blkspade

To some extent you can just blame the DCS engine. Certain times it just turns to crap, and no amount of hardware prevents that from happening. It doesn't matter if you're on AMD or Intel, or Nvidia for graphics. That said overclocking your CPU might help some as will a GPU upgrade. Even still the end result will leave you in the teens to mid 20s at best. This is the crap I hope DX11 will resolve, provided its used outside of just the Edge enabled maps.

The most significant difference in general between the i7 and i5 is the increased number of threads. A factor which is of 0 benefit to DCS. Now if it happens to have a faster clock speed, there might be some improvement, but probably not by much, and money could be saved by just getting a faster clocked i5 instead.

From that perspective, you lose the 'additional' SA awarded to you directly by your instruments.

Considering the ET is effective at as much as 20km, its advantage over the 120 comes it requiring visual launch detection. You always have the minute possibility of evading the 120 just by always having a RWR telling to take evasive action.

First and foremost, scanning at 160nm is basically useless as no fighter sized targets will show up beyond 62nm. It also creates a elevation scan gap for targets that are closer to you, that isn't clearly represented on the VSD. As targets pass the midway point on the VSD you should decrease the scan range. Also to help with early detection you should be in high PRF at first. Be wary of high flying Russian jets. If they aren't firing ERs at you while up there, then they are most likely bait and isn't the one actually killing you. Its his buddy on comms flying low waiting for you to climb full ab completely focused on the high guy. Anytime you're sure its 1v1 you want to be out of AB within a certain range of a Su/MiG depending on their altitude. If they're really high its around 20nm, lower then 12-15nm, otherwise you'll be taking ETs to the face.

An Aim-9 launched Rmax (target in AB) does have the benefit of being basically invisible (beyond 6nm). In all likely hood any maneuvering the target does after the launch is only going to be in response to the shooters maneuvering as opposed to any form of intended defensive tactic. A split-s has a high probability driving the bandit into that shot.

I've been getting impressive results out of the AIM-9s lately. There was a time where it felt detrimental to even bother with them, but now I basically never leave home without them. I got like a 6nm kill from medium altitude the other day. My sparrows are now in the wildcard position.

This depends very much on the pilot, but most the time you'll have at least/most 2 120s inbound. The F-15 is highly unlikely to make a 180 1v1 unless the Russian pilot it firing R-77s, even then its not guaranteed. That's also assuming he didn't waste his entire load on you, from outside of 15nm.

I was merely expressing that it has an effect, not that it was actually wise.

Yeah I know I over simplified some, but it was also based on the context of a particular post. Which seemed to me being about delaying a shoot cue, while in a position of disadvantage. His concept of descending while not loosing speed (or effecting closure) was flawed. It implies also already being under the opponent, and probably having not fired yet.

Closure rate has an effect on DLZ, so you can only control this by slowing down. That however will make you less effective offensively.

The experienced pilots are likely defending against your missile while its still on the rail.

Any time you decide to commit to a tail chase you need to be fully aware of the possibility that you're being dragged. General rule is never stay STT on that bandit. Track them in TWS or visually if you're close enough, and scan the area up ahead. Also not having them hard locked presents the possibility that you've lost them and could trick them to recommit.

Yeah I was going to point out the flaw in his logic with the RWR. It works out since the bulk of F-15 pilots don't know how effective briefly turning off the radar can be to convincing a bandit to recommit face first into an AMRAAM.

Yeah everyone who has ever cared to comment after being killed in flood mode mention getting no launch notification.

Yeah, I almost never try for a flood mode shot head on because of the risk involved. It would probably be more prudent to go vert scan from flood to at least allow yourself to maneuver.

It is fun to watch someone uselessly pop only flares and in response to an AIM-7 shot. Against my better judgement I did this head on against a Su-27 the other day just to see how he'd respond. Though me manged to get an r-73 off on me, he seemed to think it was an IR missile coming at him.

Unfortunately the AIM-7 is highly unreliable outside of flood mode. After watching them easily go for chaff head-on against an AI Su-27 barely even attempting any kind of evasion, I'm really not so keen about using them in MP. Though it occurs to me now there may be a bug with AIM-7 guidance when fired when STT is transitioned from TWS. I'm way more confident in being able to get Aim-9 kills than 7 though.

I have pointed this out before, but I know its not common knowledge. Missile in DCS can collide with each other. If you are in accelerating (full burn) there should be no less than 6 seconds between shots in level flight, otherwise subsequent missile overtake the first. If the target happens to maneuver at just the right time in just the right way without out that 6 seconds, the faster missile will track into the other and they'll both explode. I've had it happen several times firing AIM-120s against AI an seeing the missile timer disappear well before reaching 0.

You have to realize the amount of fail in this statement. It contradicts itself. Beside the fact an MMO type game would probably be pushing 1000 players, if you attempting to simulate combat, there would be more than 16 people involved. Take the RL combat simulation of Red flag for example, having like 125 jets in the air at once. That 10-16 limit is more of a flaw than intended implementation.

I really have a feeling the DX9 engine and other inefficiencies are bigger hold ups than the physics and AI. You can have random FPS drops just by looking in a specific direction where something may or may not be going on, but happening too far away for it to be getting rendered. Its also not like there is complex real-time physics modelling taking place either with biggest performance hits coming from being close to many static objects. In a multiplayer scenario the AI elements should be getting processed server-side, leaving the client to receive and render changes, while handling only its own "physics" and transmitting changes. The Low FPS will be huge hindrance to properly enjoying stereo 3D, brought about from GPU under-utilization which could be improved with multi-threaded rendering that DX11 offers. Aside from that DCS works in 3D now except for the fact the HUD gets rendered improperly.

He still kinda makes a valid point. The capacity limit itself is artificially imposed due the potential stability and performance issues. If you add up the player counts from Frostie's post thats 85 players. Imagine trying to have all them on the same server. Sure it might be madness for other reasons, but I doubt it would stay up long. On the days I come home from work and decide I want to fly, looking for populated servers, I'll occasionally catch the 51st before it crashes. I might get 45mins of flight time if I'm lucky before it does crash. The combat is more fun at around 20+ players, but its also going to crash at around that point. I'm sure the 51st does have times where is up for 7+ hours, but how frequently is the bulk of that time with it at or near capacity. I'm also usually one of the first to hop over to the 51st TS to alert someone of the crash if they weren't on the server at the time. Unfortunately that has met much fail for me recently. The dedicated server should be a godsend if its command-line based. At least then if its still unstable the error will spit out to the console and immediately exit and thus allow for the server to auto restart without admin interaction.

My vote would be for something that most functionally adds to the sim. The F-18 makes more sense than any thing, in any form. It covers the most ground of whats missing from the sim in general and the multiplayer experience. With regards to realistic PVP scenarios it makes sense contemporary native craft for Red and Blue. The F-18 makes up for everything the blue side has lacked forever in this sim. A fighter other than the F-15 (3* to choose from on the Russian side), though the Eagle is the best choice. Something to launch from a carrier that isn't the Su33. Something to do SEAD/DEAD that isn't the Su-25T, and something to drop bombs that's faster than the A-10. The F-18 definitely fits better than F-16. If not because its carrier capable, dual engine is also great. Anyone who's played the sim long enough has experienced and engine failure and had to limp back home several times.

Fuel tank logic is incorrect, and has been since at least FC2.

The power of prayer!! Seriously though if spot the launch you can tell if its guiding to you pretty quickly. Ideally you want flares out AB off so it doesn't even starts to guide. I've stared at numerous ETs/73s that will not bite on the flares despite my hardest efforts. Now you can defeat them with high-speed maneuvering instead, but in my experience its one or the other. The most effective approach for one largely negates the other, and relying on being able to out maneuver the missile is really prayer at work. There is also the possibility of misuse. I can get a shoot cue with an AIM-9 at 9nm+ head on if the target is in AB. It will hit only if the target does absolutely nothing to evade. Now the AIM-9 launch is basically invisible to the bandit at that range if they aren't zoomed way in, but I would expect them to maneuver in response to my maneuver post launch anyway. I don't fly the Russian jets, but does it lack the symbology to tell you that you're at RMax for IR missiles? I feel a lot of the time I'm tempted to fire an Aim-9 too early solely because the sensor is tracking the target.