blkspade

I can also attest that there isn't an issue spotting, unless of course its an F-5 you're trying to spot. They are the hardest followed closely by the Mirage and Mig-21. I'm almost certain the M2K has/had a LOD gap that renders them invisible.

In reference to the F-18, it does seem as though you can alter the operating parameters after locking a contact. Like the bar scan, azimuth (in 20 deg increments) and contact aging, which seems to sometimes delay the loss of lock for a slightly harder bank to one side.

This isn't really relevant even for multiplayer. There are times when a picture is more useful in MP environment, since it applies to everyone at once. Like you said, you're not the only one flying. For example, your closest bandit might not be the one flanking to kill your AWACS. The AWACS is a more important asset than any individual player flown aircraft. If you know your own BRA from bulls (like you should), it spits out a wall text you could still extrapolate from. Obviously it should be used sparingly, but it isn't logical to tell someone not to use it.

Well the sensible and realistic way to handle this would be a damage model that includes hook damage. All other things suggested, make zero sense though as they are artificial limitations.

I was pretty sure the original document posted called for an aerodynamic range of 53nm from 40kFT M2.0. If you fired at 53nm against a head on non-maneuvering target the missile wouldn't even have traveled as far in the first place by the time it reaches the target. Max relative range suggests that's how far it would actually have traveled to intercept in that scenario, meaning there should be energy to spare at that point. However I'd imagine the firing platform would likely need to have closed the gap to be hitting the target with enough energy to effect the sensor range, but the document is rather specific to the F4 in that regard.

Yep, I've totally been locked up on the ground by a hornet.

Well the elevation wheel is modeled it like it is in the real thing, its just that the real one is spring loaded that recenters itself when released. I suppose this is extra annoying if TWCS rotary doesn't have a center notch. Have you tried using it without target installed? Its possible that target itself is conflicting with DCS control setup.

I think you misunderstood the question, which is something I answered before it was asked. There is only one version of every missile, which is platform agnostic. So the same missile performs exactly the same on all the planes capable of employing it. That's what they were asking.

Excellent, thanks.

G-induced loss of switching(ness), might be an apt description as well.

I broke my CMS switch clean off in a gravity related incident, and was able to purchase a replacement switch from thrustmaster.

It would be kind of hard to break the actual grip though, considering its solid metal construction. Now the buttons and switches could be broken, but are individually replaceable parts that wouldn't really warrant a need to replace the whole grip.

What are you even talking about? If you mean that they wouldn't be real fighter pilots, well no they are actors portraying fiction so duh. However most if not all the actors in action scenes where indeed actually in the jets in the air experiencing G's. The most inaccurate thing about the movie was the portrayal of Top Gun as some sort of competition, which it is not. Well that and the "Mig-28", but I'd imagine getting their hand on real Russian hardware would have been too challenging. The movie still single handedly led to a huge rise Naval enlistment at the time. Which ironically enough the US military is hugely in need of more pilots right now.

Its one thing if happens with contacts that are in close proximity to each other (which is at least plausible), but I've had it switch from a 10-15nm contact to a 60nm coctact. Having switch between close contacts with more than 10 degrees of lateral separation is quite frustrating as well. The radar doesn't seem to be working on any kind of fixed logic, when I'm trying to figure out a way to "game" it so to speak. Sometimes it seems like it wants to follow the TDC, but will then randomly do something else.

The thing is without any MLWS, it would have no way to determine and respond to an IR threat.

Except it should be, considering its an example of when the engine is in most need of using more cores. Especially considering they claim a huge single player base and this is the kind of performance that comes out of paid campaigns. Getting 100+ frames is meaning less when there is literally nothing going on besides your own jet. I already know completely why my GPU isn't loaded, I wasn't asking. I can indeed find times where the CPU has more going on after messing around with some other missions, but still when the area is quite sparse.

That's not a super useful representation of performance. Unless you want to fly alone on a completely empty map. its easy to get good frames in that scenario. Load up a campaign and see what the frames looks like, with AI and static objects.

If this is true then something must be broken with my install, or its somehow disabled. I rarely see my total CPU package utilization exceed 15%, and print screened a single instant it hit 19%. I've seen higher during mission loading, which is like IO/decompresion related. This in the F-15 BFM campaign on the ground, where my CPU is barely loaded, nor is my GPU (1080ti) very loaded but the FPS is low. This is without VR, where as with VR these missions are at 22 FPS anywhere near the starting ramp.

So I just got one about an hour ago. It's my last .old one now. It seem like there is a possibility that 2 people try to spawn at nearly the same time and one person gets stopped from spawning in the same spot. Then crashes trying to change slots or going to spectator. dcs.log.zip

You're seeing windows bump processes around different threads around, and perhaps some of the Nvidia's DX11 driver using more threads. DCS itself is not. You would see something like 40+% CPU utilization if DCS was using 7 full threads. I have a 2700 which is around 15% utilized at best.

Depends on your focus. If gaming and only DCS, probably not. The 8086K is just an 8700K with a stock boost to 5Ghz, that'll probably need very decent cooling. With decent cooling you could probably push the 4790 to 4.8. The TIM on the 4790 has probably hardened by now causing higher temps, and could benefit from a delid.

Upon landing on field or carrier, countermeasures don't get loaded, nor does it seem you can change them on initial spawn.

So the carrier bug causes a crash to desktop now.

Not all CPUs will reach a given frequency at the same voltage, which means temps may vary. The Ryzen+ CPUs TjMax is 95C. You could theoretically get near that doing prime small fft and be fine because real world average workloads will never get anywhere close. My 2700 only gets up to 4150Mhz, hitting 84C with small fft, where as cinebench maxes out at 72C. It requires 1.388v and is cooled with a Noctua NH-D15.

Yeah, ok. So noobs shooting down airborne assets don't matter. The lack IFF gets you killed in more ways than one. Relying on AIM-7s greatly increases the need to fire before the other guy, if he's hot. If you have the the advantage of pulling up on his 6, then yeah close in to VID. I did just this since my target wasn't on TS or SRS. As he turned 90 deg and I followed, just as I got in range and ID'd him a flanker pulled up on both our 6's and ET'd us. Having IFF (heck NCTR) would've allowed me to break lock immediately for a chance to catch the sneaky 27. Declare doesn't function (not even in the menu) in the F-18 with AWACs, unless you're talking about a human GCI.