Temetre

Again, I was quoting your comment because your references were extremely crude as well.

Probably limited supply of guided weapons? Desert Storm was the first war they used guided weapons on a large scale, but even then there was like 90% dumb bombs IIRC.

Fact is that targets were engaged that were under no threat of S-300 systems. Despite high claims of this system. If you wanna be more critical, then you should apply the same level of scrutiny to your Saudi example.

Sadly didnt save the track for this one. Training gun dogfights with an F-14 against a veteran AI SU-27, I managed two fights in a row to get hits. Each time I destroyed one of the two elevators, it was completely gone. One time was left elevator, not sure about the other one. But each time, the SU-27 just kept fighting, without any apparent loss of performance. When in reality, im pretty sure that plane cant fly with just one elevator left? And even if there was some way, it certainly should not keep dogfighting as if nothing happened.

Considering how Patriot compares with S-300 in Ukraine service, thats a pretty laughable claim. 2 Su-34s and two helicopters (including EW variants) shot down in a single day, well behind frontlines. Referencing the Israel and Saudi example is a staple of propaganda, but it doesnt actually tell that much about the system. Very substantial data is, as usual, impossible to come by. But those silly high russian brochure numbers for S-300/400 clearly arent believable anymore. Nor is the myth of Patriot underperformance. I suppose mods dont want us to discuss the topic with IRL examples, however.

Uh, I would like that a lot. Making jester point the radar in the right direction, or lock an obvious kinda-WVR target without ACM can be a bit annoying^^

Yeah, the mode of your weapon changes how radar and pods work. Its very confusing.

I dont get at all how you got there. I was using those numbers to show the idea how differences in proportion work. In the most basic way, an F14 is less affected by an Mk-84s drag than an F-16 is by the same bomb. You get it? Because one is bigger. Ive actually read the opposite, that the intake of the F-18 works better at high altitude? And the plane is totally fine when clean. That doesnt explain why the Hornet is affected so much more by stores than a Viper.

edit: My bad, my post was unclear. Im specifically talking how the addition of stores affects the top speed of the F-18. Im not talking about fuel economy, which I have not compared. -------- Not saying anything is wrong or unrealistic, I would just like to understand why this is. I know the F-18 is more draggy than an F-16, and has somewhat weak engines. But the way stores add drag to the plane seems counterintuitive to me, and I wonder if someone can explain it. Below im triyng to explain my train of thought: So you put stores on an F-18, even a single fuel tanks, and it already lowers top speed by a good chunk. Put 4x Aim-120 with the double rack, and youre down even further. At this point it already can be tricky to even get supersonic, maybe impossible to get past the transonic region. Similar story with bombs and other kinds of addons. Yet with any other plane I tried, F14, FC3-planes, Mirage-2000, Mig-21, Ive never seen such a heavy effect of drag. For example, the F-16 handles a lot worse with three fuel tanks and 6x missiles, but its top speed isnt really affected much. Acceleration is slower, but you can go close to mach 1.8 or so at ~30-40k feet, last time I tried it. Even if you dont use full afterburner (which ofc is very high capacity), the speed seems to remain higher. And consider the difference in drag: An F-16 by itself is a lower drag plane than an F-18, but logically I would then assume that the same drag+weight bomb load would have a more adverse affect on the F-16 then, compared to the F-18. Because percentage wise (Im making up numbers), the F16 drag might go up by 20%, but the F18 drag only goes up by 10%. Similar story with weight. Yet the F18s speed seems to go down so much more than the F16s speed. Can someone explain why the Hornet is slowed down this much more by stores? Or do I have more fundamental misconceptions here?

Id be curious as well. After seeing the F-15Es radar from RAZBAM, I really hope they gonna do a work-over of the A2G radar, which is very barebones currently and seems to lacks important functionality. From what I understand, the Hornet radar should have very similar capabilities to the Strike Eagle. Maybe not quite the same resolution and range, but enough to identify vehicle types by radar. Seen anecdotes from Desert Storm of Hornets doing that.

Thx! Yup, thats one of few things Ive heard, thats its gonna be more universal and transferable. Likely coming to the F-14 later as well. Also that the system was rewritten from the ground up. But as to how it differs from V1 in usage, I know nothing^^

Makes me wonder: HPRF is probably best for defending your Hornet against personal attacks. But if you have a dozen Hornets flying around, then datalink might give more situational wareness if everyone is on INTL.

A Mirage 2000-5 would be amazing. Only just trialed the M-2000C, but I love how it feels and flies. So small, yet so speedy and reactive, and even bringing a pretty good fuel load. Its really an impressive little flier, even compared to the likes of F-16s. As much as its a meme to say tho, the plane feels a bit limited in loadout, with only 4 missiles and S-530s at most. Its not a dealbreaker, but its a bit lacking in fitting opponents and scenarios. Id love to get that plane with an up to 6/2 loadout and especially the ability to carry MICAs.

So Ive flown the F-14 a bit in VR, and couldnt really find any specific performance problem limited to the F-14. FPS might just be a tiny bit lower, but thats likely due to the level of detail. Same way how FC3>F16>F14 works out, but its not a massive difference.

I hope this isnt considered spam or so, but its hard to find info yet. Feel free to remove if so! So JesterV2 is described as a full rewrite, but I couldnt find any info on how he controls, what new features he brings, what will change. Have we any Info I mightve missed, maybe on the discord or so? Or is it all secret for now? Going into detail, im really curious about Jester V2. Flying the F-14 convinced me that an AI-copilot (or RIO in this case^^) doesnt have to be a dealbreaker, and can even bring something interesting to the table. Especially Jesters ability to spot in air and ground, make callouts, or manage nav entries is pretty neat while im flying the aircraft. I'd be very interested in what design direction Jester V2 will move now, compared to V1. More refinement? Or more features? A different control scheme?

Have you checked your frametimes? Open the perofrmance-monitor in DCS to check. When I get ghosting, its almost always coinciding with bad frametimes. Mind that Pico4 is rendering at a higher resolution than a Rift+S.

Well, Ive now found this issue as well. As soon as the game is "out of focus", everything is smooth, but íf not I get horrible stutter. Just constantly skipping frames, despite the actual shown average FPS hardly changing. Not sure if this is just limited to DCS tho...

If I understand correclty, then Heatblur actually bought up TrueGrit. So Id expect the EF development to be more integrated, and HB is putting its name on that plane (and its reputation on the line). Also probably gonna be integrated into HBs development frameworks theyve set up with the F-4. Interesting to hear that about the Fighter Viggen tho, that explains a few things. I wonder how long that denial is ago tho. With the F18/F16/F15E, let alone EF, the required standards must've changed, they mustve gotten more confident in modern modules based on limited documentation? Maybe HB could make a fighter variant these days. Tho they seem to have their hands full, with F-14 not finished, F-4 incoming, EF2000 in works. Now they even announced an A6 intruder. And of course even the JA Viggen still being EA. Now my mind is working tho... what if Heatblur made an F-14D and JA Viggen as buyable addons or so?

That might be a memory issue than, AKA your GPU memory being full? If your VRAM is maxed, and you turn your head, your GPU has to load new memory, causing stutter. Id check if its full in a flight, and if so, try lowering textures till your GPU memory isnt maxed. That shouldnt make the experience more pleasant.

Ive seen ghosting, and I "think" it might be caused by bad frametimes. So the F-14 cockpit being more detailed, or taking more memory might cause worse FPS/instable frametimes? I find FC3 aircraft more stable than an F-16, for example, for likely similar reasons. I just found a really strange VR performance issue yesterday tho: If the DCS game window is centered, I got ~58fps and horrible frametimes. But when the window was in background, it was 5fps more and very smooth frametimes. No clue what it was caused by though.

Just a little followup, I bought the F-14 in the current sale. The cockpit seems to work perfectly fine in VR. Some really worn labels are hard to read and I have to get closer, but its only little worse than in 2D, and everything relevant is there. Funnily enough, I can even kinda read (half-guess^^) my TACAN number. Im really enjoying how much audio-visual feedback the F-14 gives me, adds a lot to the immersion of flying in VR. Managed to jam the flaps on my first takeoff, was quite the adventure. I did get to land safely tho, even if there mightve been drifting involved. Thx again for all the answers

I totally misunderstood what you were saying. That was a disagreement about my numbers, which were indeed off. Somehow I thought that was a suggestion, which confused me^^ Agreed. I was going with more normal sizes, since 27 inch was mentioned, assuming 16 by 9. Im sure things differ with 32:9, let alone curved 48 inch screens. Thats where vertical FOV becomes more useful.

edit: (yeah I missed the point here^^) Maybe my numbers werent completely accurate, but youre just using different numbers and say its "wrong" because they obviously lead to a different result. Distance from screen varries, but it certainly should be furtehr than width. Most recommendations Ive seen are ~80cm or so. So using this calculator, 27 inch, 80cm, 16:9: https://www.fov-calculator.com/en/ Thats 42 horizontal, 24 vertical. Close enough. If you go super close to the screen, maybe 50cm, then its 62 degrees horizontal, 37 vertical. But good luck using a FOV that low in a dogfight and keep situational awareness, youre having tunnel vision.

No, the science doesnt varry with "mileage". For 60 horizontal FOV to be realistically scaled, you would have to sit 30cm away from your screen. Otherwise things look smaller than in reality, its that simple. Either way, I have explained it to you a few times now, the geometry and tech is objective. If you dont wanna accept it, thats your issue. But itll remove you from any serious discussion about the topic. Not that I mind at this point. And thats just pathetic, reacting to facts with personal attacks. Not that it would make you look any better otherwise; but Ive written purely about the objective science behind vision, screens and scale, there was nothing personal in there to even attack.

Yes, VR is amazing at how it really conveys how "off" scaling is on 2D screens. Ive learned that first by looking at the Unreal 1 editor, noticing that halways were like 6-8m high compared to my player model. Even in VR games where you can move, I noticed that scaling is still bigger than in reality. Presumably to support the clunky stick-movement and interactions. Otherwise you'd just get stuck everywhere and get a claustrophobic feel. Game worlds and simulations are still heavily limited by technology, both on screens and in VR. But then again I dont just wanna be negative, flight sims especially can be an amazing experience despite all the problems