Dino Might

It depends. In some geometries and speeds, you won't be able to evade it no matter what you do. In other geometries and velocities, it will be quite easy. In many, the potential for evasion will lie somewhere between those extremes. The current DCS AIM54 underperforms in many aspects and overperforms in some as well. Are your questions about semi-active guidance capabilities, terminal active seeker capabilities, missile kinematics? You keep conflating the issue.

No, the whole diatribe has been about you using some questionable post on some .net discussion board to justify expectations that the AIM54 will have a hard time hitting maneuvering targets, trying to perpetuate an urban myth repeated by chair force commandos the world over. Our frustration stems from these continued ill-founded claims routinely being posted despite evidence and reasoning to the contrary. I have been less than patient with this because posts like the ones you have made, which you think are just asking questions to spur a discussion are not actually phrased that way. It's like news reels using a question mark in a statement, "this story we just conjured up spells the end of the world...?" And to the backtracking in your most recent post, so what if it has a larger turn radius? We have been explaining to you that is not a primary metric affecting missile intercept performance, so why are you even talking about it in that context.

Okay, I read about 4 paragraphs of that dude's post on defense.net and can already tell it's got issues. Firstly, the part you reference on the turn rate discussion is as I said, for one very specific case of a tail chase, and it ignores actual intercept geometry (ignores the range to target). He does admit this, but doesn't provide any adequate explanation of its relevance or any verification with a time stepped model, unless his images are generated from a script that is available to check. He makes nonsense statements on how a missile "can't track a fighter doing a barrel roll." Better off looking up pure pursuit and proportional navigation and wrapping your head around a missile doing some of both throughout its engagement. Also, just because something works a certain way in DCS does not make it reality, before I get that whole line of "I tested it in this game."

200m in what direction? Have you seen the calculations on the frag velocities? Im not suggesting anything here other than that you keep making unstated, blanket assumptions that don't always apply. The geometries matter. You can't make geometry independent assumptions and expect the conclusions to hold true across the board. Sorry for "jumping in late and not reading everything," but if we all did that, we'd never dig ourselves out of all the crap thrown around on the internet by supposed missile guidance experts.

Yes, angular velocity for angle from missile boresight to target. They absolutley will maneuver against any missile of they know it's coming, because what the heck else are you going to do? Achieving the necessary angular velocity for the missile is not the same as achieving a turn radius equal to that of the target. Turn rate and turn radius are not the same, and turn rate required to intercept does not have to equal turn rate of the target.

If you are accurately recreating his discussion, then yes, he is wrong. The assumptions that a missile requires an equal turn radius to what it is intercepting is pure folly except in very certain circumstances, one being an equal speed tail chase when the missile is already in lethal range of detonation. Irrelevant, and nonsense when the associated assumptions are applied to other geometries. The guy may be a rafale pilot, or maybe he's just some internet commando. That he says something on defense.net doesn't make it true. His physics, as you describe them, make no sense, because the underlying assumptions are not relevant to this problem. Please link the post, I'm curious as to what is being missed, either here or over there.

They are mistakenly saying accuracy when they mean dispersion. The primaryvquestion here is, what is the circular error supposed to be? Assuming straight pass with PAC, dispersion should be x mils. In game, we think we see y mils. Actual numbers have been discussed and referenced many times.

Your math is off - you are making uncharacteristic guidance logic assumptions. A good rule of thumb is about 3x target G for a PN intercept. Situations can vary this substantially, but not enough for you to comfortably outmaneuver anything but a 54 that has lost much of its energy. Comparison of turn radius does not make sense because you are not taking into account angle off nose vs distance for the missile to determine it's "required turn radius." You are trying to say that it requires the same turn radius as what it is intercepting, which doesn't make sense. That would mean that no missile could ever intercept our spitfire if it was turning, which, again, doesn't make sense.

For info, I have been using a Logitech gamepad so that I can set a separate slew controller to get different axis tuning for radar and IRMAV. A saturation of 15 to 25 seems to work well, to provide reference on how sensitive the controller axes should be vs current implementation. There is still a problem in that the sensor slew has trouble tracking in both axes simultaneously. I have noticed this with both the TM Warthog and the Logitech gamepad, though I can't be certain it's an inherent code issue without testing more controllers. Currently i slew one direction at a time using the gamepad with reduced aaturation to make things work nicely.

Gau-8 dispersion confirmation or fix. That's all I want.

How much vapor do we expect in arid desert at altitude?

Decision to wait to purchase until release is a good one for you and Kunz, based on your perspectives. So, with that decision made, all I have to say to you guys is: :)

You can find the -1 manuals on the net. Any specific systems or capabilities that are the focus of tour questions? Hard to answer such a broad question. Also will need some idea of what makes a module "worth the cost" to you, (i.e., what are you looking for in a module?)

Well, I like the ice cutting song and when Elsa headshots Anna, makes me laugh every time. But yeah, the plot seems like it was written via "Twitch plays Disney movie." I digress... So not typical cinematic. But I don't know what typical cinematic is... Remixed song, hmmm. Most of the Meteor stuff has been very 80s nostalgia, but if you are flipping the script, I'm going to guess: You're using some real life walk around video, and then quick transition back and forth with the module in the same position/aspect/walk around motion, showing off the true to form visuals, the ultimate extension of the "real or DCS" screenshot game. Song is electric guitar of a piece of classical music. Could tie in some documentary style interview voiceovers in there. Or, and bear with me here: You do static Tomcat with animated deck crew in front, dancing around to an electric guitar remix of "In the Navy." Do a few different sequences from different angles, kind of like the credits roll in the movie, "Down Periscope." The latter gets my vote, but I'm a bit on the silly side when it comes to this stuff.

Dumpster fire commencing in 3....2.... So, in an attempt to avoid the previous derailment, let's try to understand that the release date discussions are here for people to have fun with the anticipation. If you want to come in with your complaints or to crap on someone's positivity, please go elsewhere, or I will have to start posting a bunch of Frozen memes, since my 2 year old now has me watching that every day. As for my contribution. A question. What theme, format, etc do you think the release trailer will be? Do you think it will drop day of, or some amount of time in advance?

Curious on whether people have gotten a solution to export to a tablet via wifi. If so, I'd be interested in whether it would be possible to pull RIO instrumentation or displays up when flying as pilot. Unrealistic, I know, but despite the seats being separate instances, they must share at least data between them. Use case is trying to help my wife learn how to be the RIO from another room while carting her around from the front seat.

Recommend to kill this thread. Dogpile virtue signaling is making this seem like much more than it was (two dudes with undies riding a bit high). There's no mob to talk down, guys. Let's move on.

There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the anticipation of something desirable is more enjoyable than what is anticipated. Why not just enjoy the speculation as it is intended, to stir that anticipation? There's a fine line between expectation and entitlement. Remember that nobody owes you anything in 2018. If you preordered, the agreement was winter, and even then still with stipulations and out clauses. Getting indignant over social media posts alluding to release dates before money ever changed hands is a bit overboard. Lighten up, Francis.

After one week of silence, "WHY NO UPDATES? TELL US WHEN!" DAmned if they do, damned if they dont.

Pretty simple:

Some tweaks: To be entirely honest, I think manual release in January, and early access in Feb is likely. Though I still say I'd have taken the chromecat from a year ago just for the fun of flying it, I think it's prudent of them to make sure they are comfortable closing any major open issues and having a solid module with few bugs on release. They also need time to get ready for the holidays, not just celebrate them. Not sure about you guys, but we just spent tonight getting a tree, then there's the decorating, getting the place ready for family to visit, wrapping presents for the wife and kids, and oh yeah, finishing all that regular work stuff that gets crammed in around this time. I have been waiting decades for something like this, but if it means a (more) relaxing time with family for this holiday season for us and the devs, I vote to let it slide to 2019.

Yes. Either the mi8 has a bugged damage model, or the gazelle and huey both do.

When you pull to lift off, keep the stick back and the burners lit until you have positive climb rate for a few seconds, then very gently nose over to level, and then back off the throttle after you have some airapeed. If you've ever flown a heavily loaded su25 in this game, it's fairly similar in behavior. Before takeoff, make sure the dampeners are switched on. Dont use brakes to steer. At the point that NWS is too sensitive, you should have enough rudder authority. Of course, I'm ham handed and just hike the nose gear and pull the stick all the way back and hold until I'm off the ground, relaxing once I have positive rate to reduce AOA and get some speed. I became overly sensitive to popping the wheels back when the overspeed limits were too low.

I love those pictures with the wing sweep marks. Did they use neolube on the interfaces, or a more permanent pad type solution? I vaguely remember that they used some kind of air bag or some such at the interface. Very cool to see the marks of routine use.