TordinVarglund

I think the question of what the end-state should be is one that is very apt. I can barely follow the most basic concepts discussed in this thread, and I appreciate the level of knowledge you guys can bring to the table on this matter. But as KlarSnow mentioned, without a clearly defined end-state, it's hard to say if we're moving in a good direction or not. I'm just an average DCS pilot, and not qualified to say what's right or wrong, but from picking up bits and pieces of information from pilots, I get the impression that reliable missile defence in the real world is GENERALLY achieved through defeating missiles kinematically or through EW, not by performing basic aerobatics or last-ditch maneuvers. I think generally this is the end-state most people expect, based on what we can piece together from real world tactics and training snippets. Regardless of whether that's the case or not in real life, it's certainly not reflected in DCS currently.

One of the things that makes me think this is most certainly a bug is the fact that this happens with targets separated by quite large distances (.5nm) and at ranges as low as the mid 20s, with altitude separation as you will see in the PG BVR scenario. Initially I figured maybe they were close enough that the Radar couldn't separate them, but it seems a bit far fetched when we're talking thousand of feet of lateral and vertical separation at distances less than 30nm. First encountered it flying the Fear the Bones campaign in a scenario where you're launching head-on onto a bomber formation. Felt a bit underwhelming to say to least when 5 out of 6 AIM-54s missed when fired from 35nm...

Bumping this because I'm having massive issues with lost tracks recently that I did not have ~2-3 months ago. I don't know what exactly is going on, but it seems to have something to do with targets flying in relatively close formation (like .5nm or less). All of this is with Jester in TWS-A, and applies both in single and multiplayer. Best way to test this is to jump into the PG BVR and Syria BVR Instant Action missions, and observe the difference in track behavior. The Syria one seems to spawn the two MiG-29s with wider separation, and the radar is better at separating them and maintaining independent track files, and missiles correctly guide and go active. In the PG one, it might pick up both targets initially, but it will very quickly reporting lost tracks (Track Extrapolated symbology).

Accidentally told smoke to do the SoF instead of doing it myself, he flew low over the town but nothing happens from there. I tried completing it myself after he just went back to orbiting but no luck.

As of the last patch it seems to have been fixed although I have not tested it extensively.

As in the APG-73 can't actually guide one or that it's out of the relevant timeframe?

Attached 2 tracks from the Weapons Qualification AIM-7 mission provided with the Hornet. First track I went into TWS and then STT via SCS Right, AIM-7Fs go dumb off the rail. Second track I went STT via RWS also using SCS Right, same result. Note I fired all 4 of my MH missiles and they tracked just fine on the same target, so if there is an issue I'm pretty sure it's platform and system agnostic, I've had issues with the AIM-7F on the F-14 too in the past but I don't have any tracks at hand to show that. AIM-7F go dumb.trk AIM-7F go dumb 2nd try.trk

My bad, I didn't get the update notification for some reason. Had to force a repair to get it to recognize a a new update being available.

Just want to say that Radio still gets stuck on Mission 5, only difference I can see is that I am able to get out of the radio menu. When trying to order wingmen to attack it gets stuck on whatever page you go to and won't return to previous screens or allow you to actually issue any orders. It just gets stuck on the final page.

Glad to hear it, looking forward to buying your next campaign at Day 1!

Just stopping by to say this is the most fun I've had flying the A-10C since actually learning to fly the damn thing 5 years ago. I am only at mission 5, but so far it has been truly excellent. One of the things that has always kept me from playing as much DCS as I've played BMS has always been the immersion factor and lack of engaging content. BMS has the excellent Campaign engine with the huge variety of missions naturally available to a multi-role fighter like the F-16C. I am happy to say that for the first time since I started playing DCS, I now feel like DCS has a campaign that can rival the immersion and enjoyment of a BMS campaign. They obviously achieve this in very different ways, but that just makes it even more of an achievement in my opinion! :thumbup: With this said I would also like to ask if you would ever consider doing a similar style of campaign for something like the F/A-18C (or if god is willing and ED makes an F-16 :drool: ) once that gets released? I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that a well designed campaign focused on a relatively low intensity conflict as depicted in OPF will probably act as a great counterpart to the inevitable horde of full-scale war missions and campaigns we will see with the arrival of a proper multi-role jet in DCS. It would also be very interesting to see how well these high performance jets designed to perform in all areas of combat would have to adjust to the relative simplicity of doing low intensity stuff. All in all, great stuff and I look forward to your future work, whatever it may be!

Fantastic movie, probably my favorite DCS movie of all time. So simple, but so well put together.

I think you're the first person ever to have this idea.

Its amazing how people still spin the same tale of how DCS is so much more demanding than anything else around. Its not. Its the current engine being 10 years old and unable to utilize the truly massive gains in processing power modern PCs have. Its the same story with stuff like the ArmA series etc, engines made in ancient times on low budgets being shoehorned into games that they can never keep up with. Give a talented dev team a proper budget and tell them to build a specialized engine with todays know-how and technology, and you would see performance, utilization and detail levels very different than whats in use in DCS and ArmA etc these days. Not like thats going to happen though. BI already proved they cant put money to use with A3, and flight sims dont have the audience to attract the investment needed. Thats not to say EDGE cant be good, but its still a relatively small dev with a limited budget, and their record isnt exactly great if you ask me.

Missing the point completely, being that even running at 100% modern GPUs do not fail unless there are special circumstances leading to it either in software instability or lower production quality on the core components. Even then, 100% utilization in a game engine is not actually the most stressful thing a card could face. Programs like furmark etc which are designed to strain the PCB and GPU to the very edge of what they can take do strain GPU's more than any game ever could, and even then your card should not fail if its working correctly.