Schmidtfire

Yes, that will probably be a huge improvement for all WWII / prop aircrafts. Should also reduce other artifacts such on wingtips/sidewinders when flying low against the ground and such. Probably makes dogfights a bit smoother and more immersive aswell.

On F/A-18C there is an option on MFD page to put the AIM-7MH into LOFT. But how does it work on the FC3 F-15C? Is "loft-mode" always enabled?

Any words from Eagle Dynamics on this? ASW 2.0 is out :)

The whole issue is about missile navigation and guidance in DCS. Missile pull crazy amount of G’s at launch or everytime target do a barrel-roll. Wasting a lot of energy at long range to target. Most bvr air-air missiles in DCS can be defeated by basic aircraft maneuvering. Even if lock is held and no chaff/ecm is used, missiles can rather easy be outflown by pilot. Regarding the R-27ER. I never duobted ED charts, they look good. But does it track and behave similar the real thing?

At least the missile loft de-sync seems to be a known issue: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235489

Not true. The AIM-9X has been used successfully by Turkish F-16 against Russian Su-24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

Again, It would be great if Chizh can comment on brochi_2B - R-27ER/ET info. You are speculating about what Eagle Dynamics can and cannot do and thier reasoning behind their design decisions. You are also implying that this discussion somehow is linked to multiplayer balance? This thread is about simulation of the missile. Not about multiplayer or even singleplayer. Im quite sure most of us in this thread are only interested to know if R-27ER is simulated correctly. borchi_2b - another dev - states that the R-27ER/ET is undermodeled. (ins guidance, radio/data-link etc)

Would be great if Chizh can comment on this info. If true, the R-27ER/ET would be really lethal missiles compared to current DCS implementation.

Great report! Extensive, well written and to the point. One thing about the FM that was not mentioned. The MiG-19 (according to pilot interview) shakes and buffets a lot in the transonic region. Don't know if you have more data or info about this effect? “There were quite a few bad qualities but the worst, in my opinion, was the thick wing which made transonic speeds (just short of Mach 1) very rough to ride through and almost uncontrollable, although it employed ‘short arm’ and ‘long arm’ technology to cater for it.” https://hushkit.net/2017/10/30/flying-and-fighting-in-the-mig-19-in-conversation-with-wg-cdr-irfan-masum-part-1/ Obviously, this effect was on a Pakistani MiG-19S. But probably applies to other versions. DCS: AJS37 Viggen has a similar effect when in transonic region.

Amazing. Correct me if Im wrong. But this JF-17 module is more of a Pakistani version? Russian engine + SD-10 (export PL-12) Looking great, can't wait to fly it! :)

We might have a different opinion on this subject. But If I can choose between having the F/A-18C and F-14B or improved spotting. I would pick the improved spotting and ditch those modules in a heartbeat. That is how important proper spotting is. Does not matter if it is a sim or IRL flight, having good vision is an integral part of it. Several other sims (Im leaving them unnamed) has solved this issue. Either by smart scaling, lighting, effects or a combination of the three. It can be done. If not, yes part of the engine has to be rewritten. But leaving it "as is" will mean the end of DCS: WWII, Korea or early Cold War fighters. Players doesen't want to spend their entire evening struggeling to see eachother. Spotting is essential for those types of modules and gameplay. Period. Model Enlargement was not the best solution, but for me it was at least going in the right direction. You might be happy with the current implementation. But there are an awful lot of users who think it does not work well. Even memes pops up every other week poking fun at how bad the spotting is...

+1 Hundreds of DCS users (posting here or elsewere) are not wrong. There is an issue with spotting. I think that has been well established and documented over the years. Very happy that one of the biggest drawbacks in DCS gets recognition once again. Hopefully the brilliant minds at ED will figure out a way to make it better :) It's great to have NineLine present in this thread. As for the screenshot comparisons. While the tankers are more visible in his screenshots, I think they are still a bit hard to notice. They are flat and un-saturated colorwise. A fighter sized target will easily melt into the background. And to those who say spotting is hard IRL. Fighter pilots have good vision. We players for the most part have average vision and doing all the spotting on a small screen (of different quality and resolutions). Even though the "math" inside DCS engine might be right in how it draws the objects, It does not factor in hardware limitations on the player side. Im sure it is great if we all are running 12K+ VR goggles, capable of HDR P3 or Rec2020 colorspace at 90fps. But that is sadly far far away. Thanks for revisiting this topic. Hope that it'll gain some traction.

We flew multiplayer tonight on private server (with low ping) and experienced de-sync with the AIM-54 Phoenix. Missile lofted high on the shooting client but not on the others. On one client it scored a hit and on the other it dropped like a stone not hitting the target. I don't have any logs for this at the moment. But if anyone else experience this, please post. Will try to upload a video. To test: Fire AIM-54 Phoenix at target (like Tu-22) and let everyone in multiplayer session go to external view of the missile and compare height and speed data.

16GB RAM is standard nowdays, anything below that I wouldn’t even consider a modern gaming computer. DCS is a demanding simulator. It is very complex and does not have the same optimizations as big AAA games that run on older hardware. Im sure Heatblur is doing what they can, but bottom line is that you need to invest in hardware that are considered ”high end” by 2019 standards. 16RAM and a 1080 GTX is DCS entry level 2019 in my opinion.

Here is an old training film on the radar:

This must be the most spot-on post I’ve read about the DCS Harrier experience. Anyone denying that are just blindingly defending the devs in face of facts. They are not doing themselves, the devs, the players or the Harrier any favours by doing so. Period. Honestly, Eagle Dynamics should do the right thing and pull the Harrier from the store until major fixes and changes has been done. I have owned plenty of EA dlc, games and DCS modules. But the Harrier is way below early access expectations. Especially since it has been out for a long time now. The forum posts are not wrong, players are upset. Not only about the flaws and bugs, but lack of progress or focus on other projects.

Bump. Any news on ASW 2.0?

I agree, great picture! Very excited for this module, the level om detail and quality of the C-101 is great. Best of luck bringing the Mirage F1 to DCS! :)

I agree. J-6 is the best bet. Not only Chinese AF, but Pakistan (PAF) also has several videos of it.

The makers for F-5 are ED (former Belsimtek). But yes, the whole Jenga-thing is very frustrating. And rather expensive. Just imagine all the resources and manpower it takes ED and other devs to fix bugs on old and released products! And all the upset players. I have played PC games and sims for 26 years and this is the only title where updates likely will break stuff that is working. Something is very wrong under the hood, just hoping that ED would figure out how to avoid it from happening. They are smart people. Back to the F-5. A 59.99$ completed module that gets more broken every update. What if a newcomer to DCS or simply someone who does not engage on the forums see this module in the store. How could he/she ever know what state the module is in? It looks fine on the storepage right? I love DCS and I like ED. But this is so F R U S T R A T I N G to go through with almost every single update :mad:

+1. Should almost be mandatory to add a "hide stick" function. With stick it sort of works ok with TIR and even better with VR. But imagine not having a headtracker at all (like some players)? Realism is not really a good argument for excluding such a helpful option/feature, as IRL pilots can go by both feel and view. Here we have to look around the stick to touch a switch or button in front of it.

Cuba. That is the reason :) OverStratos is from Cuba (if my info is correct). They flew the MiG-19P version. Also that is why MiG-23 will be a MLA variant. Cuban MiG's. S model will proably come later as a bonus.

Sounds like the right approach :) Lets’s not forget that AAA modules like A-10C and F/A-18C also have differences IRL vs FM. That is just the way the cookie crumbles. It is a sim and Im sure that Razbam tries to get the FM as accurate as possible. ED is also reviewing it. Im confident it will be accurate.

I have no doubt that Gunnars Driver knows what he is talking about regarding VRS IRL vs DCS. I've also read an article written by a guy who tries R22 in a different sim. Let's leave it at that. I won't go into details on what sim, but Claude Vuichard was involved with the creation and tuning of the FM. This is a small excerpt from the article: "What a lot of folks don’t realize is that, although not impossible, VRS doesn’t happen easily. It certainly doesn’t happen as easily as in DCS, for example. A few pilots I’ve talked to told me that the only situations they entered VRS was because they forced it and, even as they tried it, it was not easy. And it’s not easy with the R22 either." VRS is a great effect (in a sim!) and a great FM showpiece, but most likely a bit overworked in DCS helicopters.

Door gunners has been working for years. How can it suddenly break? Does not make any sense to me.