jackmckay

I had simmilar issues since 2 last updates. If in Mi8 and using light crates they swing aggresively even under transition speed and rip the cable. Heavy are some better but still cant be stopped in swing even in stable hoover.

The best IR SAM in DCS is Stinger and thats cause of high CM resistance - real or not, its so. Avanger is next most dangerous IR SAM, then goes Linebacker or Chapparal - all very lethal. So, Blufor does have quite good IR defences, contrary Redfor's IR SAMs are not good at all. Strela is mostly unefective if not useless. Tunguska is very crippled as I saw it miss full load of missiles against flanking burner in mid range as its missiles loose energy way too fast. Igla cant match Stingers at all. LR Radar SAMs? Not a problem at all. You can allways terrainmask whidweesel it and gunrun its SR/TR unit easily. No fear at all unless you fly some cargo plane hot on SAM. If we talk about AAA guns then Gepard comes in first place as most dangerous AAA gun in DCS. Vulkan is also very lethal but not as close as Gepard. Redfor Shilka's or Tunguska's guns are half effective as Bluefor counterparts are. Bluefor has way better and very lethal SAM arsenal. Trust me. 30%-80% better than Redfor counterparts. Tor is only SAM that is usable on Redfor but it has no remedy against HARMs as it shows its position easily on DL and HARMs slip thru without much problem. Most SAMs in DCS do not have functional Radar OFF/ON memory function - only if manually controlled by user so yes, most of them are sitting ducks waiting to be SEADed. If Redfor, fear most Stinger, Gepard, Aveger, Chaparral or Linebacker, espetially smokeless IR SAMs that are not easy to spot like Chapparal. If Bluefor fear just Tor, and it smokes as chimney. All other redfor SAM missiles are either sluggish, smoked or have no effective tracking logic cause of low CM resistance. Countermissile systems that work are, as said, Roland and Tor. Roland group unit has advantage as it has more launchers and faster firing rate than Tor and used to be very good against missiles but since late year its not that good as it used to be but still very lethal. Rapier is also still quite good SAM - it works fine. Didnt observe much the Rapier but if it has working missile shield that is a plus for Bluefor. So if player wants some real SAM challenge, then fight Bluefor SAMs.

just reduce speed bellow 300. they'll work fine.

Sure, I dont mind kicking some CFD asses here. lol.

That "someone" prooving they match should be ED, atleast in acceptable error margin. Right? Also, ED doesnt have wind tunnel or actual Su27 in hangar nor actual pilot input records vs flight telemetry. So none here can't put hands on Su27 and evaluate it against simulated one and shouldnt in a first place. What any gaming studio can do is best guess its perfromance by comparing data available vs ingame telemetry. That ingame telemetry of su27, by my observation, is wrong - actually slugish, dangerous and underperforming well bellow official records. Feedback telemetry of FMs doesnt give out enough aerodynamical data like combined drag vs AoA in various configurations. If ED gets config pallete drag numbers in any CFD software and stores it in a chart, then places all modules of interest, side by side, in same game enviroment, commits various simultatious tests and extract ingame telemetry, things would be much clearer to understand. Take the max speed vs T/W ratios in example. Flanker is slower than Hornet in DCS. Official numbers say different story same as T/W ratio comparrison. Sensors are topic of this post and they too in 27, by my personal long time obesrvation, are well underperforming. Thermal sensor doesnt count temperature differentials of hot target against cold sky and is very limited. Radar doesnt paint in HMS mode targets within 10km (huge downgrade as pilot is unable to lock targets that are visual). Next issues are, aside sensors, insufficient energy conservation (either drag is to high or trust is too low as plane just takes to much time to regain energy and control or it bleeds emergy too fast), wrong inertial tensors (probably miscalculated weight distribution propagation that should match the actual CG of FM configurations), low reynolds numbers used in drag calc (thus drag calculations wrong as plane feels like flying thrue the honey instead of air), explicit su27 pilot oversensitivity to high Gs (that should be universal game element to maintain fair-play principle) and brittle aerodynamic surfaces (killing own plane was never easier - shouldnt pilot "feel" the danger regimes first). Thermal sensitivity of EOS should be racalculated and sensor gain increased. Radar should work in close combat. Right now, Flanker is still 3rd league plane in DCS - unusabe in modern combat scenario unless someone corrects this issues. Open the official explicit topic, i'll gladly give you the drag, energy and time numbers back even based on crude model. Lets do it together, I dont mind spending some time on science. If theres no will in ED quarters, announce that, none should ask any "phylosophical" questions here anymore.

In a lack of reasonable arguments underrated discussion member usually reaches for attack on persona rather then argument itself. That attitude discredits any reasonable discussion and translates it on personal level which doesnt require much IQ to be used. Posted observation is based on decade of involvment in evaluation and testing of certain modules that appear in DCS franchise in a role of user or player - role not to be neglected or ignored as its honestly based on unbiased and neutral standpoint build on SP or MP gaming experience. One of pillars of DCS is Flanker. By history record, ED has started its gaming industry involvement by just this sole module - Flanker 2.0, which gave ED planetary success in combat sim market and was basis for DCS franchise success. During period of LO(MAC), Flanker had certain combat ingame value that manny players go tuned to and tuned own performance to fit module edge performance ingame. During next decade, manny players have experienced radical degradation of its performance and combat ability, shifting power on side of newcomers and modules that have higher commercial value. This has been done intentionally, by my observation, not in favour of "old" modules which gave DCS its reputation as neutral and politics-free fairplay simulation developer but in favour of unrealistic and biased approach instead of fact-checked module performance implementation. By implementing this performance reduction, ED have undoubtfully shifted from neutral to polarised developer. Even if it is against EDs will, the outcome is obvious to manny "just" players who want to have certain amount of skills learned manifestation and joy espetially in PvP MP combat arena. Blaming module coding instead of players performance is worst thing that can happen to any game - if its a game in a first place. If this is all true, reasons behind this approach could be export-reduction based on current global political climate but even so none cant stop any software developement studio, if theres a will, in using the numbers gained by reverse engineering processes extracted by pure geometrical properties of certain flight machines of interest that have publically available graphical material. Which is the best of all, numbers ingame dont have to exact match actual performance, and error margin should be as minimal as possilble in virtual enviroment compared to publically available data if this process is done properly. It is no sin at all to guess something and none needs to look deep under the actual hud - this material its still classified after all so let it stay so. What DCS needs is proof of ingame module-against-module side-by-side performance check comparrison against RL publically available data. That would answer manny questions and doubts and open eyes to manny that want proof of perfromance simulated - against official data, whatever they are, to closely match. Actual climate on this-forum is very personal, emotional or national-pride driven. I'm personally out of that as I have no national or political interest in DCS or any combat warfare simulated here but I do mind neglection of sportsmanship and fairplay approach by simply said - intentional and post-deployment drastic interfierence into something that has no emotions or politics within at all. Very few people can reach this i-dont-give-a-f zen state and forget the politics, global realtions that btw can flip in any moment, and focus solely on its own inner fight against itself reaching the best inside in a fight against near-equal opponents perfromed in virtual enviroment. What is so bad in this standpoint that has to be attacked on personal level?

Try it for yourself. It doesnt radar lock what is visually observed even within 10km. VSM works within 5km in EOS but anything else and beyond is just immposibble to aquire if not using BVR Radar modes. Combat value of Flanker is drastically invalidated by my observation by this sensor ability reduction. I believe that RL technical spec of Flanker onboard equipment has different ranges than one in DCS. Im deeply dissapointed.

Reduced acceleration and max speed reach time, increased drag, increased fuel economy thus reduced autonomy, increased speed buildup recovery time, short negative G that immediately goes into reversed flatspin, pilot high G over-sensibility limits edge dogfights, no stick G-limit overide function, reduced sensors TA ability, reduced missile performance, increased missile CM sensibility.. list goes on and on.. what about fragile wings and tail surfaces.. Kick the Flanker out of the DCS. This is engineering mockery at this state. Lets get over with it. No more discussion and problem solved. DCS Flanker is not The Flanker world knows about. Not even close. ED, kill the flanker properly if you allready have such intentions. I'm serious.

Can someone explain sensors logic in Flanker? I visually see the target on Datalink inside 10km range, spot plane and turn on HMS to point at target with EOS, trying to lock but without success even target is burning AB. Same thing with Radar ON - it just wont lock anything in HMS mode. Locking targets that visually appear in sight is immposible beyond 10km and at that point enemy is well within his engagement no escape zone. So what are the sensors limitations here? What will guide and aquire targets on egg ET max range? Comparing to other HMS systems Flanker system effectiveness is drastically reduced. What is RL data behind this sensor ability reduction logic in DCS? I dont get it but trying hard to figure out this. Was this intentional for some reason?

Sure, that makes heavier plane hard to slow down, right? Why then Flanker in DCS bleeds speed so fast in turns?

Thanks on reply. I got that clear but still it isnt the same FPS as before latest update even with 32GB of RAM. Tip: reducing terrain textures to low helps freeing lot of RAM. Isnt that FPS drop a texture issue somehow? Also I notticed that DCS folder has many duplicate/simmilar texture files scattered around modules and module packs. What if there's some lightweight and centralised texture option?

Hi, I've noticed that DCS uses around 24GB RAM on 2.5.6.58125. Isn't that too much? Performace is very bad after this update so this might be the issue here. Thoughts? Rgds

[VMO2] Birdstrike - MiG21Bis

Doing some speed test checks here. Thank you very much on reply.

What is the max speed of Hornet at sea level (in mph or kmh) obtained in DCS?

BMPO, its not about the flying or skills, its all about player vs missile duel. So who places "better" missile in game, thats the one that has most players on its side. Untill now, west has deployed 120Cs and 9x as their pinnacle tech ingame. Theres no even close east counter missiles with that CM level even in RL theres much to discuss about. Player are confomists, lets not call them chicken. When one red skill seaking player learns to counter Aim120s and effectively avoid 9x what then? Is lag whitching or server DoS a solution to underperfoming skills of typical blue confomist in game when confronted with overskilled aim120 avoider in inferior 80's tech plane with some good SA systems? Lets not forget about pricing of missiles if we want realism. Spamming 10xAMRAAMS on potentially target infested sky zone in not really economically justified only by fear of pilot in BVR safe zone. Its like givingaway of 20% of airframe value justified by potential fear. Maybee being conformist in RL is ok but being chicken in virtual enviroment if really dumb if you have a chance to learn some rare skills that are not possible to obtain in RL. ED is pushing conformist agenda, judged by missile asset performance on blue side. I think its not getting along by the olympics standard. Its more of conformists against nutcases fight. When nutcase evolves enough, conformists are doomed.

- "A weak point for Russian fighters today are their engine lives." please check maintenance intervals for booth teams then come back and correct that quote? - GPS is on red called GLONASS - told you about minimum number of planes produced criteria - "I mean with the decades of communist oppression, the loss of their empire, and all of that." - Russia never expanded out of its borders, same now as before. NATO is in other hand expanding. So get real. I found this very "subjective painting" kev2go. PS: Give us upgraded Su27S(k)m https://adiewicaksono.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/su-27skm_sheme_b_eng.gif or go home. DCS red is now 100% underdog. Who likes this masochistic setup anyway? Is the purpose of DCS to manipulate public opinion or game that supposed to be balanced and fun - focus on your own skills not OP cold-war spytype sht. that happens now in background of some dickhead offices on booth sides. I want engineers work here not politics or RL pilot talk - "my dad is stronger that yours". So should I quit playing DCS unitil those people balance this "game" or should I go make my own? What you think?

Since when is produced number criteria invented in DCS? What is minimum number of planes produced enough for plane to be modeled in dcs?

U want to make a real sim or what? Guy posted some interesting proposal. Pilots life - simulated. Which opens another world of opportunities. Of course ED wont recognize that as damn good advice. Is it better to startup, fly 250km, and then just on final - CTD. Repetitive. Is that a better option?

I have decreased tolerance to something trivial to correct if already tested before. I don't get that serial of downgrades. My MP time is precious to me and not to waste cos of someone is playing with control knobs just to suit its current needs. That is what I think. Cos not fixing that performance and sensitivity curves of systems that are going drift drastically is not really professional. You cant miss 50% of some RL value. It looks deliberate..but, you can start looking from item to item. G-sensitivity and blackout behavior is not just random value. It should be similar for all pilots in game.

Consider me a test pilot. Its all my subjective personal observation supported by countless hours spent in that air frame in DCS. You can always compare what it used to be against what it is now. You can always read speed trade against time when in turn and speed buildup in a dive supported by max thrust. I feel that sluggishness that wasn't there before. I feel that G blackout sensitivity that wasn't there before. I feel that structural failures that weren't there before. What is going on with J11? Something not traced in change-logs for sure.

J11 looks nerfed like never before. G blackouts on mild turn, pilot blacks out in ANY situation in 2 secs - no recovery, -G like 2-3 goes into flat spin, rudder deflection over 800km/h rips tail off, FCS off is matter of history not option ain any case, recovery from dive takes too much time to pull up - not enough time to recover if subtle -G correction is done in last phase of attack, countermeasures don't work in no situation against anything reasonable, thrust is greatly reduced and fact that J11/Su27 has most powerful engines in game means nothing as building up speed takes forever, IR sensor range and sensitivity is reduced to 20%, radar lock brakes just at firing range as target is not maneuvering, I could go on and on.. its in game capabilities are reduced to 25% of actual. What the hell are you guys doing to that plane, taking the fact that it DIDN'T WORK THAT WAY years after release. What crime it have done to you there in ED? Why do you hate Flankers so much? I don't get you, really. :flowers::flowers::flowers:

Thank you guys on fast response. Respect.

Found some info here: https://www.themodellingnews.com/2014/03/gary-reviews-eduards-tarantula-of-skies.html

Man, any team can extract enough missile data from minimum public data available. Geometry is a prime factor, missile/seeker performance is in numbers claimed by manufacturers, atmosphere model well known etc. None want some special tricks inside missile logic or should know that at all. Its expensive and classified data - and should stay so. Since DCS ia sa "game", I dont see a reason why not implement something that has that minimum data available. Like rest of DCS is prerfect and there's a minor bug in here. No, game is full of bugs and errors. One new is not a problem. Also, if you, Mr.Tharos, are not on ED team, I found you "not elevated" in any rights so your word goes against mine. Even so, my engineering and IT background could elevate me in rational environment. Is this forum that plane? I doubt. Here are users, not designers.