FSKRipper

Sorry but according to your argumentation you simply misunderstood how Gunships are supposed to operate. Time to educate yourself: http://realandsimulatedwars.yolasite.com/dcs-black-shark-tactics-primer.php As Retu said, all gunships are supposed to operate according to this rules.

Nice run. A short question: Maybe it is a graphical feature but the ballutes are opening only milliseconds before impact. Is this due to your very low attack profile or are there specific settings for ejecting the ballute? In most videos I have seen they are deployed immediately after bomb release.

Hey raptor, a track would be helpful. From what you have said there seem to be many reasons for this behaviour which could be others than a bug (which is still possible) AFAIK the MWS on the A-10C is based on UV sensors. Here is an older but short thread on this topic: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82321 (Page one, last post) This system has many advantages but also some shortcommings: "To detect approaching missiles, the rocket motor of the missile must be burning – it requires the high effective burning temperatures associated with solid fuel rocket motors. IR-based systems are probably better at altitude but UV is better against surface-to-air missiles. Cannot provide actual range information but can derive TTI from the rapid increase in amplitude of the approaching missile’s signal. Detection range could be limited against future new technology low IR/UV emission rocket motors." from the Missile Approach Warning article in Wikipedia To be sure you would have to check that some factors (like burning engine) are given. Since everything stands or falls with the used rejection algorithms, it is nearly impossible to give a valid judgement about bug/feature category without confirmation from a developer(even knowing that it could have been changed intentionally).

My Impression from this article that it is a nice but superficial description of a short flight from which you can't create FM graphs. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Mr. Harding has the competence to judge on specific issues. The problem I see: 1. The report is quite short and made for the public. His flight was also rather short. The report is full of compliments for the aircraft (positive pitch control during slow speeds and other numerous events). That's fine for me but I think you have to watch this trough his eys in this special era. It was recovery from the cold war and if he had said something bad about this bird in the public it could have been the last time a western pilot were allowed to drive such a beauty :music_whistling: 2. According to his report, he never exceeded 700km/h. In fact most maneuvers were flown between 220-300 kt. 3. He never controlled the plane during extreme maneuvers like his backseater (understandable) and never used the AoA limiter override himself. So my conclusion would be that the absence of trim comments doesn't mean that there is an issue between sim and the real one. But maybe I'm totally wrong. We will see it in the future. Remember it's a beta. One last thing, as these discussions come up with every module, you should understand that the dev Team will ignore critics without proof. If you can bring a pilot (Su-27 for sure) willing to talk on this topic or authentic FM-data I'm sure they will answer you personally and you have their full Attention. Critics based on opinions, feelings and chit-chat will be ignored (for some good reason in my opinion) EDIT: After reading trough his career in the RAF, I would doubt that Sir Peter Harding gained more than a couple of hours on modern fighter planes. He is for sure a very experienced bomber pilot. I'm not sure of british regulations, but the german airforce takes pilots out of active duty after reaching an age of 41 (for combat aircraft). There are always exceptions like personal pilots for government personnel or non regular flights at airshows like described in this article. But i would suppose that his experience in the F-16 and F-18 like mentioned in the article is very limited, especially if you take into account that this was the 100th different airframe (including helicopters) he "piloted".

ED is in contact with several actual and former pilots even of the MiG 31. Only because they don't come here and introduce themselves doesn't mean that they don't exist. I'm also a bit puzzled... If you ask and get an answer that you don't like you are free to do believe what you want but why asking further? Do you hope that some day you will hear something more matching your opinion?

I would second that but with a simple restriction: Don't add these things if they eat more than 10 fps on their lowest simulation level. Maybe some People forgot that ED is still working on explosion effects and weather graphics. At this time the performance is outstanding but every new effect will not always improve it. For Immersion reasons I would prefer the clouds (with shadows) and explosions before introducing a physics based water Simulation.

Yup, so bye bye AMD users? I suggest that you take a deeper look into Arma 3. One example, if you want to use advanced ballistics (and not the stock one) you will have to live with FPS breakdowns of up to 30%. Eye candy is much cheaper than simulating realism. Thats not my idea of a Flight sim. Sure, you can have everything like accumulating rain drops on the canopy, snow on your wings and reflecting water on the ground and even on your plane but you need no decent gaming rig but a high end one to make this happen. In my opinion there are lots of other physical effects which should be done before even thinking of water movement.

No mistake from your side... 1. 1.5 is in beta status and can be installed as a seperate version (last public stable release is 1.2.16) 2. Version 2.0 is still some weeks/months away from beta release and will possibly go beta around the time when 1.5 hits the public release So short version... there is no 2.0 and 1.5 is public beta

Can confirm this. It looks like some kind of afterglow effect in the optics in unzoomed view (pic 1). When zooming in I can see these graphical distortions (pic 2). System see sig. System.nfo see first post at: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2493935#post2493935

Since I have already flown the MiG-21 in 1.2 (and also fought against her) it looks fine for me as it is. Better visibility at greater distances (thanks 1.5 :thumbup:) and the need for good eyes and a lot of training for the close in.

Es gibt ein einfaches Trefferzonenmodell allerdings scheint es im Stillen für die Zukunft ausgeweitet zu werden (siehe der M1 Abrams)... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135689

Habe zu den Spiegeln mal einen Report geschrieben, Antwort frei übersetzt: Ist halt so! Sind zusätzliche Viewports und fressen eben Ressourcen. Solltet ihr also nach ein paar FPS suchen um z.B. mal den Zivilverkehr oder das Wasser auf hohen Details auszuprobieren, einfach Spiegel aus (sieht man eh meist nur sich selbst drin :music_whistling:).

Wie du bereits sagtest kann kein mission kill simuliert werden. Ich hab meinen Blödsinn vorwiegend aus CA Gefechten. Dort konnte ich auch nach mehreren Artillerietreffern und brennenden Panzern noch fröhlich durch die Gegend fahren und auch kämpfen. Es mag sein das die KI schwerwiegend betroffen ist, ich habe selbst aber nach mehreren dutzend Stunden Gameplay noch in keinem beschädigten und funktionsuntüchtigen Panzer gesessen. Und sein wir ehrlich, so etwas wie z.B. eine um den Faktor 1,x erhöhte Nachladerate würde ich nicht als Schadensmodell bezeichnen.

Ich habe mal gerade auf die Schnelle etwas Munition verblasen, mein Fazit wäre das die Genauigkeit noch immer etwas befremdlich wirkt. Ein T-72 Kill ist allerdings ohne Weiteres möglich. Da ich nicht weiß ob der Track vernünftig wiedergegeben wird hier die Kurzfassung: Angriff von hinten/oben: Dürfte dank des Hitpoint Modells und der schwachen Panzerung den meisten Schaden verursacht haben. Bitte bedenken: Es gibt für das Fahrzeug trotz Rauch keinen Unterschied zwischen 100% Einsatzfähig und 1% Einsatzfähig... Angriff tief/von der Seite: eigentlich weniger Chance auf Erfolg aber dank des Vorschadens ein sofortiger Kill. :pilotfly: Meine Angriffe erfolgten nach 2 Gläsern Wein und ohne jegliches Standardverfahren. Aber selbst so dürften mit einem vollen Magazin etwa 4-6 Kills kein Problem sein. :pilotfly: Anmerkung: Wie bereits weiter oben erwähnt wurde zählen bei der A-10 eigentlich die "mission kills", also die Panzer die wegen Motor/Getriebe/Laufrollenschaden bzw. anderen Schäden (Bewaffnung, Optiken etc.) ausfallen. Dieses Detail ist in DCS allerdings noch nicht simuliert. Da ED aber bereits fleißig Informationen sammelt, dürfte ein DCS:M1 Abrams nicht mehr allzu viele Jahre entfernt sein :) Gun.trk

Hey guys, as the title say I encountered framerate issues with activated cockpit mirrors. The fps will sink by ~17 no matter if on ground or airborne and no matter if the mirrors are in my field of view or not. Test Mission for ground: Kobuleti ramp start (custom mission) Test Mission for Air: FC3: F-15C Instant Action Intercept DCS Version 1.5.0.45655 System.nfo here at first post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2493935#post2493935 EDIT: I reported this because several people I contacted experienced no significant loss in fps at all.

Bei mir läuft es eigentlich auch super allerdings kann ich das mit den Spiegeln so nicht unterschreiben. Eine Mission mit einer A-10 oder F-15C auf Kobuleti im Kaltstart erstellt und die aktivierten Spiegel ziehen 20fps von der (immernoch guten, >60fps) Gesamtperformance. Werde heute nach Feierabend auch einen Bugreport schreiben da das bei mir erst nach dem Hotfix 2 auftrat.

As there are some problems with navigation I would vote for a gunsight or bombing tutorial :music_whistling:

+1 Never experienced this in our clubs RG172 and on my motorbike at levels compareable to modern video games. The only feature that would fit is a kind of tunnel effect like under high G-load.

As the title said, with todays hotfix 2, I'm no longer able to use move the cockpit camera foward or back. This happens for default settings and remapped keys as well. I'm using a vanilla install, other commands (Cockpit camera up/down f.e.) work for me. Tested modules so far: L-39, KA-50 and MiG-21 EDIT: Did a second repair, the updater downloaded 141MB and everything works fine now. Thread could be deleted.

Thanks for your work. Nice bombing runs. As you said the G-Load was a bit much but I have seen what I was interested in... First of all the pipper started to move, thats a correct statement and I can not finally judge on this. It will take some time for me to do some tests on the weekend but the intersting thing happened during your last bombing run in the video. You pickled the second bomb after the pipper has moved above the target, to be exact the target is nearly at the outer ring of the pipper but you bombs are hitting in front/direct at the target. My assumptions would be in descending order 1. Your bombs hit the target because of your steep and fast dive to the target. Even with a completely fixed gunsight the bombs would have been near or on the tanks. Thats the way it was done before the little electronic toys came out. 2. In fact there is still some kind of CCIP integrated

Sure it isn't this? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2510887&postcount=7

You are very much experimenting with your settings in different reports (looking at the ground there seems to be no or very low AA or AF in your current screenshots?). Could you post a complete picture of your ingame and CCC settings for this bug report as well as a notice if you are running crossfire or single GPU? If Crossfire is enabled you will know that there are several issues..

First of all this is a bug report forum so this thread is wrong in this place and will be moved shortly. To give you a hint, get a very good GPU and a medium/upper level CPU, this will bring your DCS experience to a new level.

Sorry but I can't judge anything from your pictures. Could you post the complete Tacview file or a DCS trackfile? BTW: Some reliable sources said that at least early heat seeking missiles can lock the sun in this version...

I'm aware that the ASP-3NMU is a different gunsight but according to ED's manual of the L-39 bombing is conducted with the sight in "fixed" mode instead of "gyro".