TwojaStara

So why it states [NO BUG] in the topic?

Same. I've hit the same same problem with Rockeye/Mk20. What seems to help is to change EFUZ from Inst to OFF, but it shouldn't be like that I guess (?)

Yes, potentially DCS engine based Vulkan API that is being worked out in background (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3592186&postcount=11) might add multi-core capability.

I've noticed that the performance doesn't sink anymore for me especially in multiplayer and I've stopped having FPS drops even in high object count scenes after upgrading to 2.5.5. The VR crowd (and not only them) are reporting similar increase in FPS https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242449 It hit me especially hard in MP, and I've been starting to think about upgrading to GTX 2070+ to get like 8GB VRAM . I don't know which of the below fixes contributed to such (dramatic for me) improvement: - new trees? - memory leak (RAM or VRAM?)? - MP code/protcol change? ... but "THANK YOU, ED" :) If you ED devs could explain what they did even in the most advanced IT jargon it would be even more awesome :) Specs: i5-7600K 4.2GHz/GTX970/16GB RAM/non-VR/SSD - minimum 50-60fps everywhere in MP, in SP often > 110fps. Previously I was having freezes/microsutters down to single-digit FPS...

Hi, so from what we can count for this week OB release? 2.5.5 ? Ability to store/save customized settings on Hornet (like programming countermeasures) - https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803475&postcount=131 ? BRU-55/A to carry at least double JDAMs for now? (JSOW in future?) SA-5 ? VR optimizations ? Maybe S-300V/SA-12 ? (I would beg for this one) :))

Well, actually it's not.. it is excuse. Nearly all of this is public knowledge: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Electronic+Warfare&ref=nb_sb_noss_2 (I've read some of those, they go into great details). There is more, see this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3486410#post3486410 It could be done without all the "math" (e.g. avoid calculating RCS for every object, without wave propagation and interference for set of jamming planes). For "gaming"it would be more than enough of just building EWImpactMatrix[$radar]vs[$jammerTech] describing the impact to get much better fun out of such "simulator" ;) For air-to-air comms it could be even more interesting too (jamming AWACS calls, degrading future planned VOIP/radios in DCS ...) by placing some ground VHF/UHF jammers.

I'm attaching very good description of whole S300 family (with the exception of S300V of course). It has references on pages 18-19 to "historykpvo-2.ucoz.ru" which contains real documentation, not available elsewhere. BTW: .. so are we getting S300V from ED? S-300 family.pdf

I'm also affected (27" 1440p). Because of this ("this issue is reported, the issue is being discussed internally, and the issue is being worked on as it can be around changes in the new engine." - https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157129&page=66 as per Sithspawn in 2017), I've did not buy F-14 and stopped playing MiG-21 in MP completely as I'm not able see A/A enemies at close ranges. I'll wait till ED fixes this and only then I'll buy more A/A crafts (still A/G is great experience for me).

They were hitting like 2-3 out of 4 when I was not shutting down SAM. When I was in charge of SAM and disabled radio emissions all of them missed.

One can try this to help the case: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3761127&postcount=120 in case of errors disable LUA sanitize: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2742336&postcount=77 Grimes has written there he is improving the system, so maybe one day it is going to be delivered with DCS by default.

Ok, I've tested it today with our new shiny Hornet HARMs: a) we cannot target on EWRs which is good b) 4/4 times I was able to force HARM (launched at edge of S-75 range , from 33k feet) to miss by disabling radar emission of whole S-75 sam site (from template) - by going into Combined Arms Tactical commander mode, This makes it even better fun when it's done automatically by IADSScript: if anyone is interested: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118175

You need to concentrate a lot of fire power to get it down, I was capable of downing full proper S-300 site (per template) assisted by Tunguska, using 2xSEAD flights + 8-16 Tomahawks from cruiser + a lot of cruise missiles from B-1B + me (4x LMAVs) from behind (180 angle) supported by invisible JTAC :joystick: ... and yes it still got most of the missiles :thumbup:

Yup, IADScript works great with Hornet and HARMs. It is ultra cool righ now :) - anyone can try simple mission: https://ufile.io/ijvn3 ( Singleplayer mission, hot spawn, 1 wingman, total 8x HARMs VS 3xSA-3 + 1xSA-2 + 2x Tunguska + 1x SA-11 + 1x EWR + our lovely IADS script). At IADSlevel=4 the IADS tries to get you as close as possible and trap you with everything it has :D:joystick:

Hi, does any body know if the unability of HARM to target low band emitters is going to be simulated? As per [1] it should not be capable of targeting below 0.5Ghz (λ=0.59m) - so radars like P-18 (150-170Mhz) should not be targetable by AGM-88C HARM ? Also second question,in case of emitter ceasing to transmit, is HARM in DCS going to have chance to miss or not ? According to [2], HARM C (Block III/IIIA/IV/V) variant should miss as it doesn't have GPS receiver ? (only -D gets the GPS): In case the HARM will still get accurately to the old emitting location (even with emission off; let's assume simplification for DCS ), would it miss if the target would be on the move ? (e.g. Osa/Tunguska/Tor?) [1] - http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html [2] - http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html

Same tests, same results. However BTR-80 and other APCs are killed without problem.