Dragon1-1
-
Posts
4841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dragon1-1
-
-
Would that be possible to update the AI FM so that it doesn't do that as much? New AI is all well and good, but if it still doesn't play by the same rules as the player, or at least something reasonably close, it will always have such oddities, both in combat and when flying close formation. Computers today should be powerful enough to accommodate it.
-
Last time I tried it out, it seemed like it attempts to hold on-speed AoA. Of course, it fails miserably at that, but I don't know if it's because of bad code, poorly chosen PIDs (or whatever parameters the controller is based on), or using real PIDs with unrealistic engine response.
-
In theory, ATC is implemented. In practice, it doesn't work too well (read: will screw up your approach and more likely than not dunk you in the sea). On top of that, the engine spool-up time appears to be too long, which complicates things. I hope that these things will be looked at soon.
-
1
-
-
IRL, you would set that up before flight, using your DTC. I'm not sure the real Viper even has defaults, or if it'll present you with the DTC page in every master mode if you try to boot it up without loading one up. Setting it up by hand is currently the only way to do it in DCS, but hopefully we'll get proper DTC functionality sooner or later.
-
1
-
-
PESA and AESA are hardly sorcery, this technology has many civilian applications, as well. The basic principles are well known, the devil is in details. It would not be impossible nor illegal to include a simulation of a "generic" PESA radar, even if it might not be an exact match for FLAP LID.
Pulse is indeed more susceptible to both clutter and EW. It's mostly used by older systems.
-
In level flight, it's usually Home Fuel. I don't know what the exact logic of that warning is, but it's there to tell you you're short on gas for where you are and how you're flying. As for master warning coming up on the cat, it's likely takeoff trim. You need to set the stabilizer to between 16 and 19 degrees nose up depending on weight.
Also, don't forget to lock the wing fold handle in "spread" position with the mousewheel. If you don't do that, you'll get a warning that your wings are unlocked, as well.
-
3 hours ago, Gunslinger22 said:
I’ve also heard similar anecdotes about the Vipers seat being restrictive and the cause of serious neck issues at the end of a career. Things that will never be simulated, but change the reality of how these things operate in the real world.
Realistic simpit chair + out of shape armchair pilot + VR = realistic neck injuries.
It already is a bit of an exercise to keep tally in VR, especially when you don't have a comfort of swiveling office chair. It doesn't simulate G forces, but even under 1G, with a heavy VR headset hanging in front of your face, you'll be getting some neck exercise.
Also, I noticed one more thing about extreme HOBS shots: they miss a lot. Seeker FOV is one thing, missile kinetics are another, and it's easy to get suckered into thinking that you have a good shot when in reality, the geometry will make it very easy for the bandit to trash. With the older missiles, when you managed to get a lock the shot was usually good unless you really were too close (and if you were, you could always try the gun), with HOBS, you really need to learn how to tell a good shot from a bad one.
-
You're right, mistyped.
It was late when I wrote that.
-
1
-
-
No need for Sea Stallion, this is a real concern with all probe and drogue aircraft, especially using a boom-drogue adapter to tank from a boom tanker. It's called the "iron maiden" for a reason, and it's very difficult to work with, it basically combines the worst parts of both the boom and the basket. Even disengaging from a regular drogue is risky, because the hose may whip around and snap the probe off if you do it wrong.
-
SA-10 uses a phased array FCR, so realistically, notching shouldn't be possible at all. It also shouldn't give a launch warning on RWR. Another thing is that with a real SA-10, if you get a spike from FLAP LID (the "10") radar, you might as well assume a launch, because its search capability is very limited, and the site should be nearly (but not completely) blind without its EWRs. The current way the system is modeled in DCS is very lacking, to say the least.
-
4
-
-
Also, the F-4 was the very first multirole jet. It truly did everything. AA? World's leading distributor of MiG parts. Interception? Goes to M2.0, for all your bomber-killing needs. Bombing? Carries more bombs than WWII-era heavy bombers. Precision bombing? Walleye, Mavs, LGBs, take your pick. FAC? Also did that, with great success. Nuclear strike? The F-4 could do it. Wild Weasel? Bread and butter, and not just for the G. It wouldn't be until the time of Hornet and later Viper models that there was a fighter as flexible as the F-4.
It stayed relevant long after the F-14's introduction, though not in air to air role (albeit it still made a competent interceptor). The F-14A took over air to air, but the Phantom was still needed for air to ground until the Hornet was introduced. F-14B could do some of the things it did, but not all (most notably, it wasn't equipped for Wild Weasel).
-
4
-
-
And why would they be given true values in first place? To get true north, you either need to have a gyro, a star tracker or convert from magnetic (or use SATNAV, but that's a recent invention). For most part, there's no reason not to use magnetic... except if magnetic variation is so large that it becomes difficult to use. This happens at high latitudes, which is coincidentally where most of Russia is located.
-
Almost all WWII aircraft do this, too. In fact, Soviet planes up to MiG-29 use more or less the same system that was in common use in WWII, everywhere but in Germany and US. It's unusual for a Western aircraft not to have a steerable nosewheel today, but in WWII, even tricycle aircraft such as the P-39 and P-38 were set up like that.
-
1
-
-
Normal CCRP on a TGP target. In the A-10A, it was CCIP. As it happens, it doesn't really matter what you set in the SMS with the real bomb, as it doesn't affect the bomblets or the skeets, just the canister. This was a few months ago, but I don't remember any changelog saying they fixed it.
-
25 minutes ago, Hextopia said:
Here's a decent video of them in DCS:
That's very much not what I saw when dropping them from the A-10. And I definitely did follow them, up close, all the way until impact (partially because I was wondering why they miss so much) They struck the ground, bounced up, and then started doing their thing. Even if they did work right on the Viper when this video was made, they didn't seem to be working so well when I flew the Hog.
-
4 hours ago, Hextopia said:
Honestly, people don't give the devs enough credit sometimes, because things like the CBU-97 are modeled with insane detail (there are probably ~200 lines of code that define the aerodynamics and the model animations for the dispenser casing pieces, skeets, and parachute submunition dispensers, and that's not even considering the definitions of the explosives and the seeker heads on the skeets)
This might be because they look at in-sim results, like I do. From what I've seen of CBU-97, it splits apart into several identical bundles of four submunitions, that descend under their parachutes until they hit the ground, at which point the skeets shoot up in to the air and home onto the nearest armor. This behavior makes them far more susceptible to wind than they should be, and the "fixed bundles" effect looks really cheap. Even if ED made provisions in code for very detailed workings of the bomb, what we see does not reflect how it works IRL.
Also, there's one more thing. Does DCS really simulate the ~2000 bomblets that four-Roceye ripple can produce? Because one particularly sneaky optimization technique is to limit the number of projectiles, and delete those over the limit. The code might be set up for the proper number of bomblets, but we need to know if they're all spawned and not culled due to some hardcoded limit.
-
34 minutes ago, Mogster said:
They talk about engines not being warmed up, pilots just jumping in the cockpit and roaring away full throttle. No ATC, aircraft just taking off randomly from dispersed locations round the airfield, little apparent attention to wind direction on takeoff or landing.
Why does this remind me of DCS public servers...?
Incidentally, the fact their planes were made for that sort of thing also makes them very noob-friendly in the sims and rather easy to fly IRL compared to other warbirds. The I-16 doesn't even have trimmers, and the hardest thing to do in it is raising the landing gear.
-
That's certainly interesting. It doesn't look like it does, but I suppose effect_count parameter is responsible for that. I don't generally dig through the files, and I've already seen DCS cheat somewhat with much less intensive CBU-97 (although to be fair, that's also based on the visual model).
It seems that the damage model is to blame, then. Realistically, it should be like being showered with anti-tank grenades. As it stands, actual tanks appear to shrug it off completely, while BMPs usually die.
-
1
-
-
It's the former. The Russian designers were very conservative, and didn't trust the pilots not to wreck the engines (what with them coming from all sorts of backgrounds, many of them peasant farmers and factory workers, per the Communist ideals), so they tuned the controls so they simply couldn't be wrecked. Well, they could, but it'd take a rather long time and usually happen over several missions. It's because of this Russian WWII aircraft engines appear to be much worse performing than those from the rest of the world - they could, theoretically, produce more power, but not for long, and the planes were designed not to allow that. Between that and their robust designs, this makes them hard to damage by being hamfisted with the controls.
Also because of this, Lend-Lease aircraft like the Spitfire and Hurricane had a reputation for poor reliability. The Russian pilots flew them like they did their own planes - full throttle, full prop, always at max power. That made them go through engines pretty quickly. OTOH, it made the P-39, which had its engine severely underrated by manufacturer (not sure why Allison did that) turn from a bit of a dog that it was in US service into a low-altitude killing machine beloved by the VVS, especially with its kind of useless wing MGs removed.
-
Are you airborne? Weigh on wheels turns off FCR and possibly a few other systems, in other not to fry the ground crew. Datalink might be turning off, too.
-
The idea is to approximate the visibility of a plane IRL. This means the lights have to be very prominent, even if it does look odd, to avoid them shrinking to sub-pixel sizes. It could use a tune-up, and it shouldn't show up during day, but the overall effect is definitely intentional.
-
It should be like that at night, though. The problem is, they're overemphasized during day.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, IronMike said:
2 years minimum time consuming to be precise
Sounds about right for that many lines.
Would a community effort to do that be possible? I'm not Iranian myself, but I think there's a few of them on the forums. All you guys would have to do would be to add subtitles for the benefit of those who don't speak Farsi.
-
That would be a fine compromise, and would also help those with lower-end machines. For a fast jet player, ground units don't have to be pretty, but they do have to be numerous. This eats into performance, particularly video memory, which is surprisingly limited even on the latest GPUs. With my 11GB variant of the 1080ti, I have more than everything but the latest Radeons and the 3090 (and Titan RTX, but I never heard of anyone using that). Considering how much video memory the maps and aircraft eat up, anything on the ground needs to be optimized with that in mind. I think DCS already has trouble because of video memory, and it's particularly problematic because the cost of getting much more than 16GB is enormous.
If you drive a helo, or a tank, or even something like the A-10, this calculation might be different, but by far, most people only see the vehicles in the TGP, so while they can't be too ugly, they don't need 4K textures, either. Let's face it, if you have enough disposable income for a graphics card with 24GB of video memory, you can afford an asset pack.
-
1
-
The 109 is too good
in DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst
Posted
Better turn performance. It's not a contradiction. It's faster and more powerful down low, but it turns better up high. Every plane changes the way you fight in it when you change altitude.