Mad_Shell

I doubt that it's on the to-do list if it doesn't exist in this Apache version in real life. And, spoiler, it doesn't.

Sorry for allowing myself to insert my bug reports here, but could you push these issues to the devs too?

In the thumbnail, notice the mixed hellfire loadout on the launcher, and the climbing pilot animation.

Good step in the right direction. However, no mention of RCS varying with target aspect and stores. Is it planned for 2.9 or later? Thx

This work is not mine, I copy paste what the dude (Maya on discord) wrote on the discord bug channel so his work attracts attention from ED. "Hi, has anyone thought that the sunrises & sunsets in DCS are a bit too purple? I'm a graphics programmer who's familiar with Eric Bruneton's (which is used in DCS) and Sebastien Hillaire's atmosphere models and I found a "bug" in their implementation which causes the sky to be too purple and developed a tool called ARPC which allows accurately calculating the atmosphere parameters. Basically both Bruneton's and Hillaire's models pick 3 primary wavelengths for red, green and blue to determine Rayleigh scattering and Ozone absorption coefficients, but this method simply doesn't have enough precision to take especially the Ozone absorption spectrum into account. ARPC on the other hand uses CIE 1931 XYZ color matching functions to take a weighted average of the coefficients for all wavelengths when calculating the coefficients for red, green and blue. This approach gets much closer the spectrally rendered path-traced reference, which has more blue-tinted sunrises / sunsets. It also calculates a few other parameters such as the scale height and ozone distribution more accurately, by using ISA instead of the constant temperature atmosphere used in Bruneton's and Hillaire's models. If anyone's from ED is interested, I can provide more technical details regarding how ARPC works. It's already open source (MIT licensed, so can be integrated to any commercial project without any royalties) and available on GitHub: https://github.com/FarukEroglu2048/ARPC Here's a quick comparison with the ARPC coefficients, I changed the coefficients in the shader code for it: Default Coefficients: ARPC Coefficients: Here's another comparison using a ShaderToy implementation of Hillaire's atmosphere model: Hillaire's Original Coefficients: ARPC Coefficients: To validate my approach with ARPC, I used a root finding algorithm which tried to find the scattering and absorption coefficients which minimized the error between the spectrally rendered reference and also converted a reference spectral light source and the transmitted light spectrum after it passes through the atmosphere into sRGB to solve for the coefficients. In both cases, the expected coefficients almost perfectly matched the coefficients calculated by my approach: Under the spectrum calculations section, the first line is Rayleigh scattering coefficients and the next line is Ozone absorption coefficients for red, green and blue, calculated using ARPC. And below them, the array shown by “x” contains the Rayleigh scattering and Ozone absorption coefficients that match the spectrally rendered reference the best, found by the root finding algorithm. You can see that they are in great agreement with the ARPC coefficients. Even without more rigorous tests like that, the results with the ARPC coefficients are visually very close to the spectrally rendered path-traced reference."

Yeah I don't nnow why ED even keeps it as a setting in DCS. They should just remove it at this point, it's just confusing some people and nothing else.

I agree, it seems really weird that so little exterior sound is heard from the cockpit. Made a bug report some time ago, but no answer.

It's impossible to tell if SAMs and AAA are too effective in DCS just based on planes survival rates. People who complain that AA is too effective in DCS, do you guys prepare your missions as thoroughly as pilots do IRL? Do you have several hours of mission brief, plan your flightpath down to the smallest detail, use advanced multi-ships tactics, plan for almost every single scenario that could happen and know by heart how everyone should react in any case, don't take more risks than needed like if your life depends on it?

Man in your picture we see ONE big tree, equivalent to the average tree we see in the Caucasus map, and a bunch a smaller trees (2-4 floors high, which almost don't exist in the Caucasus map). Your picture proves exactly cfrag's point...

But the missile doesn't need to know where it is! It only needs to know the relative position of the target (given by the TADS or the FCR): "6km 3° on the left". The missile INU only serves for the missile to go to this relative location. No need for the missile to know its own exact location.

I don't think this is how it works. Yes the aircraft feeds the missile INU the relative coordinates of the target, but those relative coordinates are obtained thanks to either the TADS or the FCR. The aircraft INU is not involved in the process.

Do we have any news about the RLWR symbology numbers being too small on the MPDs? In VR this issue is a real pain. I know a thread already exists, but since it has been locked, I don't want this issue to be "forgotten".

Do you have any citation about it? I remember them saying it was planned when they have time, and that was already years ago. It seems it's just a wishlist item, and I doubt the work has even begun on it.

In the Apache cockpit, I hear absolutely no sound coming from the outside. Even a big explosion less than 50 meters away is totally silent. I've only tested in the pilot seat and MT version (latest OB).

ED already does that. The PN coefficient increases as the target is closer, to better deal with target maneuvers. In the example you provide in video, the missile is already close to the target (less than 3 miles) and in terminal phase, so the PN coefficient is 4 (research suggests the best coeff is between 3 and 5 for intercepting maneuvering targets, so that's plausible). Basically all the articles modelling air to air missiles use such simple PN/APN guidance for terminal phase, because that's the closest to optimal trajectory. Another reason is that it requires the missile to take into account very few variables. Other methods that use more variables induce a longer computing time, and a larger delay in the missile maneuvering. So, maybe irl the AMRAAM uses some law to deal with diving targets, but it's just as plausible that optimal trajectory and reduced control delay were prefered and simple PN/APN is used irl, like in DCS.

No, what I mean is that it seems that in the terminal phase of the missile flight, only simple PN/APN is used, because they deal better with target's high g maneuvers. If you introduce a bias in the vertical acceleration, or decrease the PN coefficient in the vertical plane in the terminal phase, the missile will follow a not optimal trajectory. It will force the missile to pull more g to hit a highly maneuvrable target. It really wouldn't surprise me that the AMRAAM behaviour in your video is correct/realistic.

Things that imo would help a lot new players: - access to the DCS and module manuals in game (make it an easily accessible and visible option! Like a big "manuals" option in the main game menu). If this is hard/long to implement, in the meantime AT LEAST clearly indicate in the game where the manuals can be found! So, so many new players don't even know the manuals do exist! - tips explaining all the graphics/gameplay options when hovering the mouse above them. Currently about half of the tips don't work/exist. - when joining a multiplayer server, a map for choosing a slot would be way easier than the current list system to understand the current tactical situation, especially for new players that don't know the locations by heart. Things not specific to new players, but that would help a lot the game to be more engaging and improve new player retention as a consequence: - a collaboration with the guy making the DCS web mission editor to make it an official DCS tool, because that is simply a game changer, providing great flexibility to easily and casually design missions even when away from the gaming PC. - the DTC is sorely needed (yeah you're working on it, I know lol). I saw some time ago that the average DCS session lasts about 20 or 30 minutes. The average DCS player has little time to play (work, family... life you know). So when you have to spend half your playtime to manually set up all your aircraft systems, this becomes frustrating. Imagine the new player, with little time... is a game requiring button clicking for half your playtime before taking off engaging in the long run? I know it's a sim, and button clicking is a large part of that, but no need to make it worse than needed.

The research I could find on the topic mention that a bias can be introduced to keep the trajectory high, or that different coefficients can be used for vertical and horizontal trajectories, but at close range (like in your video), it seems standard PN or APN are used because they deal better with target's high g maneuvers

Mmmhhh, in this case, could it be related to this problem affecting many AI units and their guided ammunitions?

I'm away from DCS for a few weeks so I can't do testing. But I believe the problem is not that the missile can guide itself, by itself, on the target, but rather it seems to be that the attacker is able to guide the missile no matter its aspect. Even if he's facing away from the target. Which should be impossible with a SARH missile.

No, rainbows appear when the sun is in your back.

Yeah still no answer from ED on that most important bug/missing feature... that should be quite high priority given the importance of pre flaring in close range.

Sorry, but when in a Rift S I can instantly see a fighter at more than 30 miles because there is a big fat dot appearing, something is wrong. Irl spotting a jet at this distance is insanely hard, borderline impossible if you don't know where to look. Meanwhile people at 4K have difficulties spotting anything at more than a few miles. Knowing that ED is satisfied with that is unbelievable to me.

I don't understand that... there are obvious flaws with current ED implementation, and a guy makes a mod which, even if not perfect, improves things a lot, and ED is like "we don't plan to change anything". Just... why? It's minimal development time, and would improve one of the most important aspect of air combat for WW2 and early cold war!

you're playing with words here... Even if the underlying model and equations haven't changed, when you modify parameters such as center of mass position, rotor gyroscopic moment, rotor dampening coefficient, main rotor stiffness, and more, you are effectively changing how the aircraft reacts to inputs.