blkspade

JHMCS is not a requirement for the use of the Aim9X. Even with just radar cueing at gimbal limits it would vastly outperform the 9M against a turning target and improved range head-on.

So it was brought to my attention (Thanks Mustang) that the cockpit glare issue is solely attached to having shadows turned off (possibly even on low as well). Which is unfortunate as I preferred them off for increased performance in VR.

In game its easy enough to extrapolate targets with the data provided. Using things like target speed, detection range and location. If you can see and lock something outside of 60NM its something large or a striker. Under 150 knots a helo, or well over 1000 knots at low altitude a missile. Missiles also completely lack a NCTR designation inside of 24nm, not even UNK. Speaking of NCTR, its becoming increasingly annoying that we aren't getting updates for it when they release new modules. Like the F5, where an AI one does show up, but player ones don't. I think the Huey is the last thing added with only the A-10C before that.

The DCS AI is stupid. Nothing you can do about that. In TWS they do indeed only focus on one target, as they simply don't have to logic for multi-target engagements. That might also be connected to the AI logic that only fires a single missile and won't follow up until its obvious that it failed to intercept. Don't feel too bad since the enemy AI is equal as broken. The only way to get around it is to wait for them to confirm engaging your PDT, then drop the lock to engage the other yourself.

The 7700K only has a 6.2% IPC advantage on the 4790K, by which the the 4790K @ 4.7 ties the 7700K stock. The 8700K is basically the same IPC as the 7700K, and getting it to 5Ghz requires water.

So its been months now that the F-15C has had 3 annoying bugs, that continue to go unresolved. 1:) WP range is missing in the HSI, its just a black box. 2:) Light seems to be coming up through the cockpit floor, causing a glare on the canopy completely whiting it and the hud out when banking the aircraft at certain angles away from the sun. 3:) The altimeter freezes when climbing or descending through 32000-35000 feet and causes an offset of something like 6000 feet off of the real altitude. This also seems to have a supplemental effect on the the fuel flow gauge.

Your data on the TDC not effecting elevation is a bit inaccurate. If you have elevation mapped to an analog control then the TDC does indeed cause elevation shifts.

Either way you look at it, the workload will be split. You'll have the guy in the front "Doing some of that pilot sh!t", While the RIO is working the radar. A human is likely ultimately going to be better simply to being able to issue commands to in a more immediate nature, and the AI is still going to be limited at BVR to the direction the plane is pointed. No way will an AI RIO be some massive advantage. Even now the AI only reacts to either what it receives by sensors or what has line of sight with the canopy/cockpit. The AI is complete child's play to compete against, because they will never be as dynamic as a person.

The most meaningful change to come in newer VR iterations is native resolution, which like even for 2D gaming is really only effected by the GPU. The only point at which the CPU demand will go up is in software/games making use of more threads, or some massive increase of average object counts which is a completely independent variable of headset capability. Case in point the 6700K and 7700K have pretty much the same IPC, but the 7700K is clocked higher and 5GHZ is pretty much the ceiling given thermal constraints.

This isn't absolutely true. They are still fixing apparent bugs, and adding yet another AFM for the Su33 this time. I wouldn't count on much happening radar wise though. There is an issue with the prf functionality, or various.

In any server that isn't strictly Red Vs Blue, Tomcats will ultimately just be longer ranged Eagles jousting each other until one crew makes a mistake. Everyone one else with just use/learn Flanker/MiG tactics of beaming until close enough to deploy their own Fire and Forget weapons. This works now against AI tomcats using FC2 physics Phoenix missiles. So the human flyable versions adhering to a potentially more realistic physics model, will probably be even easier to deal with in a fighter. Probably will still be harder in Russian fighters, especially if they lack datalink. AWACS would be completely indefensible though, having to instead fallback to EWR. Which itself would have to be defended against Hornet SEAD strikes.

There have always been problems with the core mechanics that need to be completely changed for carriers to work. Those need to be fixed regardless of whether or not the want to charge something for the carrier. For example the ability to spawn on top of another aircraft should be completely eliminated. Spawning as pilots as opposed to planes would make more sense, as well as removing the spawn to catapult function. The act of ejecting spawns a controllable pilot which is ass-backwards. The sim clearly has the facility to know when a runway is occupied. So if catapult spawning isn't eradicated at the very least round-robin lock them with a timed queue.

It's a bit of a joint limitation. For instance using mirrors roughly doubles the object count as far as the built-in stats indicate, which will result in more CPU overhead. This does mean more is ultimately being rendered at the same time, which hits the GPU. VR is more GPU dependent as the scene is now being rendered twice, with slightly different data for each eye.

Nevada is where a lot of simulated combat happens IRL, so it makes tons of sense to virtually simulate such activities. Pretending you're not actually killing anyone should be relatively easy...

Frostbite, Cryengine/Lumberyard, UnrealEngine, IDtech, Vulkan/DX12 are all examples of gaming technologies that obviously make use of 4+ CPU cores today. Ryzen platform updates have been slowly closing the gap and even occasionally surpassing Skylake.

Have you tried playing with the pixel density? I don't personally do much CAS, but I recently did the P-51 A-G quick mission and had zero problems with the rift.

There is a 4 second delay with the RWR memory.

You really think I'm the one burning in that scenario? Naw I got tone one day on a flanker at that range (medium altitude), FOX-2, split-s engaged defensive. Since I didn't F3 he just kept coming at me, so boom. I not sure if he knew I was an Eagle, but if so there is generally little to worry about i terms of IR missiles, or so you'd think.

Eh, yeah my bad I miss read a source that said 2004, but that was actually international shipments.

LOL, yeah. So often I would be turning my head one way or the scanning my surroundings just to turn back in just enough time to see that ET smacking me in the face.

Considering the AIM-9X went into service for both the USAF (F-15) and USN in 2003, and the supposedly AIM-120C-5 we have in game was purchased after that, it would make sense that they enable the F-15 to use it.

Dude, the current AIM-9M can kill a non maneuvering afterburning target up to 12nm. A less draggy more maneuverable version of that will be BA.

Yeah for those with decent enough SA (or at least AWACS)to catch me barreling down on them with any confidence that I have them sorted then yeah its easily escapable with preemptive maneuvering. I won't be noticed for sure until burn through, and tews will tell me if the bandit(s) I'm looking are looking at me. Its the ones that aren't that are most likely to die. Few of us in the 104th regularly rely on the gamey methods of missile evasion, Mav included.

While that would take like almost no work in map design, current carrier ops implementation is weak and there are like Zero naval WW2 aircraft in the sim. On 2nd thought in order for the map to really be adequate you'd need the Hawaiian Islands, Japan, and maybe at least Southern China.