Temetre

Idk, I believe it when I see it. Most companies struggle to even provide reasonable headsets below $1000. Meta/Pico headsets are probably among the few strong "budget" headsets, but they are a) nowhere on that that level, and b) heavily subsidized to buy market share.

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but im pretty sure AA weapons and radars actually stop shooting below 50%, I think tanks got damage states too? So theres definitely a code base for behaviour like that. Problem is more how the AoE damage is just completely screwed. Like, the Soviet S-24 missiles actually got an AoE effect, and for that reason alone they are a very viable weapon on the Mig-21 of all planes. Im fairly sure even 500lb bombs have an AoE effect, they do damage on a miss. But for some reason they have AoE radius of a handgrande. Not even joking, seems like beyond 10m or so those giant bombs seem to do zero damage. Idk, rewrote my post cuz I dont wanna rant on ED too much, but I find that really disappointing. Seen someone from ED write "if we want to do fragmentation, we want to do it seriously", but thats little consolation for most bombs just being kinda useless. IRL Desert Storm F-18s literally carried 4x2000lb bombs on their first strikes, shot down some Migs, and dropped them on an airfield. In DCS those bombs are just sad. Btw, if you wanna try how even a basic system can make the games munitions so much better, theres a splash damage mod. Very basic, yet it makes so many near useless bombs so much more viable. Of course, it still doesnt fix MK-20 or AGM-154A submunitions.

I guess best you could do is just cuise at a specific altitude/speed/load (temperature/wind?) and note down the displayed fuel usage. Should be easy to set up in the editor. Then put it into an exel spreadsheet. Probably kinda fun to do? Its not an exact science, but you always wanna keep a margin anyway. Realistically what you ask for probably cant be done easily by a configurator, considering each loadout will create a different kind of load and drag profile. Slightly differently affect AoA at any different speed/altitude, which has a bunch of additional effects. Each update might break calculations. But getting ballpark numbers by testing should be possible.

Thats been mentioned before, apparently its how the IRL missile behaves. I was more thinking about the guidance and general capability. Even the Aim-120 has so little reliable data about it public, and I'd imagine the R-77 would be even harder to get any good data on. It seems like everyone is just saying "its like an russian equivalent to Aim-120", but thats such an incredibly vage statement.

Main scenario where Aim-120s seem nearly unbeatable is when you majorly outrange the opponent. Especially when facing off against semi-active missiles with less range. Attacking plane doesnt even need to use radar if its got AWACS or other "spotter" fighters backing it up. Thats just such a massive advantage its hard to overcome, probably even in reality. But that doesnt mean the missiles has to be unbetable in any situation.

The Mig-21 style datalink is basically GCI remote controlling the plane via autopilot, isnt it? I think some Viggens and other planes also had features like that. Thats quite different form datalink sharing information to increase situational awareness or even directly enhance combat capability. Very limited use-case probably, and can be jammed.

Maybe Soviets shouldve developed better missiles if they wanted to be competitive in DCS. Jokes aside, DCS is trying to be realistic, and showing realistic missile performance. R-27s just arent that great; I thinks similar to modern Aim-7s at best. Best thing Russia/China has is R-77s, its like a worse Aim-120. I think Mig-29S and J-11 (chinese Su-27) can carry it. And honestly, who knows if the R-77 isnt overperforming either.

Btw does anyone know how the radar vaguely works? Does it create a kind of "3d image" where the missile tracks a specific vehicle shape/signature? Does the missile track signatures pre-programmed or just something designated just before launch? What happens if eg a tank turns from 90 degree to 180 degree angle, which would change the image a lot. I heard some missiles (eg the derived brimstone) can even automatically detect and identify vehicles with TOO shots, which sounded kinda crazy. Its kinda hard to imagine how exactly a radar seeker missile would work. It could be both very basic, or incredibly complicated, depending on the sector capability and software employed.

Aight so I understood correctly, was just confused for a sec xD I remember hearing they Litening was only used when F-18s were started from airports. I suppose the "never flare" rule isnt that consistent then?

Thanks, I never knew about that! Is this the point about flaring specifically about flaring on carriers, or when flying land bases? I mean it depends on the specific limit, I would assume? Theres limits to make sure an airframe lasts 30 years, which might become less relevant in a war where you actually get planes shot down. Recently read about the Forrestal fire, pretty neat example where the US navy and its sailors, under stress of war, adopted a bunch of practices that went way beyond even common sense. Obviously after that the restrictions got taken way more seriously, but its still an example of trying to make do with what you got.

Have you guys checked your GPUs VRAM and PCs memory? If you switch perspective, and suddenly performance decreases, it might be because the memory is overloaded. Or its memory leaks, who knows.

Okay, now youre just being dishonest. Ive given you the benefit of the doubt, so how about you return the favour? I called it "obvious", but before I was more specific with "so clearly seem wrong". Because all evidence points to it being wrong. Ive pointed out that I dont have exact evidence for the speicfic situation, but everything creates a "seemingly" obvious picture of the 3 second blackout being wrong. Im ready to accept my assumptoins being wrong if you can deliver contrary evidence. And thats just sounds so biase. The maing thing youre doing is just to disregard every single bit of evidence brought up. "Its so situational I cant accept your points", yeah how about you actually do something useful then and bring a good counter-example? And no, I dont care about civilian pilots, I dont care about pilots without G-suits or training, nor about people not prepared. Youre just giving vague annecdotes and seperate studies and claim this matters. We are talking fighter pilots, and you cannot even accept the discrepancy between 15 seconds of 9G being part of normal pilot qualification, and our F-16 pilot not just losing capability to act after 3 seconds, but literally the brain shutting down. Its like youre claiming any military or producer buidling extensive 9G capable planes are actually stupid, because pilots cant do that for more than 3 seconds. They shouldnt even try considering how quickly their bodies fail. Blue Angels pilots taking 10G for 3-5 seconds, my 11.2G example, ever direct example I bring is directly discounted by you. You cannot even explain why my example is wrong, you just say you arent convinced due too some aribtrary level of standard you want before even thinking about what this means. Among your G-LOC studies, have you also seen numbers how often G-LOC doesnt happen at 9G? Because if G-LOC happens its often considered an accident, or a mistake made. Because pilots are trained to sustain this, thats why regular centrifuge training is a thing.

Ty I check it if I got issues. I supposed with a flier as popular as the F-14, theres always gonna be cockpit liveries to improve readability. Seems mostly useful for RIO work, now that I look at it.

Ah, here it is, 30 seconds and 9G. What a machine! Gripen pilot apparently. Or take this, Air Racer pulling 11.2G apparently. Even if its for half a second or so, thats way more brutal than 9G, and hes just continueing his precision flying afterwards:

I mean your answer kinda sounded like all or nothing to me, on bare face. Like as if players would have to fix it, even if something seems too bviously wrong based on all the earlier discussions and evidence. Thats why I put that what you said to a logical extreme, where it would clearly seem silly to both of us. Because I didnt think you ment that, I gave you the benefit of the doubt^^ Correct me if I wrong, but didnt we have posted evidence that in a spinner, an F-16 pilot would need to endure 9G for 30 seconds? And a Eurofighter would need to endure it for 15 seconds? Thats a pretty massive starting point, even if you consider adverse factors in real flight. I think our pilot in an F-16 cant even take 9G for 3 seconds without starting to black out, literally loss of consciouss setting it? Thats seems clearly extreme. If that was real, then even the logic behind making 9G planes would be questionable. And pilots have pulled 12G for a second or so, which is MUCH harder than even 9G. I think F-14s have logged 12G, and sometimes the plane broke, sometimes the pilot recovered it. So I would wonder what data EDs current G-model is based on? I almost wonder if its an outdated legacy system or so. I dont got good evidence myself, or know how to find it, thats difficult to do in itself. But eg this one is a german documentary about pilot training for a Eurofighter, repeating an often made claim: http://idlw.de/duenne-luft-und-schwerkraft-teil-2 (my translation:) "With Introduction of the Eurofighter, it became important to give Pilots the ability to train multiple-G forces in a safe environment on the ground. The pilots have to proof, that they can bear 9G for 15 seconds, without limitation of their capability to act. That is extreme sport." edit: Uh this is good, a pilot posted her initial 9G training on youtube, so even a less experienced pilot I assume? This is >9G from 0:6 to 0:22, if I see correctly. Googling for "g-qualification" seems pretty solid. Here its 0:35 to 0:51, another 15 second trip. Its brutal, but this is 15 seconds, reports no vision loss. They seem to bear it pretty well, frankly. First clip ends early, but the guy is pretty quickly back up to speed.

So are you saying we can pay 80 bucks for a module, but shouldnt expect the dev to do good work, even cover the basics? It sounds like youre saying we should expect nothing from the devs. Which im sure you dont even think, but what you say just sounds kinda ridiculous like that. Totally with you on F-16 underperformance, thats difficult to judge, but the G-force thing? Thats been talked to death anyway. People who know more than me have done so, over years, and only a while ago ED said theyre looking into it.

Tbh its a bit tiring that we, the players, have to bring up factual data for things that so clearly seem wrong (g-force, not F-16 performance)? Thats the developers job, and the modules are so dang expensive after all. I dont mind supporting development, but obvious issues like some of the G-force stuff (especially F-16) they should be able to figure out themselves, as soon as the issue is brought up. Preferably with a temporary "fix" till we get a more realistic simulation or they find better data.

The F-16 is a smaller and lighter plane, probably shape and center of mass optimized for light loads? The plane seems optimized for a very specific dogfighting regime. At least logically, it seems to make sense that it suffers more from its aerodynamics/weight/CoM being thrown off by heavier loads. That up high, those tiny wings perform worse, and that the center of mass/instability being off is a bit of a problem. Causing inefficencies with AoA/flight surface position for stable flight. I remember hearing a Eurofighter could gain >10% range with thrust vectoring engines, just because engine thrust could line up better with the plane when cruising. F-18 seems to have much wider wingspan and more body lift to rely on. Ive also heard the Hornets intake function better at high altitudes. Also, do we even know the actual thrust depending on altitude, speed and including intake performance? People always cite some base numbers that dont really tell much about the situation.

Its more a good "budget" headset, but apparently one of the best wireless headsets out there. Has slight compression (like all wireless headsets), but its actually not bad at all. Im pretty confident now that itll be enough. All good to hear. I do find it easier to use needles in VR, its kinda funny. Almost like finally you can use gauges like theyre supposed to be used^^ I do like my fiddling, be it the god tier F-18 avionics, or making primtive A-4/Mig-21 avionics work, but personally I find it enjoyable to take a break and just drop work on Jester. Not like hes doing anything meaningful back there anyway, just pushing buttons :^) (stick monkey most important monkey!)

Sounds good indeed. My Pico4 has slightly higher res and lenses, so im sure its just fine. What would be annoying to me is if during a dogfight, I had to zoom on the speed gauga to see if im 400 or 450 knots, or if I had to zoom every time to see the range/atltidue on an enemy on the HSD radar display. If hud elements/numbers were hard to read. Maybe if reguarly checked instruments like navigation coordinates/range were hard to read. On many plane cockpits in DCS in VR I just dont need to zoom at all, havent even bound the VR zoom key. Which is really nice imo, tho I probably should use it sometimes. BTW are you guys actually manually setting your TACAN on a F-14? I always had jester do it during my trial, I found the TACAN number difficult to set on the weird circly thing with my mouse, even in 2D. At least with A4 its much easier to reach^^ And honestly I just like to make Jester do it. I like my solo-pilot fliers, but with the F-14 Heatblur actually made me kinda enjoy having a co-pilot, have him do TACAN, NAV coordinates or spotting. I hope Jester v2 means I can make him do much more math and busy jobs. Like, Jester, calculate me fuel range, remind me of the bomb table nonsense, make me a coffee.

@BiggusNeat I think Drac got it? Im pretty sure when I flew the F-14, I had the pilot disabled by default.

So 10-12km visual detection range, if you vaguely know where to look? Seems about right. I think without the "dots" people actually found DCS spotting range is too low compared to reality. Eg in BMS they use distance-based scaling lend from IRL flight simulators, to make planes easier to spot visually. In DCS you either see dots too far away from low resolutoin, or the actual plane is harder to see than in reality.

I suspected as much, but the original question was if that makes your PC VR-ready^^ Btw if you get the choice, check if you can get a 5800 3D or so. That huge cache might help with the stutter, which is the biggest CPU issue in DCS VR. 7800 3D even better, tho AMD has some issues with that right now. Now technically the 6800 XT should "work" in the PCI-E 2.0 slot, but no clue how it would work in reality. Im actually using that kind of GPU right now btw, seems pretty good for VR.

To be completely honest, I would not try VR at all with that system, its a lost cause. DCS has weird high CPU requirements and framerate inconsistency, and your FX 8350 probably cant deliver anything but a miserable experience. I got enough issues with an I5 12400, which is probably >5-10x as fast or so. Generally, with that CPU, your likely slow memory and PCIe 2.0, dropping a 6800 XT on that would be a massive waste. Idk if it could even deal with the power requirements. Id say upgrading your PC to an I5 12400/Ryzen 5600X should be the minimum, and then you can consider an RX 6800 XT.

Wow, thats a great post. I wondered why the F-16 felt so unnatural sometimes. Especially the difference between control inputs at 350-500 knots, and 200 to 350 knots always really threw me off. Suddenly the same input I would do for a reasonably hard turn would throw me to 20+ AOA. is that normal? Im not sure if its any more correct or not, but I found in BMS, the F-16 flies way more like a conventional plane, less explosive and more predictable.