DJBiscuit1818

So what is the best way to prevent this issue? Is there a way to snip extrapolated tracks, or is there some other technique I should be following?

Wow, this mod made the game enjoyable for me again. I play on (EDIT: 27" 1440p monitor 1-2 feet away) and really enjoy flying on ECW. That server is singlehandedly responsible for me buying 4 F-5s and the F1, but when I'm out of practice, spotting feels impossible. It takes days of consecutive flying for my eyes to get used to the tiny single-pixel dots I'm looking for (even then it's hit-or-miss), and if I don't fly for a week or so I have to start over. I hadn't flown since the MT patch dropped, and I ended up logging 6 hours today because of how much more fun it was when I could actually see (and maintain!!) contacts inside of 10nm. There was some weirdness with the mod to be sure: I found ID'ing targets more difficult (though maybe that's because I could just see contacts from so much further?), there was some shimmer and/or flicker at certain ranges, and at one point I had an F-5 pop out of existence only a few hundred meters in front of my F1 (though that might have been desync as it popped back into existence a moment later, and at least I still got the kill ;). Overall, I cannot stress just how much of an improvement this is. There's a little jank, but if ED actually coded this type of improvement in, instead of altering a single shader, I'm sure it could be done much better. That being said, I'd still take this change, as-is, jank and all, being hardcoded and/or default behavior in a heartbeat.

How so? I'll admit I'm a lot more of a dumb fighter jock, but I've noticed that in A2A fights, as the F-5 I tend to trash the Mirage (*especially* if things reach the merge), and as the Mirage, my own results aren't much better. I've found the radar to be spotty at best and difficult to use, which renders the 530s of questionable utility. While a full A2A loadout does contain more missiles, until you ditch your external tank(s) and missile(s), the F-5 actually has comparable performance. (Hell, even with a ditched tank and 2 R530s, you struggle to break mach). BFM is best not even discussed, as the F-5 will simply wipe the floor with the Mirage in that sphere. When it comes to A2G loadouts, the carriage options are remarkably similar. 4 wing pylons that carry rockets or bombs, and the capability to mount more bombs on the centerline. The overall utility seems remarkably similar to me. They carry similar weapons, and have similar limitations. Bombing by tables and/or based on feel. How much does it really matter if the stick of high-drag bombs you're salvoing off is 6x400kg as opposed to 7x500lbs (presuming wing tanks)? The main exception is the Durandal, but that weapon is kinda a one-trick pony. The F1, critically, also has MUCH worse situational awareness. Buggy as it is, the F-5's RWR is leagues ahead of the picture it helps paint of the battlefield when compared to the F1. While the F-5 doesn't have *amazing* rear visibility, in all other directions it's simply excellent. Meanwhile the F1 has high walls, massive pillars, and a nice thick canopy bow that seems designed to ensure you either can't see the bandit sneaking up, or lose them in the middle of a fight.

It seems like performance across the board is degraded. It accelerates slower, turns slower, tops out at lower speeds... It's also very dependent on weather now. On Caucases in the Winter, you can accelerate from M1.2 to 1.4+ in level flight at ~14000ft. Meanwhile, Syria in Autumn(?), you can't even punch through 1.4 in a shallow dive from ~30k to 15k anymore. (Both completely clean) I could be mistaken, but I don't recall such a massive performance difference before the changes.

Somewhat splitting hairs here, but the limit seemingly isn't based upon G, but rather control surface deflection. While the two are closely related, they aren't 1:1. At higher speeds, full deflection may not be required to hit limit G. Conversely, it's a slow missile, and even full deflection could theoretically be insufficient to reach limit G. (Given the massive wings, I find the latter somewhat unlikely, but the simulation of the missile will better answer that question than any of my guesswork can.) I agree, trying to find the correct value is going to be difficult. A linear ramp from 0% at complete lockout and a linear ramp to 100% over 2.5s would be the simplest implementation I can think of, but that seems to contradict the document itself. If "The control surfaces are unlocked but full deflection is unavailable," that would seem to imply that some appreciable amount is available once the surfaces unlock. The simplest starting point in light of that would be a linear ramp from launch through the entire boost phase of the rocket motor (a total of 3s), locked out for the first 0.5s then immediately jumping to the ~16% a linear ramp would possess. EDIT: Unable to find any information on the R530 itself, I did some digging on DTIC for more general information on missile guidance laws and autopilot parameters to try and figure out why this kind of limit would exist. From what I've found, there are two main reasons you would restrict maneuverability once the missile is clear of the launching aircraft with an acquired target: 1: aerodynamic stability. If you allow too much maneuverability at too low of a speed, a guidance algorithm may destabilize the missile if AoA is increased too far, and this property seems to be much more important on missiles with rear control surfaces and fixed fins towards the center/front. (A profile the R530 happens to fit) 2: kinematic considerations. Seen on examples like the later AIM-7 variants (F onwards), many missiles will restrict early performance to prevent over-leading a target and/or reduce the impact of evasive maneuvers/cranking. This is primarily a consideration for long-range missiles to help preserve energy for the missile to defeat evasive maneuvers in the endgame. Additionally, such implementations usually include opponent range as a factor in whatever algorithm reduces the commanded maneuvers. (Indeed, when launched at short range, this limitation is all but nonexistent, since the benefits of reducing early energy expenditure decrease sharply as the engagement range moves away from Rmax towards Rmin) Given that the R530 is a short-range missile (with an IR variant that cannot provide range information to the guidance package), and that the allowable control deflection increases as the boost phase burns (and thus as the missile speed increases), I think it can reasonably be inferred that the restriction is based on aerodynamic stability considerations, rather than kinematic ones. As such, that is probably where our derivation/guessing of the guidance restrictions ought to begin. Perhaps rather than scaling linearly, it scales with relation to speed of the missile? For example, we could look at minimum launch parameters for the missile, figure out how much control will induce instability, then shape the deflection ramp to ensure that the missile remains stable when launched at those parameters. Depending on how much information the matra computer onboard the F1 gives the missile, the lockout ramp could hypothetically vary based on launch parameters as well. Regardless, this is the best starting point I can think of, given the lack of concrete documentation.

Running recon work in the Mirage F1 on the ECW server, I've been working on finding the ideal profile to quickly recon as much of the frontline as possible. Since the max alt is 4km AGL (13k ft), I generally aim for 12k ft over the lowest point on my planned run to maximize coverage while also avoiding dead spots. This is usually ~13-15k ft on the altimeter. At this altitude in level flight, the max speed is usually M1.3. However, if I take it up to 30k+ on my cruise in, then make a shallow dive to start my run, I can go much faster. If I get survitesse to kick in (which is oddly enough better served by a shallow dive than a steep one), the limiting factor becomes going too fast, as the aircraft will continuously accelerate to and past its limits. Because I'm trying to stretch my precious seconds of film/recon time (and not get shot down), the faster I can go, the better. Thus, I'll generally push the aircraft as far as I can in that range. Additionally, since both the airbrake and afterburner are either on or off, I have to repeatedly switch either one or the other to modulate speed. (as an aside, is this correct? The A/B section of the throttle is something like 40% of axis travel when stock, and also has a visibly large travel in the cockpit. This doesn't really seem to make sense, but I don't know enough to know if this is correct or not). The result of this is that I often push the aircraft until it complains, cut AB (and thus speed) until just over the survitesse cut-off, then go back into full AB. Rinse and repeat. The aircraft is relatively docile at M1.4 (~774 KCAS / ~725 KEAS), but encounters buffeting from airspeed somewhere around 750-800KIAS, then two things happens as you further increase speed. The aircraft starts to roll and/or pitch of its own accord (mach tuck?), and the "LIM" light turns on and an alarm begins to sound. Before 2.8, the former issue (mach tuck) used to be handled quite nicely by the autopilot. In both Attitude and Altitude modes, the aircraft would stay solidly on course (albeit with plenty of buffeting over the aforementioned ~750KIAS). In Heading Hold Mode, the aircraft would often oscillate slightly in roll, but it would still usually maintain roughly on course. However, as of 2.8, this is no longer the case. In all modes, as soon as Mach tuck(?) begins, the autopilot fails to compensate, and will disengage after ~60° of bank. This seems to be due to both more severe tucking, and the changes to autopilot, which now inevitably lead to overcompensation and/or heavy oscillation if you demand a moderate to large change in heading or attitude. (As an aside, I do appreciate that trim inputs will now vary commanded attitude/heading in attitude hold mode, it's a massive improvement—when it works) As such, formerly the LIM light was the real limit I'd have to respect. I'd line up on a sector, dive from 30 to my recon alt, level out, and command autopilot to altitude hold (and often heading hold as well). The tuck wasn't severe enough that it caused issues, so I'd simply accelerate until the plane started chirping at me (usually ~1.6M), deploy airbrake until speed decreased to ~1.45, rinse and repeat. While I repeatedly triggered the LIM light/alarm, I respected the warning, and never really tried to push past it. That being said, the airbrake takes a couple seconds to deploy, so I'd spend several seconds in the alarm zone whenever I triggered it, and sometimes trigger that alarm a dozen times in a flight or more. That's ~24-36 seconds spent in the alarm area in a flight, with no adverse effects. However, as of recent patches, I encountered a concerning new issue. If the LIM light/alarm kick on, you're seemingly at serious risk of damaging the engine the instant that warning triggers. Due to the worse tuck/broken autopilot, I've been controlling my recon flight manually. This usually means that I'm not pushing into the alarm zone nearly as often (since the limiting factor is usually fighting mach tuck and trying to maintain a good flight path). Additionally, the way I'm slowing down is more often cutting throttle, since using the airbrake causes a strong pitch-down moment, which is something I don't like when I'm already having to fight to maintain course. When I do hit the LIM alarm, this also causes a quicker decrease in speed, as the AB cuts out instantly when throttle is reduced. However, I've now run into the following issue several times: Upon hitting the LIM and slowing down, going back to full AB won't allow you to maintain survitesse. Indeed, you can't even maintain M1.3. Or Mach 1. In full afterburner, with an almost completely clean jet (just one empty centerline pylon) in level flight, at 10-15k feet, you max out at mach 0.9. *Climbing to ~35k (optimal alt for acceleration), you still won't build any more speed. You barely break mach in a dive. Your non-AB performance also takes a hit, with a level flight max of somewhere in the .75-.8 range at mil power. It's not like I push until something goes "bang" or I'm ignoring the alarm. The first time I crippled an engine, on the the first time I hit the limit, I was slow in I got the throttle down. So I decided to be more careful. So as soon as I hear that chirp, I'm pulling back on the throttle/hitting the airbrake. The second time it happened, I hit the limit once, and was fine. "Ah, so I just have to be fast, I guess they made it more sensitive" I hit the limit again, and it didn't even chirp twice before I cut the throttle. Then I reapplied throttle, and my speed kept dropping. Down, down, down. I turned for home and ran, because at M 0.9, I was a sitting duck. I barely limped home and only narrowly avoided getting jumped by a Fishbed because a friendly happened to be able to vector in and save my ass. What is the point of a warning alarm that doesn't warn you? You need time to respond before stuff explodes/breaks. The landing gear doesn't instantly snap or jam at 2 KIAS above the limit of 240. You start to risk failure when you exceed the limit, with probability of failure scaling as you depart further and further from the limit. Additionally, once the engine is damaged, there's no indication that it's happened besides being completely unable to break mach. No master caution, no lights on the panic panel, only neutered performance. Again, if you snap your gear off, the plane isn't going to pretend your gear are actually up. To me, this behavior seems wrong (and isn't mentioned in the patchnotes), so I'm wondering if this was an intentional change or not. I'll admit, my sample size is small, so maybe I just got incredibly unlucky. Has anyone else encountered this behavior?

You don't need to switch to BIDONS in order to use external tanks. Only use BIDONS if you aren't going to jettison the tanks once they're empty.

Based on the manual, even the "LISSE" (Clean) position consumes external tanks first. (I can verify this, having flown numerous missions without switching.) The LISSE position also empties external tanks first. Since both positions empty the external tanks first, then the wing tanks, that means there's ZERO difference between the two switch positions until you've moved to fuselage tanks. As such, I suspect that the "BIDONS" ("tanks") position is intended for (non-combat) use, when you will be retaining external tanks even after emptying them. Think about it. In a combat setting, as soon as that tank is empty, you're jettisoning it. (IRL, you might keep them for low-intensity and/or ground attack missions, but in-game there's no real reason not to ditch them.) This is backed up by my own experience as well. One time on Enigma's CW server, I departed the airfield, and flew in full burner straight towards the fight/front line. I glanced down, saw my external tanks were empty, and hit selective jettison as I entered the combat zone. However, on an earlier sortie, I had taken wing missiles and a belly tank, but forgot to switch my jettison selector switch to wings, so instead of ditching my wing tanks, I had ditched my belly missile. When I returned to base, I had burned through a decent chunk of my internal fuel. In landing configuration, as soon as I got to ~150kts, the nose would come up hard, requiring lots of trim and/or stick force to keep the nose down. Why? Because I didn't ditch the tanks, which shifted the CoG back, and made the aircraft tail-heavy. Essentially, keep it in LISSE, unless you're carting around empty external tanks.

Does anyone know if there's a sight depression that results in a good delivery with that profile?