Fri13

IMHO it is odd (and could very well be reason for being difficult to read) that if you have example 4 bar scan going in 4th bar and it detects something, then it will be drawn on the screen only for that period when that last bar is shown and cleared away once the next pattern (1-4 again) is completed.

Sure there are the traces of it, but it is just reason as it takes some time to people convert. They drive on the left, not on the right. And hence so many countries that has been under British rule drives on the right. It is very understandable why these things has come to be. Think about building a house in 15th century or something, you have someone telling you "I need 5 foot long board" and so on someone else put their foot on board and measures it to be five. Someone says in the bakery "I need five cups of flour" and so on one just picks up the proper cup and does measurement counting to five. Similar thing is with the belt, thumb, palm etc. You used all kind average measurement sizes as they were generic, but not accurate to even each others. And it didn't matter. Aviation is pretty much science all the time, and it would be so much easier to just switch all aircraft to metric system. But learning the mental gymnastic in DCS, it just makes it painfully fun. I just hope that one button would be there to switch quickly between even when doing a mission for imperial aircraft as it is easier to design with metric and then switch to imperial to confirm that they works as wanted.

There is only three countries left that use imperial, and it is USA. Liberia and Myanmar. But there is reason why so, as it would be just too difficult for USA to convert to metric. Like our whole navigation coordination system is based to degrees, minutes, seconds... The aviation is based to seafaring by using the clock and coordination system. And that is based to whole 360 degrees that is based to sun size and movement across the horizon. We could nicely drop the imperial system and just switch to metric one, but it requires that one country of the three to actually accept that they lost the scientific argument. Interesting would be that what would happen if USA would officially abandon imperial? Would we see how soon a aircraft with metric units?

Is there any memory function? Or does the contacts get cleared when new picture is started to be built?

That is a strawman. No one is here saying that it should be removed. People are here talking that it should be a game setting that is either opt-in (non-default) or opt-out (default). IMHO it should be opt-in option, just like a infinite weapons, unlimited fuel or if just would be possible, 3 min repair etc. Those should be settings that mission designer can enable to make the gameplay easier and maybe funnier for those who are less skilled, who doesn't have time etc. That argument doesn't really work, but I bite.... What you are talking about really is the g-effects for the virtual pilots. Now they are almost totally gone. The hypoxia is partially properly simulated, but g forces are very mild to almost non-existing. People would hate that they would be victims of the more realistic g forces effects when they fly, as their air quake gameplay would almost end there. No more trackIR looking to 6'clock when pulling high g, no more easy visibility outside as you see in black and white and have blurred peripheral vision with all other effects. At this moment TrackIR users do not need to do much to look their six, at unrealistic manner. VR users are at least more restricted by reality to require them to turn their body to see actually to their rear (my limitation is the virtual cockpit chair and all). Or just a hat players using a hotkey to switch to camera looking to their six or even track automatically where enemy plane flies! Things gets more interesting when realistic things are required for everyone if so wanted. And navigation is one of those that should be for decision is it assisted or not. It is a cheat when the mission is to be flown with a realistic limitations and requirements from the pilot. We can debate that is it cheating that it exist on the server and no one use it as everyone has said to not to use it and honors their words, but if someone uses it regardless, then he can be called cheater even when everyone could have used it but didn't. It is just one of those options that should be for enforced or not enforced. Like one can make a mission where labels are not enforced, but they are not denied either. So it is up to player to activate them mid-game or not. And everyone here likely would call labels as cheats... (or switch it to unlimited weapons or fuel etc).

My expectations gets lower and lower by reading these revelations... It wouldn't be bad if all would be in stable and Open Beta would be testing ground for few hundred specialists to check and confirm things... But when open beta is the main branch that is pushed for marketing, it causes negativity to PR.

After using various pedals with the traditional twisting design I was just little hesitant to get VKB helicopter style pedals. But estimation went correct that they are superior in design to traditional at home. They don't just work nicely with the office chair, they work great as well when sitting very low (~20 cm from floor). I don't miss the brakes, but I don't really operate on carrier in hornet either so much that I would need maximum turn performance. I have set the toe brakes behind a button but no need to use really. The best thing is that pedals operation is not from the hip. So tights don't get tired or knees don't need to work as much. Accuracy is high when all is done with just ankle or toes. Helicopters requires a lot more control accuracy than fighters and it is easier that way operate even fighters at home with that design. If going for traditional style, I would probably look at the Virpil if owning already that set.

I want gamma 1.0 for clouds, and still looks with too low contrast and definition. I want cockpit with 2.1-2.4 depending craft. I want sunshine areas at 1.8 (1.8 guy here too). I want shadow areas at 2.0-2.1. Now the contrast, colors and brightness are all over the places here. I only play with Rift S so it is same for everyone for all Rift S users. Flying at 14 clock in a overcast 4 or so makes everything look almost as a thunderstorm or night with 1.8. Last patch I made observation that I didn't see anything on sea at 4000 ft altitude. Until I went to about 700 ft I started to see some waves, but sea was just black dip to look. And this with 9 m/s wind at sea level.

Does DCS: hornet simulate the strongest/closest return, or does it just show the real terrain distance below the aircraft? As based to Harrier NATOPS trees, buildings, hills etc should give a return range from them and not the ground, even when they are away from under the craft but inside beam spread. In Harrier that isn't simulated so flying above buildings or forests etc gives real terrain altitude. But how it is in Hornet (or overall DCS)?

Has anyone any problems with this experimental feature? If not, then maybe time to move it to default and remove the special option....

That is where I got the idea for that joke...

Here is the versions The Su-27S we have is the first serial production version, you can find it as just "Su-27" in the root. It was upgraded later to SM, SM2 and SM3 variants.

That is a good guess. Someone who know for certain could open that how many IFF returns there can be. As based to the pattern, the left side (my linked short video) seems to have targets that are beaming, why you don't get radar returns but you can see there is someone because IFF. That is why I did mistaken it to ECM system as it was just blinking without radar returns, unlike the full video that Ramsey posted. In it you see properly the radar returns and then the IFF return separated from them, so if you have close-by radar returns then you can't see who is friend and who is not, like so far you have seen a perfect diamond inside the radar return. I think that is what makes it so special, a unique old radar with own limitations. Personally I am little tired for F/A-18C Hornet and F-16CM Viper because A-10C as they have modern systems that are even today operated. I am waiting the F-1 Mirage from Aerges as it will add again something pure Cold War era aircraft. The 70-80's is the interesting era and M2000C fits there well.

Yes he is, he visits at least weekly. But as far I know, he has given up the bug handling for personal reasons to some other people like Myhelljumper etc. He has been months now absent from Harrier forum, but he is active in their Discord, so it is not time related when he has time to chit-chat there. Harrier bug reports has been for years now handled in very odd manner, what now here and then someone does something good.

Because it is "the way how ELMO wants to do report management".... It is annoying as to find out the problems or fixes you can't do it via forum as the reports are all over different places and not organized or even responded by Razbam. At this moment it is just easier to make a new report no matter how duplicate because to find the possible duplicates is either too time consuming or worthless when Razbam doesn't respond to them even when called for it. Example this bug report has it roots deep in the other major systems that has been totally incorrectly implemented or even missing. So to get a major system like the Mission Computer (MC) implemented correctly it would require dozens of big reports all over the places. At that moment it is easier to just say that system is overall incorrect and needs rewriting.

It is not just about attack, it is about landing as well. It is not for debate that how realistic they look, but how incorrect they are. It is correct and true that we should have reflections that affect in some situations the visibility through the HUD or canopy. But it is incorrect and wrong that we do not see through the HUD or Canopy with reflections that are physically impossible, like seeing reflection that is from front panel that is under sunshade below the HUD. Someone would see their landing gear and weapons under aircraft reflected from their HUD and canopy it would be obvious for everyone that it is incorrect and makes things challenging at least. But it is now the instrument panels below HUD that gets reflected. Like there is no way that stick can cause reflection to HUD when there is not a such angle even where it could do that.

No need to be nasty.... Thanks for that, it makes much more sense now what they have done. Made the IFF system more realistic with inaccurate tagging the radar contact with the IFF. So you don't know which one of the contact is friendly when they gets close enough.

So how does Mirage pilot then know what is enemy and what is friendly when the IFF interrogator does not match the radar returns? The IFF is doing nothing more than just spamming the area with random returns that there are "friendlies in the area" but you never know what is what....

The idea in that 1M1M philosophy is that you give minimum that time per module, if you want to continue flying then you extend it with another.

But none of them are never on the same position even when the sweep comes for a second time, everyone is jumping around like there would be 24 different targets.

The upcoming Mi-24P has nice map box in pilot cockpit. Pilot can use a pen to draw on map board where are enemy units, friendly units or routes etc. Pilot has multiple board with them for different areas and scale. Great thing is that pilot could land next to friendlies and ask them to mark on map where enemies are. Then insert map to box, move the position strips symbolizing helicopter on proper place and good to go. Pilot doesn't even need to mark position on map as it is shown there. Pilot only needs to look outside and compare visually terrain and does the symbol match with it, and make correction if necessary. So even for Mi-24P player it is a cheat. I have used it lately as such when training MiG-21Bis navigation system.... I know instantly where I am and how I have misinterpreted the HSI. But for actual navigation I don't need it, I wouldn't have it. If I am lost, then I am lost. If I can't utilize aircraft navigation system to find out where I am, I shouldn't have a magical tick on map at will either. For training purpose it is great as it is 100% accurate. You can confirm your skills with it. But I want it as well be opt-in feature (not opt-out) next to infinite fuel and weapons....

How are they dancing such a way?

I feel little sorry for the OP about how many is ordering this stuff. As one can make small production of 50 or so units fairly easily, but when it becomes hundreds of units, then it starts to be challenge to handle....

Is this radar update coming to Mirage in any near future updates? I have not staid in touch with the M2000 that what is on the screen, but I believe in the final seconds the diamonds jumping around is a target(s) with jammer(s)? If so, that is possbly first time in DCS we have a proper DRFM jammer. Example: https://bsvt.by/en/aviacionnaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/bortovye-sredstva-zashchity/stanciya-aktivnyh-pomeh-veresk https://www.airinternational.com/article/russias-new-ecm-system Razbam does many things before others, pushing the available features and capabilities in these systems. Like if that is now a visual presentation of the jammers, it looks great (and I hope I am guessing wrong...). *) I am just impatiently waiting that ED would take Electronic Warfare seriously and implement even basic IFF systems properly with the requirement for players input the proper codes to their aircraft, as well to start making proper ECM/ECCM functions even if it would be from 60's technology, as everything would be dramatically better than what we have now...