I salute your optimism on "updating video soon" :D In current DCS though, chaff is quite effective in countering F14 PAL mode, i guess due to suboptimal PAL scan pattern
@@FlyAndWire simple, with Voiceattack and RIO control mod, i can do like 70% of RIO job, fast from front sit. Considering how unrealistically good datalink in DCS is, that more than enough.
As a note of history, the chaff packs in the speed brakes was also used by F-4E crews before the ALE-40 dispensers were introduced (mid-to-late '70s). The aircrew would have the crew chiefs assist by stuffing the opened (they were kind of like in a box) chaff pack up in the speed brakes after engine start. The pilot would then close the brakes before taxi. Occasionally there would be a hiccup, when either a the speed brake switch was bumped, or the internal generators tripped, and the speed brakes would pop open on the ground. This would sometimes result in the chaff dumping out on the flightline. If it was windy, or if the chaff got caught in the jet wash, it would be a huge mess to clean up, as the chaff was tightly packed in the packages, and expanded to a massive bunch of fine metalized plastic strands. The pre-ALE-40 days also meant no flares.
Tech debt, probably. They'll catch up at some point. WT is so simplistic that drastic changes are fundamentally easy to implement, even more so since no 3rd parties are involved.
DCS is lacking on a lot of things. 20 years is a long time to only have what we have now, and most of it being broken really sucks. Fixing bugs and QOL issues that Players have doesn't make money though. Pumping out new half-finished content does, so that's what they focus on. 10 years now players have been begging for the AI to be fixed. 10 years. Wanting bombs to actually cause splash damage for even longer. Ground units not to have aimbot levels of accuracy regardless of visibility. Combined arms fixed and being improved. Treating 3rd party devs with respect and not treating mod developers like the enemy unless they make something they can turn into profit. So many things we'd rather have than new F-16/18 pilot models that no player is ever going to see while playing.
Very much this. The EA model rewards pumping out stuff to sell, and shiny graphics attract kids in primis. Things like missiles, chaff and EW will not increase sales, at least not as long as a new competitor arrives.
@@FlyAndWire " chaff and EW will not increase sales" maybe not. Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is becoming increasingly clear that Warthunder does a very good and in parts better sensor modeling than DCS, especially it is consistent. that also binds, and reaches DCS players The word is getting around, and in a combat simulator the sensors have an extremely important influence on the combat, I see how many people go to war thunder and prefer to play the PvP sim mode just because the radar IR and other things are better simulated. another factor is why would a war thunder player go to DCS if he wants to play PvP? DCS has much better PvP potential in my opinion but the sensor modeling breaks it in some places which is a real shame HB and other 3dev do great work, but their modules are still tied to ED sensor modeling, see weapons, chaff, flare etc
I guess you are kind of joking, but harassing won't make them suddenly focus on chaff. Consider that chaff is not as simple as it sounds, and once done, it has to be synched in multiplayer as well.
I've played DCS off and on since it originally came out with Blackshark and of course the flanker/lomac series prior. To me it's kind of shocking that with all the advancements that have been made, flare and chaff are still so crude. It's crazy to say it, but warthunder actually has better chaff/flare modeling than DCS does. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Hopefully ED updates it in the near future. Really painful to have to admit that an arcade flying game is more realistic in this particular way.
Before you say that chaff does not work in DCS, you need to understand how they should work. Chaffs just create a false target for the radar, and if the radar is already tracking the target and at that moment some new target appears nearby, this does not mean at all that the radar should, for some unknown reason, switch to this false target. If you understand the physics of the process, then first of all you need to take into account which TAA has a target. In order to confuse the radar as much as possible, you need to mix up your false target with the real target. I think everyone understands what is the only TAA value for which this can be done. Therefore, the example with Mirage just shows a lack of understanding of how chaffs should be used. This way you can only use flares because they have a more attractive signature for a missile. That's why they can confuse it but not chaffs.
I wonder.. should chaff be more reflective than the host aircraft? (ie "brighter") chaff fooled Gordon why? couldn't he just lock the leading edge of the return as well? I suspect there's more going on here than meets the eye
I am unfamiliar with the DDart, but considering how narrow the radar APQ-120's scanned volume is, I think it is easy to imagine an F-104 dropping chaff and then changing geometry, affecting Gordon's radar awareness. At that point, he saw the lingering bundle of chaff, which you can see in DCS as well, but here, it disappears so quickly that there is no time to change geometry.
^ this. Therefore, remember to load them up; otherwise, you'll be wondering why pressing the dedicated button has no effect - yes, I did that sometimes.
