DD_Fenrir

My thoughts: Positive: That 3d Model!!! Sounds pretty good That cockpit! Roundel proportions fixed at last.... thanks guys! Can't wait! Negative: (nitpicky) Roundel and insignia colours not quite right still... need to be a different tone and hue. American stencil font used on serial and squadron codes.... should be RAF types Overall, really looking forward to clambering in the Wooden Wonder and spending my time dodging all manner of flora, fauna, clothes lines and external privies!

Radar as a form of electro-magnetic energy is subject to all sorts of curious phenomena; phasing, constructive and destructive interference patterns and even glinting. You will get all sorts of these spurious returns if you point an airbourne radar at a mountain range; the varied topography, and reflectivity will create vast amounts of interactions and unpredictable returns as radar waves scatter, direct path reflect or rebound off several surfaces. Sure, you can filter a great deal out, but if you get even one spurious reflection that manages to escape the filters in the vicinity of a contact that the WCS is attempting to build and maintain a track file around it will introduce an uncertainty error that could, if large enough, create erroneous track files. How could a return escape the filters? Pulse Doppler relies on the intervals between returns to fathom the speed of a return and if it should be filtered; if one return is delayed by hitting a mountain bouncing off a valley wall then returns at the exact same time that a second pulse is expected to return then how is the radar expected to differentiate? Answer, IT WON'T. Suddenly a terrain return that would ordinarily be filtered is not. Whether this is intentionally modelled by DCS or HB, I can't authoritatively state; however I can state that in DCS looking down or along at contacts in proximity to (not amongst) mountainous I repeatedly find TWS track files to be less reliable than in other terrain types, because I have experienced it repeatedly. For the past 2 years.

And I keep saying it because : 1. I repeatedly in game have more issues losing tracks when looking down at targets with mountainous terrain in the near background e.g. - 4 x Mig-21s at 19,000 ft over mountains with peaks at ~15,000 ft at ranges over 40nm; if I am at or above the MiGs height I repeatedly lose tracks until I am under 25nm range. If I descend to ~16,000ft I get far fewer dropped tracks. I have flown (and continue to fly) this scenario repeatedly for 2 years on my squads dedicated training server and IT IS A FACTOR. 2. From some sources I have read this was also a reported limitation of the real AWG-9.

There is no guaranteed 100% no fail method to keep a TWS track. You can only do your best to mitigate the chance of dropped tracks by doing the following: 1. If possible, choose your engagement environment or draw the enemy to a more favourable terrain - the AWG-9 prefers flat terrain or sea; mountainous terrain can produce spurious returns that break tracks. 2. Skyline your opponent - at launch ensure your at least -2,000ft below your target 3. Launch at as high speed as you can 4. Crank - push the targets to within 5-10 degrees of your radar gimbal until pitbulll (the TTI numbers to the right of the track will flash); the crank should be done promptly but not too vigorously as the radar gimbal motors can only go so fast... 5. Notch - put the enemy on your beam and go low Sometimes the enemy will notch; sometimes they will try to do their own crank to hold a missile solution on you; sometimes, despite your best efforts the track just drops.

I didn't mean to urinate on anyone's campfire by the way - I think DCS is uniquely suited to simulate the WW2 night air war better than anyone has ever done before (if ever!). I'd love to see our imminent FB.VI Mossie converted to an NF.XII or XVIII with ED leveraging DCS's inherent A2A and GCI radar functionalities, with night fighter Ju-88C-6 (a G variant would be nice but perhaps too much work) and a Lancaster B.I and maybe even a Ju 188 or Do 217 to represent defensive night-fighting on the Allied side. The question is commercially whether it is a viable; would enough people pay for WW2 Night Air War additions? Alas (as much as I would like too see it) I suspect not...

At night are you really going to be able to tell a Ju-88G from the Ju-88C we have in game? And given intruders operated in the locale of night fighter bases at low level and bomber streams flew at >10,000 ft and tended to take routes to avoid known Nachtjaeger airfields what would the point of the Lancaster be?

As a summary, spot on. The Tomcat is more rewarding to fly. The F/A-18 is more rewarding to employ. The Tomcat is more limited in it's mission sets - SEAD and anti-shipping for example, whilst not impossible (an appropriately placed Mk.84 will make a mess of anything!) will require far more lenient Air Defences (or exploitation of a system weakness) for guaranteed mission success, where the Hornet can stand-off engage these targets.

Yes. It depends on the nature of the graphical setting you change. Some do not require a reboot of the game engine. Others do. Nature of the beast. It is not only DCS either; another sim that also does air combat suffers the same.

Quoted for truth.

Nonsense. Your ascribing of that behaviour is a symptom of your issue with the a F-14, your attitude towards HB and the Owners of the Tomcat module; it reflects your own toxic filter, one that has been all too apparent from your very first posts in this part of the forums.

Sorry to have to break this to you but development of DCS World and attendant modules does not revolve around tournaments. Ergo, “game breaking” is a highly subjective term. Just because tournaments might regard bug x as an unmitigated catastrophe doesn’t necessarily mean it effects single or PvE play to the same extent, and it’s a guarantee that the latter represents a greater proportion of the player base (and therefore investment) than the tournament crowd. Added to demanding every bug be fixed before release of a product… errr… really? Do you have to have it explained to you how implausible that is?

I asked this before... But a reminder that this is a desirable feature is always welcome!

Use the Jester BVR menu option Elevation by Range & Altitude option; works great for me but over sea or flat terrain. The spurious returns from mountainous terrain can interfere with TWS tracks, and in this case I get low and try to ensure that the target is skylined if possible. This is an authentic tactic used by actual F-14 crews; iirc both of the Libyan shoot downs reflect this.

I have just reached a point where I fear that my own intellect is at risk of incretination by the sheer level of dumbass emanating from this thread, so I’ll be leaving now and I urge anyone else who values their grey matter to follow forthwith.

He did. Several posts ago. Which should have put an end to this nonsense but there’s no accounting for ignorance apparently…

Except people don’t do that; they swagger on in here with a chip in their shoulder making petulant demands in disrespectful tones as if they think they’re modern day reincarnation of lord bloody Beaverbrook. I reciprocate their behaviour right back at them to make a point. Some get it. Others hypocritically call me out for attacking them; ironic.

Welcome to my ignore list azzhat. Your nick is all too appropriate.

I find the sense of entitlement here quite distasteful. VR is not yet a mature technology and - currently - expecting 2D performance/detail from a game engine adapted for and not designed from the ground up to support VR is optimistic at the least if not downright unrealistic. Furthermore, volumetric clouds are also a new technology in DCS, still under ongoing development and mating these two in the engine is always going to be a complex undertaking. To sit there and make petulant demands from a position of having absolutely no bloody clue how difficult, complex or demanding the coding that integration requires is, represents the worst kind of behaviour from this community. VR in DCS has compromises. GET USED TO IT.

To be fair, there's a huge amount of speculation regarding the capabilities of the BRLS-8B "Zaslon" and the R-33, though the ability to supposedly guide 6 missiles at once (whether those can all be SARH types - i.e. R-33s - is not clarified) indicates an impressive capability. Remember also that the Phoenix/AWG-9 is at it's core 1960's technology (albeit partially upgraded) so even given the typical 5-10 year disparity in Soviet-Western Technology, the BRLS-8B "Zaslon" and the R-33 are still more modern, so arguably should be better; the very fact that the Zaslon is a PESA brings obvious advantages. Curious as to what the disadvantages vs a traditional TWS Pulse Doppler dish the PESA has, if any, given that in engineering there is rarely such a thing as free lunch and improved capability generally comes at a cost somewhere else....

Whilst I laud any inclusion that can make any aircraft in DCS more flexible and help represent a wider operational period it is worth pointing out that just because the A-8 is cleared to use EN boost from "July" (that's a very vague date) does not mean that on the 1st July 1944 all Fw 190A-8s across all fronts suddenly and magically would or should have this available. For one, the Jagdwaffe were busy having their backs ripped open in Normandy, their base movements chaotic and the dissemination of this information to unit level highly speculative, and even if received, it could be rightly questioned as to the priority this modification would be afforded when they were under almost daily attack on the ground, undoubtedly struggling for spares and manpower to keep the aircraft they had airworthy as is. I suspect this modification would have been far more representative among the Fw 190A units as units withdrew and re-equipped in August and September.

Over Normandy? I think unlikely, though very much in patrolling the Western Approaches during the campaign. They were based at RAF Portreath in Cornwall, as were most of the Coastal Command Mosquitos; with the fall of France the reason for these units to patrol the Bay of Biscay evaporated and they were moved North to join and expand the Banff wing.

My bet is on this:

Yeah... nah. In the daylight missions typically undertaken by B.Mk.IV Mosquitos during 1942-43 they were flying low and in small numbers if not alone (the Eindhoven Phillips Raid excepted), bombing typically from low altitude. A very different kettle of fish from the long range, high altitude strategic bombing technique of the B-17/24s. Then the maps we have are just too limiting for proper heavies. Crikey, it took the real heavies an hour+ to get assembled then even more to climb to altitude. Can you imagine people flying for an hour and a half just to get to cruise altitude? Then there's the resources it would take to develop; not just one engine, but 4. Not just one cockpit but (usefully) at least 6... No, as much as I'd like to have a go in a DCS grade B-17, I just don't see it. If we ever see a level WW2 era bomber in DCS, it'd likely be a medium and I would bet a B-25, probably a J as it would sit happily in ETO and PTO, plus it would be much better suited to the tactical air power pyrview of DCS WW2 air ops. Even so, I don't hold out much hope. By the way, this fizzle of there being a potential bomber Mossie variant is pure fiction. There is zero chance; the closest variant to an FB.Mk.VI in terms of engines and 3D model would be a B.Mk.IV and even then the differences are huge; different cockpit, with bombardier position; different canopy; different avionics; different control column; the bomber and fighter bomber variants were structurally different, the former having stronger wing structure to cope with the heavy manoeuvres it was going to be subjected to whilst loaded; and yes, whilst the engines might be single stage Merlins they are still different enough to warrant further remedial work to bring to the correct boost settings. Would ED really do all this work for free, for an aircraft which would be obsolete in any WW2 setting we currently can create? The B.Mk.IVs opponents were Fw 190A-3/4 or Bf 109F-4/G-2 not A-8s and K-4s. It would make very little sense. No, if we are getting any further variant it'd be the FB.Mk.XVIII. Maybe one day we might see an NF.Mk.XII or XIII. And that would be cool but would also require a lot of fleshing out in the WW2 assets to make viable night missions.