Schmidtfire

+1 :)

L39 cannot fire ”head to head”. C-101 suffers same issue as the Hawk did (Aim-9M rear aspect only). You are right that the coding is in Aviodev’s hands, but this is an issue that has affected several modules over the years.

Amazing! Beamscanner, are u watching this? Rare stuff! :)

HOBS = High-Angle Off-Boresight Just found out that it was introduced with the AIM-120D.

What about HOBS functionality? Should the Aim-120B/C be able to do that or is that for Aim-120D only?

Great tutorial (as always) from Redkite Video below is no tutorial, but can give you some inspiration from a real pilot. I found it very helpful. Especially for takeoff and the 60deg nozzle approach with power set.

Because the way DCS does it you can see through the skin of the airplane. Imagine F-35 type views ;) I think that view should be redone, there are plenty of cockpit builders that get into trouble. Other things that would be nice to have: Easier way to export and place viewports aswell as remove the ability to block sensor exports on multiplayer servers.

+1 I am also wondering about that. Did a test yesterday. Flying head on towards a MiG-29 @ 9000ft. Full burner. Got "Shoot" cue at about 20nm. Fired Aim-120C and it barely reached the target at a couple of hundred knots. Should the missile almost be stalled out when fired at the "Shoot" cue? Seems like a terrible suggestion by the aircraft ;) Another thing I have noticed is the loft. Or lack thereof. Aim-120 does not loft very much. The loft on the 7MH is good, but the diving part is really strange. The missile dives down towards target but does not pick up any speed. Might be a bug?

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?