norman99

I posted this in another thread, but it’s relevant here. How about actually charging for the base DCS World simulation? Stop with the silly DCS is free mantra, charge $80 and release a new version every 2 years. That way you could actually monetise upgrades to AI, weather, ATC, graphics engines etc. Basically all the items people have been requesting for years, but that continually get left behind because ED needs to focus on revenue producing products first. This includes ending support of previous versions when the latest is released. Also, don’t try to maintain backwards support for multi player across versions, as that will just continue to restrict future development. Yes there will be some fracturing of the community across versions as people upgrade in their own time, but MSFS worked for 2 decades with this cycle, and it’d work here too.

How about actually charging for the base DCS World simulation? Stop with the silly DCS is free mantra, charge $80 and release a new version every 2 years. That way you could actually monetise upgrades to AI, weather, ATC, graphics engines etc. Basically all the items people have been requesting for years, but that continually get left behind because ED needs to focus on revenue producing products first.

:lol: That made my day.

Probably because there's no real easy fix for the issue. It would be a huge task to develop a complete & accurate INS simulation, including CV datalink. Given 95% of people never fly the Hornet without GPS, it's not affecting enough people for ED to acknowledged it needs work.

Thanks, hopefully they get an update soon.

Unfortunately the descent distance never makes any sense for me. It doesn't make much sens in the above example either, 35nm - 14nm means it's indicating a top of descent with about 20nm to run, from 25,000ft. It should be more like 40-50nm, if using a standard idle, 250kt descent. Not sure if it's WIP or just screwed up.

In this thread F-16 thread (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4265751) it is acknowledged that the Dynamic Launch Zones are still WIP. The last post also states that the calculations errors mentioned are present for all aircraft. Does this mean that all the launch range cues for the Hornet are currently incorrect, and still WIP?

My tip is to wait until you are positioned behind the JBD you wish to launch from, before using the request launch function. Sometimes you can taxi through a catapult trigger zone without knowing. If you then line up on a different catapult, nothing appears to happen. This is especially easy to do if you land catching the 4 wire, as you can trigger cat 2 whilst taxing to one of the other catapults.

That sounds promising. I can’t wait for the BVR experience in DCS to match that of the “other” sim. Seems we’re heading in the right direction.

Does this change alone make proper BVR tactics (launch & leave, MAR, banzai, etc) a realistic possibility now in DCS? Or is the claimed over powered notching issue still preventing these strategies from being realistically used?

A related question. Is the DLZ accurate and representative of the missiles new performance? Specially interested in the Hornet, but the question applies to all airframes.

It would seem that ED need to implement the CV datalink alignment feature to have a working solution to this issue. Hopefully this could be done as the first step to an overall improved INS simulation, as it would at least get aircraft airborne with working systems, with the detailed system to follow.

INSs begin to drift immediately. With commercial aircraft, enough tolerance is/was built into separation standards that it would only start to become problematic after multiple hours without an update. But the INS does indeed drift the entire time, it doesn’t suddenly jump out to a couple nm error after 5 hours. Drift rates of up to 2nm/hr are not uncommon in older INS systems of the 70s & 80s.

So basically AI behaviour is so porked at the moment, the only solution is to just get rid of them and do your thing solo? Wow. I thought there’d be more to it than that. Pretty poor state for a product claiming to be the most realistic air combat simulator available.

Yep, fix coming in 2016....

This is probably the number 1 thing I want working for carrier ops, especially befor any Airboss sim, ready rooms etc, but that’s just a personal preference. Here’s my reply to a similar thread below:

Only open beta currently...

Is "close formation" even still an option? I can never find it in the comm menu. This wasn't really intended to be a bug report, just a question on techniques people use to arrive with AI wingmen, in a controlled and repeatable manner. I think it would gain a larger audience, and promote some discussion, if this was returned to the main board instead of hiding my question away in a bug sub forum.

+1000 Absolutely needed!

From what I've gathered, in real life cyclic ops, everyone plans to arrive in the marshal stack 10min before recovery ops start. Once recovery starts, and the stack begins to collapse, any late arrivals join at the top, regardless of their squadrons assigned altitude. This ensures flight descends through another flights level. I assume AI/player integration in the carrier arrival flow is still WIP because there are some big flaws to the current implementation. For instance in one mission I joined the stack at 3000', as there was a flight holding at 2000', and another in the landing pattern. A subsequent flight arrived afterwards, and joined me at 3000', instead of staying above me at 4000'. Once the landing flight was clear, I received "signal is charlie" and all the AI flights continued to hold, expecting my flight to land next. This meant descending down through the flight holding at 2000' below me. It seems currently as soon as you call "overhead" at about 3 miles, the player's flight is placed at the front of the queue, next inline behind anything currently in the landing pattern, regardless of where they are positioned in relation to other AI flights. As I've said in a couple other threads, what we need is ATC to actually assign us an altitude on check-in. Whilst this is not completely realistic, neither is what we have now, so that shouldn’t be the argument for not making improvements to the arrival flow.

I'm curious how everyone manages their AI wingmen on returning to base. I've made a number of training missions using the Nevada map, and when returning to Nellis from the north, no matter how I order the wingmen around, or whether I fly straight in or via an overhead break, it's just a complete disorganised mess, with aircraft going everywhere. It happens with 2 and 4 ships flights, though it's obviously more noticeable with more aircraft. Apart from just sending them RTB from 10+nm away, is there any way to arrive as a 2-4 ship formation and all land in an organised fashion?

I'm new to DSC, and as much as I'm absolutely loving it, these core issues, and the complete lack of motivation to fix them, really make me wonder why I bother. Sometimes I fell I should just save myself the frustration and go use the other sim, who's core functions not only work, but are far beyond what's available here.

Haha, no worries mate, we got there in the end.

I think your right, and I may have been confused about your initial post. If your're talking about the transient effects of either maneuvering an aircraft within a constant airflow, or a changing airflow (wind) on a constant aircraft state, I believe you are correct, these do not seem to be modeled. As you are probably aware, when an aircraft experiences a sudden increase in relative airflow, be it from a change in wind, or a climb/turn into a headwind, you can expect a temporary increase in IAS, until the aircraft has stabilised within the new airflow. The opposite occurs with a decrease/tailwind. A significant factor that contributes to the magnitude of the IAS change experienced, is the inertia of the aircraft. The more inertia an object has the more resistant to change it is, and therefore the longer it takes to re-establish a balanced state within the new airflow. In a large aircraft, such as a 777 at MTOW (~773,000lbs) it is common to observe deviations of up to +/- 20 Kts IAS when experiencing significant wind changes. A 40,000lbs Hornet obviously has significantly less inertia, and therefore the effect of sudden airflow changes will be significantly less too. These factors I have mentioned however, have more to do with the inertia/momentum modeling of an object within a changing airflow, rather than the airflow around a pitot tube and the resulting accuracy of the airspeed measurement. This may be where some of the initial confusion on my part came from. Then again I may still be confused, and talking about another issue altogether. Haha.

I can add a track file if it helps, though it’s quite lengthy.