Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by maturin

  1. Something about the launch FX of ATGMs (when looking through the gunner's scope) is causing severe framerate loss. This makes it impossible to steer the missile for several seconds after launch. There are no particularly detailed FX visible, so there must be a flaw in some of the graphics here, to create a loss of 10-15+ FPS. That's a sign of trouble regardless of system specs.
  2. If you have a bit more patience, try these tracks as well. Watch the first few minutes of 'bldng' and watch Humvees lob tons of TOW missiles uselessly into houses, because they see straight through them. Then watch the last few minutes as my tank gets shot through an entire village. I forget what's in track 'bldng2' bldng.trk bldng2.trk
  3. Here's a track. The T-80s immediately spot the Abrams through the building, and shoot it. For the second Abrams, I take control and kill it by shooting through the building with a sabot. It isn't necessarily unrealistic that the AP round goes through a small house, but it is unrealistic when a round goes through a whole factory. There are lots of different building models, and many are glitched. Some have LoS blocking problems for AI, and some have physical geometry problems (can't shoot/lase near them because they are bigger than their 3D model appears to be). bldng!.trk
  4. If I get around to it, but if you haven't experienced this, you just don't play CA.
  5. I just played a mission for several hours, and lost more than one tank from AP rounds going straight through large structures. This dynamic is pretty clear if you turn the labels on and watch them fade in and out. LoS geometry clearly doesn't match the visual geometry of buildings, although some models may work better than others. Basically they shoot at you through the building until the building becomes ethereal, then then shoot you. It stands to reason that all buildings suffer from the bug where they become ethereal, though. So it makes more sense to hotfix this than track down every geometry problem in every Caucasus asset.
  6. Trees seem to work great at blocking AI LoS. The same cannot be said for buildings. Ground units usually spot you through walls and then pound the intervening building with cannon rounds. At a certain point the building becomes ethereal (it runs out of hitpoints, I guess), and they kill you. So you can't hide behind buildings because you will be killed by enemies that you can't see. This could be fixed by making even 'dead' buildings block projectiles. Also, it would be worth your time to make sure that physical geometry actually matches the visual geometry of buildings. At least on the square corners. Nothing like trying to shoot at a tank and hitting an invisible wall instead. Lastly, vehicle collision for trees should just be turned off, because it is so broken. I spent like 10 minutes stuck between two saplings. There's a reason that even games like Arma allow tanks to flatten trees.
  7. I just strafed the hell out of a column of AAVs, scoring dozens of hits with four gunpods. None of the APCs suffered any damage, and the log recorded no hits. Track attached. gunpods.trk
  8. I would like to see a Phalanx or Kashtan CIWS hit a target while the ship was engaged defensive at supersonic speeds...
  9. This newest update broke a bunch of key bindings for me. Now I can't access the score screen in-flight, and chase views don't work either. I'm afraid to find out what other controls have stopped working. Both keybinds I mentioned are untouched in the Controls menu, at (\) and (`) respectively.
  10. 3 on a good pass, but apparently that's an exploit. If you fire Vikhrs from 10km, you will never get hit by an IR missile that is located at the target. Usually you can get away with two. The range is good enough to make you untouchable if you are patient and don't have trouble locating the target. Loading Kh-29s and Kh-25s just make me feel silly, on the otherhand. A flying brick in search of overkill. Myself I really like the racks of 4 FAB-100s. Spread like a cluster bomb, but they hit tanks harder and have none of the fiddly behavior.
  11. Destroying an S-300 site should be a massive PITA. Tor and Tunguska attached to S-300 sites used to try and defend it from ARMs. Now these massive weapon emplacements are utterly defenseless and won't lift a finger to save their own lives. So there is a clear regression from earlier patches. Edit: AHA! It appears that Tor will shoot down HARMS, but not on Average skill level. With Excellent or Good skill they presumably have fast enough reaction time.
  12. Every DCS World patch tends to change the ability of modern SAMs to defend themselves from PGMs, and 1.5 is no exception. One major change is that Average skill SAMs tend to ignore PGMs heading their way. If you want challenging SEAD, be sure to put all SAMs on Excellent skill. S-300 and Tunguska don't target HARMs or Mavericks.* Tor target HARMs if they are on Excellent or Good skill level, but not Average. Tunguskas target Harpoons, Kh-29Ts, Kh-58s if they are highly skilled. They target Kh-59s with guns, but do not target AGM-154s. S-300 targets Kh-31s, and Kh-58s, but not Kh-25MPUs. Tor target Mavericks, Kh-59s and AGM-154 JSOWs, HARMS, Kh-25MPUs and Kh-58s, if they are highly skilled. Human controlled Tor can target pretty much everything except bombs: HARMs, Harpoons, P-700s, Kh-58s, Kh-22s, Kh-25s, Kh-31s, Kh-59s, Kh-35s, AGM-54s, AGM-119s, AGM-154s and AGM-86s. Even S-300 and Patriot missiles can be acquired and launched on! GBU-10s cannot be targeted, which presumably applies to all bombs. Human-controlled Osa can target Kh-29Ts, Mavericks and Kh-25s, but chances of success may be slim. Player Osa can also knock down Kh-59s and other cruise missiles. AI Osa don't target missiles.* Naval vessels will shoot Tor and even Osa at Kh-58s. Naval vessels will shoot Tor at Harpoons. Naval vessels will shoot Tunguska at Harpoons. Naval Vessels will not shoot S-300 at Harpoons. Patriots target all ARMs, but not Kh-59 cruise missiles. Besides the skill issue, one major takeaway is that bombs should be valid targets for modern SAMs. S-300 sights also really need to defend themselves when there are no Tor in the group. *Why on earth wouldn't Tunguskas and Tor attempt to defend themselves from Mavericks? As it stands, their only weapon is stealth, since A-10s can launch on them from beyond their max range. Fixing this would not unbalance the game, since Mavericks are still quite effective against Osa once you're inside the launch envelope slightly.
  13. Honestly, there's no point modelling the initial launch sequence of the S-300 down to fine details when the 3D model of the system itself has like 10 polys and flat color textures.
  14. New beta, new crashes. This one should be pretty easy to nail down because of the highly specific circumstances. I plopped an S-300 on the map and flew towards it with my SEAD-equipped Su-25T. After looking on to the radar emission, I turned on the Shkval. When I pressed the button to zoom in, I got an instant CTD. (This was crash log 20151005-204356.dmp.) The other crash was in similar circumstances, but I didn't notice the precise action that caused it. sead ctd.rar
  15. :notify::notify::notify::notify: I watched this track with my own eyes! Surely the replay feature isn't so screwed up that the mission can be entirely different? The Flanker only had ERs. And Tigar: When last I checked (admittedly long before 1.5), the jammer worked very well against MANPADS. The success rate was way north of 50%, if it was a pure tailchase situation. Edit: I just watched the track again to verify that it is working. I should point out that the Flanker also displayed some rather suspect AI decisionmaking. It would shoot one single missile at me, then swerve away to extend the range. This may be good for BVR, but it's a silly thing to do when you are chasing a slow ground attack aircraft. Worse yet, it did not realize that the missile had missed until several minutes after it whizzed past my cockpit. The ERs had to actually impact the ground before the Flanker would return to the chase and fire another one at me.
  16. This is a really amusing track! The Su-25T's Сухогруз IR jammer served me well against MANPADS in the past, so I decided to test it against IR-guided air-to-air missiles. As you can see in the track, an Su-27 with a full payload of R-27ERs and x4 R-60s can't even come close to landing a hit in a tail chase. As an added bonus, the AI ends up slamming into the ground while chasing me with guns. So an unarmed Frogfoot ends up taking down a Flanker that was bristling with missiles. IR spoofing.trk
  17. Has the Patriot shot down an MLRS rocket? And was it a classified rumor or are there details? As I've heard it, the battery was operating in automated mode because the crew was taking cover in a bunker. I assume the designers weren't crazy enough to let the system launch autonomously, so neither the firing aircraft nor the HARM were ever in any danger. And what about the S-300 and S-400, along with the Tor and Pantsir. Have the Russians done any tests that prove their systems' capability? I notice that the newer S-300 and S-400 SAMs have longer range than any ARM around.
  18. Well, right, it's winner-take-all DEAD. But if an S-400 can really defeat a volley of upgraded HARMs with ease, than wouldn't it do so? Keep the radar emitting, knock down the HARMs and go after any in-range strike aircraft simultaneously? Well that's interesting to know, and is exactly the sort of information I was looking for. My Google-fu failed to turn up any details on anti-PGM tests from any country, so this topic is really fishing for links. What tests? When? One article I forgot to link in the OP concerned a proposed live-fire anti-ARM test for the Patriot. But it was an article from last year, sort of suggesting that it hadn't been done before.
  19. I'm sure I'm not the only Su-25T driver to be very surprised when I first saw the game's modern SAMs (Patriot and S-300) laugh in the face of SEAD, deftly intercepting all manners of anti-radiation missiles. And then you have the nigh-invulnerable naval vessels, with their RIM-whatevers that knock down absolutely everything. I've also been playing CMANO, the average scenario of which involves multiple billions of dollars of missiles splashing multiple billions of dollars of other missiles, thwarting enormous saturation attacks. Even ancient SAMs from the '60s and '70s have a fighting chance at taking out incoming PGMs, jets happily plink ARMs and cruise missiles with heat-seekers and SARH. It all seems a little too good to be true, and I can't help but suspect that the real technology is either unproven or operating at a tenth of that level of reliability. I know that purpose-built Patriots have a mediocre wartime record of intercepting ballistics missiles (large RCS, high velocity), and AEGIS systems can easily deal with cruise missiles (small RCS, low velocity)... ...but has any land-based SAM currently in existence ever actually knocked down a small, fast target as an ARM? In a proven test? Or are these capabilities all just mathematically predicted? I can't find any publicly available evidence, and can't see why countries wouldn't want to prove the anti-PGM abilities that they brag about. A video of one HARM exploding in mid-air doesn't give rivals any actionable intelligence, so why keep it classified? Edit: And concerning Aegis, has it been tested against the supersonic P-series cruise missiles used by the Soviet/Russian navy? This article seems to suggest that US navy's missiles still don't tackle low-altitude supersonic targets. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/non-standard-navy-sm-6-kills-cruise-missiles-deep-inland/
  20. An A-10 too fast and agile for a Stinger or Strela? Do you imagine that MANPADS in the '70s were a slingshot-based technology? Underestimating outdated weapon systems is a cardinal sin of warfare.
  21. maturin


    Amazing production values and fantastic beginning, but damn it went downhill fast. There were a lot of top-notch scenes and moments, but always with some pitfall to mess it all up.
  22. Probably, but no one in the Air Force wants to be the one to take that bet and risk blundering into a massive unplanned SEAD operation.
  23. Only inside Syria, I'm sure. Where the air defense system probably still sort of works.
  24. Yeah, but boys in the sense of 'dude.' Most often you'll call someone a normalny patsan, which is sort of like "he's a solid guy." It's definitely a slang word, and one that sort of hovers on the edge of the vocabulary of prison-inspired male subcultures. It's almost like the officer was referring to his homies, only patsan doesn't necessarily denote friendship.
  • Create New...