kdubz

Thanks. The issue is the actual missile performance in game. An AIM-54 vs an AIM-120 is the example I gave. The WEZ in the jet is just style points. Having the missile actually fly and function at real unclassified ranges is what needs to happen. Since one developer can make a missile work better than the rest regardless of actual missile performance is the problem. This leads to the numerous folks flying F14’s and J11s because they can exploit the issue I just mentioned. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All, First off, DCS is an amazing product. It is extremely complex and always getting better. I applaud the developers / programers working diligently to make things better. Since there is a huge disparity in BVR missle capabilties, why not set them as equal and see who the better tactician is with their airframe? (Think Stock car racing) This would make PVP much more enjoyable instead of getting shwacked by a AIM-54 at 30nm. (There is a reson these are not in the inventory anymore and I love nastalgia.) Of course, DCS cannot keep up with all of the missile types and modeling changes with actual intel, this would provide an equal playing field for all. I can elaborate further if required. I know each ariframe is different, but the DLZ for example in the F-16 gives no credit for loft. In fact the ASC is often at the bottom of the ASE when the adversary is above you. As you climb in altitude the DLZ "grows" and RPI occurs at a longer range. 30 - 40NM is standard range for the first SOO. The current AIM-120 model doesnt get close to that even at 40k and 1.3 mach. Like in real life, the missles operate differently than many of the DLZ's are modeled and this is also true in the sim, so the aircraft dont need to be perfect. I am hoping for a more level playing field knowing this is a sim and a great one at that. This would allow the powers at be to focus on aircraft improvements and bug fixes and not have to be intel experts modelling missile flyouts. Creating a few classes of BVR missiles would work as well. Keep up the great work and send spears! - Just a thought from some random fan. v/r, kdubz

I wish. All of these aircraft are EGI equipped and it takes about 4 minutes to get the INS portion of the EGI to align. GPS is used to keep the INS from drifting via positional updates provided to the INS through a Kalman filter. (Most INS drift about .8 NM / Hour without it.) Most of the newer jets have the same system, but you can taxi while it’s aligning, but the system gets more accurate as you taxi. This speeds up the ground ops portion. The other option is to a stored heading before shutdown. Upon the next start up you get a quick align in 2 ish minutes to a full and accurate system. I hope this helps. Kdubz Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doing a real IFA requires about 6-9 min driving straight and level and it’s more of an EP. The normal practice is to get an alignment before departure. This is possible in your normal ground ops time. The intent of the message was to add a quick align option for all platforms in DCS. Kdubz Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrench, True. Just think of trying to shoot a Huge airplane down. You want the missile to wait to get to all of the parts in the middle. Hydraulics, Engines, Flight Controls, and things. On a fighter size target we're only talking a 15-20 feet to get to the above soft points. Hope that helps.

True. This applies to all of the modern airplanes in DCS, but each one is modeled differently. Hope that helps.

Gents, The RCS is to accurately display the DLZ (Circle) in the HUD. The DLZ is an estimation and not truth data from the missile. The missile will open its eyes earlier on Large RCS and vice versa on small. It helps the jet with the proper timing and range for the missile to go active. (Husky or Pitbull) You do not lie to the missile with RCS. I doubt this setting has any effect in DCS because of all of the calculations made behind the scenes to make it "work", but I could be wrong. Size is exactly what munckmb is saying. It is the delay time for the warhead to detonate after it detects a target. Large size=longer delay. Better Pk. v/r, Kdubz

Agreed This is not throwing spears at DCS and I completely agree with you. You should not have to trick them game to get a quick align. I think you should still have to perform the switch actuations, but not have to wait the time. A checkbox in the options menu would be great. The fact that you can get it in the Harrier proves it can be done and is fair. Great point! v/r, Kdubz

Full EGI/INS alignment HereThen, This is a great question. From the nerdy side of things, you don't taxi or takeoff without a fully aligned INS. The jet gets all of its positional data from the INS/EGI(INS with GPS). Pitch, Roll, Yaw, and Location. The airplane is able to fly without this data, but you would not have a horizon line in the HUD, a Flight Path Marker, and your Navigational Displays would be blank. (This includes all the weapons ability for reference as well.) You would not normally taxi without a full alignment. Depending on the model of EGI some jets can begin realigning when they stop in the EOR. This is not normal practice, even for an alert launch. Doing an IFA after takeoff is an option, but you are all in if it doesn't work. (real world) You also have to fly straight and level unaccelerated for 50-100 NM. An INS is required pretty much all A/A (minus the AIM-9M and unguided Bombs) but you will have no reference to drop CCIP or CCRP (coming soon). You would be Manual bombing with no Pipper. JDAM's wouldn't leave the jet if you pickled. AIM-120's would not either. Keep in mind we haven't begun to talk about GPS Jamming. Currently the A-10C is meched exactly to how the system works, while I have not tried to fail the system in flight to test it. However, I appreciate the 4 minute wait time which is very realistic, but I like the quick align in the Hornet, because I want to go fly. I can simulate the fact that I would sit on the ground 3 more minutes. I wish this was an option in all of the INS/EGI equipped aircraft and I don't think it detracts from the realism. I hope that helps answer your question. Most of my experience is in F-16's which utilize the same EGI as the A-10 and F-18. v/r, Kdubz

Good Work! Thats pretty slick. Nice work. Lord B

Same Issue Resloved Gents, I was attempting the upgrade installation with 2.2 and 1.5 previously installed. At the end of the download I was getting the "server capacity error". Per c0ff's referenced FAT issue, I verified my format was NTFS. I ran the repair DCS.exe and I had the same download errors. (12,xxx mb of 6,1xx mb.) This was also followed by the "server error". I referenced the log and it revealed the same file mismatch size errors at the end and it quits. In my case it was the Normandy map files at about 4 GB of 6GB. I opened the old version of 2.2 and uninstalled the Normandy module and reattempted the repair. This time the DL was only 1600mb and the progress bar during the download was accurate. The repair tool worked and 2.5 is now installed correctly with the Normandy module installed as well. I hope this helps. v/r, Kdubz

The discussions above don't fix the issue. Trimming for airspeed is standard and hardly addresses this issue of the basic FC3 Flanker intercept mission starting with that amount of nose down trim required. It should be set by default since the mission starts at the same alt / airspeed every time. Also, has anyone else experienced the negative G Out of controlled flight and immediate blackout issue?