stormrider

This is one example of what is achievable today in terms radar simulation in a real-time game enviroment. It's taken from CMNAO FAQ: https://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#614

This limitation is a myth. There is nothing that prevents ED from creating realistic system, other than their own efforts. There are no laws or rules the prevents them from guesstimating even the most modern of systems with available public data and real physics study. Books on the subject are available for the general public. Of-course, without real classified data and nasa supercomputers, its impossible to simulate this with 100% fidelity in real time so simplifications must be made from the start. The thing is that if the emphasis in DCS was not so much on the eye-candy, perhaps other aspects of military simulation could definitely be achieved, like better sensors, better ai and better dynamics.

As you can see from the code below, radar simulation in Digital Cockpits Simulation is very simplified, so until they implement a better radar model, I think there's no point in having a whole diversity like in CMNAO for example. ["Dog Ear radar"] = { type = RADAR_AS, scan_volume = { azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0}, elevation = {-15.0, 60.0} }, max_measuring_distance = 35000.0, detection_distance = { [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] = { [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 35000.0, [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 35000.0 }, [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] = { [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 35000.0, [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 35000.0 } }, lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85, velocity_limits = { radial_velocity_min = 15, }, scan_period = 1.0,

Apache engagements lacks in accuracy. Several hellfire launches misses their targets about 10 meters too far causing the Apaches to have to re-engage. Some hellfires are launched too high causing them to complete miss their target or self-destroy. Rockets are currently completely useless. When they run out of Hellfires, they make several passes over the targets, most of the time not even engaging targets, just flying over and over again. 1- Mission 1 is set with 2x AH-64D Tasked with CAS, armed with a mix of 8x Hellfires and 2 Rockets pods each and flying at 98ft and 90knots against a Platoon of T-72 (3x) at ~6nm away. Settings: Standard CAS. Result: At some point, the Apaches make contact, start hover, increase altitude and about 10 minutes later engage the tanks with Hellfire. 1.1- Settings: Added at the initial turnpoint: Perform Task > Attack Group > Selected Group to be attack. Result: As soon as mission starts, the Apaches fly a direct course towards the tanks and eventually as expected engage with Hellfires. 1.2- Settings: Added to the inital turnpoint: Start Enroute Task > Search and Engage. Result: At some point, the Apaches make contact, start hover, increase altitude and sometime later engage the tanks with Hellfire. 2- Mission 2 is with the same setup as Mission 1, but the tanks were replaced by a SA-2 Battery. Settings: Standard CAS. Result: At some point, the Apaches make contact, start hover, increase altitude and start engaging with Hellfires. For some reason, most hellfires misses the targets by about 10 meters too far. which causes them to re-engage the targets several times. 2.1- Settings: Added at the initial turnpoint: Perform Task > Attack Group > Selected Group to be attack. Result: As soon as mission starts, the Apaches fly a direct course towards the tanks and eventually as expected engage with Hellfires. For some reason, most hellfires misses the targets by about 10 meters too far which causes them to re-engage the targets several times. Rockets misses the targets completely. 2.2- Settings: Added to the inital turnpoint: Start Enroute Task > Search and Engage. Result: At some point, the Apaches make contact, start hover, increase altitude and sometime later engage with Hellfire. For some reason, most hellfires misses the targets by about 10 meters too far which causes them to re-engage the targets several times. Rockets misses the targets completely. attack_helo_1.miz attack_helo_1-1.miz attack_helo_2.miz attack_helo_2-2.miz

Yes, Lunatic.

I'm also having the exact same issue. It won't include the EW. Here's my setup code: do --create an instance of the IADS redIADS = SkynetIADS:create('Kari') ---debug settings remove from here on if you do not wan't any output on what the IADS is doing by default local iadsDebug = redIADS:getDebugSettings() iadsDebug.IADSStatus = true iadsDebug.samWentDark = true iadsDebug.contacts = true iadsDebug.radarWentLive = true iadsDebug.noWorkingCommmandCenter = true iadsDebug.ewRadarNoConnection = true iadsDebug.samNoConnection = true iadsDebug.jammerProbability = true iadsDebug.addedEWRadar = true iadsDebug.hasNoPower = true iadsDebug.harmDefence = true ---end remove debug --- --add all units with unit name beginning with 'EW' to the IADS: redIADS:addEarlyWarningRadarsByPrefix('EW') --add all groups begining with group name 'SAM' to the IADS: redIADS:addSAMSitesByPrefix('SAM') --add a command center: commandCenter = StaticObject.getByName('Command-Center') redIADS:addCommandCenter(commandCenter) --activate the radio menu to toggle IADS Status output redIADS:addRadioMenu() --activate the IADS redIADS:activate() end Edit: I guess I fixed it by naming the unit with the prefix EW, instead of the group.

This is the same sort of cancer as the time subscription softwares, like photoshop, that has taken over the market nowadays. Before, you'd paid £80 for the whole package. Now, they charge you that for just a single plane. :thumbup:

1- Is it possible to make a SAM operating autonomously to sporadically light up? 2- Is it possible to make a IADS within another IADS in hierarchy? For example: 3 individual sector IADS formed by, let's say, 3x SA-2 + 3x SA-3 + 1x EW + 1x Command-Center and linked together by a central Command-Center, so once this central commander is destroyed, the individual sector IADS stop sharing contacts within each other.

The more you nittpick on eye-candy, the less they work on functionality.

Wait what?

I tried it against a Mig-21 and couldnt hit it whatsoever.

Is it possible to upgrade the CH FS & PT with higher res than 12bits?

I used to have the Saitek X36 before the CH FS & PT. I loved the saitek throttle. Back then it was still Janes Longbow 2's prime time, so the rudder axis built-in behind the throttle handle was very useful. Overall it was a good product, but not very durable. It lasted about 2 years than its pots went rubbish. In comparison, I bought my CH FS & PT in 2011 and I still use them. It begs for magnetic sensors upgrade with better resolution, but overall, the quality is there. It's solid and lasts forever, tho it's not precise enough for example for A2A refueling.

F-16 is currently broken.

Nice video, thank you!

For a flightsim, definitely the heightmap (DEM) is the easiest part hence its low res requirement meaning that many different sources are freely available. The "special layer", also called a thematic layers, is not that much of a problem. One can use a GIS software to automatically classify different kinds of soils and vegetations based on their spectral profiles: There are quite a few good resolution sources for multispectral remote sensing imagery that are free like Landsat or Sentinel missions that will perfectly fit the requirements. Also on the "special layer", there are plenty of sources for vector data, that is, points, lines and polygons, respectively buildings, roads and forests for example, that are freely available and can save a ton of time. For a tank or infantry game, than that's another story because not only one needs fairly high (and expensive) resolution heightmaps*, but also imagery and the proper parameters for each different kind of soil (mud has different physical properties than gravel and so on.). This usually might require some ground truth, there is, an actual visit to the location to collect real data that can be correlated to remote sensing data. *Even high res data may not be appropriate depending on the soil types and radar band, for example, a good res (<10m/px) L band radar has quite a high penetration into soft dry soils, like desert sand, so for a desert map, it would not be approapriate; the resulting surface model would actually reflect the underground: quite useful for archeology where one can see up to 1m below a sand dune. For this same desert map, a X band radar, like Tandem X/Terrasar would be more appropriate. On the other hand, if one has a lot of vegetation its far more interesting to use the L band, for example, so it can perhaps penetrate the canopy of trees and result in a terrain model (vs surface model= DTM vs DSM). Once all this data is processed into formats that can be imported into DCS, the real work begins, I guess. That means, the workflow, the conversion, the importing, the texturing, the tiling, the coding and parameters, the modeling & texturing and placement of objects and finally detailing. I'd say its more time consuming than its difficult, but I could be wrong.

VR no doubt.

Oh no, a "frankenmap monster"! How is this possible in DCS? :megalol:

+1 billion for apache!

Careful mate, they might call it a "Frankenplane" if the version 1234.5 of block 678.9C license plate (D) abc123-de doesn't have it.

I can confirm this is a real bug. Today I rolled back to stable and everything is normal again. Yesterday I noticed that the mission editor had become very laggy, specially in the loadouts menu. Once when I created a Iraqi Mig-21, it completely froze for a about a minute. I just left it there and waited and it eventually came back without crashing; still....

I agree, plus they're making a full Malvinas map.

How? Was it a steam install via opt-out open betas? How much did you have to re-download? I'm asking cause I'm really considering going that route but I hate to have to re-download stuff.

Think positive here lads, at least breaking a promise is better than breaking the game altogether like they did with the last update.

You went off-topic again pal, please use the appropriate thread.