howie87

I'm not running a 770 anymore. I switched to an RX480 and still didn't really see much of an increase in performance. Just think Intel + Nvidia is a better combination for DCS. My all AMD system seems to be a bit of a letdown on that front. It's a big upgrade in other games though.

I went from: i5 2500K @ 4.2GHz with GTX 770 2GB To: Ryzen 1700 @ 3.75GHz with RX 480 8GB £800 upgrade for basically nothing. DCS is better optimised for Intel as I experienced virtually no increase in FPS. If anything it seems worse in the Caucasus map.

See the title. Viggen is the only module that seems to be working now. DRM won't let me activate them as I have made a 'significant hardware change'. Error message I get is: "The Activation Key is not valid any more due to significant changes of the computer hardware configuration. Click "Retry" to reactivate the application. If the error recurs, click "Error report" and send the report to product technical support."

Yeah, the 476th are having weird TACAN issues as well now. Was fine before the update.

Have to admit I was surprised at how draggy the Viggen is during takeoff considering it's supposed STOL capabilities. It requires a huge amount of nose up trim and a steady hand. I thought the canards would help more but it seems trickier to takeoff in than the MiG-21.

You can't map the T0 mode with a two position trigger. The T1 state should only be active when the trigger is depressed and then go back to the T0 state when it's released. In other words it should act as a momentary switch, like PAC1 does in the A-10C.

Works fine in 3 position switch mode but not when mapped as a two stage trigger. It gets stuck in the first detent mode (T1) when releasing the trigger.

Ok... Thanks... Wow, I was expecting a ban for that! Haha, maybe things have changed round here after all!

To be honest, I'm on a 70% warning that is set to never expire for two posts I made back in 2015... I can't remember what either of them said but one of the posts is deleted and the other was in a thread that was deleted entirely! I was banned for a year and then virtually stopped posting after that.

The current implementation isn't really usable below Mach 1.0. I'd like to see this one fixed.

I don't agree with the idea that everyone wants to fly the best plane. Jump on any WW2 server at the moment and you'll see tons of spitfire's with their +18lb boost going up against 'superior' aircraft and not complaining simply because it is a joy to fly. The Spit might be the slowest aircraft of the bunch but it will out turn all the other WW2 aircraft in the DCS stable including the unreleased Me 262 and for a lot of people's there's more enjoyment to be had in beating a more powerful aircraft in a 'bog standard' LF Mk.IX. Yesterday I had an FW 190 boom and zoom at me for about 15 minutes without managing to get a single shot on me because I anticipated his attack runs and turned inside his circle. Eventually I had to RTB because I was low on fuel so I disengaged and flew home without firing a single round. I don't wish I had +25lb boost so I could have beat him either... He came into the fight with the initial an energy advantage and we both flew our aircraft to their strengths and left in one piece with a a decent amount of respect for each other. There's much more to a simulation like DCS than statistical one-upsmanship.

I agree with Kurfurst on this one and I'd rather see the aircraft stick with the most common late 1944 era 100/130 grade and B4 fuel over their rarer 100/150 grade C3 alternatives.

Personally I don't feel that the spitfire is at much of a disadvantage. In terms of speed, yes she's slower but she turns like nothing else and is formidable in a dog fight. The key is to try and have the initial energy advantage at the merge. The canons are also incredibly deadly and have much better ballistic than the 109's.

It seems to me that Allied aircraft will have to adapt their tactics to fight the Axis forces effectively in DCS. The P-51 should use its high altitude performance and endurance to harass the 109 and 190 with boom and zoom tactics, forcing them to lose energy and wander into Spitfire territory.

It does say "The Huns, knowing the Spit's quality in a dog fight, carefully avoided taking them on, and the poor Spit's had neither the speed nor range necessary to force the new German fighters to fight" though... I don't think this will be as much of an issue in DCS as everyone will want to get stuck in rather than run away all the time.

Any news on the timeframe for this with the Spit coming out today? I hope it will stop a lot of the moaning about the performance deficit between the axis and allied aircraft. If we can spray tons of .303 and cripple the 109's radiators maybe people won't be moaning about the lack of engine power!

I'm getting pretty bad FPS in general in 1.5 now (not just in the MiG-21). Worst than 2.0.

Quote from Cobra earlier this week: EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

What kind of fuel load are you trying to land with? I just tried a couple of times with 30%, 4 missiles and countermeasures and it seemed fine. There is some slow speed roll instability but it doesn't seem particularly pronounced. I was flying in VMC though and imagine it could be trickier to correct for accurately in IMC.

Yeah... I thought the MiG put up a little too good a fight against the F-5E and Viggen during the grudge match ;D

Thank you Cobra, that's great to hear. I've seen this chart floating around on other threads which nicely compares the sustained turn performance of the MiG-21bis for the Soviet PVO (NATO: "Fishbed-L") and the F-5E at 15,000ft. It gives the advantage to the F-5E by quite some margin, despite the lower T/W ratio.

The chart you referenced is for a MIG-21 F-13 at 5,620kg. The chart I referenced is from the Russian MiG-21 bis manual with second reheat, so probably more accurate than your guesswork. It quite clearly shows a turn time ~31 seconds at 2000m and 7500KG. 11.5 deg/s × 31.3 seconds = 360 degrees

From my testing the MiG's sustained turn performance at 2000m and Mach 0.7 with a weight of 7500kg and carrying 2 R-3R missiles was around 13.5 deg/s in the sim where as the charts say it should be around 11.5 deg/s. The F-5E sustained a rock solid 13 deg/s at Mach 0.7 and 5000ft at 13750lbs with 2 aim 9's as per the EM diagram.

Yeah, sorry guys I thought the execution was flawed too at first but in this video he only loses ~50m and ~50kph during whole video which isn't enough to influence the max turn time by more than a second. 50m = 164ft ÷ 26 = 6ft per second If you look at EM charts you'll see that even in a 100fps decent, max sustained turn rate only increases by approx 1 degree per second, which would reduce the 360 degree turn by ~2 seconds. That's -100fps remember and were talking about -6fps so the difference is actually more like -0.125 seconds. Losing 50kph equates to 2kph per second which also makes close to zero difference. As for this : "You are flying the turn at an unsustainable AoA. Consistently over 20, the Mig-21 cant sustain even 20 at 700 kph" Since we've now ruled out the 'trading speed and altitude for AoA' accusation, are you accusing him sustaining an unsustainable AoA? If so, either the MiG-21's flight model is invalid or your argument is.

Ok yeah, something definitely looks off there.