TAW_Blaze

Previously it was mentioned that with 2.7 we might get improvements to the Viper FM. Does this mean those did not make it to the patch?

Tbh it would have been wiser to take Thursday off. Most patches come out late afternoon and can only be downloaded in the evening.

Why are people purposely misinterpreting and narrating what other people say? I said I consider it as a critical design flaw. Which it is. What I like or don't like has no impact on how an aircraft is simulated.

I never said that this is proof of anything. But it is rather odd that all other variants of the same aircraft have this symbology. Why would they remove it in a more modern variant? It helps a lot with SA, especially in low visibility conditions. In this thread there is no direct claim that the blk50 should not have these symbols. These symbols are important to me and if they do not exist in the modeled variant I consider it as a critical design flaw, just like not having IFF indication on your HUD.

This is an incentive flight with a D model from 2009. Zenith at 22:23 and Nadir at 22:39.

Not sure what was the cause, I saw a lot of people getting ludicrously high pings. We will ship the new machine to the data center soon, were holding off until the event just to avoid any unforeseen issues. No mission is tested with 60 participants. You might aswell host it twice if you want to do that.

This is especially silly when there is no ground clutter within the effective range of the missile's radar. i.e shallow look down angles (< 15 degrees) with a target around 20kft agl or above notching an active missile is just stupid, the ground clutter at this point would be pretty much negligible since the slant range to the ground is huge.

Pretty sure the DLZs you have in the Viper are just placeholders. Not sure about the Hornet, but to be honest I expect the same. DLZs in DCS overall have been borderline worthless since the dawn of time. In comparison to what you have in the Viper I'd say the FC3 Eagle had better DLZ (prior to 2.5.6 AMRAAM rework) and even that had more than +-20% margin of error on Rtr. Which has probably more to do with the methodology behind estimating NEZ, but the problem is all the same regardless of the root cause. The only way to have good estimates of your pK is to study it yourself and build your own methods. A good pilot should be able to do 2 very important things: 1. assess expected pK based on initial shot conditions and post launch maneuvers, even if you take away DLZ completely. 2. judge which tactics are valid to employ based on initial shot parameters. If you cannot do these things you're just flying blind.

104th_Blaze - blue - F-16

I'm really not sure what has happened to the community since roughly around the time the Hornet went into early access. A few years ago we usually joined a server to have a good time. We join multiplayer knowing that this is not all on our own terms. Every now and then the other guy will have a good time at our expense. It's all about the challenge of figuring out how to beat the other guy. And sometimes the other guy figures out a way to get into your base and kills you when you spawn. Or some other evil things, like clipping your aircraft while flying low altitude airshow over the enemy airbase.. or taking out all the SAM sites with 20mm on an F-15C. Of course there are extremes to everything, which are usually not allowed. Nowadays I just see the never ending whine about everything when someone doesn't get his way. My favorite missile is banned? The mission is unfair for one side? I don't have my AWACS? I got shot down? The list goes on.

104th_Blaze F-18

The test server is hosted from a slightly different location at the moment (one of our founding members, PoleCat). Might explain why you have different latency. There seems to be an issue with the motherboard driver randomly disabling the network adapter every now and then. This is why the server went down a couple times in the last week or so. Paul chased down a possible fix, we'll keep testing with that. Definitely don't want this to happen in the datacenter

We decided to keep hosting on the new machine for a couple days to get more data. Thanks for everyone who joined tonight! A few things that are W.I.P.: - SRS is not working (we believe we found the root cause, might be fixed overnight by Fallen) - LotAtc is not available yet

Starting in 20min!

Thanks for everyone who joined and I'm sorry about the warehouse and random failure issues. Neither of them were intentional and from the mission settings it looked like these problems should not have existed. We thought we found a fix, which is why we restarted about 1 hour into it (although I think round 1 was already won by blue at that point). Unfortunately that didn't work out either. I think the only live solution to blue losing about 10 players in the 2nd round would have been to redistribute some guys to blue from red. This was totally unexpected and I got multiple PMs minutes before the restart that they will not participate in round 2. Anything more would have taken far too much time to implement. That said I hope everyone had a good time!

The event will be held with ECM available. I'd like to remind everyone that this is a friendly community event. I have faith in the community that they join these events to take part in the mission and have a good time. If someone still decides to blatantly exploit this bug then they will face the consequences.

Congrats guys! The jeffs were a lot a lot stronger in this format than I expected.

You described it much better than I could. Currently as far as I know there are a couple of triggers that result in synchronization (shooting, missile active, impact) but between that it's the wild west resulting extreme desync due to being totally independent for dozens of seconds throughout it's flight. Even if you have an extremely poor tick rate like 16 ( most competitive shooters use 64 or 128 ) you would have completely negligible impact of lag because the general position and parameters of the missiles would be consistent between clients. Instead now you have often multiple miles desync with severe altitude and / or guidance showing a missile to be a no factor only for you to explode for seemingly no reason. I'm not sure how bad it'd be for guns, but I'd rather have a robust platform for missiles at a minimal loss to guns (not like the current solution is perfect for guns either, high speed and / or high alpha shots are pretty far off) than the other way around. You'll never be able to implement anything that magically provides perfect solutions for lagging clients in a dogfighting environment anyway.

You don't understand the problem. I'm sure you've been in a scenario in an FPS game where you shot someone on your client side, you pressed the button, but this was not registered by the server and you died. Nothing happened, the other guy happily lived ever after. Translating the DCS implementation to the above FPS scenario the person you hit on your client side would die afterwards. I can't think of a single FPS game that works like that. To make it worse in DCS you have a lot larger history of movement, especially for missiles or bullets where this has a HUGE impact on the other client side who is trying to defend that threat. If you see desynced bullets going in the wrong direction you might not defend and yet you might still die. If you see a missile on your client crash into the mountain you might still die because on the shooter's PoV it did not. This is madness. There are plenty other games including flight sims that managed to get this right.

TBH they should remove chaff alltogether, rework multiplayer architecture to get rid of all desync issues and then tune missiles to work well without chaff or any EW. Then subsequently add all these elements. It's nonsensical to trigger kills based on a client's PoV, while all other clients see something else. It brings so much inconsistency that even if you tune the other things it will make it extremely hard to monitor the results and determine if something works as intended or not.

I had a quick try, yanking the stick in a level turn at M0.8 in a clean jet in previous patch you would gloc after 90 degrees of turning. After the patch you gloc after roughly 180 degrees of turning using the same method, no prior g warmup. It also looks like you can dip into high g a bit longer now, but cannot sustain more than 8 g for longer periods (more than 15s or so).

Could anyone post the original threads of which bugs were fixed by these points for the Viper? Thanks!

There is also a comment about generic increase of g tolerance. I'm curious what these 2 combined amounts to.

Your maneuvers resulted in a displacement compared to the original course at launch insufficient to remove you from the seeker search cone and you failed to maintain mountain masking. Hence the missile reacquired you when you re-entered the line of sight of the missile. From the only source you provided the missile is flying level 1 g prior to you re-entering line of sight at which point it reacquires and intercepts. It may or may not have turned before that but this cannot be determined based on this video. You could definitely say it was bad luck. However, more importantly you should take away what can be improved on your end - SA. It's hard to tell based on your video again due to the poor PoV but by the available sight picture of the ridgeline you could have positioned yourself to be at the lower region where it would have provided better masking and potentially prevent all of this from happening. You also could have cut power instead of accelerating to stay back and let the missile pass while you had good ground cover since it must have been fairly clear looking forward in your cockpit that right in front of you the mountains are far lower than your immediate vicinity. I agree on the developer and customer communication, however this works both ways. If you want them to take you seriously then you have to put in much more effort to prove your claims instead of just providing a rant post with a inadequate video to draw proper conclusions.

The flanker had line of sight for a moment right before the launch, this is enough to fire the missile. The lock was probably lost mid launch sequence, this happens more often than you'd think. You did not change your course at all and the missile is doing 1 g for considerable time before it saw you past the ridge and started pulling. Looks like an unfortunate case of "flew right into it". Impossible to tell from the video since you picked a poor point of view to judge missile behavior, but the missile was probably flying straight all the way until you popped out in front of it's seeker.