SFJackBauer

The missiles in-game hit a brickwall of drag, then go knee-deep in jelly while over-correcting for their targets. By the time they reach the intercept point, they are already falling from the sky. Unfortunately DCS lives right now in an alternate universe, where air is <insert some number between 0 and 100>% denser, but only for missiles. Therefore treat 120s as Sparrows, Sparrows as Sidewinders, and Sidewinders as... long range bullets.

Oh of course, I never noticed they were rail-launched. Thanks :thumbup:

Why the Super 530D cannot be loaded in the fuselage stations, like

Unless said object is tracking you with proportional guidance...

Must have a jolly good pair of eyes to see the missile coming at even Mach 3...

Yet I have better experience flying over Vegas in DK2 on 2.0 with 0.8 runtimes than with 1.5.3 over Caucasus with 1.3 runtime. It's not a matter of framerate, but of stuttering when rotating the view frustum. It is a DCS issue, not a runtime issue.

I suppose you could turn the doppler filter off and use it only in look-up mode, where clutter wouldn't be an issue. Apparently that's what Thales/the French does in their radars?

Glad to know its just me... :D Well not glad. I can't figure out how to fix it. My TM Warthog and my keybindings works fine in all other modules. Any ideas? (except for reinstalling, because this has just been installed from scratch) The slew works with the default keyboard keys (,.;/), but the axis does not work no matter how I fiddle with them. The Sensors page have no default keybinds set at all, but if I bind some of them they work (like the Azimuth NARROW/WIDE), but none of the antenna left/right/up/down work. Did I somehow got an earlier version of the module? I installed it inside the DCS 2.0 itself. (And yes, the radar is turned on, in EM mode, I can see the antenna sweep indicator on top and even co-altitude blips.

Are the TDC slew axes not working yet? And, in the final version, will we have a radar elevation axis? Actually, is it even working right now on beta? Ive mapped Home and End to RADAR ANTENNA UP/DOWN on Sensors page but I dont see any change in the scope.

You mean they sell a Super Hind to "a guy"???? :helpsmilie:

You may disagree, but you are not the only person on this thread. I did not wrote it as an answer to you, but rather as an answer to the overall feeling of what the entire group of people were discussing. I am sure there are some non-technical people reading this who may be benefited by the side-point I brought to the discussion.

I'd say that arguing FORTRAN is better for CFD, or C++ is more "powerful" without qualifying under which aspects it is, may fall under that definition.

I wonder if even today's graduates in Computer Science know about basic concepts such as Turing-completeness. Well, actually I don't wonder, since I get to interview some of them and I see first-hand they don't. All languages that are Turing-complete are able to produce the same result on a computer, and all imperative languages which are in use pass this test. Therefore saying that you can do complicated math in C++ but can't in Pascal or C# is utterly absurd. The difference lies just in the speed of execution on a given hardware, speed of implementation, leverage of programmer skills, easy of maintenance, compatibility with existing libraries and other similar "soft" factors (which may be "hard" factors depending on the reality of a given project). Look, for example, at one of the best-seller games on Steam lately, City Skylines. It is implemented in C#, and is able to simulate in real time a lot of complex systems and pathfiding for hundreds of virtual citizens, whilst also having great graphics. Wouldn't be wise to code it all in C++? In C++, it would may be able to simulate even entire countries with hundred millions of citizens, but it would perhaps take another 5 years for its team to code it, they may miss the time-to-market, and wouldn't aggregate any more value to the gameplay than it already does. So please, when comparing languages, use the correct kind of comparison.

*Faints*

Tell to this Viper pilot on 3:06 that he should have said "Guideline" instead of SA-2.

I'd think a military english speaker would say "SA-11" on the radio...

And to think our love affair began in the late 80s... man I feel old.

A little unorthodox way of training, but one thing I like to do, when learning a new plane, is to pretend I am landing in the sky. I mean, at some altitude (like 1k feet) slow down while maintaining altitude, drop gears and flaps, and keep slowing until you near a stall. This way you get a feel for how the aircraft would perform in a landing situation (how sluggish it is on roll, what is the rudder authority etc.)

You don't need a youtube video to get a good appreciation of what the pilot hears. There are the intra-aural earplugs, similar to the ones racecar pilots use, made of a foam-like material which molds to the inner ear. It also contains the speakers for radio comms. Then there is the helmet, and then there is the canopy and the pressurized cockpit. All of this means you hear very little of what happens outside. And there is the airflow rushing over the canopy which makes up for most of the noise you would hear, since everything else loud enough (engines) is behind the pilot.

No. Only looking at something doesnt automatically locks the Mav. It may have an autolock feature if the thing under the crosshairs gets big enough... I don't remember exactly. But you must not wait for it if you want to launch at RMAX - if you have it slaved using the TGP, then you have to make the Mav SOI and spam TMS Up until it is locked. It may helps to zoom the image so you can check if its locking on the thing you want, in case of targets clustered closely together. EDIT - Ah already answered above, didnt noticed.

Will the western RWR on FC3 be updated to include the MiG-21 symbol? And will it indicate the correct relative distance of the symbol, instead of being always on the outer ring?

The footage from 1:52 to 1:56 might have been shot with a non-IR camera, you know...

What a terrible accident! My thoughts go to the families of the victims, and to their colleagues.

C'mon man, don't dig the hole deeper :) There is no damaged stabilizer, just a weathered plane. If DCS had this level of realistic graphics (even at 480p), I would suddenly awake because that would be a dream...

LOL at the "experts" saying the video is a montage of DCS