Eihort

Also, don't base your ability vs others via youtube videos. Even at full screen and in "HD", the various interactions between the codec, compression, artifacting, and transmission, not to mention they're probably down converting 4k to HD, you're not going to see anything representative of what they actually see on their own monitors at that scale.

Apparently this "black dot bug" is caused by SRS. Any idea when it might get fixed as it's really damn annoying. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186471

With a name like "SRS Stand alone" you'd think it wouldn't install anything into DCS....

FNU's got the best solution so far, but then the problem is trying to determine what each pod is capable of, and as this thread, and many other threads comparing various systems and their capabilities (missile discussion anyone?), you're going to have a lot of people who know very little about it claiming that it's wrong. Still waiting on F/A-18C and people think this is going to be done well, timely, and for free? Pick one and only one.

Some of them are referenced by their NATO designations, both code name and system number, while listing their Soviet/Russian designation. The Soviets didn't tell the world their designations for their own systems, so NATO developed their own naming system so that their own people would all be on the same page when discussing them. Each "Surface to Air" (SA) system received a number as they were identified, and then the entire system as a whole had a "G" code name. SA-2 GUIDELINE SA-3 GOA SA-6 GAINFUL etc. The individual pieces also had their own names, especially the radars.. SA-3 LOW BLOW Tracking Radar SA-3 FLAT FACE Search Radar SA-6 STRAIGHT FLUSH Tracking Radar So in your table, "3" for example is the SA-3 LOW BLOW tracking radar, and S-125 is the Russian system name, however "S" for "Search Radar" for the associated S-125 system is a separate search radar called FLAT FACE by NATO. 6, 8, 10, 11, etc. are the NATO SA-# names Same with the SA-10 and SA-12 S300 series SAM systems and the BIG BIRD (BB) search radar system. Some are a little more obtuse, like the "40" for Spruance class ships, as the system they're referring to is the "SPS-40" which is a search radar. If you want to know what they are exactly, Google and Wikipedia is your friend.

Velcroed, so I can take them off when I'm using a KA-50 or Su-25T setup, the entire lower screen is the shkval.

The problem would be kind of what we're suffering right now without a proper multi-role on NATO without an F-16/F-18 doing DEAD with HARMS, and then on the reverse not having long range SAMS like the SA-2 and SA-5. You're only simming part of what the over all environment would be which leads to artificial advantages and disadvantages in the system that don't exist in real life. Dedicated jammers and other ESM equipment on the ground and airborne, C&C and GCI, comms issues, etc. are some of what's missing. Those systems, even at a slightly raised level of fidelity would be in an artificial vacuum and wouldn't necessarily make it better, and in worst case, add more holes that the community would also then demand be filled. It'll be the issue with the M2k radar doing the "space invaders dance" and then the FC3 aircraft just a bearing of noise turned up to 11. How exactly are they supposed to justify the development time and expenditures to develop this and then what? Release it as part of a free update to the system? If they try and release it as part of an expansion, good gravy can you imagine the poo storm on the forums? And then how would they integrate it with those that didn't buy it? You'll have servers having to choose between locking players out, or keeping an over simplified system and more occupied player slots. You can see something similar right now with people flying the full fidelity aircraft next to the FC3 in PVP. All that time to get into the air to get blown away by someone spamramming who took less than a minute to get into the air on a taxiway take off.

I'll just repost what I put in this thread ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170600 ) in the sim research section: I'm only going to say I know a thing or two about this stuff. The problem isn't just simply "Hey, let's make it more realistic one thing at a time." Once you breach a certain level of complexity with just one system on one aircraft, you now have a whole host of variables that must be applied to all aircraft/systems in order to properly represent the EW environment, and allow the more advanced EW techniques beyond noise jamming to have purpose. We're talking every pod (external and integrated like MiG-29 and F-15) and every radar (ECCM). What's the point if you're going to add velocity-gate/range-gate techniques if the radars you're trying to jam don't have the proper victim response or ECCM response modeled? Let's not even get started on individual blocks/versions of radars and what was added to them for ECCM. Some of these variables include what's the jammer set to jam, because a lot of them can't do everything they're built to do, all the time. A lot of times, this is only configurable on the ground. What exact channel is each individual A/C operating their radars on so they don't interfere? How fast does a particular pod figure out what it's getting hit with and then counter? There's -so- many variables, the complexity of the sim will increase exponentially the more aircraft you throw at it. As "trollish" as GG sounds sometimes, he's asking very pertinent and important questions, to which the answer will almost always be "I don't know, and there's no way we can find out, because EW is the blackest of black boxes, next to the radars themselves." So where does this leave the game? Break it down into the most basic ideas. 1. Since all ECM on player aircraft is self-protection, what capability does it provide? It denies a shot and/or fouls one taken and obscures what the aircraft is actually doing. 2. Can this be counter-acted upon? Yes. You either burn through for the most part or develop techniques in the radar to automatically or semi-auto sort itself out. The later requires an individual radar to be a generation, at least, ahead of the system that's trying to jam it. It's a constant back and forth between "measures" and "countermeasures". 3. Do pilots have control over what these systems are doing? No, not really. The system is either on or off for the most part and all the signal analysis and transmission is almost completely automatic, and most functions are only able to be programmed on the ground. Often, some intel officers are the ones that determine what capabilities the pods are loaded with, based upon ELINT in-theater. When you distill what's going on to the above, the current model, while not realistic, provides a decent abstraction of what's going on, in a way that's manageable for the developers to implement. Remember, especially in multiplayer, you have people borking up all the time in the A-10C their individual aircraft IDs. Now you're asking these same people to throw a jammer on their aircraft and, should we stick to realism, figure out what to load it with so it's useful in the field? It would be a cluster bunch, and a bunch of radars operating with identical settings messes it up for everyone. It wouldn't be up to the pilot, but the mission planners anyway, especially in Russian doctrine. It's hard to justify the value-added vs the cost and effort of further developing the EW environment, just to get nearly the same effect of "Push to WVR to nullify ECM".

Pile into this thread, as it's not limited to just VR. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186471

Okay, I love the lack of official response to this... but anyway, I have a theory. I noticed it's in the same 3D plane as all the other text boxes on that side in VR. I have a feeling that there's some errant part of these windows that's generating the dot for some reason. Like the entire thing is supposed to be transparent but for some reason this one tiny pixel of them isn't. Which is why it's not relegated to strictly VR or 2D. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it for now.

The bonus dollars are absolutely worthless and I don't know why ED is using such a half-assed and restrictive reward system. I have like $60 in bonus and have never been able to use them.

FSX. I'm dead serious. Get her actually flying (Take off, pattern, landing, navigation, etc) before throwing anything like a combat aircraft at her.

Nope. DCS is the only program it appears in.

Upper left, is a black dot. At first I thought it was a dead pixel on my monitor... but it is visible in screen shots so I know it's not a dead pixel. Here it is at different zoom levels in the screenshot. It looks like it's part of something bigger. This also appears inside the cockpit as well, irregardless of which direction I look, so it's not dirt on the canopy or anything.

I have the same thing, except black, but outside VR. It is visible in screen shots so I know it's not a dead pixel. Here it is at different zoom levels in the screenshot.

In other news, Tacview installed, no wait times for recordings.

Things like this are why the server is now pure client, and will get you kicked and banned. His buddy Sky-Sword even came to complain that we wouldn't let them cheat. Also had infinite ammo going too. While he was on, the entire server was suffering massive lag spikes.

We could do a Fauxlands MP mission! Harriers vs M2ks and Viggens! DEFEND THE FLEET!

Your pushing realism on one hand and have no way to achieve that in the other with the F-117, F-22, and F-35 platforms. So much is classified and so little is known, just look at every thread EVER started on them on this forum and nearly everyone only wants it if it's done right and everyone (somewhat mistakenly, as there are some things every other module doesn't do for the same reasons) says it can't be done right. Then you go on to talk about a sim that's put together by what is no doubt a very talented and charitable team, but they're working with something that's incredibly dated at a very base level, and takes the average experienced user something in the neighborhood of thirty minutes to figure out how to connect with multi-player, and even then have to put up with "<ThatOtherGame>isms". Their controls menu is god awful to work with. The object models are schitzophrenic with awesome looking F-16s and a Nike-Herc system made out of cardboard models. Another strike against realism is that they don't model a system unless the know everything about it, so things like ECM break their own rule by only getting "Close enough". Plus you have other aircraft that have the same radar shoe-horned into them, no matter what they are. There are some things it does -incredibly- well, such as IADS modeling, just having an F-16, and the dynamic campaign, but these aren't things that are completely exclusive and could appear in DCS at a later date. It's not even close to what DCS has accomplished for the average user. They're completely different products, aimed at almost totally different people, and I'll be amazed if they can ever pull off VR support as they were never able to get simple 3D stereoscopic to work. That other game never has and never will be a threat to DCS and ED in the flight sim market, ever. No, the sim doesn't have to stop in the 80s, however, that's one of the most interesting times and one of the most well studied, and now that multitudes of information is being declassified about planes from that era allowing the kind of in-depth simulation the average DCS user wants, we're going to see more and more modules along this line. The A-7, F-14, F-18, the MiG-23 and the Mi-24 -someone- is working on are on my short list for buying. I'd almost bet money we'll see all those aircraft in DCS, flying on Hormuz, before DCS loses money and users to that other game. I'd also definitely bet that we'll see F-14 and F-18 before we see VR support over there, too.

The encyclopedia tells you zip, which is why he's asking. Looks like it's just the search radar of the Roland system on a mast, probably to enhance the survivability of the shooters and is deployed with a battery, most likely.

Does Tacview work with this server?

Might have to do a total engine re-write maybe. You have vehicles and other non-static objects that need to exist on that terrain at all times, so it possibly has to be clearly defined at all times, even if it's across the map, especially in multiplayer. IIRC though, Star Wars Galaxies actually patented a way to fractally expand terrain and draw it, the same way, every time. Remember this was 2003 and they had a 15kmx15km map that had a very high resolution and the recommended sys req was only 1GB. The minimum was 512MB.

The thinking probably went something like.... Need to get F/A-18C out. For that we need carrier ops. For carrier ops, we need 2.5 integration, because it's a waste of time to band aid it to get it out for 1.5x just to have to add things back in for 2.5. To complete 2.5 integration we need to finish Normandy, so it's 2.5 ready. No sense in releasing it just to turn around and have to patch it again, wasting more manhours. Spitfire is almost done, so we can finish that and release "with" Normandy. Now throw in the "usual" problems and setbacks in any development project and that's how we got here. I also believe that optimizing for VR has been an especially difficult challenge because the engine was probably designed with target FPS in the 60 range and now they're trying to push it to 90 and any of us with headsets will tell you that we're still suffering from hitching which destroys the quality of VR gameplay, in single player, much less multiplayer. I'll agree it is a little disheartening to go back and see posts from years ago that made it sound it was less than 12 months away just to see delays longer than 12 months added on top of it, but really, what else is there?

I'll just leave this here. http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/lockheed/f-117nighthawk/to-1f-117a-1-utility-flight-manual-f-117a-aircraft.html I think it would be great for scripted missions. Released along with a campaign it would be great. For multiplayer, not so much, because I've noticed most pilots are pansies and don't like flying at night, which would be required for the F-117. Okay, maybe a little unfair, but it does break the Su-25 and KA-50 unless someone brings flares. Still though, I've noticed there are virtually no night missions now in MP.

As of the time of this post, the server has been down for almost an hour after a crash.