92nd-MajorBug

The bandit is cold (going away from you) at mach 1, your altitude is low, and your speed is low. If you shoot and the bandit maintains all its flight parameters, you will see that you were indeed not in range.

No worries, things can be confusing. However this is absolutely not "solved" or"correct as is". With all the evidence provided (including a track) ED should take a look. This is the whole point of AZ/EL to show exactly what the radar can see (or not).

Nope, it isn't. Straight from the manual : The yellow box shows the FOV of the radar, depending on the horizontal angle and vertical number of bars selected. This has nothing to do with any distance. The distances you can select on the AZ/EL OSB's are related to the IFF automatic scan (which has its own bugs: contacts replying to an IFF ping but invisible to the radar won't appear, but that's another issue) In other words, the screenshots provided by OP display a clear contradiction between the radar and AZ/EL. If the target is outside of vertical scan limits at cursor distance, it should also be outside of the yellow box on the AZ/EL page, and vice versa. @AroOmega's little schematic further explains the issue nicely.

On the AZ/EL page the contact is shown within radar scan bounds. On the radar page the same contact is shown outside radar scan bounds. The contradiction is quite obvious indeed. Great find by OP.

Please, cite the document that shows how every molecule of air glides over the real aircraft's surface. Oh you can't, because that document doesn't exist? Then the aircraft in the sim shouldn't be able to fly. Please, cite the document that shows how every wave of EM energy the real radar emits will bounce off every object ever made. Oh you can't, because that document doesn't exist? Then the radar in the sim shouldn't work at all. The above point regarding the datalink implementation is a very good one. Those documents aren't public knowledge, so by your own rules, you shouldn't have implemented a datalink at all. It's painfully obvious that in certain cases, word of mouth and approximations will be good enough for you (and good enough for us, thank you!), and in others you will become painfully scrupulous about the perfect realism of your implementation regarding publicly available information. And we can't understand why! Why exactly is scan centering in RWS such a sensitive topic that you will make us jump through every possible hoop before you accept to implement it correctly? This is insane. Please understand that, at the very least.

First, thanks a lot for the guide. I recently switched to the G2 so I never knew what it was like with SteamVR, but OpenXR works awesome on my end, 60-70 fps on free flight Syria and the image definition is a massive, massive step up from the Rift S. The only issue I have is with motion reprojection. I read the various posts about it, and I understand it's not intended to work well at the time, and I shouldn't need it anyway with a beefy PC and FPS constantly in the 50+ range. The thing is, I kinda need it, otherwise I see a lot of ghosting when things start moving around: the landscape flying by outside the cockpit, or the whole cockpit if I translate my head around, everything is kinda duplicated and blurry and makes the scene look much less fluid than it really is. Indeed the reprojection from OpenXR works as bad as advertised: fps go down in the 20 range, and the whole image is warped around whenever something moves (even when it doesn't) With the Rift S I needed to have ASW on at all times to avoid the exact same issue. At 90 fps the problem goes away entirely, but maintaining 90 fps in DCS is an issue... So my question is: is there any way to make it work without going back to SteamVR? Or maybe I'm too used to high refresh rates and I should just learn to deal with it? My best solution at this time is to limit the fps at 45 using radeon chill, the ghosting is less pronounced this way but still present at all times. Thanks in advance!

Yeah they do love their hot glue One word of warning when opening the throttle : everything inside is screwed to the backplate (that's why there's so many screws), so everything will come loose once unscrewed, especially the throttle's base (that massive solid aluminium piece). Keep the unit upside down and handle everything with care.

Thanks @ismaeljorda, you had the right idea, unfortunately things didn't go as expected (I don't blame you, just winwing's poor design). The left cable was fine, but the wires inside the right cable had been pinched and squished real hard between the throttle's solid base and the back plate, so they couldn't go anywhere. They were already at max tension before I put on the fingerlifts, so I guess they would have snapped eventualy regardless. I don't know how widespread that problem is, but if anyone wants some extra cable length (for their fingerlift kit or else), you might want to unscrew the backplate and ensure the wires are free to move around before putting any tension on the cable. That big black sturdy cable isn't attached to anything, the wires inside will take all the tension. In my case they were ripped from the connector on the grip. A little soldering will fix it easily, but a better design would have avoided such issues.

tl;dr Installing the fingerlifts kit for the v1 Orion requires more cable length than default. There is extra cable length inside the throttle base, but before pulling on the cables, make sure the wires are free to move inside the base. That will require unscrewing the baseplate. In my unit the wires were stuck/pinched inside the base, and their soldering broke when I pulled on them. I was able to redo the soldering and everything works fine now, but checking first could avoid you the same troubles. Up until now I was very happy with my Orion v1 : nice feeling, perfect reproduction of the hornet, no issues whatsoever in the few months I've used it. Ordering the fingerlift upgrade was a no-brainer. I was happy to receive it this morning, one week before the scheduled date. With the mod installed the feeling is great, sure metallic paddles instead of plastic would have been a plus, but it does the job, and now we have a real idle/off detent that actually works instead of shutting down engines in-flight all the time. That is, until you plug the cable into the grip. Problem : with the fingerlifts kit, the grip is slighty higher than it used to be. Now the cable is too short to let the grip reach the off position, it will stop halfway between off and idle. See the attached image : the left grip (unplugged) is sitting nicely in the off position, you can see the difference with the right grip. The small dent at the base of the right grip is supposed to accomodate the red "autopilot engage" button. It does that nicely, as long as the cable isn't there to stop it... Am I missing something? Did they really ship this without anyone testing first? Are my cables too short? (ouch, I'll need a bigger plane to compensate) I'm sending the same message to winwing support and see if they have a better idea, but in the meantime, be aware that you might have the same bad surprise. Really sad because apart from that, I've had no complain about winwing hardware so far.

Same problem here, in multiplayer, but only as the mission host. Other players had no issue (apart from the network lag due to the host PC being frozen). Switching hosts solved the issue.

It's because of the ROE, a lack of IFF answer isn't enough to automatically declare a bogey as hostile. However if you do the same to a friendly it will turn green immediately. Just take care as there is no "friendly" symbol on the HUD. SCS depress is useful to interrogate contacts on the radar without soft-locking them, it's somewhat faster this way.

Looks like the harpoon went for the sub correctly, it tries to hit a few feet above the water but the sub's hull is too low and it doesn't connect. The 270° turn may be a bug, it does the same if it misses a regular ship. Using pop mode instead of skim seems like a good suggestion indeed ;)

As a Hornet driver since day one, well in fact I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but it seems everyone and their mother are posting in here and I just want to feel like I belong. Hello everyone! <3

The IFEI shows 0 fuel before rampstart, it's normal, maybe that's your issue?

It will show up quite well indeed, but it has a rather small cross section compared to the whole body of the chopper (which is filtered out if stationnary)

You're slightly confused (it's not an easy topic after all), the ground does have a relative speed to your own aircraft unless you're sitting on the ground at 0 kts. As a consequence, radar returns from the ground are compressed by doppler effect. Since the radar of your own aircraft knows at which speed it's currently flying, it knows how much of a doppler effect those ground returns will have, and that's how the ground returns get filtered out. The side effect is that any aircraft with the same relative speed as the ground (thus the same doppler effect) flying below the horizon gets filtered out too. tl;dr When you fly at 500 kts, the ground has a relative speed of 500 kts, same as an aircraft trying to beam you.

+1

VFA-103 :p

It seems VR is mostly broken, too

They meant the missile was the same ;) As for the reason to use STT, the TWS we'll get in the hornet will be way more realistic, and maybe not as overpowered as the current arcadey instant kill-them-all implementation of the F-15. Not even mentionning what jamming will do to the TWS ;)

That was a figure of speech ;) I kinda understand that in a real world test we wouldn't just toss a missile straight ahead and see how far it gets. My point is, those wild numbers they got from scenarios where the target seems cooperative enough to fly head on into the missile mean nothing useful, and get everyone confused about the performance most people seem to feel entitled to have in dcs. The only important part is how they compare. Sources that give a wild range of 65 miles for the amraam will give about 80 miles to the R-27ER. As long as they compare in the same way in DCS and one doesn't massively outperform the other, we can use real world tactics, see how well they work, and be happy about that :)

The ranges you find on wikipedia pages are not actual combat ranges, but rather how far the missile can go before it touches the ground if fired straight ahead from 30 000 feet. With the current AIM-120C, a shot from 25nm will only force a target to defend. Shots from 15nm and less might get you kill and that's already better than the current AIM-7 ;) It's more important to see how missiles compare with each other. If the red guys had a good kill percentage from 50km away something would be way off but that's not the case. R-27ERs and AIM-120Cs get lethal at about the same range, 15nm or less. Sure maybe we'll get improvements to the guidance logic, flight model and so on, but don't ever expect to be able to pluck everything out of the sky from 65 miles away ;) I've had a personal best at 26nm tonight, mostly because the target didn't try to defend after the missile went pitbull. Tacview right there : http://server.3rd-wing.net/public/vfa103/Tacview/grandslam1.acmi

We've been training 4v4 against a bunch of other planes last night and our k/d was about 5:1, so I don't know what you're doing wrong, but you're doing it wrong. The radar switches targets yes, sometimes the hud freezes or shows hot targets as cold and vice versa. When you're aware of all those issues due to the radar being still mostly WIP, you consistently get BVR kills which never happened before the latest update.

Target switching is another issue, and in its current state A2A is far from being completely useless, just not as deadly as it should be

Dunno if it's up to date, but the thread is here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=210720