Galinette

Hey, you are right, the change did not make it to the patch notes. Thanks for notifying!

Could you provide a log file?

Switching between INS and EGI don't change anything to altitude. Doing INS fixes don't change either the waypoint or the known aircraft altitude. There is something misunderstood here I think, yes a track would be helpful

No, it's even sometimes even worse. I've seen three digits dead one month ago on an aircraft which was leaving.

Yes. Then, the effect of ECM is actually modeled in the radar itself, not the jamming module, which only tells to the game if he is emitting or not (with a power value) What may happen in the Mirage 2000 is it's an auto jammer, which means it will decide if the jammer emits or not based on threat properties (type, range, etc...). Some radar models have trouble with jammers that switch often. That's the only thing which could explain why the Su27 and Mirage 2000 jam differently, because their powers in game are exactly the same. If this is the case, then you should not see a difference on other radars. Also try on the mirage side using the panic PCM jam mode which is continuous and will behave exactly as a Su27 then. Also, the above only applies for human players. An AI will have the exact same jamming effect whether it's a Su27 and a M2K

That's a misconception on your end and most likely an observer bias. What is "stable" is the version number. By being on stable, you get updates less often, which can be a good thing, for instance if you are a tournament organizer, a server admin, use DCS in a professional environment, have a slow connection and updating is difficult, etc... The program itself, is not more "unstable" (aka bugs) in openbeta, it's even often the opposite as patches come faster. using stable means : I update DCS every about 6 months. openbeta means : I update DCS once a month or more. Nothing else. The "stable" labelling is a bit misleading. If you don't have strong restrictions to run on 2.9.1 (such as relying on a specific server only on stable), there is a strong incentive to go openbeta now.

OB (2.9.2) is currently significantly more stable than stable (2.9.1) 2.9.1 had a lot of new features introduced

Confirmed, the stable version has a bug related to DLL version check happening with the new year. It has been fixed already so OpenBeta is not impacted. We will ask ED to release a patch ASAP, in the mean time you might switch to OB which is more stable overall than 2.9.2 AFAIK

The graph starts at M1.13, which corresponds to the VNE of the real aircraft as far as we know (750kts at sea level)

The ECM power of the M-2000C is exactly the same as a Su-27, I just checked inside the API reported values.

@Miro You are writing in your first post that you have constant 60fps, but "feel" 30fps. And in your last video, TFR definitely has a visible impact on CPU use, but barely any effect on frame rate (it only jumps to ~55fps a couple of times). If you are worried by the CPU use chart increase, it's perfectly normal, TFR has to do a lot of terrain & object analysis to function. There really is no issue. Using 16 radar threads is definitely not a good idea unless you have much more cores. Using a value of 4 on a recent CPU (12 cores or more) is definitely a good start. @truebrit in your case, a FPS drop from 60 to 15 with TFR is really an issue. I will investigate, could you send a very short track file showing the problem? What is your CPU? How many radar threads do you have in F15E special options?

It's a feature Dead segments are actually very common as they are old filament bulbs. You can test it with by pushing the brightness knob You can adjust the occurence in special options. More effects like this to come

Need to check what actually happens. But having two aircraft at the same distance, and with little angular separation, will cause wrong IFF correlations, and that's a feature. IFF is only able to sort contacts by range, there is a very very poor angular resolution (several degrees) To make a TRK, just quit the mission and save track from the debriefing window. In order for it to be useable for development, the shorter the better, so best is air spawning in the desired situation and do the radar/iff test immediately. It's also possible that TWS chose to make a subtrack as both contacts where basically formation flying.

What's the targets separation? Could you provide a short trk?

Yes, it seems like the grass zones of the airport are tagged as runway ground, and this is how we compute the ground reflectivity. Will be investigated, but might be tricky to solve on the radar side, it would be easier to have ground type flagging more standard across maps

Thanks for the track, we could reproduce the issue. It only impacts STT and Mode 4 used together. Until next patch where it will be fixed, there is a simple way to avoid it. Just do a Mode 4 interrogation (AAI or EID) in a scanning mode (TWS, RWS) once. The issue should disappear until the end of the session.

In my message, "upcoming update" meant "the version you don't have yet" Please try again with the next openbeta release.

Hi, Razbam here We currently do not have access to leap motion features. ED will add the support to third party developers as soon as it's mature and stable, I guess.

Just go to Mods/terrains/XXX/entry.lua, and look at the ['id'] field, it should cover any present and future map.

It's working, but it's more a "disable" switch. By default (cover closed) flyups are enabled. Also, with TF coupled, there will always be flyups. The flyup enable switch is for manual TF only.

The launch sequence in RP MPL is not 100% correct, yes.

The TF radar has a fairly wide main lobe, 5.5° for 3dB attenuation, and first node at more than 10° diameter. So in the view shown here, if you move a 10° disc over the hud, there is nowhere it can see water only, it will always pick land as well. Then, you have the side lobes which are modelled as well. It will be able to pick terrain height with sub-degree resolution only because of monopulse , which is perfect for this purpose. But when pointing at an area with water in the middle (no return) and land left and right, monopulse see the same as if it had a chunk of land in the middle. Try over a wider water area I think you will have a gap. Note that it also accounts for wind (but you have none, I can see this on UFC), water with waves will have radar returns. For the efficiency of the "Bugs" subforum, it's better to discuss this first in the main forum and file a bug report only when you are sure it's a bug.

Correct!

Those binds were removed. You now have a dedicated ground crew menu (just below rearm/refuel command) for adjusting ground settings. Edit : in April they were definitely there, but assignable only to the keyboard, not controllers, which was what you noticed. They are removed anyway now.

Just wait for next release, which will have a full IFF implementation!