Ahmed

BIGNEWY, while I understand that the development cycle of different modules in parallel may lead to taking development decisions such as the recent TWS one, I think that ED is using that catchphrase quite broadly. If everything is subject to change then nothing would protect us, the EA customer, from ED just deciding to stop development on an EA module and calling it a final version on its current state. As such, I think that some general guidelines should be stablished on what is guaranteed at the time of an EA release, also maybe including reassuring the customer that later developed modules wont be getting features before such 1 year EA module gets them. That said, I can easily live without TWS (I barely have time for DCS lately anyway). But the recent events are breaking my trust on the EA system, like I'm sure is happening to many others, and if ED depends on the EA sales for profitability as recently stated on reddit, this harms both the fanbase and ED itself.

Indeed they should consider something like that, as the current EA model is sooner or later going to ruin this game.

same here. Those look more like belonging to the viper

Lock warning it gives but missile launch warning it does not anymore (or at least I couldn't manage in the several attempts of recording the track). That's what I reported. It 'magically' knows if your airplane is the target or the one a couple tenths of feet away is. Before it worked as you said.

Associated to my other bug report but posted separate as it is a different issue: When player aircraft is set as invisible the RWR doesn't detect emissions. Track attached. On a side note, the warhead data of the SA-2 missile probably needs some tweaking too. invisible.trk

Hello, On previous OB versions I remember the RWR triggering missile launch warnings when the player himself was not the target but was close enough to the target. Although this was in part bugged as it would happen also in extreme situations when the player was miles and miles away, this was the first time on a PC sim that the RWR was modeled more in depth and wasn't working as a magic instrument. Testing some script I was working on, I noticed that this behavior has changed and the RWR no longer gives 'spurious' missile launch warnings even when flying closely behing the target, when it should for most guidance types. Lock tone, however, is triggered on the player's aircraft, which is correct but incongruent. Track attached. rwr.trk

Although you are right that the first two result in the third, take into account as well that tires have a maximum tire speed. So GS (instead of IAS) does somehow matter as well.

Cool, the superhornet manual goes more into detail about that function and indeed it looks like my understanding of it was wrong. The only thing then is that max command g is not being attained at high speeds (it only allows for .1-.2 less than it - can be seen at the begining of my track too). This has been commented several times by RL hornet drivers but I think that it is already reported.

Indeed it does not exceed the 7.5g design limit, but it does exceed the g-bucket command limit as shown in the FCS page. Shouldn't the limiter prevent commanding a positive g above the limit displayed in the FCS page while in the g-bucket? My understanding of this g-bucket may be wrong though

The HARM success rate has most likely more to do with the lack of discipline of the iraqi operators than with the HARM itself. Had they followed the emission doctrine that was taught to them, they wouldn't have been sitting ducks. HARM has been too effective in PC simulators due to the simplicity of the AI. The other sim started already improved on this aspect and hopefully DCS will make the whole SEAD scene a completely new dimension

Hello, Maybe more of a wishlist issue than a bug but the UNIT EMISSION ON and UNIT EMISSION OFF triggers are not available through the scripting engine (only the alarm state is available that causes a different effect). They could be very useful for IADS other more complex AI behavior scripting. Any chance that LUA functions can be added for these?

Hello, I noticed that it is extremely easy to over-g the aircraft by over 0.5g when decelerating out of transonic regime holding the existing control inputs. This looks like a quite undesirable design feature and probably needs some consultation with SMEs to finetune. Note also on the initial part of the track that it is still not possible to attain the max g as stated on the FCS page at high speeds (5.5 vs 5.7), but I think that this is already reported. Track attached. Thanks g.trk

Thanks wormeaten for taking your time. Really in depth advice! I owe you a beer :thumbup:

Hey all, I'm wondering if anyone here has upgraded from a 1080ti to a 2080ti with the reverb and can report some dcs specific performance gains. I have a 1080ti and I'm considering setting the credit card on fire again.

Thanks for sharing!

Any info on progress for this bug fix?

Following that reasoning then automatize dogfighting too, as flying a Hornet at 7g while drinking a beer with the other hand sitting in front of the screen is quite 'artificial' too :smilewink: Not that I have anything against those who ask for these features. I am the first to agree that lacking the seat-of-the-pants feeling and real FOV/eye acuity make a PC sim very different than RL in many aspects. But requesting on one hand the most realistic systems, weaponery, flight models, and on the other hand simplifications for the things that don't suit each one of us, is quite an opposing view. Especially when carrier recovery and AAR are totally optional with the current theater sizes. Developer time is, IMO, much better invested in other areas.

If you can't land in the boat maybe its better to ask for ACLS to be implemented than for an 'easy' option that I don't really know what it means

Aside from the lack of airmanship shown in that reasoning line, there is a whole parapraph on the -000 about all great circle steering in all master modes being corrected for wind drift. Should not be different in the case the OP presents. Definitely worth checking it and cross-checking with SME input.

Any info from ED if this is coming with the TWS update?

For what you guys say the ECM just needs a core rework to simulate the effects of RGPO/VGPO and other techniques rather than "balancing" patches.

It is possible to do it with the TDC IRL. However, no ETA that I know of for DCS yet :(

If you operate an aircraft with autothrottle you will see how the throttle movement would not disturb you at all when operating other controls on the throttles. I think the OP did a lot of overthinking here ;)

You understand that if maximum aileron travel is coded wrong it will affect the basic FM physics, right? Probably a low priority but this definitely deserves some further investigation with SMEs, although it could just be a WOW-only feature of the FCS (just a guess with no insight whatsoever)

What I have heard (and regarding models from at least 2 decades ago) is that the probability of intercept is such that, by the time you get any RWR indication, you are already being detected by the threat. That said, my info could be totally wrong or not applicable to more modern toys.