PinkCube

A7E discussion at its peak

Great news. Can you share what the required content is that you are working on?

Hey big brain, models are limited to the resolution of the monitor. You cannot fit IRL resolution and colour into a monitor.

It feels like there's no ambition left over at ED. No direction or vision. Set in their ways. The business seems so compartmentalised that it's probably impossible to get everyone to have a shared vision. Everyone is just doing their own little thing and doing just enough to not fall off of the gravy train. This pretty much stems from the top and I paraphrase a quote "DCS isn't a profitable business". I wish I could be more optimistic and hope DCS picks up again in the future if not for the sake of the 3rd party developers.

This isn't growing pains. This is being hit by a truck, finally coming back to consciousness and realising all your limbs are broken one by one as you try to get back up.

In light of fairness will Ugra Media be deleting all content in Normandy 2 that trespasses into the boarders of The Channel map?

@MAESTR0 Thank you. Sounds like bullying.

Afghanistan is a country that doesn't have many famous landmarks but it does have a small handful in its major cities. Here are some I found in Herat.

I was commenting on the types of buildings. And, Here are a couple of Comparisons I made in Qala I Naw.

Here is a colour comparison at Camp Price along the road to Camp Bastion

Did they reuse the buildings from Persian Gulf and Syria? This just seems LAZY.

Thought I'd leave this here. Mig-19 vs the Mig-21. 16degrees per second at mach 0.33 mig1921turn.mp4

Absolutely would love to see this as an exclusive asset only available to the upcoming paid High Quality pack.

I'm hoping for multiple PL-5 variants to suit different mission scenarios. PL-5A SARH PL-5B Rear aspect IR PL-5C PL-5EII All aspect IR

I believe this is a very basic way of simulating losing track from clutter a target moves around (applies regardless of actual clutter). Here is another document that offers more insight into maverick launches on tanks and buildings (in a test environment?). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA361645.pdf It's interesting to note that the AGM-65B was fired at slant ranges of up 1.5miles maximum. It does not say what the limitations of why they had to be so close during the tests. I can only speculate and assume there was a technological limitation which would be supported by the illustrations in my previous post.

The real limitations are how they're modeled in DCS. In real life, technology (old TV guided seeker) These are different missiles to the AGM-65A (RB75). They have separate issues. Tracking moving targets: As of now the RB75 - the earliest maverick - is superior to all the later mavericks because it appears to use a different logic in the game to the others. Here are the values I believe that the maximum speeds (in knots?) mavericks can lock targets in-game (mav A & B are recent additions in the latest patch): RB75: 128 Mav A: 28 Mav B: 33 Clearly there is a problem in the game files if essentially the same missile has to different values. Why is the Rb75 capable of locking targets going 100kts faster than its equals? As you said yourself the laser guided missiles also run out of energy before they can hit the target. the RB75 also calculates an intercept trajectory (I'll go on a whim and say this is completely fantasy). Range of targets: From this publicly available document https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/29/2001329786/-1/-1/0/AFD-100929-043.pdf there are some notes regarding how the maverick should lock targets based on their size and range. null null According to this document they had to get closer for smaller targets. The image suggests that in real life locking a tank at 5miles is impossible (assuming it's the mav A and not the B), because of size and clutter. Locking a moving helicopter at 7.5miles with the ability to intercept and disregard clutter it is flying over is how it's actually modeled in DCS.

nullThe AGM65A (same as RB75A afaik) has 5 degrees FOV. And I doubt it has the seeker logic to track and hit targets moving 250km/h, 12km away.. I will look for sources and documentation. All I've found so far is a weapons evaluation for the D model which describes the slant ranges it was fired at around~2500meters at tanks.

I have not flown the gazelle since the last update. I will produce a track when I rebind the controls. It's not just me that had that bug, a friend had the same issue which prompted me to start mashing buttons and find the quick fix.

You will have to tap a button on your keyboard to control the camera or bind a button input to slew the camera. This will reset the false axis input it seems to create (caused by pressing recenter while having a camera slew axis input) and allow the re-centering to work again.

Cockpit LOS can be emulated by telling the AI to not fire when deflection angles below the nose are over a certain limit. In theory this is not an advanced concept. If there is new AI in development then this should be taken into consideration while the development is taking place and not after.

If you hit the recenter button while you have axis input to the camera, the recenter button will break and the TV camera will start to drift (create a false input). To make the recenter button work again you need to use a button to control the Vivienne camera movement to eliminate the drift caused by a false axis input. This will fix the recenter button and make it work again.

The super human AI in warbirds Today I would like to talk about the AI, particularly in the spitfire. Those who've play in the war-birds will have at some point decided to fly against one of these monsters and most likely lost a lot of times against them. Now, what is apparent in DCS is that the AI makes shots based on computer calculations (obviously) which makes them extremely accurate. Put this in the spitfire and you've created something obscene. I'm pretty sure all DCS planes in WW2 work like this but combined with the turn rate of the spitfire you created something simply built different. There's no margin of error in accuracy or burst length limitations built into the AI so often you get sniped out of the skies by an AI using single shot mode without the sight of any tracers whizzing past your cockpit. Two factors that can save your life. The AI can use single shot mode by only firing when it believes it has a 100% accurate gun solution. But there's more... The AI pilot can see through the cockpit which means his vision isn't obscured when pulling high deflection shots. See the image below... Now you might say you can do this as a human... But a human will use GUESSWORK to make the shots and not a ballistic computer. A human will lose sight... And a human will spend ammunition and release a stream of tracers which you can "react" to. So, why isn't any of this incorporated into the way the AI behaves? Why can't the AI release a burst rather than a single shot? Why doesn't the AI fire inaccurate shots that will miss (dependent on set difficulty)? Why can the AI accurately shoot while not having visual of what it is shooting at? It either feels like you're fighting a toaster or the terminator and there seems to be nothing in between.

In my experimentation of finding out how to improve the smoothness of TrackIR and make it feel less stuttery I found a file called view.lua. Going by "feeling" changing these values to 0 made trackIR feel much more responsive in DCS. However didn't quite mitigate the stuttering (lower framerate feeling when looking around) I was trying to solve.