Aries144

I find I have to use zoom to read the text on the moving map, but I can usually read the other DDIs by leaning in a little.

It seems to work fine on my end in multiplayer. I take a hit to the rear when flying the F-5 and lose my elevators. I hit an F-5 with an R-60 and don't seem to have any issue with effect. If they don't go down immediately, they're crippled. I find the Mig-21 to be a little more durable, but not extraordinarily so. What server were you playing on?

cofcorpse, Thank you!

I'll add my name to the list. I have a Warthog throttle with AB detent already. I'd like the option to not press buttons to advance into afterburner when the aircraft has weight on wheels.

Why not watch the video, perform your own examination of the pictures, and dispute the numbers yourself? The issue with your suggestion is that no other weapons or aircraft in the sim are modeled with wear induced degradation of performance.

Found a clearer picture from that video.

8 mil, 80% has been used because that was the only official figure available prior to digging up the above video. It seems apparent that 8 mil, 80% is a maintenance figure, which denotes the point beyond which a gun is considered too inaccurate to be serviceable. The problem with this is that the above video, which features a brand new M61, is shooting "8 mil, 95-99%". Essentially, the figure currently used (8 mil, 80%) is simulating a gun so worn out that it's about to be sent back to be rebuilt. A worst case of 8 mil, 95%, as can clearly be seen in the above video, is a better representation of a new gun. The same would be true for the A-10's Gau-8 gun. A "5 mil, 95%" value would likely better represent a new gun.

The video this image capture comes from explains that this is an 8 inch circle, 1000 inches from the cannon's muzzle. (making the circle 8 mil) The video further clarifies that 95-99% of rounds impacted within an 8 foot circle on a target located 1000 feet from the muzzle. (again, an 8 mil circle) The M61 was mounted to an F-106 and firing was performed on the ground.

M61 test fired at an 8 mil circle

Well, it's not that it would take a lot of time to correct. It's literally a single value in a single line in the shell_table.lua. Changing from the current 22 mil extreme spread dispersion to something else is changing Da0 = 0.0022 to the new value. ED must have some reason for giving the gun the value it has, and I wish one of their representatives would at least comment on why.

Yeah, I'd like to see both options. Now that I know that the wheel has spring-to-center tension, I want to try and implement it. The Suncom F-15 throttle's pinky wheel has a mechanism that could be copied to accomplish this. Rainmaker, thanks again man. Experience-based information like what you shared is rarely obtainable unless someone like you comes along and shares it. Thank you.

Thanks man. That's the info I was looking for. It can be hard sometimes to tell via text who knows what they're talking about and who's spouting BS.

You aren't just going on the Suncom throttle for this, are you? Because I could easily see how that could be incorrect. The Suncom Throttle was made back when not as many axis were supported and the wheel mechanism on it was essentially just an up switch and a down switch.

The real F-15 throttle or the Suncom throttle?

Does anyone know if this is intentional? I know the Mirage had this issue for a while before it was corrected. Say you have an axis with +/0/-. If the axis is centered, there's no movement. If the axis is rotated to +1, the radar elevation carat starts moving upward at a constant rate until the axis is returned to 0. This absolutely does not work well with a rotary axis. Does the real Hornet radar elevation work via a spring-to-center control? I thought it was a wheel just like the F-15, F-16, etc.

This. You can work around it by using the 3rd person mode for direct controlling vehicles, but this isn't ideal when trying to use a tank for instance as you can't use the sights very effectively, particularly when shooting at distant targets. F10 map view is fine as is.

To the best of my knowledge, ground units can no longer detect aircraft through trees or buildings, either visually or with radar. Try putting an SA-15 next to a forest. Approach from over the forest at low level, then try approaching it from flat ground at low level. Last time I checked in the mission editor, the SA-15 can't engage until it has line of sight. It can't engage you until you pass over it when approaching low over the forest, while it will engage at the usual range attempting to approach it over open ground.

This is a terrible idea. I'd pay for an FC F22 or Typhoon or Su-35, etc. Taking existing modules and selling a dumbed down version is a terrible idea that will create terrible issues for multiplayer. Suddenly FC4 aircraft will be easier to fly/superior in multiplayer to their full fidelity counterparts. Server admins will feel the pressure to include them to invite new players, but will have to face alienating owners of the full fidelity modules who will now find their $60 modules inferior to a $40 simplified multi plane module. Use FC to include interesting aircraft that can't have their avionics modeled in full detail. Don't create more problems for the multiplayer community.

I've followed Drex' work for over a year now and really like what he's making. It is by far my favorite server. I'm really looking forward to his 60s/70s server as I'd love to see this gameplay play out with F-5s, Mig-21s, Hueys and Mi-8s in the front-line combat roles. My favorite feature is how helicopters act like a sort of "engineer class" and can help defense or offense by slingloading replacement units in or assisting with a ground offensive. It can be a really satisfying high or low intensity non-direct-combat activity, depending on how close you feel like operating to the front line. Clever deployment of IR sams is an evil good time, as is sling loading an SA-8 or SA-15 into a nice position and then switching slots to drive it directly. Muahaha!:devil_2:

In doing some testing in active pause using the F-5e, since it has a gunsight with a known diameter in mils, the Da0 does correspond very well to mils. 0.0040 is 40 mils. Testing seems to show that this is the absolute largest diameter within which all shots must land and that there's a randomizer that is causing a certain percentage of shots to land within an area, say, 50% that size. Right now I'd hazard a guess that for a Da0 of 0.0008, 50% of rounds will impact within an area 4 mil in diameter while the remaining 50% are spread anywhere from 4.1 mil to 8 mil, with very few rounds actually spreading out the full 8 mil. Interestingly, there's a video around showing an M61 Vulcan cannon, mounted on an aircraft, being tested on the ground. The group it shoots is significantly smaller than 8 mil, indicating that 8 mil is probably a failure standard and not typical expected performance. A Da0 of 0.0005 for the GAU-8 seems appropriate, especially considering accuracy values used for comparable cannons in the sim.

I tried something that significantly evens up VR with TrackIR: use VR with Pixel Density set to 1.0. Turning up pixel density helps cockpit instruments look sharper, but can render dots on the horizon too small to see. With PD set to 1, I can see aircraft on the horizon about as well as I could on a 1080 monitor. It's a massive improvement over running it at 1.4, like I did before. I honestly have no desire to go back to TrackIR, honestly. For me, VR in DCS is extremely close to the time I was able to sit inside a fighter cockpit in a museum- except now I can do that while I'm flying the plane. It's that good for me. I can't ever go back. As a caveat, I'm lucky in that I don't get motion sickness at all, even after several continuous hours in DCS in VR.

I agree. The "scratches" in VR are much too wide and also white and opaque. It's difficult to spot something the size of a house when those scratches are in view! The crazing should be about a pixel wide and should be translucent, not stark white. The screenshots posted perfectly display the problem. If you took a knife and spent hours scratching a real canopy, it wouldn't be as sight obscuring as that effect is. I don't notice this problem in any of the FC3 aircraft, only the L39 and the Harrier so far.

I'd pay to have an updated F-5 mod. Though I have to admit the thing I really want to explore is an F-20 :D

Crashes every hour it seems. It's happening on every multiplayer server, as far as I can tell. :(

With how much TM costs, the number of reported failures, and TM's utter lack of support or even replacement parts for most issues, I'd look into other options. VKB's upcoming offerings would make much better platforms for building a new HOTAS than anything from TM would. VKB use stronger materials and better designs for the moving parts.