DaveRindner

NTTR is nice fast is smooth on my rig. But Georgia performance went way down, and trees, look bad. Deffered shading is just bad all around. I don't get what is the point of DS. It is so heavy. Trees implementation is bad. Even with 100% trees and visibility range to high, they grow out of ground way to close to the aircraft.

Tried that 3X. No difference I7-3770K, 32 GB, PNY Quadro K4000, 2560X1440 single sceen for DCS.

What is going on in Georgia 2.5 map? It looks horrible, and it is slow. The trees kill it. If trees are off it is still possible to crash into them. Textures for trees and in general are over bright. Forget differed shading, that is one horrible technology, that drops DCS into single digit FPS. 2.5 is suppoused to improvement over 1.5.8, but the performance has dropped ,

What is for? I never understood this issue. What is it for? Why was it designed this way?

I have FC3, Mig-21, KA-50, F-5E, A-10C. All the cockpits are dark with Deffered Shading. All the textures outdoors looks bright and burned out, regardless of gamma. The worst shading is on new trees. Trees in 1.5.8 were properly dark and fast. In 2.5 they are bright green, even at night. Not good results.

I don't like this policy at all. Though it is not my decision. To have no product lifecycle maintenance is not good business.

Be nice to see some special runways at NTTR. Expeditionary airfield with Navy/USMC expeditionary shore based catapult. Wires compatible with non-Naval emergency hook operation. Faux-carrier landing area with wires at Nellis , Tonopah, and Groom Lake. Every NAS (China Lake, Pt. Mugu) has them for practicing carrier approaches with wire trap on shore. Faux-LHA Tarawa deck area on tarmac at Nellis, Tonopah, and Groom Lake Road dispersal strips. Expeditionary ATC. Expeditionary ILS for austere fields. Precision Radar Approach. ATC handoff to tower for parking space assignment , taxi direction, and an optional 'Follow-me' truck. For Nellis ATC. Specify Left or Right runway as active-depart and active-recovery. Visible and active (animated) ground crew and equipment.

Those were available in 1980's F-15C. Source time stamp 43:12 Should conformal tanks for F-15C be a wish list item for ED? I think so yes.

Pretty good dock. Shows procedures and bit of tactics.

Don't forget that regardless of altimeter setting prior to takeoff, or prior to landing. When flying above 18,000 feet MSL, the setting is set to 29.92. When desending for flight below 18K, QNH of nearest friendly field. You have to declare inbound to that field, get QFE, then cancel inbound. In enemy territory, 29.92 is used.

F-5E altimeter is designed for QNH. QFE is an artifact of RUssian procedures programmed by ED. If you do not convert, and use QFE as altimeter setting, you get altitude above the field, not actual barometric above MSL altitude. Maps have feature terrain marked in feet MSL. If you are landing on airfield at elevation of 1840 feet MSL (Nellis), you want the altimeter to read about that altitude, and not zero. It is too easy to get confused, and low visibility makes things worse. So use QNH. As far as I know, QFE is used in only DCS: Mig-21Bis, KA-50. Western platformsuse QNH.

http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html Put this on another panel, assuming you have more then 1. You can convert various indicator. IAS indicated airspeed . Also called Calibrated Air Speed. Speed that your instrument shows. TAS - True Air Speed. Speed of aircraft through airmass, regardless of altitude. Indicated airspeed is affected by altitude, as air density lowers as altitude increases. TAS is closer to ground speed then IAS. ISA (not IAS above) is International Standard Atmopshere. How altimeter calculates altitude, and how speedometer calculates Indicated Air Speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere Most vital function for aviation calculator is calculation of QNH. The altimeter setting that is set prior to landing. Put in height of landing airfield , in meters, and put in Tower QFE given to you, when you declare Inbound. The calculator computes QHN which you set the altimeter setting to. F-5E does not have radar altimeter, like other aircraft in DCS. So altimeter is the only height reading you have, in cockpit. Important if you are approaching field in low visibility, and in dangerous terrain. Or taking off in low visibility in dangerous terrain.

That is expected. At low level SU-24 is faster then F-5E. In DCS almost anything 4th gen can outpace and out accelerate F-5E. However its turn rate is great. Intercept head on with AIM-9P5, or from side aspect (of target). TU-22M, SU-24, and TU-160 at their best performance are difficult or impossible to intercept from any pursuit aspect. However when they turn, to avoid SAM, AAA, or missile, they slow down, that may give you an opportunity. SU-24M can carry R-60M for self defense, so take that into consideration. SU-34 can carry latest AA radar and all aspect R-73 missiles.

I was practicing standard Navy carrier recovery approach in F-5E without intention of touch and go. Over ramp I paused, to admire my work. I was a little high and bit to the left. However when I unpaused I was still in external view. So A/C bounced hard, broke all three gear struts, broke off the stbd wingtip. Happily both engines worked, but stores drop system failed to function for port missile. So I recovered at Kabuleti. The aircraft wanted to bank and turn by itself due to wing damage. On touchdown , popped the drag chute. Trk attached. Lesson, do not uppause when in external view and 5 meters above deck. F-5E_emrRecovery.trk

WOW! My experience with Deffered Shading has been a disaster. To me, it looks bad, slow, ugly. It is really bad for me in Caucass. Trees in 2.5. To me trees are uniformly badly implemented in DCS 2.5, with or without Deffered Shade. I do not understand why ED has implemented tree density in such a way that only trees near the aircraft appear, and those grow out of the ground. The point of the LOD is for user not to notice element appearance. It does not at all work in 2.5

OK so my new personal workstation is incoming. HP Z4 G4 with Xeon W-2125, 64gb-2666ECC, and Quadro P4000 (Pascal). Now how do I transfer my module licences from old machine to new. As I understand, module licenses are connected with account and bound to network id, which is a hard bound. I own following modules' FC3 A-10C KA-50 BlackShark Mig-21Bis UH-1H F-5E About to purchase AV-8B, and will purchase F/A-18C.

I have to acknowledge that you may be right, or right(er), then me. What I posted was my own observations. As for engine power and envelope charts, OK. They don't really resonate with me. In a clean aircraft, on a standard day, with 50% internal fuel, no stores, I am unable to climb above 38500 - 39200 feet MSL, while data on F-5E, states practical ceiling of 51K. At 38K, KIAS is barely above stall, with AUTO flaps fully deployed and A/C is at 8-10 AOA, and will not climb higher. Increasing AOA, causes nose-up desent. With AB, I am lucky to break 40. On standard day with 2992 alt. setting. So to me it feels underpowered. On engine power issue, I read , here, that DCS F-5E has somewhat below energy then RW. So, you may be right, but DCS F-5E does feel a little sluggish. However I love this module. It is fantastic, with funtastic play. Prior to F-5E, I did not care, or bothered with QFE/QNH. Instead relying on radar altimeter that I took for granted, as they are modeled in other modules. With F-5E, I have to watch my indicated altitude, correct for QNH, quickly get elevation of terrain along my flight path. Flying almost-NOE at night is a real challenge. Lovin it! I still , not quite competent, with bombing accuracy, and OK soso with AG guns and rockets.

Well the sim already contains all navigation aids you asked. F10 shows aircraft location on map. Place the F10 theater view into MAP mode. You also have kneeboard which marks your position, within limits of your flight plan. Having those two aids, and you cannot get lost in DCS. Unless you don't want to cheat, in which case, use E6B ( http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html ) or ( http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html ) to manually plot your position. But you have to know what you are doing. That is why we have F10 Theater view. F-5E-3 is very nimble in DCS. However you are right. The power modeling of powerplants is underrating realworld. That supposed to be opinion of people who flew the real thing. Still energy management is a learned skill, that must be practiced. If you are fighting against AI. AI aircraft don't use high fidelity flight model that player F-5E-3 uses. It is fundamentally unfair, but having sim computing PFM for all aircraft will degrade FPS. But human minds are more creative then programmed AI. F-5E is limited to just two Sidewinders. The variant of AIM-9 in DCS for F-5E-3 is P and P5. Primarily rear aspect, with surprisingly effective all aspect capability. I think that DCS AIM-9P5 is close to AIM-9M, which may be more effective then real thing. With just two AA missiles, and radar useful for initial queuing, air-air capability is more or less just for self defense. Just about every 3rd and 4th gen fighter/bomber opponent, AI or another human, outguns you, out-ranges you, out-accelerates you, and out-climbs you. Its direct opponent analogue, Mig-21Bis, is faster, accelerates faster, and climbs faster then F-5E. But F-5E has faster roll rate, faster turn rate, and tighter turn radius then Fishbed. AIM-9P5 is , IMHO, better then R-60/60M IR missiles in DCS. I own both F-5E and Mig-21Bis modules. In a merge you can fire first, but break immediately to get out of Mig-21's R60 zone. Use your AI wingman. Have him engage opponent, while you are hanging back. When opponent goes defensive, against your wingman's missile, turn to opponent for the kill. I treat my AI wingman as an offboard weapons platform. In daylight WVR fights, using sun position (to your back) to attack out of the sun, DOES NOT work against AI. But sun may seduce your AIM-9P if you are firing at target that is between yourself and the sun. Also player R-60/M is also seduced by sun, and I am noticing that AI Mig-21 will not loose an R-60 at you, if you are between him(AI) and the sun. Weapons wise, regarding sight. DCS: F-5E is built around two key distances and speeds. For Air2Ground the magic slant range is 1500 meters , speed of 400 knots (indicated), and dive angle of 20, sight depression is 15 (down) for rockets and guns, 80(down) for bombs. For Air Air Guns (AA 1) sight setting, it appears to be 500 meters. For AIM-9 rear hemisphere, it works at 4 km. Beyond that range, AI bandits's flares seduce the AIM-9P. F-5E in DCS appears to have corner velocity of 400 - 500 knots (indicated). Disclaimer: Everything above is based on my experiences thus far.

http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html I am liking those two. Especially the first one for quick and accurate QNH altimeter settings.

Not it has not been ignored. Two other popular flight sims based on another aircraft covered the Balkan Wars and NATO 1999 Allied Force campaign to protect Kossovo. But ED has rules against posting about other sims.

In old LockOn, there was a 3D shaded view of aircraft with loadout. Right now DCS just shows aircraft and skin, in armament tab. I don't know exactly how, and by whom, perhaps 3rd party. Allow DCS to integrate with Google Earth database. Perhaps not for combat, but at least for free flight. GoogleEarth database is gorgeous. Ability to export own aircraft telemetry of motion, to Alembic ABC format, or FBX format.

Perhaps its just me, but with latest update to 2.5 F-5E has degraded unguided bomb delivery accuracy. At least for me. The sweet parameters for MK 82 delivery , on standard day, as described , as follows; Begin attack dive 5km from tgt at 5000 feet above tgt. Depr Setting for Manual is 80 (down) Dive angle 20 Speed at release 400 knots indicated Slant range to tgt , 1.5 km. I thought I got good at that, now I can't hit a barn. The impact is consistently short. For rockets and guns, parameters are same except that DEPR for Man. is 15(Down). Rockets are long. They sail over the target.

My source was Wikipedia. Obviously it is not perfect. However the main core of the engine is F404. The mounts are standardized across F/A-18 A/B/C/D airframes, correct? So variations of the engines could be used with appropriate depot level mods. The Hornet community must be tickled pink. It appears that our current POTUS is having a bromance mancrush on F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet. So Navy and USMC may get few squadrons of that sexy bird. Time will tell.

Thank you. I think there is also a safety factor. Having armed aircraft with either inert or live ordinance and bellies full of fuel, depart to over build up areas, is playing the odds. Sooner or later accident will happen. USN and USMC , not in Nellis, had F/A-18 from West Coast conversion fleet replenishment squadrons auger into SoCal suburbia. So, at Nellis they depart along 030 azimuth , and climb over High Desert. The runways are so long even a decent tailwind would be within safety limits of large types. B-1Bs, B-2(though I never saw one there), B-52, E-3A, C-17, C-130, etc..

F-20 was powered by F404-100. Same powerplant as in F/A-18C/D that ED is developing for DCS. So at least there is model and performance envelope for engine of would be F-20 module. But I doubt there will be one. It was single development prototype as was the ultimate F-5 branch off, the X-29. DCS development ecosystem shuns experimental and development types. Closest exception is SU-2T and SU-25TM. KA-50 was built in low numbers but it was serial production and was used in combat in Chechnya. Though there is a Iranian knock off type HESA Saegeh with twin vert. stabilizers. Though there is a possibility that in addition to making new airframes, they refurbished olf F-5A/B/E sold to Shah Of Iran, and replaced single vrt. stabilizer with twin canted design, mimicking F/A-18. IMHO ED would be better served by developing F-16C Block50/52 module. I think that DCS community really needs a high fidelity, PFM, ASM, module of Gen. 4 or Gen 4.5 primarily Air Air single seat platform. Hopefully F/A-18C will satisfy that need. I do not own Mirage2000C module. Thus far all high fidelity sim modules are on strike aircraft. F-5E is daylight WVR fighter with weak radar and two Sidewinders. Mig-21bis is a fantastic module, I love it, but it is late 1960's-1970's variant. A relatively inexperienced DCS user in FC3 F-15C can kill AI MIG-21 in 1V2, without ever resorting to AIM-9 or guns. AIM-120B/C will do. I definitely need to get M2000C, and Harrier.