A.S

You start at one point, but in the matter of it self you probably end up looking for more HiFi.

No, but there might be a quick-displacement ability in those versions....Printscreen :lol: PS: Aim-120s in AF ...(Tac 0.93) http://data.reservoirselite.com/AS/Missile-Dodging-Falcon.rar (had to, sorry :P )

thx...now i see a B :)

where is this b version supposed to be? cant find it.....all links i see are 0.93 (tried them)

...alot bollocks here

Thats excatly the problem ..that "FEELS" ....... it appears....shakes....feels.......vibrates.....effects ...the impression... but go along and compare flight performance datas for differenet conditions.......then you will see more light. Lockon adds few lil tricks like head and nose bouncing...that is also a reason why it "feels" furthermore in lockon everyone can adjust his flightcurves how he likes..that is also beyond any realism..... just by doing that i can achieve totally different flight controls. I know Faclon "feels" very stiff...like rails...but i have had alot nice moments where is does not feel stiff at all. I hear often also ..you cant fly knife edges...well rudders are very useless above 340kts and fuel is mostly 100%...thats might be a reason. Falcon requires time to get behind the things.... It "FEELS" is just the first IMPRESSION. (2D screen gameplay gents) (of course both sims could do here and there things better)

well, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZOILgESW0 :music_whistling:

thats straight ..isnt it? :megalol:

Happy Birthday Glowing FX :smilewink:

Happy Birthday Dude .....enjoy with getting nicely drunk ..."kling" :beer:

muahahhhaahaaaaa ROOOOOOOOOFLL. .hahaaahaaaaa AWESOME :clown::tomato::punk:

waiting so long to get something what i dont understand?? NO WAY so lets wait more :music_whistling:

Basically what he does is forcing the missile to pull Gs so he can see the vapor trails and then in last second he makes that "magic more pull" (LRRrrRR eMMMM huhuuuuu), combined with a nose down displacement jink or bank or roll, whatever....and that from pretty close range. Still not easy though. especially night :megalol: Usually you would try to bleed the missiles energy, and then go for LOS breaks...and such ...but well.......

hmm hmm.... seeing dots at 25-50km ( as i always hear it from u guys ) and using zooom to the limits...hmm hmm... cuz monitor is small ? BVR <<<< BEYOND visual range.... now we all know how BVR is fought mostly ..isnt it ? :music_whistling: Yoda is asking for real world visibility values or datas for a good reason. !!

I know why you are asking this question (we discussed) I want to add few words here: Mostly what i hear from many, comparing the visibility range of Jets ingame ( hunting the black dots on screen with or without gfx tunings ) with real world impressions.....like "i have heart that" ....or "you can see so far out in real...etc etc etc"...... are versions to justify something in gameplay for comfort play. In fact visibility depends on a lot things like humidity, weather conditions, how eyes work (there is a book for that capture only - pilots and visibility), focus ability on moving targets and many more aspects. There is also a classification for BVR and WVR, general and more specific. However, coming back to gameplay......if you want to make things realistic for a game, then you have to make sure BVR stays BVR....no matter what....meaning you should NOT see FighterJets further out then 7-8nm clear weather conditions. You can again argue here with tons of cases....like "but i can see in real etc etc"...yes i know...but again....for GAMEPLAY...you have to set edges.....in terms or realistic behaviour in gameplay.

0.91 runs 10x better and faster (especially in fastforwarding with no stutters and big missions like redflag) then 0.92.... though few nice colors more i run 0.91 ... how 0.93 will be? .... performancewise?

...interesting

cmon guys....be nice.. everyone is beautifull ..captured right :megalol:

( 8 ( |) hmm why :lol:

hmm well...in falcon community things are well documented..why they are made how they are....and knowing right ppl you get deep explanations to track down the prescission. there are really good sources out there..i agree hard to find ..but very accurate....and the highly classified parts...well thats the part to improvise for coders..but in a smart reasonable way ! one simple example: Lockon 120 scans better then my radar ..so why i shouldnt maddog ? << and folks think thats real....thats where all the irritations start already. try AF....shoot an 120 on target....tape it...and watch its flight geometry and data (its like tacview) :) <<< new worlds :))

I strongly believe (for some reason) that DCS can in future deliver way more accurate things. Starting from the complexity of already made systems down to more accurate datas related to missile performances and seaker logics....and FlightModels (Su-25T was a nice approach) THEN alot here will defintily see a HUGE difference...hopefully :thumbup: PS: i know pilotasso....still i had to say these words...cuz thats the problem....getting things explained and accepted.

pilotasso...i think most ppl have right to question new changes ...why ...and based on what ..etc etc...all fair. but i also think they dont have much comparsions with sources or other sims to analyse the missing parts or lacks...to understand WHY this all is done. sometimes i hear from others...Lockon is the most realistic sim ever :doh: .. i understand why they feel so...cuz the immersion and the gfx....and that little bit shaking in pit......but not alot are really going deep down in the topic with math and datas ....and lots of studies. the problem here is (for new changes) to explain this in such a way it can be trusted..... i mean we dont use the brand ED and all is accepted...we just try to improve things... if you understand. .. but not out of the blue !

would you please ask THIS to ED why lockon is how it is ? :music_whistling: PS: Amraams havent been touched AT ALL in all its behaviour ;)

post #89