футов, в то время как остальные ракеты до включения ГСН шли на высоте 4999 футов. И это при условии, что для всех четырёх ракет был выбран профиль LOW. От чего зависит то, займёт ли ракета предельно малую высоту сразу после пуска или будет лететь по комбинированной траектории? Ещё интересно, что С-300 "Москвы" не сбил ни одной ракеты, хотя пытался, но ни одна из пущеных противоракет не попала по Гарпуну, хотя летящий на высоте 4999 футов дозвуковой Гарпун, по идее, должен быть относительно не сложной целью. Или нет? Ещё не совсем понял логику работы АК-630. Во время игры эти установки вообще не стреляли по Гарпунам, а на треке они сбили первые две ракеты, а по остальным двум не стреляли, хотя все ракеты в этот момент летели на одной высоте и с одинаковой скоростью.

AGM84D.trk 212 \u041a\u0431 · 0 скачиваний

У меня в этом треке Москва сбила 3 из 4-х ракет. Нормально.

Но с траекториями Гарпунов есть странности. Запишу баг.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

What manual and what graphs you mean?

 

 

This might jog your memory a bit

 

Use this link for more context if you're still need more context on the episode two months ago my friend.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/miqzdf/we_all_like_consistency_and_standards_right_well/

 

[Breakshot]

Speaking of Flanker datalink. We found a way to make it work in MP at least partially (no targeting data).

But yea, I bet it would take ED just a couple lines of code to make it work as intended. Its already half way there.

Then Chizh saying above that they don't want to fix it because its not fair for F15 which actually should NOT have it (based on proven RL documentation!) is kind of a stab. Where does ED find the historical data from? Lol

I thought the idea was a simulation, not artificial (im)balance??

Chizh, don't you guys remember your roots from Flanker 1.5? I played that as your first sim btw. Flanker is what made this company.

I bet you a FF Flanker would sell way more than F16 ever will, and rightfully so.








Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Chizh]

38 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

This might jog your memory a bit

 

Use this link for more context if you're still need more context on the episode two months ago my friend.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/miqzdf/we_all_like_consistency_and_standards_right_well/

 

Can't you see for yourself that this is a incorrect curve diagram?