Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dtmdragon last won the day on April 15

dtmdragon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,551 Excellent

About dtmdragon

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Military history
    Flight sims
    Mountain biking
    Rock climbing
  1. More info here: https://combatace.com/forums/topic/88511-argentina-israel-resume-kfir-sale-talks-block-60/
  2. No as for an aircraft with no real world RCS reduction measures the game engine generated .lod 'hit box' size based RCS is correct.
  3. I am sure you are right but for the purposes of this topic (and along with the F-15A) it gives us a scale to work with when figuring out the hitbox area RCS the game creates. If that makes sense.
  4. F-16A as delivered and excluding MLU or ADF upgrades
  5. Based on some discussions in the old TW forums with TK, the 0.2 baseRCSmodifier value for the stock F-16A Netz in the game (note however TK has mistakenly assigned the F-16C baseRCSmodifier value to the F-16A Netz as explained later in this post) and other topics I have read I have come to the following conclusions: 1, The game engine does not correctly calculate an objects RCS. Instead it simulates it by using the size of the aircrafts hit-box as defined by its .lod to decide at what distance an aircraft is detected by a radar after taking into account that radars power etc. 2, The baseRCSmodifier value is a multiplier that reduces the size of the aircrafts hit-box to simulate any RCS reducing measures that aircraft has. This in effect reduces the range the aircraft can be detected on radar. 3, The games hit-box size RCS method is basically accurate for an aircraft with NO RCS reducing technologies as far as the game is concerned. So to work out the baseRCSmodifier value for an aircraft with a reduced RCS, we need to work out what percentage its real world RCS is of its hit-box game decided RCS. Knowen (or educated guess?) of RCS values of aircraft WITH RCS reduction measures: F-5E: 3 m2 F-16C: 1.2 m2 Gripen: 1.0 - 1.2 m2 F-18E: 0.75 m2 Rafale: 0.75 m2 Eurofighter: 0.5-0.75 m2 B-2: 0.01 m2 F-35: 0.01 - 0.005 m2 F-22: 0.01 - 0.001 m2 F-117: 0.001 -? m2 RCS values of aircraft with NO RCS reduction measures: F-16A: 6.0 m2 F-15C: 10.0 m2 To get the hit-box game generated RCS of an aircraft we have to work it out by comparing the physical size of the aircraft with non RCS reduced aircraft we know the RCS of. For size comparison we can use the F-16A 6m² at one end of the scale and the F-15A 10m² at the other. For example I would give the F-18F Super Hornet an estimated hit-box RCS of 9m² based on its physical size. Its real world (reduced) RCS is 0.75m² so the baseRCSmodifier value is 0.75/9= 0.083 BaseRCSmodifier=0.083 This was the same calculation done by TK in a (now gone) third wire forum topic to get the baseRCSmodifier=0.2 value for the F-16C that TK thinks should be used on the F-16A as well. (I say this as the real world F-16C has RCS reducing measures not the F-16A.) And as I said TK has gone on to use that baseRCSmodifier=0.2 figure for the stock F-16A Netz in the game. Same calculation for the F-35: Real world RCS of 0.005m² hit-box RCS of 7m² so 0.005/7=0.00071 baseRCSmodifier=0.00071 F-22: Real world RCS of 0.001m² hit-box RCS of 10m² (as the F-22 is roughly the same physical size as the F-15) 0.001/10=0.0001 baseRCSmodifier=0.0001 The hardest part is deciding where an aircraft fits hit-box RCS size wise. I collect diecast scale model fighter jets so I was able to compare all the aircraft in my examples to each other to decide how they compared size wise and what size their hit-box RCS would be in the game. Knowing the hit-box size of the F-16 equates to a 6m² RCS in the game and the hit-box size of the F-15A equates to a 10m² RCS in the game gives you a pretty good idea and scale to use.
  6. A lot of the time 80% is a ship in the ground objects folder that is called as an object by the terrain that has not been updated to SF2NA standards with a collision model.
  7. I have chased this down too and are satisfied that no MiG-23 fighter variant in service had an internal jammer. I think the miss understanding in some sources is due to mistakes in translations or a 'fitted for but not with' type situation. Some Soviet MLD test variants were wired for jamming pods and/or internally jammers but this was not rolled out across the fleet.
  8. Somthing like this maybe?... 😁
  9. .... What am I missing here?..... lol
  10. So after reading the pilots notes for the F.1, F.2A and F.6 and looking at gunsight camera pictures it turns out the gun sights and event markers are all based off the Lightning F.53 So here they are corrected: F.1, F.1A, F.2, F.2A fitted with 'Pilot Attack Sight" F.3 fitted with 'Light Fighter Sight Type 2 Mk. 2 F.6 fitted with 'Light Fighter Sight Type 2 Mk. 3 F.6 fitted with 'Light Fighter Sight Type 2 Mk. 3 and later service 'event markers'.
  11. No this is part of the cockpit lod and function. It is the compromise withen the limitations of the game engine to have the radar displayed in a hud as done on the MiG-23. You can change the radar note name to inactive in the cockpit.ini file to remove it but then you will have no radar data displayed at all.
  12. I will update the MLDe userlist. I cant understand why you are having trouble with the MF decals and textures. The game should be using the default ones as I have not changed them hence they are not in the download. If you change any of the aircraft or texture file names then you would have the issues you are describing but as they are in the download they should work fine unless you dont have a SF2 title with the MiG-23MF in it?
  13. This is because you have renamed the aircraft folder from MiG-23MF to MiG-23MF_TW. You will have to extract the decal file and put it in.
  14. Does this with gepards original SF1 Afganistan terrain make it SF2 compatible?

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..