captain_dalan

Nope. There was a recent GS video, he was on his own server, flew into a valley pursuing a bandit. This was all WVR BTW, the bandit was in front of him, then behind him, then who knows were. All inside a 5 mile bubble. This happens relatively often, at least on busy servers where a lot of the clients have widely different latencies.

Is the DCS missile API capable of making the difference though? I mean, can a missile have different CM rejection when active and during mid-course data-link updates?

They mentioned however, we'll get notified before this happens and as there hasn't really been any new, i doubt it'll be anytime soon.

Perhaps some rough criteria then? Similar to what we have with the STT? Like a couple of options, maybe one being prioritize closest and the other being prioritize on closure rate?

Many thanks as well. Only about an hour of testing as well, i expect the real trial will come during the weekend, but so far so good. Great job guys!

I used a Reshade filter, that added a pseudo-fisheye effect for a while. It moved the canopy rails to the periphery and "distorted" the m properly when looking at some angles, so they take up less of the screen. Until you look right at them that is. It helped with forward looking though. The limited benefits went away when DCS switched to the new lighting system, and the FPS drop as a result of me using the filter, started to outweigh its usefulness.

Might help if you describe the entire procedure you are performing, from cold start to unsuccessful firing of the missiles, step by step, click by click, so we can help you troubleshoot the issue.

Don't forget the Botox swollen lips and the ashen blonde hair!

Nope, not yet. It may have been one of those things put on back-burner, i.e. not on immediate schedule

Weird, i didn't fly this weekend, but i did last one, on Growling Sidewinder and Through the Inferno, and Dl worked just fine

No way! Really? You guys managed to nail the issue on the crashes/freezes? That's awesome!

Confirmed. Last yeah i had the pleasure of borrowing a VR unit for a few months and the experience is vastly different then on a screen. This is the view angle i usually go for, just a bit more "zoomed in". The default just feels wrong. At least from what i've seen on photos and 360 panoramas from inside the plane. Never had the pleasure of sitting in the real thing.

I was only referring to this, as i always assumed it was the doppler effect from the traffic they claimed they detected, yet AWG-9 being old tech, and far less sensitive then other radars in that aspect, i found the claim......well, dubious. Unless it was really, really, REALLY fast traffic! Anyways, thanks for the rapid response!

Every time i start DCS and i plan to fly the F-14 (99% of the time really) i duck a bit, start the face tracking, then straighten up in the seat and thus try to emulate the elevated view. It's the only way to actually see the nose a bit.

A bit of a necro reply, but i had been experimenting with the gamma settings, but changing geographic, time and weather conditions to match the ones of the sky over my head (or at least trying to) and the problem is much more complex then simple 1.8, 2.2 or anything in between. I took videos, photos and tried to calibrate them all with why i saw with my own eyes. Then i calibrated my screen to standard brightness, contrast and saturation values, or the closest i could get. Right now i use gamma of 2.1 but it's not perfect. It's just what seams to match my observations on most variables (like vegetation, water, tarmac reflections, shadows depth and contrast, haze....), but surely not all. I.E. shadows still look most authentic on 1.8. Sky hues near the zenith on 1.9. But it all changes for other surfaces and textures. Not to mention the time of the day and weather. DCS is still in development so i guess things will keep changing. For the time being i find 2.1 to be he "golden middle" though. Yeah, a bit too bright on a hazy, warm summer noon, but heck, nothing's perfect.

Are the claims of the radar picking up ground traffic over Nevada just exaggerated rumours then?

This largely depends on what in one's opinion defines the fighter generations and is largely a matter of personal choice then a given fact. Similar to what some people perceive was the role of the F-14 actually. Was it maritime air superiority or was it fleet air defense? People who looked for the former would tell you the first answer and people who looked for the latter will tell you the second one. And what do the DoD requirements and fleet manuals say? They actually say both. So IMO, a more accurate classification would be that if we really must classify the F-14 in a generation, but don't wanna spend the next couple of decades what a generation is, then the plane was a 4th generation platform with 3rd generation avionics. Even that wouldn't be an exact answer as in some ways it was before even the 4th gen fighters, I.E. sensor fusion.

Sorry for the late reply, didn't have a chance to log in this week, but @draconus pretty much answered it. Slight rudder in the direction you need to roll, then stick in that direction, then pull and add rudder as needed to keep the ball centered. If performed really well, no rudder will be needed actually, but i seldom do it that precisely.

Add some rudder to keep the turn coordinated and control the descent rate by changing bank angle. Also...... VDI. But i mostly do it by eye.

You can do that through the ground crew? Nice! I didn't know that. Thanks, you saved quite a few minutes spend in restarting the plane!

Here are my tracks. This is essentially a high altitude CAP, both planes start at angels 35. In the last track i tried changing the AI difficulty level, but that didn't matter. The bandit is clean, no external stores, but CM present. Both AI's set to ACE. Observations: 1. the F-14 never used the Phoenix, it went directly for the Sparrow shot. 2. The F-15 and the F-14 used the Sparrow from similar ranges, inside 20 nautical miles. 3. When the F-14 carried ONLY Sparrows, it actually engages some 5 nautical miles further out. This maybe related to the airspeed it can achieve with this load. EDIT: i keep getting unknown server error -200 when i try to upload the tracks!!!! P.S. Sorry, the problem seams to have fixed itself, here are the tracks! f-14 uses sparrow instead of phoenix.trk f-14 armed only with sparrow fires further.trk f-15 armed only with sparrow.trk veteran f-14 uses sparrow instead of phoenix.trk

Do note, pulse STT won't guide your Phoenixes

Weird, mine got stuck on GS Marianas last night after i landed on the carrier and went engines off to reset the crew. Restarted the plane, engines and all, set air source to both and the INS would not budge It's a one occrrance so who knows

It's a topic about the Tomcat crashes, one of the proposed fixes is the reinstall. Not that it works long term though

Good posts guys, i will record some tracks myself as well. I did notice something else this weekend, when i played one of the instant actions. Namely, the AI will engage at longer ranges, but ONLY if ordered to from extreme distance away. In this mission, i actually got the AI to engage when i ordered him to attack from 80 miles away in opposition to the Persian Gulf mission, which starts at 50 miles away, and when ordered the AI closes to Sparrows before it actually engages. I will make some AI VS AI missions and save the tracks later.