jackmckay

Such a bold claim, i must admit. First, its classified, second since its classified its not publicly available, third ED can only speculate as most reverse engineering offices. You have nothing on X except claims like R74 has.Its also well documented that X failed in RL, like many missiles do. Its also documented that Stealth is shit and just commercial trick. Lets stick to "simulation" that ED grasps for and should. Tharos, since you're in ED team, can you give us reality check on missile performance to prove your reality claims? Next, R73 eats way more CMs than any blue - like PK in minimum flared zone is 5%! Is PK rationalization a joke? Then, why ED doesn't introduce R74 which is just modified R73 with larger view cone? Whats hard about that?

Then why someone would care for yours too? What is your elevated right? Currently, since DCS is beta, I'm acting as free beta tester for ED, spending lot of time on daily basis in MP. Conclusions drawn by pure observation. Same as most scientific studies do - observe -then conclude. I conclude, Flares on red planes are shit - now. Aim9X is on God mode -reality disproves. Beat that Tharos!

All missiles act "perfect" - in DCS, that count only for Aim9X, DCS made red origin plane flares obsolete and missiles prone to single damn flare or chaff, absolutely obsolete, 99% of time, no A-A IR missile stick to damn red flare. How ignorant and reality discontinued is that? That's called heavy reality tweaking. I'm wondering why ED even refer to real life missile or any other data if they don't stick to basic logic of sensor saturation/hot gas aspect and public available data. What stand on encyclopedias or any other public document, who is ED in engineering world to change that data as they wont and still refer to that specific peace of mil equipment - literally. Tweak it and call it Ace Combat names alike, not real, that's fair. Otherwise id called customer misleading. Treat DCS as football game, 11 players here, 11 players there, no intervention to balance teams, that is way out of fair and trade deal behavior. You sell what is on box. If it says brick, its damn brick not a car. If Aim9X had fin malfunction in RL, simulate it. If R73 had malfunction - sim it. How hard is that for ED? Why activating god-mode on some items? Where is RL vs SIMed comparison chart for missiles. Why is that hard to produce? ED - you're killing all the fun in DCS. Don't change history, its already written. I can not explain that reality discontinuity bit I'm prone to believe its intentional. Why - probably some daily political or financial (Saudis financing) influence which is way out of my support in any kind - but that's just my speculation.

Aim9X is classified but still reached DCS in theoretical performance envelope, acting perfect. Real? Doubt. What about R74 using same rules as aim9x? Classified but didn't reached DCS. So, who's fool here?

http://www.flir.tw/uploadedImages/Research-Science/Products/RS6700-Series/Single%20Angle%20Low%20and%20Close%201%20rainbow.jpeg This is FLIR image. Engine hotspot is simmilar to flare in motion. Sensor has gain treshold limit, and it has to be if it wants track hot zones fast. Theres also gain compesation speed on seaker sensor, menaning that missile processor has to filter some data, fast. Is algorithm right? None knows. Its everlasnig battle. Can seeker be fooled. Definetly. Can Aim9X in DCS be fooled? It looks like not. There's 1% chance of countermeasures effectivenes in DCS according to my online experience in last 6months. Regardless of missile-plane spect. I had single sucesfull headon evasion in 50 hits with tons of flares. It behavies like on rails. Not real at all BMO. Trouble is that all seekers refresh rate in DCS is 2-5 secs and (AIM9X) can't stick to countermeasures right as it cant even process its appereance. On other side all soviet missiles stick to 1st flare. 1st, regardless of aspect, 95percent of time! Is tha real? Then, we have confirmed RL AIM9X malfunction - confimed! I see manny soviet other type missiles malfunction regullary - like 30% of all fired goes balistic after 3 secs. Can DCS simulate that random faliure or seeker deception? It loks like ED doesnt want that. OK. Its their decision. Can ED introduce some post 2010 missiles into game? Looks like only Aim9X has that privilege. Why not give R74? I dont know. Its simple step in modification of R73 version and can be done easily if theres a will. There's not. From my perspective, odds of survival engagement are hard on side of AIMs, as they are not closely prone to any kind of malfunction or deception. Hard to believe that. Booth missile poles suck same in RL. Difference must not be that drastic. Its ED choice, not statistical fact BMO. Nevermind, red wil have hard time learning some other evasive tactics. Blue will become comformists. Who wins?

All devs should post their RL vs SIM performance comparison. Its not top secret anyway if geometry data is availabe. Its aerodynamics.

"- Sustained turn at the altitude of 5.000 meters (5.4G) Real MiG-19P: 31 seconds DCS MiG-19P: 36 seconds (+16%)" Thats heavy handicap. 5secs loss in full turn is where you loose the advantage. Also, what is that line about G-Suit? Shouldnt there be a universal G endurance pilot in game? Does that mean tha if your Gsuit system fails you're crippled? Anyway REPORT is GREAT. Good joob guys. We can see clearly comparison between RL and SIMed model. All devs should have this kind of honest comparrison. I wonder what is the situation with all other modules presented in this way?

The most rock solid data would be sensor scan/track zone upgrade which is no big deal to implement into DCS, as same as engine data. That info is public available, no secrets there. I'm just wondering how come some "special" Aim9X guidance data got out in a first place except sensor cone upgrade. Geometry is not big change in reference to older Aim9s. So, based on evoution process of Aim9 and public data available, can we expect similar evolution of R73 to R74?

What statements/references do you state your claims on? All I know is that there was Aim9X misguidence flaw and that Su22 had upgraded flare type. Count that, what do you get?

Aim9x is now what R73 was before, off boresight advancement that came after R73 was fat in service life. If Aim9X is moddeled correctly it should stick to new countermeasures as seen i RL case (Su22 in Syria), also if Aim9X is modddeled correctly that means DCS has all data available which is hard to believe cos that would open doors to reverse engineering of some sides that shoudnt have that tech at all. I hope that is not the case, so claiming that ED has all data available for 9X is not viable. Same for R-74. None knows actual tricks uder the hud and shouldn't at all. All that is needed for good game emulation is sensor cone angle and engine power data, rest is a geometry and G limitation. Not mutch magic about that. If Vympel had upgraded R73 to R74 variant, who would even know that cos there shouldnt be any major change in external geometry as there's only declared change is in missile sensor range an engine power. Change in code should be a minor, title change, cone angle change, thrust time/intensity variables, 3 spots to intervene. Priciple is the same for booth missiles, no viable data is available and shouldnt be at all. Its all on developers choice weather to implement that version or not. Seems like that F18 is filling the gap that was there since introduction of Flanker, but that is not code related but rather military industry related issue. ED is balancing history by its own ways, looks like post event negotiations. Thing is that Aim9x artificially balances sides as was done before with F15 DM and FM. What should be really simulated is that Aim9X flaw of sticcking to new russian flares. that should be simulated if we're gonna stick to reality, right?

How about proximity fuses? .. got it, not modeled. wow.. none asked this question since 2015???

I'm actually supporting my collegues from actual RL industry that actualy can't be taken unseriously in professional field and while not really having so much fun.. It looks more like job of Sisyphus but I cant actually say that I didn't try to warn ED of its (deliberate?) mistakes. My conscience is clear. It's up to ED to deal with incomming tidal wave of complaints. Also, I'm finishing my drawings so this could be called a little digression of a day.

Guy that started this post gave you some pretty good charts and conclusions and invested his time but shouldnt, where is the EDs proof he's wrong? Where's the certificate of FM validity? Cant fool the numbers.

Thats attitude paradigm actually. And players should take someone project being 'simulator' just by claimng so in a title and the actual ones to proove is that claim right or wrong should be customers? Things dont work that way esac. You know the one saying 'customers are allways right'? That's the RL ethic. British ED should stick to that.

Btw, You can also call it 'false advertising'.

Well, that is the case when too much customers feel that way. Its common practice in business world. Not my idea though. And now eisac asks moderator to moderate RL claim. Thats funny and show a weakeness of supposed sides. Pretty low, same as england attitude towards croatia footbal team. We know the outcome. Ban me again please! Not much hurt here.

Well if its a 'game' then not but if it claims to be unbiased 'simulator' then damn yes otherwise its a customer misleading and fraud prone to lawsuits and removal of unproven advertising in its title.

^ 100% true.

Building from scratch, no reference to other engines, prefer just being original and not to be possibly misguided. Ready on vulkan api, setting up workflow schematics, also seting up dynamic tessellation on terain model-found great samples for vulcan, second level refinement over procedural terrain is a must, coding gui framework, importing dummy OBJs.. Seting up trajectory engine is next big step after this above is set and ready.. We'll see..

there were two versions english/russian since 2008 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=539058&postcount=1 that were not available to opposing markets. why was so hard to implement localization tables? nevermind, betas fine but client support sucks.. and my real name is not Jack ofc., as it has been taken in honor of RL test pilot that actually survived crash landing in fastest manned plane on earth, X-15, also known as John Barron (“Jack”) McKay. here we go boys.. see you on E3 in few years ;)

Also in anyone in doubt of my FM surely would go for cfd data comparison vs real thing with deviations or not. Wouldnt let outsourced teams dictate FMs as they wish nor would go for addons if core engine is not perfect. I wouldnt have 3 versions of FM and 2 versions of game just cos of localization maps that takes like 150kb file to change titles around.

For a start, I would be kind and open to my customers. Then I would check competence confonted and act as diplomat. Also would implement 'anger level' on bugs reported and acted nice and prioritize one most reported.

Work guys, work.. Time is running. DCS sucks, back to drawing boards.. or face comunity meltdown. No hard feelings, but where is the proof of FM validation vs actual charts? Untill that comes up, dcs is not a simulator.

Well, you may be expert in your fields but when you go out and say that none here is competent for DCS topics thats what you get back - someones brief CV to get you back on the ground, considering it as personal credit or discredit i dont care, im pretty honest here. Famous 'stuck on grass' thread also prooves that soil hardness in dry or soaked state is not simulated at all thus many planes used to fail on basic taxing there where they actually shouldn't comparing to tyre roll drag and thrust available, but that what you said now is just another attempt of discredit me by pulling some other offtopic issues over this thread. Yes, Internet is full of various 'experts' but considering my stuborness, don't you really think that by using that feature my team and me could actually make a little more realistic simulator than DCS? If compared to Trump talk style isn't that rhetoric closer to ED maybee by claiming: we will make best flight simulator out there, its gonna be beautifull (thrue, but physics will be manipulated and certain modules favored on behalf of objectiveness and actual data charts). Nevertheless, I'm expecting progress on fields of FM and DM soon and if there will be no progress at all, my remaining time will be used better somewhere else on better causes. Simple as that.

Zhukov, what if I tell you that my first pc programming encounter was in 93' on c64 basic, next on 386 (installed in k50) on win3.1 run on dos6.22, coding win clone os-es and vesa driver games on borland pascal, c and c++ in mid 90', entered mechanical engineering colledge in 2001, second colledge in 2004 was IT engineering, cappet in top 10% of students, designing and analysing ship systems and hull for croatian and norweigan shiyards for last 7 years, mastered on CFD fluid-structure interaction analysys and design of smart parts and systems aside from NC programming for big and robotized stuff. Please tell me that I'm not competent in fields we're talking about? Tell me that I can't code on msStudio or Xcode in c++ or c# or any other object oriented language up to assembler level and machine code or even macros for production lines. Tell me that I cant use API calls from Vulcan or DX SDKs. Tell me I cant model 3d animated model in 3dsmax when starting from version 2.5 as now I do model and render terrain and architectural structures as freelancer aside from my actual job. What ever I dont know I will learn. But will you or moderators on forum learn that not everybody here is just player or user, but even professionaly something more serious? How many more people here are even better in things mentioned up nor you or I cant know for sure. So dont pull your cards too soon. ED needs to setup things right in core engine and be ultimately objective about FM and DM models to stop reputation spiralling down by claiming that DCS is thoroughbred simulator. Well it aint by what I can observe backed by my own experience and from reactions of others online. If ED was my company (allready own one), I would say this: '****it guys you're right, we know the issue and we're working on solution. Thank you for your feedback. Appreciate it.'