blkspade

So what been going on with the lack of updates to NTCR? The last new module the Eagle had an update for was the Huey. The F-15 can ID AI F-5s and F-18s, but not the flyable models. All these there is currently no ID for: Mi8, Viggen (also a U on RWR), AV8B, Mig21, F-18CLot20, F-5e, J11 (technically still a flanker, but unknown), Gazelle, Also the Mirage.

Since lofting is completely about extending range, it makes the most sense from 40nm. Its failure to get to the target are from other issues (like pulling 9gs out of the loft at 22nm to target). Considering 120s do in fact pull hard into the target out of the loft at ~22nm, is a good indication of why they won't loft at or near that range. Under a certain range lofting would be less efficient since it would only make the missile take a longer path to the target, which would get you killed in a joust. The AIM-7MH can hit a non maneuvering target at 40k' 38nm when lofting, and also won't loft at 21nm. No reason the 120 shouldn't perform at least equally to this.

Still not working. Viacom hears me correctly, which wasn't the problem, but will pick whatever is physically closer. In the example below the Inbound request went to Kolkhi instead of Kutasi in game. { 10:42:15 PM - TX4 | AUTO: [ Kutaisi ],[ ],[ ] Inbound [ ] [ ] 10:42:15 PM - Constructing message... 10:42:15 PM - Specific recipient called, instant select mode = True 10:42:15 PM - Have result, identified as command : Inbound 10:42:15 PM - Captured sentence: inbound 10:42:15 PM - Recognized : 'inbound' 10:42:14 PM - (awaiting additional input) 10:42:14 PM - Have result, identified as recipient : Kutaisi 10:42:14 PM - Captured sentence: kutaisi }

This function exists also as an IFF method. Its technically only closer to real life when one side doesn't posses airborne assets, and as such can fire indiscriminately.

So I've noticed that the latest version seems to longer care about call signs. Tested in both the hornet and the eagle, Viacom detects me saying "Magic" but will ignore it in favor of what might be closer if there are multiple Awacs or EWR ground stations. It also seem to think Easy comms is on when its not in the config screen. A particular issue in the hornet is that it doesn't immediately register your request on the first button press, often requiring multiple presses.

I don't know if its technically a bug, but its been something that I picked up on a long time ago in the F-15 with 120s. It happens specifically if you are accelerating while launching. If you space subsequent launches out 4-6 secs (or slow down), it mitigates this behavior. You're basically giving the next missile a boost to overtake the first, while taking a near equal flight profile.

Technically you can do this already, if you have an Oculus Rift and use Oculus Home.

This now enters an area I've complained about at length a long time ago, complicating MP mission design. The predetermined fixed slot system is stupid for multiplayer missions. Its a system that's painfully obvious was designed for static single player missions that basically had multiplayer shoehorned in. The UI in general has never been very ergonomic for MP use. A much smarter system would rely on the already existing warehouse system that simply says X Aircraft exists at Y airfield or not. Per coalition Then automate spawn locations. Then Waypoints could be simplified as either one set per coalition or per role. The aircraft load-outs are already determined by the ME role option, but are just spat out in one continuous list. You rather instantly remove a lot of work that would go into building (and maintaining) a dynamic MP mission.

What is this imaginary advantage you speak of? Short of entering a combat zone without having remembered to your master arm switch (your fault not theirs), by the time either is ready to employ weapons on the other all things are equal.

All the aircraft data exists individually in the game regardless of how they're packaged for sale, so nothing has to change support wise.

Something with a variable geometry wing probably wouldn't accurately represented by a static value in the first place. Perhaps they'll move entirely to a ray traced radar model for player aircraft.

I see almost no point as an FC3 owner except if you want non clickable versions of the added planes and haven't gotten the full standalone modules, and/or haven't purchased the new maps. I'm almost expecting that it'll be the only option offered for getting FC3 to the new DRM model.

The very specific problem that exists with the HUD scaling wise (also in F-15) is when shifting your head backwards the text gets larger to the point that it doesn't all fit. This also happens with the pilot helmet as seen in the mirror of the F-15, to where it basically consumes more mirror area as you move further back from it.

For the time being simply cycling to AA mode or weapons switches you to 4B & 8Secs.

The DCS AI in general has blind spots equal to that of a human pilot, based on line of sight with the cockpit and range. So an IR missile from 6 oclock low would go unnoticed.

Between upping the pixel density and lowering the IPD you should easily find a setting that works for you in basically any cockpit.

While what you say is absolutely true to running across multiple versions of windows, the use of Microsoft C runtimes doesn't outright exclude Linux. Visual Studio 2017 supports Linux and cross platform development. Heck even the use of Vulkan seems to even offer native (or near) performance in Wine (according to what I've seen of Doom 2016). I know it would be a huge undertaking to try and support a Linux binary though on top of everything else, and probably isn't likely to happen.

https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=497

Doing that effectively STT locks dead space, if you're lucky the radar will auto lock something, but the radar will no longer display contacts.

Why are you guys guessing at trim? Between 8-11 degrees nose up, which you can see in both the FCS page or checklist page.

Rmax was initially fixed at 26nm. Seems they changed the Rmax onscreen indication, but not the actual logic that allows for weapons release.

Given the example from the video, the default state is just that all contacts are unknown, until either passing or failing the IFF interrogation. The transition is likely the result of a confirmed failed IFF response.

I'd be interested to know if they'll model it both with and without the CFTs.

Supposedly, many of the the F-15C's internal systems are actually fully modeled even though we can't interact with them. If true, the missing part would be the avionics suite, and maybe licensing. I would definitely be on board for a full F-15C due to my preference for Air Superiority against actual human opponents, as well as performing CAP for human strikers. My interest is in the Hornet goes about as far as the potential for HARMs and carrier ops, and it being first to market before the F-14. The Eagle is the superior platform for Air Superiority. Having the hornet does mean retiring the A-10C for the few moments when I'm in the mood for ground attack (with better odds in self defense). There's barely any challenge to ground attack as it is, and the high speed just makes it even easier.

They are both issues that feed into each other. Fixing one would greatly alleviate the issues generated by the other. The problem is there is actual data (official docs and independent CFD modeling) to point at aerodynamic failings of the flight model that has continued to be ignored for years. We have nothing to compare the guidance logic against other just saying "its stupid". We think the logic is wrong, but know the drag wrong. Altering a couple parameters to match known data to me seems simpler to me than guessing at how guidance is handled in the real world.