SmokeyTheLung

Noted. Looking forward to the implementation from ED

Stumbled onto this short clip for those who are interested. Presumably relevant to IAT/MTT and possibly offset (notice that the crosshairs are not centered in the display) ?

Exactly. Reposting this report on "Temperature Measurement of a Bullet in Flight" here. Would be an awesome and realistic upgrade to the FLIR rendering tech. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764414/

I've noticed that the rounds from the cannon are usually visible in RL FLIR footage but not so in the new DCS FLIR. I've also found this interesting article on the thermography of bullets in flight. Would be a cool and realistic addition, unless I'm missing something obvious. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764414/

Waaaay back in the initial release of A10C Warthog (beta 1 I think) the digital zoom on the lightning resulted in really low resolution in all modes at extreme range, IIRC this was particularly pronounced in the FLIR modes, as they presumably simulated a lower resolution output for that sensor as compared to the CCD sensor in the pod. ED changed this quickly and explained that they felt the images were too degraded. My understanding was the math was correct on the initial version, the pixel count was correct and the digital zoom behaved as expected at long range; in other words the images looked like crap at really long ranges. As a side note: there was (as recently as four or five years ago) some vestiges of this original code commented out in one of the sensor .LUA files. I've never personally seen real TGP footage at these extreme ranges but it would certainly be interesting to see how crisp/clear of an image the sensors can create, presumably there is a lot of digital trickery in the real sensor processing to clean up images. It seems obvious that what the OP is seeing is a bug or engine limitation and I know my point is a bit OT, my apologies. However it would be interesting to know if ED is revisiting a more realistic TPod limitation for the Hornet and other new modules vis-à-vis digital zoom and it's real world limitations.

Thanks for sharing with us and for your service, samesies to all the other folks in the same category. I'm trying to make sense of the argument that's being had here. On one hand we have information about what the jet is capable of and on the other we have the hard won info on what the jet is "practically" capable of (I'm thankful that you and others take the time to share this perspective, for the record!). Is that right? ...or am I missing something? Practical may go out the window if things get hairy enough, I think we can all agree on that. What happens if the Canadians run out of maple syrup and bacon? They may very well plan a full scale invasion of the US, what would you hang from the wings in that case? DCS isn't simulating a USAF "practical, big picture, asset longevity, etc. etc." oriented simulation that would fit comfortably with the RL experience from you folks of the past 30 years. They are simulating an F-16. (emphasis on the period) Why not allow even the extreme possibilities of the platform in and leave it to us simmers to enjoy the game in whatever way we want? Joking aside, it's a genuine question. Is the jet capable? Even if it's completely unpractical?

Although it's not been totally clarified by Wags, it was cool to hear that the Maverick may be getting some seeker logic upgrades to make it more realistic; specifically the need to tell the maverick if you want to lock light on dark or hot on cold or vice versa. I have another suggestion that's really just visual but would help to "sell" our virtual version... at least in my opinion: Please see this video at around the 26 sec mark, played at .25 speed. You can see the the Maverick is in a slew state and attempts to find a hot on cold target. You can see just how much the crosshairs will move independent of the seeker gimbal in looking for a lock. In DCS this is represented by a pretty instantaneous snapping of both the seeker and tracking gate to the target. So it seems like DCS simulates a reasonable approximation of the function but could polish the visual a smidge. We have so much real world maverick footage in the public domain it seems like a shame to miss the small details (pointing cross anyone :D) like the wiggly jumping crosshairs. After seeing some of the detail work Heatblur have done with the F14 I'm obviously spoiled... and arguably also a total lunatic. Thought I'd leave this here anyway :)

Also, while I'm here... The details and effort already showcased are truly STUNNING. You guys had me at FLIR washout... :D

Just wanted to chime in and point out that all of this negative noise from a few folks is ultimately borne out of excitement to see and enjoy what you guys have worked to create. So that's at least a little silver lining, from my perspective. It's obvious to me and I expect most others here that you are considerate and professional artists/developers and are working HARD to push the needle further with as little comprise as is possible. I for one am blown away with what I've seen so far an am super excited. You can't rush it... well you probably could... but you don't seem the type... It will be done when it's done and I think 99.999% of your customers appreciate that breaking the mold in terms of quality will take time.

My guess is that only a particuarly low altitude delivery, with the aircraft level to the horizon and dumb bombs, will result in impressive accuracy in AUTO. From what I’ve seen, real pilots appear to fly profiles in AUTO/CCRP modes that are pretty similar to what most of us sim flyers use for CCIP; some amount of dive, velocity vector held steady at a point on the ground beyond the target that also coincides with the bomb fall line. Basically exactly like a dive delivery in CCIP but just in a different mode. I think the level high altitude delivery is probably mostly used for guided stuff irl. ...this is conjecture mind you and I’d be happy to be corrected.

In addition to what's been said: I'm pretty rusty these days but IIRC the TGP displays AGL altitude from the terrain database. You might be able to access that info in the CDU but I'm not sure.

Fair point and yes indeed, it's keeping me busy! Sent you a PM

Me too! Love DCS to bits but can't stop cringing when I see videos that show off all the great stuff added in the last few years along side the outdated effects. It's time!

Great to see some work done on this!

That puts that one to bed. Nice!