lemoen

I think a lot of players are on Blue just for the F15 and A10. Seeing that the M2000 is on red too and that red has been taking a pounding, I may move to red next round, however, their lack of SRS usage is offputting, which is why I haven't done that yet.

OK, I'm going to have to think about this. The idea is to let the holding of a base changes the balance of power on the map in more ways than just a place to re-arm and refuel and take off from. The problem at the moment with missions like Blue Flag is that there's not much to fight for except to take everything. Also there is nothing to do for 3rd generation planes, without much frustration. Trying to think of ways I can alleviate these shortcomings.

Sweet. Say, can one bring in weapons and fuel in a cargo plane?

Thanks, I'm going to poke around with this.

OK, I see. So I can instead of giving the entire team access to a certain class of weapon, give them access to those weapons at certain airbases only? I assume this applies to fuel too?

Hi, Is it possible to control the available inventory for a given airbase using MOOSE? I want to create a Battle Arena type scenario where controlling certain zones will grant the controlling faction the use of certain classes of weapons. I've played around with the standard trigger system in the mission editor but I'd like to try to use MOOSE as it looks like a much more elegant system (and I can use version control) So a test scenario would be: Red controls Sochi-Adler. Red has access to heatseakers only. However, if red controls Guduata airbase also, they get access to Fox 1 and Fox 3 missiles. Is this currently possible in MOOSE?

Cooperation with Jester AI F4 phantom (feints) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strike Eagle. Tornado. Cobra. SU-24. Would, would, would and would.

I dunno, I prob get a kill every two or three 530s I launch against maneuvering planes. Mostly M2000s and Su27s and the 27s go down a lot easier than the m2000s. Prob their larger size == larger RCS. The Magics have a much better hit ratio. I've shot down a lot of planes with 530s on Blue Flag, hence I'm wondering about whether you are in a reasonable position, giving the missile the straightest path to the target as possible.

Hmmm, all this work on Jester AI, for one aircraft? I'm guessing LNS i going to do another dual seater next :D

They're not that bad. You need to help them a bit. Launching at maximum range is not going to help you much, except put the enemy on the defensive. Launching when you have the double circle helps, also, the closer you get the better. Make sure you are going as fast as possible and launch the missile while pointing to the intercept director. Real missiles don't have a high hit percentage against maneuvering targets, expect to use 2 missiles to get a kill.

Nah we're just commenting on how we would have liked these other features on the M2000C. Or rather, that's what I'm doing anyway.

I'd rather have a TGP and 4x GBU than 6x GBU and a fuel tank, but hey, the 2000C can't. Sigh...

This is true, but again, there is is more to it than just the graphics. The graphics in DCS doesn't take a lot of computing. THere are other games out there with far more intensive graphics and tyet they run a lot faster, why? The reason is because DCS has a lot of other computations it needs to do, stuff like deciding whether an ai is going to avoid an obstacle, start shooting, turn left or right etc. It needs to do this for every ai, for every frame rendered. You can see where this is going. If you look at the frame counter in missions where you have a lot of AI shooting at each other, you see the 'simulation' part goes up (and your framerate goes down). I am not convinced that multithreading is useless here. IT CANNOT BE. UNPOSSIBLE. I would have thought that at the very least the AI and their flight models and some other less important parts only needs to be updated every few frames and that you can split up a lot of the AI updates over many cores for every game loop. These updates are independent of each other during a game loop. Anyway, this is what we are told so maybe the code is spaghetti to such an extent by now that it is indeed too much hassle to contemplate doing, hence, impossible.

I'm not saying it's going to happen soon. But this is what needs to happen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is patently untrue. A 1080 is complete overkill at 1080p, even my 1070 only gets to about 50% usage on 1080p, unless I use some of the stupidly-inefficient DCS effects (like depth of field). My card gets to 100% usage if I supersample the game to 4k and then render it at 1080p. Run MSI afterburner yourself to see this. At the moment DCS is let down by 2 major things. 1. The directx calls are eating up frametime, these are done on the CPU and there is only 1 thread running, so while the call is being made, the AI or flightmodels and the rest cannot be updated. The fix is to go to directX12 and/or vulcan that is more efficient. 2. We need multithreading so that complicated missions won't eat up the framerate like it's doing now. Not everything needs to be updated at the same time and every frame.

Only negative thing is not the author's fault, DCS explosions. Please, we need nicer ones.

Your computer shouldn't have any trouble. Are you maxing out everything? Turn the graphics a bit lower and forget about it. Should run mostly at 60fps

Doesn't the Viggen only have like 11 waypoints anyway? (Takeoff, Landing and waypoints). Would be nice if we could plot a course while the engine is off, but I guess manual entry isn't too bad.

I meant IRL. Dcs cargo ships go down easily. 30mm can sink them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm wondering if you can even expect a single missile to sink a ship. Cripple, certainly. Anyone know what the real statistics are? 1 hit kill probability?

The SA-10s also don't always play a tone when they launch on you.

Same problem here

I think that's the shivering of the pilot*. It was cold man. Close dat canopy, switch on the heater ;-) * I'm not kidding

Yes. This is correct.