lunaticfringe

The clickboxes were there long ago in the development builds, but were removed due to interference with the LAT, ARA-63, and Hook Bypass/Lighting switches. Reach down to activate the -63 for the ILCS at the wrong viewing angle, and *voila*- now you were a convertible. So they went away.

(Taking a flier)

The point is that you're continuing with the Super Sekrit Squirrel handshake routine against people who take the time to document their findings and presents them to all like its a feather in your cap. Why are you worried about Spurts when you have the data from your practices with you wingmates? The whole "cash me outside on the playground, brah" shtick comes across as the DCS equivalent of a white panel van with "FREE CANDY" on the side, when all you've offered is a 3000 hour logbook and an attitude. Get some ACMIs with timestamps up- if you can make the case, it doesn't need further experimentation, no need for canned conditions if you've already experienced them. So present your findings and let's look at outcomes- positional, available G and speed, and the decision making that goes into them, to keep from getting into those outcomes. That is to say- the entire point of the exercise; reviewing the situation, observing the disparities, and planning how not to make those mistakes. This is more and more reading like someone who is afraid of having their work checked publicly rather than an issue of people who already provide data and instruction in the open getting punked.

Spurts shows his work on YouTube.

All it takes is a couple of Tacviews...

I'll check my calendar. In lieu, check your Tacview folder. I believe in you. You'll have to excuse me, but I've been working in test builds of DCS across two installs in the last week with 400+ GB in updates between them. Testers test, yo. Being substantially diverged from current OB and stable branches are a way of life.

My man- my problem is that you tell me that you've done these thousands of hours worth of BFM in DCS, and you've got hundreds of hours of BFM practice with your bros, but what you really need to do to have your arguments validated is have me spend a couple hours resetting DCS builds before I can even hop on a server with you, so that I can somehow get into your head space in a fashion that you can't describe in words, Tacviews, or video, to show me things that apparently don't show up in any other fashion, because- well... just because. And then spend another couple of hours resetting so I can go back to work. This isn't Neo proving to Morpheus he knows Kung Fu. And it isn't even technique versus technique- this is technique versus documentable performance. Everybody else around here are happy reviewing Tacviews and comparing, but there's something unquantifiable here. Nah- I'm sure that with your stated experience you're sitting on enough material to make your point, and I'm more than happy to take the time to look and discuss with you what you're seeing. And if what you're saying is true outside of the transonic, it'll show against the charts, and it will definitively show in the replays through obvious loss in opportunities to close out a fight. To clarify: didn't you have this line of conversation with Victory- that the fractional DpS were make or break important, or was that somebody else?

Just as a quick example as I was testing to see if there was any opposing AI response to additional active missiles. The AI F-14 wingman went 4 for 4 at 40+ miles against four defending MiG-29s. Something to keep in mind is that the same advantages the AI have in defending against shots are also held by you as a player- the wide notch, etc. While you don't have the perfect SA they do (and are less apt to make margin percentile plays on defense that can catch them out), the early defensive move is going to catch any missile right out. So they can shoot in a good, valid, basket and you can still beat them, just like you should be able to do against any round if you're paying attention. Tacview-20221027-235220-DCS-2 v 4 Mig-29s Long Range New BVR Test.zip.acmi

So now the problem is ephemeral rather than empirical, and we're migrating from data points to feelings...? Say- didn't you already play this line of conversation out with an actual, exceptionally experienced F-14 pilot here, or am I confusing you with somebody else? BFM tournament rosters show that just fine. And it's not going to substantively change over a sub-fractional adjustment in turn rate or the transonic correction for anyone not putting in the pure work. If you've got this nailed down to an exact factor, pull up some of your Tacviews- tournament or daily mix, and point to timestamps where you think you're legitimately getting beat under the E-M turn rate and acceleration charts against whatever opposition you want to share, and we'll look at what the jet is doing, and what you're doing with it. *looks at dimly-lit flown indicators on the shelf* If you can figure out a work-around, would you be so kind as to hook a brother up?

I understand what you mean perfectly; your inability to overcome fractions of a degree per second versus values found in hand drawn charts in the F-14's best maneuvering envelope using minor plane of maneuver adjustments and better decision making says enough. The record shows all of this began round ~0.2 DpS at 5000' in the corner region; that hasn't changed appreciably whatsoever. And unless there's a new form of online bloodsport where everybody is dogfighting above 25k' all day long, the transonic acceleration issue is a non-factor, where- as you say "(you've) specified BFM". Which, begs the question: 3000 hours of BFM in and you haven't figured out how to make up less than one DpS? What have you to teach me- how to maneuver permanently stuck in-plane on the horizontal and fail to make up ground? Because that's literally where the only anti-F-14 BFM argument resides; and it's plenty closer to its actual numbers in that region than any other module. There's no volume of blood to draw from the stone in the regime you want from it; everything else is technique. Even the A will accelerate above corner while turning if you let it. Instead of talking about how everybody else needs to go back to school, or how you want to meet people after class to throw down and supposedly show them something, spend that free energy attacking your own Tacviews; that way, when creason has time to revisit the final bit of the FM adjustments, you might be ready to actually put it to use, rather than be stuck in the same mode. An artist is both their own worst critic, and isn't prone to complaining about their brushes or canvas.

"Tell me you're a one-trick BFM pony without telling me you're a one-trick BFM pony"

Multiple build folder compatibility.

The fighters have to be in the same group as it's currently the only way to maintain the maximum 4-ship limit on the network.

Loft isn't selectable. If it's above 20nm and not HOJ, the missile is going to loft, no matter what. The first four Phoenix shots were at 43.27, 41.90, 23.52, and 24.97 nm respectively. The first Phoenix not to loft was shot at ~16.4 nm. Now, one question: what do you have as your "AA Missile Attack Range" setting?

Yep. You can delete them, and the game will apply a default livery (ie, it knows how to work without the extras), but they'll be re-downloaded during the next update. The key is that DCS knows it can run without all but the default livery, but they're considered a core requirement for installs currently.

And it's most recent liveries are heftier than the F-14, and will be so going forward. Just like everyone else's, which amusingly is the part you refuse to catch up to. Corsair. F-15E. A-7. F-4- everybody is playing ball with the new HD livery reality; detail plus roughmets and all the particulars to give additional visual impact are expensive on the drive; less so in the vram. And so what if he didn't complain? His interests and storage availability are different than yours. This isn't a protest rally to shame someone for having a different set of priorities. It's definitely sunk, brother- Captain Nemo has sent up his regards. It's similarly selfish to continue making an argument that creators disagree with, when the actual corrective answer has been mentioned and you refuse to champion towards that cause. Your contention is that they need to stop producing quantity and quality, when in fact the solution lay in having the requirement for the liveries to be downloaded at all removed. If it were just available contract bandwidth cap for downloads or being really hard up for storage, that's one thing, but this is willful denial of the facts at hand- both client performance impact as well as the here and now, forward progression of livery storage cost for detailed modules going forward. You're welcome to have this bone to chew on as you like, but you, and the similarly storage limited would be better served making the case with ED to revoke the non-default livery install requirement, because then you're getting *all* of that storage back, not just from the Tomcat- but everything current, and all the big liveries from new modules going forward. You want storage savings, there's your savings.

Just a head's up: there is an experimental fix being tested in the Vaicom Discord group that appears to be working. Once the installation is codified in a better fashion and the fix is confirmed to work across multiple installs, it will be shared publicly. For now, you can access it here: https://discord.gg/g3bSyEX2

The M2K was released in 2017. But that's besides the point- as you yourself admit, the Apache, new F-16 liveries, and the examples from the Mirage F1 show that this isn't ending, but instead heading in the direction that Heatblur chose from the start through using HD textures. The future is now, and the dev teams are all following in that same direction, because the simple fact is that the performance and storage necessary to drive these models is accessible to the average player. Now I can follow the argument that a dedicated server doesn't particularly have the use for spending storage on skins. But that's not an argument to take up with module developers, but the party that has instituted the core requirement that those liveries be part of the installation. For those who question the need to download said liveries, again- it's the wrong tree to bark up, because multiple third parties (including HB) have stated they'd be willing to work with a download manager if the core requirement were removed. Flip side is, you're not going to get developers and artists and content creators to cater to your individual need when it restricts their creativity and quality. Which means you need to target your argument to the party controlling what files need to be downloaded to play or run a server, and how or if they're downloaded at all. Because this particular conversation is a nonstarter for anyone who is doing the high end work.

If it's a Phoenix C, it'll go active on its own. If it's a Phoenix A, hold until you confirm active. If it's a Sparrow, you need to let the lock on the jammer transition to a STT lock, because if he stops jamming the shot is trashed (as it will no longer have anything to guide on).

Because these are getting into very rough approximations of two key factors that matter over simple RCS and SNR: available power and integration. A four or eight engined strategic bomber is going to have substantially higher power generation than a fighter with one or two blowers. Subsequently, the EW package is going to have more wattage to pump out, and the jamming hardware is going to be designed to use this. These systems also tend to be designed with more overhead towards the number of systems they can simultaneously challenge; where a fighter's accessory pod can lay down opposing 'trons at one or two opposing emitters, the system carried by a mid-90s and forward B-52 is going to be able to lay hurt on multiple SAM systems and an interceptor or two at a time as a matter of need. And that capability also needs computation to dictate the how, where, and when- again, necessitating more juice. This is also why fighter size aircraft carrying dedicated standoff jammer systems have accessory generator power right on the pods; ALQ-99 and NGJ, anyone? F414s and J52s just don't have the accessory power to drive that much capability, hence the props on the nose, or the internal turbine system of the NGJ. As to integration, I would direct your attention to how TEWS and ASPJ function versus attaching an accessory pod. The former two systems aren't simply receiving emissions and deciding themselves where to toss signals once they're switched on; good internal fighter systems know the location of the jets own receivers, get additional signals from the radar, and then control the jammer and DDS in unison to shape the defensive presentation for best effect, rather than the pod not getting any of that data and effectively freelancing. The integration makes a difference in the outcome and effectiveness. These factors all go into what a substantively modeled EW environment would take. The problem is in getting those numbers, or convincingly faking them with reasonable assumptions. Generational (years, not power), processing, all of that is different to account for as well, and much of it overlaps and change outcomes. And that's just not a place ED is at currently.

It does. The bandit flight path looks to have rolled over on its back, turned to almost the near vertical dive, then pulled out. The (over-wide) notch exists in three dimensions; hit 90 degrees perpendicular to the radar in any direction and you're there.

That's what he's saying, as least as far as I can understand- that a deadzone is required for him to get an AP lock. Looking at the footage, the aircraft begins with Attitude Hold on, 1000' climb rate at roughly 2 degrees of pitch with a bank angle of somewhere around 5-7 degrees. Heading Hold doesn't capture when engaged, so points towards above 5 degrees of bank. Ground Track engaged, AP Ref light comes on, NWS pressed, it locks. What this boils down to in the viewing is an analog system running right on the border of where it's noted to capture, and there's enough variance just in the normal motion of flight to push it to 5.001 or such and make it a fail. This close to the line, it's important to note that while the on screen control display is very accurate, its granularity as such (how much "push" there has to be to register): I can deflect a stick gently with two fingers two to three millimeters before it registers in the box- but the airplane registers input and you can see the stick offset a fraction. So as suggested- it may be useful to go into your stick's software to confirm sensitivity around the middle and calibration. Turn on the info bar (CTRL-Y); I can't get it to fail on a capture when it's below the 5 degree limit in Heading, and pushing NWS in Ground Track.

Those burn through values are built into DCS and all radars honor them; they're not radar system dependent and the AWG-9 doesn't alter them in any fashion due to its performance.

Because ED submits all of the liveries added to a base module to core. Third parties have been openly willing to discuss packing additional liveries or using a download management scheme in the past, and it's been a non-starter because of how the lead developer has chosen to structure the sim. So your argument towards those outside of said control is to either: a. reduce the value they want to offer their customers for the purchase of the module, or b. reduce the quality of what they're offering to meet your personal disk limitations versus ED's core-addition requirement Gib less or ship ish- that's really what your argument comes down to, when the crux of the matter is the sim's core dependency requirement. Third parties should be permitted (and encouraged) to provide as much content as they want without a reduction in quality to meet the varied needs of their users; and users should be free to add or remove content that is non-essential to the base function of using a module- or simply having it on their system as part of running the title. The point is that neither side in this equation has control, and it's all set based on the way DCS is built. That's where the direction of this should be put, not telling Heatblur (or Aeyes or anybody else) to reduce the amount of content and its quality that they send along.

It's not. 0 deadzone, 0 curve here, and the AP locks onto heading just fine. Have it below the 5 degree angle of bank limitation (VDI horizon bank angle indication no more than the height of the Aircraft Reticle) with HDG active, and it will roll out per the NATOPS.