IASGATG

For all I know, they may well be experts. However, I've learnt to trust published sources rather than what my mate Dave says at the pub.

I think the next time one of these threads opens, a moderator should delete every post that doesn't come with a linked source.

Touch down at any speed you like, hold the "W" button, wait for aircraft to stop. Having landed F-15's at like 350kts, I feel like you just don't have the break button bound.

Nevermind then.

Zaelu, want to talk verbally about this? Skype/Teamspeak/Something? I think that doing it this way will take too long and wont convey things as clearly.

If you read the thread you'd understand why they didn't accept it? They believe that a DLZ curve from a 90's Su-27 handbook of estimated AIM-120 performance based off of Russian intelligence is the maximum aerodynamic performance of the missile and matched the code to that. The dispute is that ALL other data which shows actual Cd/Cl/CF diagrams, velocity/time distance/time diagrams, and USAF/USN DLZ diagrams contradict the Russian DLZ curve. But if you'd read the post you'd know that.

Ahh, another one of these threads again, my favourite! Okay uninitated, here we go. I'll break this down as simply as I can. Firstly we have the hard coded flight model. In a nutshell a series of equations that have look-up data that creates outputted forces which ultimately govern how the missile behaves. The maths equations are an oversimplification of supersonic flow for idealized bodies which is causing large problems in edge cases. (Edge cases here are for AoA >1) As a result the equations need to be augmented, likely with the addition of new variables, in order to to resolve this problem. Secondly we have the look-up data. This is your standard pressure, temperature stuff, but also your drag and lift curves which are in turn derived from look up data found in lua files etc. What this grants is the ability to have custom drag profiles for each missile and so each missile flies slightly differently. The problem here is that the drag and lift curves do not match what the literature suggests they should look like. Thirdly we have guidance. This is the laws that the missile obeys in order to attempt to hit the target. As of at least 1.2 they are very basic which is fitting of early generation missiles and of heat seeking missiles, but not for new gen tech. This reduces the effective range of the missile against maneuvering targets but not against non-maneuvering targets. (Although when lofting is taken into consideration it effects this as well) Fourth we have seeker head and countermeaure susceptibility. This is how easily the missile is able to track the target, how easily the missile can be spoofed by countermeaures and how easily it can reacquire after being spoofed. This appears to be what ED is putting the most effort into at the moment as the code changes every other update. It's an unfortunate grey area and is very divisive as we have literature that says how easily missiles can be defeated, but this suddenly makes an effective weapon useless. This is what I'm least qualified to talk on so I'll stop this point here. What this ultimately means is we have a missile who is losing too much energy in level flight because the drag curves are incorrect, who is losing too much energy in turning because the maths is also incorrect and is turning when it shouldn't be because the guidance is incorrect. Oh, and certain variables are entirely missed from the flight model like drag reduction with active motors and such. I hope we all learnt something today and have gone away as more enriched and happy students. Class dismissed.

With online debriefing, any chance that the file can be automatically downloaded to the connected clients? Saves having to send large files through a third party service.

Where as Polish MiG-29 pilots I've spoken to said it's a terrible missile and they hate using it. Just like USAF exchange pilots have said that the EOS in the MiG-29 is useless, yet the Indians say it's amazing. Hmmmmm... It's almost like everyone on the planet is biased...

This is a tangent, but out of curiosity, why is original FC1/2 considered the golden standard for missile performance? Just playing devils advocate here, but I don't see people asking to go back to FC1 flight model for the A-10. Don't get me wrong, I know that the missiles are broken now. But why do you think that FC1/2 is right? What if it's equally wrong? How do you know what right should look like if all you've seen is wrong?

I can't. I've asked for A-10A only. I can understand the desire though due to limited number of capable A-10A pilots vs A-10C. I wish there was a way to disable specific avionics in the A-10C in the mission creator, but again, limitations in the game.

I agree with Apo, the shark and the Frogfoot should also be removed to make this accurate. As the Su-25T wasn't a thing in the 80's. As for the shark, the first prototype took off in the 80's but it wasn't actually produced until the mid mid-ninties. That'd be like saying that the Harrier is effectively a 60's aircraft and putting a GR7 or AV-8 into the game. I can just about tolerate the A-10C, but it shouldn't have a TGP, like there shouldn't be a 25T, or a KA-50.

Yep, sure do.

Cheating without integrity check is really easy in DCS. You can see every object on the map at any distance you like. Set your weapons to be unmissable, pull basically infinite speed and infinity g with an infinitely large explosive warhead. Etc etc etc. Normally even without integrity check it's pretty easy to spot in the replies. But as the replays are now buggy as **** it's now basically impossible to check.

GREG! LESS FORUM POSTS MORE GETTING CODE SORTED!

Greg, xcom, when is blueflag 1.5 out?

So flood mode no longer triggers a missile warning alert, only an STT alert?

There was KA-50's in the 80's? :S

Engraved on the back it says "Scat - The Best Fighter Pilot In The World". You guys are the best!

Seeing the flying hours is really telling for how the war went. How blue was getting crushed day 1-2. We pulled back day 3 and got to Kras. Then lost everything and barely struggled to almost force a draw, despite being outnumbered about 2:1 from start of Day 4 onwards.

STILL WAITING ON THOSE STATS GREG!!!

Hey Xcom, Greg, any chance we can get that list of players logged in by hour for red and blue for this event like we had for the last round? Be curious to see how much blue was outnumbered by.

Especially when you factor for the fact that read had 25%+ more hours clocked than blue and blue had about 20%+ more hours locked in fighters than red. ;)

Xcom, stats that would be interesting would be as follows: Number of total hours played by each side. Total number of hours where one side had a 2:1 lead Total number of hours where one side had >6 players on when the opposition had <3 players. That's the biggest things for balance imo.

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight over Beslan, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air! We shall defend Tbilisi, whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on the farps, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!