nighthawk2174

I'd say there are games/sims that have nailed it. Top of the list being WT followed by BMS followed by IL2. Also 100% agreed i've been on this boat of fighting for better vision in other games as well such as IL2. Again I think there are a few things that can be done, hopefully at once, to solve this: A) Issues with determining target aspect at the 3-6 mile range. Smart scaling, use a more advanced version of the original version that compensates for differences in FOV and screen res. Link is to a demo feel free to try it out B) Issues with max target range A dot system for targets 6-20 miles is perfectly fine. But it needs tuned. It needs to fade to a bluish grey as you get farther away, it needs to turn off under a certain distance, and it needs turned off over a certain distance. Spotting up to 12 miles is quite possible, i've done so irl, especially if cued by a radar but just finding the target uncued should be quite difficult and largely a matter of luck. C) Dynamic contrast adjustments. WHat you'll often see with a single pixel as a target is that if the surrounding pixels are a very different color you'll get a color bleed which will make the pixel appear smaller than it is and blend in more than it should. To solve this you need some mechanism to adjust the level of contrast between the target and surrounding pixels based on the currently surrounding colors. THis should help out a lot with losing the target when you shouldn't against darker backgrounds where it should still stand out.

Yeah its quite odd how different the experience is, having to play on a 1920x1080 monitor for a bit from my 2560x1440 one and the difference is quite noticable.

Having an AP that would follow your wingman or auto climb like in Aces High would be nice actually. And I don't think this is in any way comparable to an aimbot as this a non combat function. No need to strawman our arguments here. Right but are these reasons not to have it... I don't think it is. Plus you can generally avoid AAR landing not so much. As Tipis says above it would just be another tool in the toobox for the player to decide how they want to play. And why should we prevent that? Yes getting AAR down is a definite accomplishment, I can do it and it was a great feeling when I finally nailed it. But if a player just doesn't want the hassle I don't think they should be punished. Its what drives people away from flight sims this attitude of hating and not adding such tools. Just let people play at the level they want too. It's why i'm so interested in GHPC its going to be WT simple in gameplay but SB in depth of simulation. Edit: In terms of the comparison to FPS a more APT description would be a bot that does all of the combat for you. Essentially taking all of the gameplay out of the game. All of this stuff like AAR and clickable pits are excess minutia. Yes it is fun to learn and use such systems but is irrelevant in comparison to the core gameplay... combat and the tactics you use. Hence my strong hopes for GHPC. Plus I see no downside in making the level of simulation experience customizable. You want your clickable pit go for it! If you just want to do A/A or A/G combat and don't want to deal with the minuta of exactly how to aar or how to start the jet you should be able too.

Yeah so should we dedicate the one time we get to fly during the week purly to AAR? For the overwhelming majority of my group it's a hell no answer they want to actually play the game and not be bored. I just don't understand the resistance to this idea why limit this as it could be a big help to people who just aren't that interested in learning AAR and just want to blow stuff up. Just because someone else just doesn't give a crap about the "hardcore" aspects of the game shouldn't mean we push away possible players who just want to have fun. In my group the strongest proponents of stuff like this are actually the rlf piolts. This is a game not a job... I would love to make slightly longer ranged missions or long NOE missions with AAR as a backup incase you use a bit too much gas. But I can't as there's a not insignificant number of people who can't do it. Were not even talking 3hr flights even just a 1.5 hr noe flight.

Most people don't have time for that we all have lives outside of DCS

Yeah weird if its even marked as using that ammo in the lua file probably not correct no?

Well for uncued spotting for smalish stuff like F16 yes. For cued or multiple airplanes close together it will be much further. As can be seen in one of the graphs I posted 20% of the participants in that army study were able to detect an F4 at 20km (12.75 miles).

Yeah using a dot system is fine and is largely accurate for longer ranged contacts (6+ miles). It just needs A) to be variable in its size and darkness based on distance, B) Needs dynamic contrast adjustments to fight color bleed, C) needs to be turned off under a certain distance say 6 miles and replaced by some form of scaling, D) Needs to be turned off over a certain distance say 20miles (although it should blend in very very well at that distance, a light pale bluish grey dot sort of deal), D) Needs to be hidden by clouds and the cockpit.

+1 This would be super important for Dynamic campaigns as well. If infantry are to serve any purpose at all in the face of armor they need AT weapons. Both portable (AT4, javelin) and deployable Kornet/Tow.

This should absolutely be an option, it's just a QOL thing to add and would be big helps to missions I want to fly with friends but i'm the only one who can AAR. And as such I can't do the mission.

This is for one eye. IIRC it says so a bit earlier in the paper or in the original paper that chart comes from I will find it when I have time. I'll just post what i've found: EDIT 2: of note for this above chart ^ the frontal area of a mig-21 is 40 square feet keep that in mind with this chart. EDIT: I should probably also state my opinions on the black dots, it seems they were added to fix one issue but caused another. They are fine in the range of 5-8 NMi but need to fade to a blueish grey from the outside in as they approach 11NMi. And should largely be gone by the time of 15NMi (except for very large aircraft). With the rate this happens dependent on the size of the aircraft. Also this causes major issues in determining the aspect of the hostile aircraft as its covered up with a dot and you are completely unable to determine any information regarding its exact orientation till your stupidly close or have sensors on the target. Hence why smart scaling is a thing. It also creates issues with contrast as it makes it next to impossible to see stuff against even slightly darker backgrounds. Trees and targets above you in particular.

Bumping just for visibility.

Do you have SSAA on? From my own testing having it on can severely degrade spotting performance in game.

??????

I did but i'm failing to see what's wrong

I'm what exactly are you talking about?

It would be nice if they just changed this...

The top curved line of the radar cone on the HSD is not rendering.

Do you have the tacview file/ if you click on the drop down arrow to the right of the distance number between the primary and secondary objects (the boxes just below the tool bar at the top) there is an option to display closure rate between two objects. You can use this to know for sure if it was notched.

A shame it didn't stay this way for very long as from all indications that is far more realistic.

Open Beta the track was taken after the hotfix yesterday, F15 lofted launches. The bug appears that when track is lost the missile goes ballistic reverting to a 1g level flight. This is incorrect as it should continue towards the last known intercept point going active and searching for the target on its own. In your case, first clip, you supported the missile all the way till it nearly impacted and till they were already active for a few seconds in the second. Hence you not seeing the bug. If you examine the trk file I posted earlier you will see I cut off midcourse guidance very shortly after launch. This bug though is particularly bad for lofting (not level shots as in the second engagement in your clip) as when they go to loft there is no chance of them ever seeing the target but if you launch straight like you did they may still have a chance of seeing the target.

All in the title, from my understanding TWS on the F16 cannot be set in 4 bar 60° mode due to the low update rate of contacts. Like don't get me wrong i'd love to be wrong on this but there are 4 different falcon manuals out there for blk50's and MLU's (similar systems even shares stuff with the blk50) that say this isn't possible. Only options should be 4 bar 25° and 2 bar 60° (with 4bar 10° being manually selectable). With the radar automatically moving to 4bar 25° once a target is bugged. Currently you can use any parring of bar and azimuth scan zone size and it will still work. Edit: It is also noted that once targets are bugged (made into system tracks) the 60° option should no longer be available.

Yup the code is there for this just gotta wait for ED to iron out the bugs, seems that the new phoenix API is still not quite working fully according to HB/ED.

Issue seems to have persisted after the last patch. AMRAAM_BUG_DropedTracks2.trk

If you launch the trk's in tacview you can also get the closure rate to see if they were or weren't notched at that moment. Dont disagree with such missiles being way too sensitive to chaff though, should be a lot more resistant. The rest of what you posted are either us waiting for the new missile API or already reported bugs.