Jump to content

TwojaStara

Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TwojaStara

  1. 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 (?)
  2. 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.
  3. 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...
  4. 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) :))
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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:
  12. 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:
  13. 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
  14. Same tests, same results. However BTR-80 and other APCs are killed without problem.
  15. Good afternoon Mr Wagner:) thanks for awesome product! You stated that IFF and HARM are going to be priority (especially the IFF), but could you share with us what are the other things we might be getting (except bug fixes) first in coming months? Is ED going to concentrate of missing basic plane subsystems (ATC LDG, ASPJ, Radar TWS, ASJP, IFF) first and only then concentrate on additional weapons systems as per https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 or is it going to be mixed bag? What is most important to ED at this point and what are internal priorities related to the Hornet? ;)
  16. SA-5 seems to be planned as per roadmap: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893 --- S-75 Dvina [sA-2 Guideline] (in progress) ---- SNR-75 PV Cabin / Fan Song radar ---- SNR-75 UV / AV Cabin ---- SM-90 launcher ---- PR-11BM/D transporter / trans-loader ---- P-12 / P-18 Spoon Rest Acquisition Radar ---- 1L22 Parol 4 IFF interrogator --- S-200 [sa-5 Gammon] (planned) ---- K-1M / 5N62 Square Pair radar ---- 5P72VE launcher ---- 5Yu24 rail trans-loader ---- 5Yu24ME trans-loader ---- 5N84AE Oborona-14 / Tall King C ---- PRV-17 Odd Pair IFF interrogator
  17. +1. It has been discussed so many times... still it's been like that since 1.5 and Model Enlargement removal. Maybe we should make voting how many people think this bug is the most important (?) I've switched to 1080p on 1440p monitoring and DCS looks ugly but at least I can spot something.
  18. http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/09/iranian-sam-network.html http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/03/iran-and-s-300pt.html You can also google for "SAM Sites" kmz file and open it in Google Earth standalone program.
  19. What are the longer plans for CA? (we have seen the "CA/RTS" job offer) Why redfor planes are "too delicate" matter? Is there any work in progress or at least plans related to improving target visibility/imposters/model enlargement e.g. on 1440p or 4K? (1080p works much better)
  20. Nothing has changed, now you have the same with the C/C++... run... debug, identify the wrong code, rewrite, test... every day ;)
  21. Well basically, there is no radar tech in DCS, each SAM behaves the same and each ECM pods appears to be the same too (in DCS: ECM = noise jamming, ECM pod = some % range lock reduction). While in reality each individual complex could behave in various ways , e.g. for older pulse radar: - S-75 in "wide beam" could be detected by more planes than the one locked - in later S-75 in LORO mode could be mostly detected only by locked plane at that time (if you are not locked you cannot launch Shrike) - S-75 could be at start of conflict switched to 2nd/wartime frequency (some of your pre-programmed ECM pods would need to be adjusted after more EW/ELINT missions) - earlier(?) S-75 command uplinks could be jammed and it could in affect various ways affect missile (premature detonation or inability to detonate) - curvature of earth matters at some point - ground clutter is the worst , later S-75 variants introduced MTI to somehow reduce the impact Now we are not even talking about sidelobs and their modeling, about interaction of various ECM techniques on specific complex, interaction of ECM on number of planes in formation (!), RCS depending on course of plane towards SAM or later advanced radars from 70s that used frequency hopping, SARH, pulse compression, continues waves, tricks with modulation. Perhaps, instead of modeling waves by math we would need rather a model/knowledge-base with a lot of IFs and better description of capabilities of each SAM complex in some LUA internal database,sample: S-75 Desna = Pulse,5Ghz,MTIvulnerableto[noise50%,barrage,RPGO,...] S-75M3 Volhow = Pulse,5Ghz,LORO,MTI,vulnerableto[noise25%,barrage,RPGO,...] --> LORO, so even close planes to the locked one cannot launch HARM/Shrike S-125M1 = Pulse,9Ghz,MTI,vulnerableto[noise25%,barrage,...] P-12/1RL14? = EWR,Pulse,150-170MHz,vulnerableto[barrage,..] --> no MTI so would not discover low flying targets P-18/1RL131 = EWR,Pulse,150-170MHz,MTI And a sample ECM pod: AN/ALQ-71 = noise_jammer, 1-8GHz (??) And from such array you can tell that AN/ALQ-71 would have no effect at all on S-125M1 and would not block P-12/P-18 due to different freq and being not a barrage jammer.
×
×
  • Create New...