stormrider

In the end, all this discussion is irrelevant. How can ECM simulation be realistic when Radar simulation is not and will never be to the point where real classified data would actually be needed. It's easy to explain. Sometime during the last decade I found a really interesting open source sonar simulation code, hardcore stuff, the kind that generate the result in the picture below. Someone before me already had back then, the idea of integrating that code into a game engine as the very first step into developing a realistic submarine simulator. The problem is that these kind of ultra realistic simulations require so much processing that in order to be able to simulate not one, but multiple entities in the same simulated world it couldn't be done in real time. So inherently, simplifications would have to be done, no matter what. This is applies to everything basically, CFD, Radar, even Light (see ray tracing). You don't have real time CFD simulation not even in flight sims for example; they are processed before hand and data tables are then produced. The thing is to be able to use for example, the known radar physics and make it as complex as the processing capacity permits and as close to realistic as possible, or at least a relevant width of its reality, where one can at least get results approximate statistically. ED neglected the DCS core for quite some time now, so these things fell behind quite ways now in more than one area of the simulation. Radar is one of them. On the other hand, now that we know that it's impossible to actually simulate ultra realistic physics in real time and that everything is a model, then the actual "black magic" of EW becomes quickly irrelevant. Everybody knows what a jammer does and we already have a fair understanding of its workings and evolution. It will never be realistic but nor will radars or even flight models for that matter. So once a better and more complex radar model is written, EW can then be applied at least to produce convincible results.

Placeable via Mission Editor.

Fine with me. Brings up memories:

Radar modeling in DCS is very simplified and short on variety. You can check the files yourself somewhere inside the DCS/Scripts folder.

I know nothing more than any other Apache enthusiast. What I know is that it didn't radically changed its tactics. It's an improvement in capability. After all, an attack helicopter crew operating in a contested battlespace don't cruise with emissions on. The glass cockpit obviously offers more in terms of systems integration and crew coordination, and the D systems upgrade offered quite an improvement to its defensive suit, but the main systems and their UID remained basically the same: TADS/PNVS, IHADSS, Hellfire. Perhaps tactically the main obvious change, other than as I stated before about GPS navigating, was that it became a true hunter/killer platform without the need for KW to stick sensor above a tree canopy to spot its targets, it could do it better using only microwaves. But that's a far cry to a radical change in tactics. It's tactics are still the same, just grab some 90s cavalry field manuals and compare them yourself. In the end, that's not the reason why I contest your post specifically. It could have been any other. The reason is that it feels that some people are so discontent with the fact that it might actually be the A that it makes me wonder if they actually know anything about it, or are just too young to be able to fight without glass cockpits. Even the Apache A is still to this day one of the most complex and lethal army platforms ever built. There is nothing wrong with it. As and end note, the only thing wrong is DCS radar simulation, spotting, AI and heightmap resolution so unless they fix them, what good would the longbow suit bring? Edit: Personally, I'd obviously prefer to have the D, but I'd be more than happy, after more than 20 years, to have any model at all, so please people, don't spoil it.

Sometime ago I considered the possibility of replacing my CV1 for a Rift S. In the end I decided it was not worth given the pros and cons. From time to time I try to keep myself updated and I might be considering comparing these two once again. First of all, I love my CV1. It's built like a tank and serves me well within my budget. From worst to bad, the cons imo are: 1- The Touch Controls vs HOTAS: You either hold the controls OR the hotas, there is absolutely no way in between and I have tried. This is my biggest gripe because Oculus Rift does only support one kind of VR gaming control and it's the Touch controls. So there just isn't any other option in market better designed specifically for hand tracking that has native support, that is, no need for more sensors, more cables and more holes on the walls. I mean, ffs, I already 3 sensors staring at me 360 degrees which could very well track generic gaming controllers that would allow for hand tracking AND are compatible with HOTAS, sort like a wristband, gloves or anything in between, anything other than a pistol/sword grip. 2- Sensors: Sensors, wall attachments, usb cable extensions, using most of my usb ports and are only good for tracking the headset and the touch controls, nothing else. AFAIU, the Rift S doesn't require wall sensors, it self tracks using its headset cameras. But can it also track hands using its inbuilt cameras? Cheers

If anything, it wasnt the radar that changed its tactics, but the GPS. Otherwise, please enlighten us on how it radically changed its tactics.

Thats not true. Back when the D was introduced, only a fraction of the fleet had the longbow radar. Its a nice capability for sure, but doesnt means the A wasnt outstanding. Id rather have the A than having nothing at all.

Im starting to think you're right, all normal maps seem to be flipped.

32bits?! why?!

Why?

The problem with EECH DCE is that it didn't take long before one understood its simplified mechanics and realised that units would only spawn at airfields, so to win it was only a matter of fighting against airfields.

I understand your point of view and we're on the same page. IMO, it's nearly impossible to expect different results by doing the same thing. If they are filling their pockets by releasing unfinished modules before others are finished and repeating, then there's no reason to change a "winning team". Also IMO, the only way to make the Core engine a priority is make it profitable, which means changing the very core of DCS' business model. In a way, the current DCS business model is unsustainable: there's only so many new modules that they can release before the costumer base is saturated and worse, there's only so many unfinished modules that they can sell before negative feedback starts to become overwhelming even on top of overwhelming revisionism and censorship, so I insist, the only viable way I see fit to break a monopoly' status quo is to stop giving them money until they fix their ways. Many have already expressed their intentions of not buying any more openbeta stuff and some even are going as far as not buying anything at all anymore. The only other variable in this equation that I can think of is how big is their "fanboy-collector-buy-all-customer-base" and is it enough to sustain their business model in the face of a general boycott? Is the door open for competition? I truly think it is and the time is now.

If you do the opposite and stop buying their stuff perhaps they will have no choice but to stop this promiscuous business model. That's the best way to help ED to fix its ways.

Completely agree with you.

+1

It's not gamebreaking for me, but it's certainly one step forward, two backwards.

You already have 32Gb of Ram. If its burning your pocket, better to upgrade your CPU.

If ever. :smilewink:

It's been already reported that the trim function is over sensitive and over correcting. It rests to see how long it will remain [correct as is].

That's the true meaning of [Correct as is] :music_whistling:

I couldn't care less about airquakers....:thumbup:

You're very optimistic.

IMO, that was a very biased interview.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say, that it doesn't make sense, for it doesn't matter how much you earn, but how much you're left with by the end of the month to spend.