Temetre

And software^^ Oh yeah that makes sense!

Ah, then I misunderstood you. I know the F-14, which is apparently quite realistic, can make 3 distinctions with enemy fighters: 1. Unlikely to be in threat range 2. Inside of threat range 3. Likely engaging the aircraft, or already locked Its actually surprising to me how much of a guess the RWR could make about the engagement distance of the enemy aircrafts. My guess for 5ths gen would be some kind of triangulation/sensor fusion stuff. Treat RWR signals as a potential track, allowing the plane to collect data. F16 already does it with stationary targets and the HAT pod. Ofc AESA radars are apparently harder to precisely detect by RWR, so its gonna be an arms race between detection identification I suppose. Also thanks for the video, gonna watch it later. Those old "tutorial videos" are fun xD

Sounds great then

Hm, did the SPO-10 or so of the Mig-21 not tell the difference between search radar mode and lock? Or do I misremember, was that unrealistic? Did a trial, cant remember anymore (it was so useless lol). If the F4 can tell vague range and even basic type, then thats already a big plus imo. Gonna be interesting if theres some radars it just cant detect tho lol.

IIRC ED said something like 10% of the playerbase actually plays MP? Might be completely wrong about that tho. Often games like this tend to have a low percentage of player doing MP. Its just misleading because the most active people in forums/etc are the ones playing online.

I dont think they show the line on the radar, but they show a line on the RWR, showing vaguely where the RWRs think the radar impulse is coming from. Kinda like the F-14s RWR, except with flashing lines instead of names. There might be also some audio signal you could listen too; eg in the A4-Skyhawk you only got audio RWR, but its possible to tell radar/locks by how they sounds. Its weird, but thats probably how your RIO could tell what aircraft a signal is. Probably the database being built up currently. Also makes me wonder how itll rate "strength" of signal, search mode vs SST, or when theres lot of signals at once. I could imagine that its really complicated.

Thx, probably on a list then. Bit annoying when you wanna quickly reset the autopilot, but I guess there bigger priorities.

The F-14s RWR simulation is afaik the only one in DCS thats actually accurate? Way more complex than any other ive seen, at least. And IIRC theyre also building up an entire library of RWR sounds.

I think you can set it in the editor of under the aircraft options? Not sure if you can change it in rearming window.

Id really like if Jester would disable the JAMMER, when theres an obvious situation with HOJ being a big (or even the only) threat. I know its probably a hard feature to implement, that its difficult to tell when the AI RIO should disable the jammer. But it would be extremely helpful, compared to having to use the menu (or voice command) to disable the jammer. This feels like a RIO should be able to disable the ECM temporarily, since hes got way more awareness of enemy missiles. See the scenario I had: So I was training RWR/missile dodging, and I had a Mig-29 shoot a semi-active R-27 at me. I defeated the lock with a notch a few times, and while it probably had me on TWS, the Mig-29 wasnt even trying to lock me anymore. Jester also informed me of the missile shortly after the launch, he was aware of it, and so was I. But - and this took me a while to figure out - because I told him to activate ECM, the missile went into HOJ mode and hit my aircraft. Even if I had known, going through the menu to disable ECM would be a chore while trying to maneuver in combat and keep situational awareness of the enemy. The only solution wouldve been to not use the jammer at all, or be overly careful with disabling it, allowing enemies potentially get medium to long range shots at me.

Yup, Im aware of all those things, thats why im formulating my posts like that. Interesting topic imo, just hard to grasp. Is there actually performance charts detailing this behaviour? Tbh I dont know how to get charts like that, or how to read them.

Bug: If at least one of the AFCS switches (pitch/roll/yaw) isnt engaged, while "autopilot on" is enabled, then the "autopilot toggle" hotkey will not set it to off anymore. Reenabling the AFCS switch does not fix this issue. The button can always toggle the autopilot to on, only its ability to disable it is affected. The switch still works if moved by another measure, eg with mouse click Here a guess, the autopilot shouldnt work if an AFCS switch is disabled, even if the engage switch is set to on. Maybe the autopilot being nonfunctional in that way, is connected to the toggle hotkey not working? Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/ description: 1. Create an empty mission in the editor; place an F14 set to player and start the mission. 2. Disable at least one of the AFCS switches, while "autopilot engage" is enabled. Altenatively, enable the autopilot while one of the AFCS switches is disabled. 3. Now the "autopilot toggle" button will not set the switch to off anymore, and it has to be done another way (eg via mouse click). DCS Version: Multithread preview, 2.8.4.39731 edit: Found the same behaviour in Singlethreaded.

Damn, thats a crazy price. Guess it depends where you live. In Europe you get AMD 6950 XTs for 650€ (or in USA for 650 dollar), and 6800 XT for 540€. Meanwhile 4070TI with 12GB is 830€, what a joke.

Thx, thats a neat video. You rarely see that stuff. Tbf its hard to tell what a good chance means here. An advantage? Or just that both are competitive? I find it interesting that hes talking about "low speeds", and that F-16 seems to perform pretty well at 200 knots. Wonder if thats a super light early F-16AM, or an upgraded one. Feels like in DCS, the F16C is pretty mediocre at that speed, and even struggles to compete with an F-15. IIRC people in DCS found by testing recently, that our F-16C Block 50 actually gets outrated by an F18 to a tiny degree. And Mirage 2000 seems to outrate anything else. Interesting stuff.

Im not gonna fanboy for a company; its just that Nvidia created a pretty big problem for gaming with their low memory cards and huge market share. AMDs 16gb cards are relatively affordable though.

Ah, then you got it already Defo a thing to look out for when you buy new GPUs. 16 gigs of VRAM should be minimum when you buy a mid to high end GPU these days. Especially for DCS and VR. Nvidia especially is a bit scummy how theyre trying to save cents with cutting down memory size and bus speed whereever they can. The result is that their 4060TI is actually slower than a 3060TI in a bunch of games. 3060 had more and still faster memory than a 4060TI, its silly.

Hey, I dont mind being proven wrong by aviation nerds, im writing from the position of relative ignorance. In fact I like hearing from people who know their stuf.^^ Scrutiny als helps me to improve my thought process and communication. I made a mistake in my original post; it said "stores drag", but didnt specify what performance penalty I was talking about. My post wasnt supposed to be about fuel economy with stores; I have clearly not tested that, and I dont think thats a problem for the Hornet. I was specifically concerned about top speed. Especially in A2A situations and BVR, the Hornet seems to suffer from its low top speed compared to the F-16, moreso than anything else (like a weak afterburner and lower acceleration). And considering how fast a fully clean Hornet is, the planes problems seems to come how stores create massive amounts of drag. And its really weird. I mean, from the post before, compare these datapoints: -> 2xMK-84: 617 TAS -> 2xAim120+2xAim9 (clean): 620 TAS Two 2xAim120 in body-slots, as well as 2xAim9 in wing tips, almost have the same slowdown effect as a 2000 lb bomb? I know MK84s are well optimized for drag, but doesnt that seem strange? Ofc its a very different plane, but it still strikes me that the F-16 can have 6x Aim-120, two at wingtip, two at (normally more draggy) underwing slots, and loses almost no speed. Even for top speed I should probably check how the addons affect AOA. Although I dont think those A2A missiles should have a meaningful effect on CoM, and technically I dont think clean slots shouldnt affect CoD/CoL much. Youre definitely making a good point how Hornet wings create more drag at high speed. I guess the big question would be how stores affect that lift/drag, compared to an F-16. Thats where aerodynamics become insanely complated xD

Mig-25 seems more like a "bomber" style design, rather than a true fighter aircraft. Slapped together in a hurry to counter developing american supersonic bombers, to lob heavy A2A missiles at them. Apparently a super heavy stainless steel hull, the high power radar didnt work well, the engines were adopted from cruise missiles... the upgraded versions seem less like improvements, and more like an attempt to make it somehow work. And mind, directly before the Soviets made the Mig-23 as a BVR fighter, and even that had a powerful engine but poor maneuvrability; the Mig-25 would be even worse in terms of agility. Honestly, the plane sounds kinda bad, but Im sure it would be very interesting to actually fly one in DCS. Maybe frustrating as well, but its interesting to take what you got and try to make it work.

I think RAZBAM deserves some criticism, because they encouraged hype and preorders long before release, and then got many delays. They are seeling more copies from hype, after all, its not without profit. But HB with the Phantom seem pretty reasonable? Theyre telling us plane is coming, but theyre not talking too much or make big announcements. I would like to have more info, but cant say they are misleading from anything Ive seen. Thats a solid way to do things, more calm and upfront. The whole idea that the F-15E deeply affects the F4 launch seems madeup anyway. I doubt thats a thing; at most its probably like "at least have 1 month between releases" or so. Thats all just too emotional, imo its best to just not get hyped. Sure, look forward to the plane, but dont get emotionally attached to the idea of getting the plane in a certain timeframe. Dont let future stuff keep you from having enjoyment now. And if HB doesnt specifically promise anything, dont take it like a betrayal if expectations are broken.

Sounds a bit funny, a beautiful place to drop bombs at xD But yeah a big map set in central or south Africa would be amazing. North africa is already a bit on the Sinai map.

You can also open the task manager on your desktop, and take down headset to look. In SteamVR you can use the "show desktop" function as well.

Oh my bad then! If you have a pre-designated target, then guided bombs should always be better, assuming they arent faulty, got correctly aligned and dont get spoofed (eg "fake GPS" signals). The INS/GPS guided JDAMs lose accuracy on greater ranges, but AFAIK it should be much less than dumb bombs at any range. Was that ever a thing? CCRP should be more accurate, because the computer finds the perfect time to release bombs, while CCIP relies on human reaction time and hand/eye coordination. Now, the computer can be off, but both systems rely on the computer to make a targeting solution anyway. So CCRP is better because it limits the human factor.

Okay, Ive actually done a test of straight line flying speeds. Now, I can definitely say the differences are less pronounced than I expected. Maybe its because a lot of my experience with the Hornet is from before the last aero update, which IIRC helped it a bunch. But I did find a big difference in missiles and fuel bags: See bottom of my post for scenario and more numbers, but heres what stood out to me, at 10k altitude, 30% of empty weight in fuel (+full bags if listed) and full mil thrust in straight flight: F16, clean: 627 TAS -> 2xMK-84: 615 TAS -> 6xAim-120: 626 TAS -> 3x Fuel Pod (2x330,1x300 gallon), 6xAim-120: 607 TAS F18, clean: 625 TAS -> 2xMK-84: 617 TAS -> 2xAim120+2xAim9 (clean): 620 TAS -> 2xFuel Pod (330 gallon): 609 TAS -> 2x2 Aim120 (inner wing station): 605 TAS So the clean air speed of F-16 and F-18 is almost the same, im sure thats an improvement after the last update. But heres what stands out to me: 1. MK-84s cause more slowdown on F-16 than F-18, making the Hornet just a bit faster. This is what I would expect, a smaller low drag plane suffers more from the same amount of drag in bombs. 2. Putting 6x Aim-120s on the F16s pylons, slowed it down much less than the clean 2xAim120+2xSidewinder of the F-18. Here the opposite happens, a less draggy loadout had more impact on the F-18. 3. The F-16, with 3x pods, giving it more fuel than the F-18, and 6x missiles, was faster than the F-18 with 2x 330 pods. Again, the F-18 loses from a smaller fuel+bag load, where the F-16 has an easier time handling a bigger increase in weight+drag. Like, does that make clear what confuses me so much? Similar clean speed, and with MK-84s, the Hornet even is faster. Makes sense, same drag, bigger plane is less affected. Yet then any missile or fuel bag issuch a big deal. A clean Hornet with 4x missiles in low drag slots, loses 5 nots, where an F-16 with 6x missile in more draggy slots loses 1 knot. And the fully loaded F-16 with three bags and six missiles is just 20 knots slower, just like a Hornet with its 2x smaller underwing bags. Surely this heavy F-16 loadout here is more drag than two bags on an F-18? Suddenly it is reverted; where the MK84 benefits the Hornet, missiles and bags penalize the F-18 to a much greater degree. That is even ignoring the dragg Hornets underwing stations. Can someone explain me, or at least make a guess why that happens? To me that seems so counter-intuitive. There either must be something big happen (or maybe something is inaccurate, I have no clue). -------------------------------------- Here the more specific numbers I checked. Mind the internal fuel is 30% of empty weight, not of capacity:

I recommend checking your VRAM, its in the GPU driver (AMD is good with monitoring tools) or task manager>performance>GPU memory. That will make it easier to nail down the issue and to minimize it. DCS is very bad about memory usage, and seems to have a bunch of memory leaks. Syria is also much rougher for me than Caucasus, thats for sure. I really hope the further multicore improvements and Vulkan can help with that annoying microstutter and weird CPU usage.

Intersting, makes me wanna look up the Vietnam stuff more. But that doesnt strike me as special. Even the MAR for an Aim-120C is like 10-15 miles for many planes, if I remember correctly? DCS was a big surprise to me with how short ranged missiles are against close targets. The F-16s radar is also kinda poor, but basically always sees a lot further than it can shoot. Probably gonna be the same for Phantom. Even a 10 mile hit with a sparrow would seem pretty darn good. Im sure the radar is up to that in STT, outside of lockdown issue, false contacts, etc. Wonder how much that stuff is gonna be simulated, havent checked HBs F14 RIO radar yet. M2000 is pretty cool about that. Btw, that 12 mile launch, 4.7ft miss sounds like a problem with the radar fuze? Thats extremely close, wouldve been a kill for sure. Also mustve been a pretty darn good shot, considering it was likely fired at some small interceptor. That one actually makes the Sparrow look good in my book. You say that, but I also found the A-4 or Mig-21 to be way easier to handle than the F-14 xD And heck, any of those early to mid cold war jets? Just half-laptop planes, with assists, stability-noobmentation-modes and enough thrust to make up for every mistake. Warbirds, thats where the real pilots are. What real pilot even needs trimming? :^)