WinterH

Bloody hell this and F-4 release threads are both funny as hell The amount of speculation and make-believe from boths sides of the discussion is just hilarious

Hi, all is ok, but IRL stuffz will keep me away from working on scripts for a bit it looks like, as I keep wanting to work on it but end up not finding time or energy Hopefully soon.

Funnier still, back then there were kind of two expected official F-15E modules: one from Razbam and one from Iris Simulations, which ended up developing exactly zero modules for DCS anyway.

I personally don't have huge hype people seem to have for them, but they do have a few things going for them: - You can carry a lot of those - They can glide pretty damn far - They are rather small, so some air defense systems may not be able to detect/engage them. On the flipside, - They are, indeed, small, so are their warheads (though, that is actually by design afaik, to avoid collateral damage). Don't expect a lot of area of effect from a single weapon impact - This earliest version of SDB is a GPS only weapon. So it is useful vs things that don't change position after you release the weapon. - Subjectively, as with most fire and forget GPS bombs, they are boring

You command the other seat's actions through various simple "AI" interfaces. Look up George AI, Petrovich AI, and Jester AI to see how they are implemented on AH-64, Mi-24, and F-14 respectively.

Anti aliasing not working right would explain most of it in my case, but perhaps not all as it feels like the sim is also too bright, and texture filtering seems to fall off quite quickly in anything but the nearest distances. I had both MSAA and SSAA at 2x. I'll try to see if using only MSAA or leaving AA to Nvidia makes a difference. FWIW, specs are: Ryzen 5 3600 2060 Super 32gb ram Edit: screenshot of settings attached

Hi all. I'm experiencing something puzzling that most other people I know aren't. Multithreaded exe looks a lot worse for me with same graphics settings. No antialiasing seem to be applied with lots of jaggies, and textures look a lot more low res, especially in the distance. Effects such as raindrop on canopy look pixelated. Changing settings/restarting didn't seem to help. Things look as good as they always did if I go back to non-MT exe.

Had the same on Caucasus

Your description of evading after a shot, and then this happening makes me think of it most likely being due to sight gyros getting whacked out. You need to make sure the sight doors are closed and hence the gyros are caged before you do any tight turns, or even just bank more than 30 degrees afaik. You can command petrovich to close the sight doors by pressing Petrovich AI: AFT, by default S on keyboard. Another possibility is having the wing with missiles shot-off by ground fire. Especially if the disabled/damaged missile is the one next on order in station selection. Manually going through the stations from the gunner seat until you find a working station may be something to try in that case. Also, if you are shot at by AAA from relatively longer distances, I find that it is possible to dodge shots without drastic maneuvers most of the time, which can help you preserve your sight while still guiding the already fired missile. But that's not ideal admittedly, ideally, you should fire from beyond their range, and have the missile impact before your are within range, and turn back safely after shutting the sight doors. Most of us (myself included) often get greedy and fire a second shot, and get inside AAA return fire range, and find ourself in that situation

Had the same yesterday, it's the alignment. You either need to do the quick alignment with stored heading, or make sure you confirm your aircraft's initial position after a normal alignment by pressing enter on ICP. I didn't know the latter was a necessity with normal alignment, and HAD was behaving exactly like that for me.

I don't know a lot about PL-8's or even Pyhton-3 performance itself, but to be fair, people have built HMS for missiles a lot worse than AIM-9M when it comes to off-boresight capabilities and minimum ranges etc, including rear aspect missiles in case of USN's kinda short lived VTAS helmet for F-4s, and I think a South African one for either Magic I or a local missile, to be used on Mirage F1s. Regardless though, a cursory wikipedia search (fwiw, yes, it's just wiki after all), seem to suggest that PL-8 has "wide off boresight targeting", and "can maneuver at over 38Gs". So I think it should be fine. Also, I don't think HMS was a thing on Peace Pearl yet, and was developed on one of the domestic variants after it? Not entirely sure though.

Meanwhile me here couldn't care less about a "Super" Hornet, nor a 2023 F-16, at all, but would be interested in an 80s F-16A, as well as a 90s F-16C Block 40 maybe, but I'd lean closer to F-16A.

I slightly prefer the French A, but would be ok with a GR1 too. Jaguar is something I am hoping to see in DCS a lot really. Would be a hoot!

Stop feeding exhausted (though exhausting seems more fitting at this point) guys, he's been very salty since announcement of F-4E and can't move on. As for the subject, as others have said/linked, naval birds will be a separate module. Variants aren't announced yet, but if HB goes a similar timeframe as with the two E variants, they will probably be J and maybe even S. Also unknown is where will they slot in HB's releases, it looks like first two releases will be F-4E and Eurofigther, but whether it's the Intruder or Navy F-4 after that isn't clear yet. I don't think HB will give us a clear picture about it before F-4E is out, possibly even after the Eurofigther release rather.

Yeah the option to choose a different ammo belt would go a long way.

Finally, a person of good taste! :))

Will you EVER be not horribly and completely wrong?

Don't care too much about a J-10. J-11 or any Flanker I'd be somewhat interested in. J-7/Q-5 I'll take over those anytime.

@Bremspropeller Nah F-13/Early J-7 (which honestly can be done as a 2in1 module), late J-7, and any of the Turbo-Modernized ones for the lolz. These are the only ones I care about/matter, PF gen is just pure heresy Besides F-13 still fits you people's pointless Vietnam dreams , and Bis is a better match for our upcoming F-4Es

23mm HE rounds do very, very little to anything with armor in DCS for some time now. Is this realistic or not, I can't realiably tell, maybe the HE rounds go off instantly before they have a chance to go through the armor, or maybe they aren't hard enough and shatter upon impact, or maybe their penetration is somewhat under modeled after all. GSh-23L isn't particularly high velocity though, and JF-17's gun only has HE rounds available, and I think we don't have an option to choose any other ammo belt options. Speaking for BMP-1, if you hit it from side with an oblique angle, JF-17s HE rounds will destroy it just fine for example, but if your rounds land with a shallow angle, they won't do any damage, something I've tested a few years ago: In my experience even .50 cal guns tend to more reliably do damage to light armor.

Oh yes, on that I agree. Depends. If the variants are indeed different enough to warrant another module as opposed to "included within a single module", and if they are variants I'm interested in, I'll have no problem doing that. Variants is something DCS was sorely missing up to a few years ago. Now it is somewhat changing, but we most definitely can still use more variants of some birds, as they represent whole another experience between their variants, also for those of us who are either into historical or performance wise feasible match-ups, variants can mean a lot. Every variant I've listed above would be enough of a different experience than the ones we have to add a lot to DCS.

Of course, any poster can speak for themselves, and I will do so too here. A non-comprehensive list of existing aircraft's variants I'd pay for instead of an F-104: - More Bf-109s (aside from G6) - More MiG-21s (aside from PFM) - More F1s like AZ, CT, and EQ5 (though, I will admit, EDA itself isn't interesting to me) - More Fw-190s like F or G variants - JA37, I'd prefer a Cold War one, but would be somewhat ok with a JA37D too (a Cold War one is much more likely to get documents for anyway) - More Spitfires - Though we will get some from Razbam eventually, probably, I wouldn't mind more Mirage III and V variants - We don't have any yet, but I'd love getting both AH-1W and AH-1F, both should be 80s-90s variants of, and I'd even buy both separately if made so - More F-5s, either newer or older than the one we have

You sure that you represent that? Also PFM = the variant I couldn't care less about, MF: Not meaningfully different enough from Bis in either direction of being better or older to make it interesting. F-13 I'd love to, do want, been saying that many times through even this thread. LanceR and Bison are indeed nice to have and not needed, and frankly, imo same goes about most of the older variants too. Do I want Bis to be brought up to a better standard? Yes, but I am not expecting it at this point anymore, so chose to enjoy it as much as I can in its current state long ago... Also, since you seem to love period perfect match-ups, we already have the classic enemy for the Phantom we're getting: we'll get two relatively later F-4Es, and Bis is the counterpart to that, as will the eventualy MiG-23MLA from Razbam will be. It's not like we're getting Vietnam era Phantoms, so PFM isn't really that much of a necessity. You insist that there's only one right way of module choice for DCS, and yeah that's just your opinion, your own truth for just you. In that light, your ketchup/sausage analogy holds about as much water as the rest of your posts in the thread, which isn't much.