SDsc0rch

defecting pilots have reported our fighters' radars completely "engulf" and overwhelm their RWR systems - such that the system cannot get a discreet direction - it shows "all" directions 'murica! 8)

LOL

at some point, we have to just trust ED, right? we hope that they have access to material or sources that we don't have access to - at the very least, maybe they are able to reverse-engineer certain aspects of these missiles so they can at least form an educated "best guess" to fill in the blanks that necessarily exist but up till now it seems ED tries to stay true to the data - to their credit i like to see changes over time - that means they are either getting new information or they have evaluated that missile performance is be different from what their data indicates and they are making changes to bring the sim more in to line its on us, however, to be so dedicated to the truth that if "teh Truth" means that our preferred side ends up with the short end of the stick.. we must accept that (maybe not gladly) when its all said and done, we should be thankful that we have an outfit willing to put in the kind of effort to put this project together

speaking of "standards" when will they fix the DLZ symbology on the radar scope to match the in-game performance of the missiles??

bottom line is.... ED should model REALITY - as supported by EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION this is a SIMULATION - not a "game" people who want a "game" have war thunder and counterstrike and arma and call of duty thank you

no change that i can tell : /

it is technically visible --- it just appears far away (up and to the right) and (technically) you CAN still use it ---- select the ruler tool and click the two points you're interested in and the data block at the top of the page still reflects good info - you just don't get the feedback of seeing the line being drawn

TCS will be great - looking fwd to it but just sayin.. a delta w/ IRST would be...... *sweet*

sure would be cool to get the IRST variant.. : /

beat me to it : )

tankers should be flying at about 320-350kts for fighters

so "someday" we will have a DCS-level F-15C and the lights will be pulsing right...? 8)

responding to "just like on Falcon 4..." above i think this is an important point: F4 uses a "bubble" system where units that are outside of a certain range (not directly visible to the player) are "aggregated" ---- that is, a flight of four aircraft or a column of tanks are abstracted into a single unit, thus requiring fewer system resources (RAM, cpu cycles..) to manage DCS doesn't do that (and i think that's a good thing) but consider this - have you seen the lag produced in DCS when someone spawns in online? what if you had an entire THEATER to model and hundreds of people are spawning in and out?? don't get me wrong, i like the idea of a persistent dynamic campaign with thousands of units and yearn for the day this becomes a reality, but i just don't know how you get there from here not as currently modeled that's why i voted for more 4th gen multi-role fighters in the poll

and....... its just "fun" 8) ==edit== gee, i wonder what in the world he possibly could be trying to say........ ??? lol and, for future reference - cobra's profile

yes - i support this idea also (and equally important) aircraft lights have specific arcs of visibility --- this way you can roughly discern the aspect of the aircraft ((same or similar for ships)) it seems odd such amazing attention to detail is evident in so many places in DCS - and then you see something like this and wonder how it slipped through : ) i'm sure this is on an ED buglist somewhere, i hope its only a matter of time before it gets attention

i voted for 4th gen multi-role fighters we've got the hornet coming - an F-16 would be ballers - strike eagle, c'mon! and they, we've gotta do SOMEthing about the russian side - i'm not a russian aircraft expert but there must be more we can do for them... also, don't forget realistically modeled systems - radar/EW/IFF, radios, IADS << are you seeing what's going on over in the BMS world?!? WAAAANT! >> and missile modeling super super important i believe eventually we will get to a dynamic campaign - i want that too, very much - that is a very close second place vote hopefully the people working on aircraft are not the people who would be building/programming a dynamic campaign

so i guess we should really ask.. "should" we even get a launch signal?? (i feel like i'm stirring the pot LOL) : )

let me see if i understand this correctly... to guide a sparrow requires HSTT and this "m-link" ((i readily admit i am ignorant of the whys and wherefores of this m-link - am i wrong to think "m-link" is short for "missile link"? ---- i'm assuming it gives some additional information that a sparrow needs)) continuing.. RWRs detect both the HSTT signal and the m-link signal, and in turn generate a launch warning in the target aircraft but then at the same time, it seems like a sparrow CAN successfully guide to a successful intercept using flood mode only (HSTT but no m-link) ---- in an "emergency" -- ie.. loss of radar lock due to notch, hardware malfunction, etc is this correct??

here's an idea i think would help... i've noticed some buttons for the view system are like toggles - one press gives you the view, a second press returns you to where you were before for example, the apostrophe key pulls up the score board - a second press brings you back in to the cockpit other buttons go directly to the view requested, then to get back in to the cockpit, you have to press F1 i am talking specifically about the F10 view (map view) --- i use it a lot and i would LOVE for it to be a toggle button - one press gives the map, a second press returns you to the cockpit (or whatever the previous view was - most likely the cockpit) the process of having to look over at the keyboard, hunt-and-peck for F10, see what you're looking for, then return to looking at the keyboard, hunt-and-peck for F1 to return to the cockpit view... is troublesome compare that with calling up the scoreboard (apostrophe - next to the ENTER key) where you keep your finger on the same key ---> click, look, click idunno, just throwing it out there - hoping the devs agree with me : )

definitive and authoritative answer... "YES!" 8)

trees cause a drop in FPS for me i've moved the slider all the way to the minimum setting to minimize the impact trees have on my framerate i was surprised to find the minimum setting isn't "zero" (grass/weeds/shrubbery goes to zero - and that's where i've set it) would it be possible to include the option to simply eliminate trees altogether so as to maximize FR?

the day after my first post i flew 4 hops, disconnecting from the server after each one so i would have a separate dcs track file for each hop ran the replay on each one to make the tacview files - only ONE MISSION was good : ( i put a significant amount of time and effort in to this - it really makes me sorry when i have nothing to show for it

i think that is the case you could have a missile headed your way, but you do not receive a corresponding indication the launching aircraft is utilizing a mode whose sole purpose is to guide a missile, and the system does not issue a signal that reflects that priority can anyone explain the logic in that??

YES!

maybe its just me but it seems like track files desync more now than before i flew four hops today - all four failed when i replayed them for purposes of generating tacview files so i could see what "really" happened *cough*104thChangeYourNoTacviewPolicy!*cough* this is a bit extreme please build a better system - i cannot tell you how many hours and how many cpu cycles and how many gigabytes on my hard-drive have been wasted trying to get tacview files