Aquorys

In my opinion, there are two simple solutions to the "problem": Make stuff break in the F/A-18 if people pull significantly more than 7.5G, and probably make it a bit unpredictable too, so there can't be a table that says it always breaks after 3.3 seconds under 8.1G If you want the gameplay to be more realistic, maybe do something else than WWII style gun-fights in an otherwise empty aircraft with no mission. Most real missions are air-to-ground, and hardly any of the few air-to-air engagements that happen nowadays are 5 minute around-the-circle 9G rate fights that end with gun kills. That kind of mission isn't realistic in the first place, so the question whether the aircraft need to be changed to perform more realistically in an unrealistic mission to improve the realism of the game seems somewhat academic to me

SAM is only available from RWS, VSR is more accurate with regards to range and avoids incorrect range readings VSR is programmed to detect and range hot targets only The exact details of what mode uses what PRFs and when and how it does so are classified. Furthermore, the radar is generally software-controlled, and there can be differences, roughly speaking, depending on whose aircraft it is (e.g., US vs. export) and whether some advanced features have been activated or not.

The landing and taxi lights go off automatically during landing gear retraction, independent of the switch position

Yeah, there are a couple more, e.g. the lights are commonly weird on the ground as well as in the air, manual TF flyup should be on, you might want anti-ice on instead of auto when it's obviously freezing cold outside, I've seen the RWR off instead of on, and CM mode standby instead of man/semi/auto, etc. Minor issues though, as those inaccuracies are easy to correct by flipping a couple switches (or some don't matter at all, because the related effects are not implemented), while some other problems are caused by more severe bugs that need developer action to resolve.

Same for me. It often suddenly goes from 30-40 fps to about an 4-6 fps stutter where it draws probably two or three frames at a normal refresh rate and then pauses for a quarter to a half second, then draws another couple frames. It never recovers on its own, so it's not a temporary performance bottleneck. Different for me, taking off the headset for about a minute, while also switching to the task manager and from there to the Desktop, then putting the headset on again makes the refresh rate go back to normal. However, if the VR headset ever fails, it's impossible to recover it without restarting VR. Generally speaking, it would be good if the graphics engine could switch between screen output and VR output on the fly.

Veteran level F-14B or F-15C. I tested with 80% fuel in all aircraft, opponent clean, the Viper with 4x AIM-120C and 2x AIM-9X. Both opponents make for a good training target for energy management. The F-14B can take quite a few hits before it goes down, the F-15C is harder to hit in the first place, because it jinks more effectively. I would say that the F-15C is a bit more of a challenge than the F-14B. Obviously, both are easy to kill if you actually use the missiles that you brought to the fight instead of the gun. If you have trouble outmaneuvering the targets for a gun kill, remove the missiles from the Viper.

Not quite, it could be neither of the two, because there are some more. Before launch, the AIM-120C's onboard radar does not do anything. Then there are two possibilities: Launch with initial target vector information Upon launch, the AIM-120C is guided using a datalink. The AIM-120C does not use its onboard radar at this point (and it does not care how the guiding aircraft obtains the data that it uses for providing guidance information. As far as I know, all aircraft currently available in DCS use exclusively their own fire control radar to obtain and maintain a target track for an AMRAAM, while some aircraft in the real world use other methods as well, that is part of what is often referred to as "sensor fusion" and "network centric warfare"). The launch of an AMRAAM using this method is what pilots would typically call out by saying "fox three" on the radio, sometimes followed by additional information. As long as the missile receives guidance information through the datalink, it continues in the command inertial guidance phase. If datalink guidance is terminated before the terminal active mode can be used, it continues in the inertial guidance phase. At a certain distance from the target (known or estimated), the missile transitions to terminal active mode. This is where the the missile attempts to lock onto the target using its onboard radar. Terminal active mode comprises two different radar modes, the first of which is limited to high pulse repetition frequencies (HPRF). Reaching the second one, which is MPRF capable, is what pilots typically call out by saying "pitbull" on the radio. Launch with no initial target vector information and no datalink This is the "BORE" launch, or e.g. a launch without a bugged target in the F-16, where the missile goes into terminal active mode immediately and locks onto the first target it can find, using its own inertial navigation system to maintain flight in the direction that it was launched in until it begins tracking a target or falls out of the sky) The launch of an AMRAAM using this method is what pilots typically call out by saying "maddog" on the radio. Public rumor has it that some air to air missiles are capable of additional launch and guidance methods, but the details about any of those remain classified and therefore cannot be discussed.

Even if the platform is limited to emitting the datalink signal from the launching aircraft, where the link to the missile is being emitted from and where the targeting information is coming from is not necessarily the same. E.g., an SM-6 fired from an Aegis ship is guided by the Aegis system, but the information about the target vector is gathered by an F-35 that is datalinked to the Aegis system.

Let's put it that way: From a technical perspective, it should theoretically be implementable with a software change. The missile's guidance computer would have to be able to understand a command that gives it an initial heading that the missile is supposed to turn to and go active immediately, or possibly an initial point and bearing from that point, which would possibly be more accurate. Some aircraft can, e.g. the Eurofighter can buddy-launch at a target that the firing aircraft cannot see, but a compatible aircraft can see, by using datalink information. How you acquire information about a target is not necessarily important, so in theory you could make up some imaginary target information and guide anywhere using the datalink, the only remaining question is whether there would be a suitable target for the missile there to acquire when it transitions to terminal active mode. The datalink has become quite powerful more recently, e.g. Aegis ships (like the Arleigh Burke and the Ticonderoga) have demonstrated the ability to launch SAMs at datalink targets that an F-35 can see, but the ship itself cannot see, effectively using an F-35 as an auxiliary sensor for over-the-horizon target acquisition.

My point was that I could consistently outmaneuver a MiG-21 that has two R-60Ms with an F-16C that has two 9X and four AMRAAMs. I shot it down twice with guns, and three times with the 9X.

I just tried it 5 times head-on, MiG-21bis, ace level AI, with 2x R-60M against me flying the F-16C with 4x AIM-120C and 2x AIM-9X. Got 5 kills, 3 with the 9X and 2 guns kills. Not much of a challenge with the 9X, somewhat tricky with guns because the Fishbed is small, keeps flying fast and jinks somewhat effectively, but I could still get a good track both times. Harassing the Fishbed on the horizontal plane long enough seemed to be sufficient, but dominating the vertical space was more effective.

The exact numbers are classified, so let's say, this one isn't accurate, but it's in the right ballpark.

You don't, it just fires in terminal active mode along the boresight line (JHMCS does nothing in DCS, and this information may generally be from another block 50 variant or a newer block altogether), and then locks onto whatever it finds. Just tested in DCS, and it does mostly what it's supposed to do. It guides to the bugged target in SLAVE, and ignores the bugged target in BORE, instead firing along the boresight line (indicated by the diamond being centered a couple degrees below the gun cross instead of tracking the bugged target in the HUD or JHMCS display), and locks onto targets after launch. Anyhow, in DCS, it can't find anything that's not pretty much directly in front of it, so I guess the missile's radar limits are somewhat off, cause the real AMRAAMs are known to have quite good off-boresight.

Check 4YA aerobatics UK/US, those tend to have many players on it. Also, Aerobatics online caucasus.

Judging by the fact that the Eurofighter is a way more agile aircraft than the Viper, I would not be surprised if Germany's physical requirements for Eurofighter pilots were more demanding than e.g. the requirements for a Viper pilot in the USAF.

You could just dial the HSI to the runway heading and use the indications on the HSI for lateral navigation. It also shows the distance from the steerpoint in NAV mode, so you can check your actual altitude vs. the altitude that you should be at when you pass 10 nm.

Aah... what? That didn't make any sense Generally speaking, an AMRAAM wants information on where a target is for initial guidance, and that information is provided through a datalink. How you got the information that you relay to the AMRAAM is not necessarily important, but traditionally, it would be obtained from the firing platform's fire control radar, and that is how it works in DCS too. You can also fire an AMRAAM without providing any target information, and in that case, it will lock onto whatever target it can find using its terminal active mode after launch. You don't have to be in boresight mode to do that as long as you have no target bugged.

What I usually do for makeshift instrument approaches is to put a steerpoint near the runway threshold (e.g. for the Caucasus map, there are coordinates in the kneeboard), and then I calculate the altitude at various distances using the airfield elevation and the distance from the steerpoint during my approach using whatever approach angle I want. Usually that would be approximately 3 degrees, unless there is high terrain, where it would typically be 5 to 10 degrees. To execute the approach, I just put the flight path marker close to whatever my approach angle is supposed to be and check my altitude at the previously calculated distances from the runway threshold steerpoint for any corrections until I'm visual with the runway (or I'm not and need to go around or possibly go elsewhere). Somewhat like an RNAV approach, except you have to hand-fly an improvised glide slope. The whole thing isn't much different from flying the full instrument approaches on the Nevada map, before you're established on ILS, using TACAN instead of the runway coordinates. That is also just hand-flying a glide slope based on predetermined altitude/distance information, until you switch to the ILS around ~7-ish miles out.

They differ even within just the USAF, especially this one

Yes, but no. In the real world, coalition aircraft don't fly around randomly on their own, and people don't spam out missiles at everything they see like in a computer game, so there is a lot of coordination going on to avoid friendly fire, e.g., knowing where your assets are, what they are doing, and where the hostiles are. Yes, if you don't have mode 4 for whatever reason, then there is an increased risk that you could be flagged as hostile, if a lot of other things also go wrong. And friendly fire has happened in the real world too, so occasionally, enough goes wrong at the same time for a blue-on-blue incident.

Well, Pratt & Whitney makes engines, and Martin Baker makes ejection seats. I guess y'all can figure it out on your own now.

By the way, did you ever hear this one: "If it says Pratt & Whitney on the engine, it had better say Martin Baker on the seat"

at the same speed? Cause if not, meaning if your speed changed, then that could be the reason, and yes, that's how it works in the real world too.

Just flew in multiplayer on 4YA, the improvement seemed to be rather marginal. Running an i7 at ~4.7GHz, 80 GiB RAM, RTX2070S, NVMe storage, Oculus Rift S. I'd say the average is 30-40fps, but it still drops extremely every now and then, especially after using the map or external views of other aircraft, it would go to 10 fps on the ground (have seen as bad as 4 fps in the past). If I take the VR headset off for 30 seconds and put it on again, it's doing 30-40fps again. If I don't, then the frame rate remains bad forever. Not sure who's to blame, but I tend to suspect that this is either a programming error in some timing routines in DCS, or a fundamental design error. I mean, the quality of the Oculus drivers is really bad, but in this case, I don't think they are the source of the problem, because all other VR software, including other flight simulators, would also occasionally experience really bad frame rates temporarily for various reasons, but they all recover from it without me having to do anything.

I'd generalize that: If you're close enough to potentially be shot at with anything, then you probably shouldn't be flying head-on towards an enemy, unless you're shooting or you have another really good reason. Otherwise, you should be maneuvering to deny the enemy a good shot.