some1

I don't know, I think every aircraft is a unique case that has to be investigated, so I created several bug reports. I don't know if they use some common function provided by DCS SDK, or every developer has to make something himself from scratch (and then they forgot to readjust the sights if the weapon ballistic properties are modified).

In a stable tracking situation like this you don't have to apply additional lead, even with WWII gyro gunsights not equipped with radar. The K-14 sights in DCS P47 and P51 work just fine in this mission. Now, taking a snapshot against a target travelling in a different plane of motion, moving across your scope, that's a different matter.

On the contrary. The current propellers in DCS are terrible in VR, break reprojection and just look bad, so if they made them appear more realistic, that's certainly a step in the right direction.

It is not possible to hit a target using the radar sight, even a non evading one. All bullets fly behind the target. I set up a mission with AI set to a constant, level, 3g turn. I followed the target with a stable tracking solution, zeroed closure rate, textbook conditions. Yet despite that all bullets miss, even at the minimal range of 300m. The bigger the distance, the bigger the error. Track attached. I managed to score a hit only below minimum distance ("wychod" lamp on) and only because the target got so big, that when aiming for the cockpit I hit the engines. 19.trk

It is not possible to hit a target using the radar/gyro sight, even a non evading one. All bullets fly behind the target. I set up a mission with AI set to a constant, level, 3g turn. I followed the target with a stable tracking solution, zeroed closure rate, textbook conditions, yet despite that all bullets miss. Then I tried with gyro sight at fixed range (300m), but again, the lead given by the sight is inadequate. I managed to score a hit only at point blank range, when the target got so big, that the bullets hit the engines while I was aiming for the cockpit. Track attached. 21.trk

In DCS F16 and F18 you can snipe the target from 1km, so ED managed to get it right at least in some of their aircraft. Well, that's after a few patches, initially they were also bad. So maybe ED haven't shared all the latest tricks with 3rd parties yet.

Another aircraft that fails the basic gunnery test. It is not possible to hit a target using the radar sight, even a non evading one. All bullets fly behind the target. I set up a mission with AI set to a constant, level, 3g turn. I followed the target with a stable tracking solution, zeroed closure rate, textbook conditions, yet despite that all bullets miss. Track attached. 86.trk

It is not possible to hit a target using the radar sight, even a non evading one. All bullets fly behind the target. I set up a mission with AI set to a constant, level, 3g turn. I followed the target with a stable tracking solution, zeroed closure rate, textbook conditions, yet despite that all bullets miss. According to DCS manual (can't find a real one) the A/A2 gunsight mode should be used in this situation, with pipper right on target. Yet this mode provides a hopelessly inadequate lead and all the bullets go far behind. DG - A/A1 mode is better, but still not enough lead to score a reliable hit. To my understanding, A/A1 mode is a "Realtime" gunsight, and A/A2 mode is "Historic" gunsight. This should not matter, in an "perfect" situation that I tested, both should give an accurate targeting solution. Mission track attached. A/A2: DG - A/A1: 5.trk

It is not possible to hit a target using the radar sight, even a non evading one. All bullets fly behind the target. I set up a mission with AI set to a constant, level, 3g turn. I followed the target with a stable tracking solution, zeroed closure rate, textbook conditions, yet despite that all bullets miss. 17.trk

ATFLIR is on this one:

Tu-95: 1700 Tu-160: 5400 B-1: 3300 S-3: 3800 Su-30: 5400 C-17: 2000 B-52: 4800 Su-17: 3100 MiG-23: 5100 MiG-25: 5900 F-117: 1300 Sh-60: 3000 Ch-53e: 2100

It is not possible to hit a steadily turning target using the radar sight. All bullets fly past the target. I set up a mission with AI set to a constant, level, 3g turn. I followed the target with a tracking solution, zeroed closure rate, yet despite that all bullets miss. No such issues with F18, F16 or M2000. Note that the flashing BATR diamond appears in a different place than the pipper. In a steady tracking solution, they should overlap. Begin firing: BATR flashing behind the target (roughly where the bullets actually went) I recorded a track, but, as usual, it's unusable. Though you can still take control of the aircraft and try for yourself. 14.trk

Without radar lock, the HUD pipper and diamond are calibrated for 1000ft and 2000ft respectively, as stated in the manual. All good. With radar lock, the HUD breakaway symbol appears in DCS at 0.4 nm which is ~2400ft. Can't find this data in the manual, but it seems rather strange that the solution without radar is calibrated waaaay below the minimum gun engagement range allowed with radar lock.

I don't know if the current problem is exacerbated by AI being able to pull a perfect notch every time and dump chaff at the right moment, but the current missile behaviour sure does not look correct. I tried several basic head-on engagements launching missiles from about 10 nm, and every time at least one missile decided it's better to stop the lead pursuit and do a 25g turn against a chaff that was 30 degrees off-boresight. Same problem also with SD-10. Sample tracks attached. 18.trk Tacview-20210406-181850-DCS-tst_F16new.zip.acmi 16.trk Tacview-20210406-182404-DCS-tst_FA18new.zip.acmi

There are several issues with FAST ERECT button in the cockpit and the overall performance of artificial horizon. Issue 1. Pressing the fast erect button resets HSI to zero. The button has nothing to do with HSI in real life. The HSI is controlled by a separate panel on the right console. Issue 2. Pressing the fast erect button resets pitch and bank on the ADI to zero. This is not correct. Pressing and holding the button increases the rate at which the gyroscopes erect to vertical position, as explained in the manual: A little explanation: a spinning gyroscopes maintain their position in space. Literally in space, and not relative to Earth, which is in constant move. Also some random error is being introduced as a result of friction in the mechanism. To counter that, an artificial horizon has a built in erection mechanism, that constantly "erects" the gyros to vertical position (as indicated by gravity vector). The erection rate is slow, because otherwise it would introduce even more errors during manoeuvring, when the g forces pull the aircraft in different directions. The "fast erect" button simply increases the rate of alignment, to at least 15 degrees /minute as stated in the manual. So the pilot can quickly realign the artificial horizon, as long as he is flying steady during the process. Issue 3. There's still something wrong with the attitude indicator. There seems to be some sort of erection system already implemented, because the horizon will adjust by itself after few minutes of level flight or by just sitting on the runway after landing with horizon gauge out of alignment. But at the same time, if you try to fly level according to the artificial horizon, then the aircraft will get in a progressing bank angle after just a few minutes. This is shown in the attached track, where I get into such situation after just a few minutes of such stable flight. If I then switch to flying according to the outside horizon, the artificial one will correctly readjust itself after a while. Not to mention the artificial horizon also accumulates the same error as the standby attitude indicator, despite them being completely independent. f5horizon.trk

I've tried with and without these entries in Profile Inspector yesterday and did not see any significant difference, it was 1-2 FPS in either direction. Rebar confirmed active in nVidia control panel. That was in 2D, RTX3080 with Ryzen 5900x, DCS on High settings preset 3840x1600 res.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/257819-my-3090-settings-for-my-g2-256/?do=findComment&comment=4613042

I'm just commenting the screenshots posted above.

61 vs 78 FPS in external view.

Interesting. A whooping 27% increase in performance is much more than what benchmarks in other games show, where it's 5-10% at best.

Yes, the 38" are expensive and 34" format is like a usual 27" but wider. You can compare various sizes here: http://www.displaywars.com/ Also keep in mind that many monitors are not actually 32 but 31.5", it's written in their tech specs. A TV is always a cheaper option if you go for the size and have enough space to fit it on your desk, but many models have problems with image quality, input lag, lack of support for variable refresh rate or high FPS at all. It's best to research a particular model that you want to buy and check if it works well when connected to a computer.

It's not simulated in most DCS airplanes. In real life It's also not super smooth in the Harrier, although hard to tell if It's better in the Hornet or the same. Also various elements can have different refresh rates.

The supercarrier is a separate product, much more detailed than the one you get in the game for free. Also the sun is set just right to bring out more detail from the surface.

True, no IR mavs launched by Navy or USMC in Iraq campaign. Maybe Stout messed something up in his memoirs, or the Mavs were carried only in the role of sensor there.

The excerpt comes from Jay Stout's book, he did not use them personally, but from what he wrote it seems that other Marine squadrons did: