twistking

*somehow posted in the wrong subforum. thanks for moving me, unknown mod!* Ok, calm down. Maybe the title was a bit clickbaity. I do like the F-5. I think it's just a cool aircraft and i appreciate that it's not just a flying fire control and navigation computer. However i really do not like the handling characteristics of it and i would appreciate feedback to pin down what exactly it is, because i fear that there are other iconic aircraft in development that could handle similarly. Maybe i could also learn to appreciate the handling of the F-5 more, but that's not my main concern. I'm honestly interested in better understanding, what exactly it is, i do not enjoy... So what am i talking about? Well, it's too seperate aspects: The first thing is the instability in roll. The good roll rate is fun indeed, but if you want to just cruise it feels extremely fiddly to the point that i will eventually open the axis control menu to check if my flightstick needs more deadzone (it doesn't... but it feels as if it did). This would probably less of a "problem" if the F-5 had AP functionality... maybe a better flighstick would help? Mine has a very light feel and since it doesn't center perfectly anymore, i have indeed a very small deadzone set (nothing major though. i think i've a DZ of 4 set in DCS which makes it (virtually) center 100%). The second aspect i don't enjoy - and that's the biggy for me - is the feeling of piloting a rocket instead of a plane. That feeling that when you pull on the stick, you point your nose up, but the aircraft's vector does not change with it. It's like you're always drifting n the vertical axis. It does feel as if the AC does change it's flight vector not by aerodynamic effects on the wings and control surfaces, but by pointing the vector of thrust somewhere else and brute forcing flight in that direction by thrust alone... Related to that is the notion of loosing a lot of airspeed in turns. Am i just describing an aircraft with high wingloading, high roll-rate and basic stability augmentation? If so, will i also feel similar about the F-104 and similar designs? Do you think that my "disappointment" with the F-5 handling could also have to do with bad audiovisuell feedback from the sim? No overwing vapor, bad buffeting effects, nearly no audio feedback on super high wing load etc. ... I was thinking about this, because the F-16 has similar characteristics to some extend... yet when you pull the stick hard on the 16, the module communicates better that it does some heavy aerodynamic lifting, which makes you feel more in control of the aircraft. The only feedback you get on the F-5 that indicates the airframe is "doing something" aerodynamically on stick pull, is the airspeed indicator steadily approaching 0. Aircraft that i love for handling quite the oppsite (from the limited selection of modules, that i've actually flown) would be the A-10c (feels like you're literally cheating Newton's laws when pulling on the stick), Mig-29 (basically an angry kite), F-14 (well.. yeah!)... P-51, P-47, BF-109, Yak-52... It seems that those aircraft all have significantly lower wingloading than the F-5... so is it just that then?

there you are *interestingly my own track shows the bad performance when replayed by me, whilst your track did not. cpu_bug.trk

thanks for checking. that's weird. for me it's 100% repeatable and seems to reliably switch on and off with the AC being in and out of the hangar. even when switching to another unit, FPS remain low as long as my AC is inside the hangar. when watching your track i do not see the issue though, but that would perhaps be expected if the issue is physics related (tracks are lighter on physics i'd assume). i'm on stable branch, so maybe it's already fixed on OB? i add my test mission, if anyone else wants to check. it's just an empty map with a player F-16 parked hot on said parking spot. cpu_perf_bug.miz

It happened on cold start and hot ramp start. Can't be boresight related, since even when not boresighted, MAVs should still slave with the TGP - only with an offset. In fact, the last time i encountered the bug, i was actually trying to boresight. MAVs wouldn't slave to steerpoint either... they would do some kind of weird snowplow... at first i thought it may be user error due to some unannounced changes, therefore i did not save a track. Until now i only encountered the bug with the single rail launcher. I will be on the lookout on how to reproduce.

I noticed a very strange performance bug. When the player aircraft is inside the hangar that has the parking space 24, performance drops significantly (from 60 to 11 on my PC). I assume it's physics related, because when pausing the game, FPS goes back to normal. As soon as the aircraft is out of the hangar FPS normalizes. When turning and driving back in, the FPS goes bad the moment the AC is completely inside the hangar. Tested on stable version, MT build. Wake turbulence on. Tested with F-16 and F-5. To reproduce spawn at Ramat David, parking space 24. Check performance, especially CPU frame-timing (as it seems physics-, or at least CPU-related). Drive out of hangar, watch performance. Turn and drive back in, watch performance.

Update: Seems to be a bug! Tried again, and Mav in PRE did slave as expected, even in MAN handoff mode. Unfortuantely i don't have a track of the bug. It appeared with the single rail launcher and the large warhead variant of the IR Mav. Mav would not slave, but do some kind of snowplow while in PRE with TGP being active. Changing to AUTO handoff would fix it. Haven't tested if changing back to MAN handoff would break the slewing again.

i would assume that the gunner is able to employ some radar FCS augmentation while aiming visually. this could be useful for better hit probabilty at longer ranges and/or when visibility is bad. of course, we don't know if that is modelled in DCS. maybe i'll test at night and see if if my RWR gets hit differently then. for daylight engagement i will conclude (for now) that CMs are more of a placebo against the Grison... ps: im sooo looking forward to the upcoming RWR "raw" mode (forgot the proper name). this will probably help answer some of those questions...

*bump* would be good to have at least one or two airbases that support the biggest AC.

@Minsky since you seem to have looked into making a mission about the raid: can you recommend an area of the map, that would make a good substitute? i do not care about pinpoint historic accuracy, so i wouldn't mind if it was a hundred kilometers off from the real location... but it should have optimal terrain mesh quality and also some streets or roads. ideally also some construction site, or generic industrial building: i don't want to use mods, so it would be good, if some buildup was already there...

What works well against the SA-19? From my limited testing it seems that both jamming (barrage mode) and chaffing helps a little bit, but since it's SACLOS (if i'm not mistaken) i think that "kinetically" evading the missile should also be possible to some extend. Does barrage jamming and chaffing actually help, or did i experience a CM placebo? What's best to do when you actually realize that a SA-19 has fired a missile? Bonus question: Sometimes the SA-19 seems to stop tracking/engaging and disables it's radar for some minutes even though enemy AC are still in range and not all missiles are expanded yet. I still assume it's doing a reload of the missiles then? I guess it would be more clever to wait with reload until all 8 missiles were expanded though...

I would like that function to actually work reliably...

Yes, i've been asking for something like this for a decade now. Other useful variation would be: "Coalition detected by Coalition" and "A detected by X in (moving) zone" Maybe also "A detected by X or Y or Z", but i'm not sure if the current trigger UI would support that.

I often think that randomization is unnecessary complex in the ME. I would like some simple tools and functions that allow basic randomization when you just want to slap a basic missions together rather quickly without utilizing lua framework or setting up a lot of triggers. For example: -> Have a field "condition of presence of group" where you can set a required flag, that is checked only in the first seconds after mission start to determine if the group is created at all. -> Have a group option for "random start location", which would allow you to draw out multiple lines from the unit (similar to fire missions / cap areas etc.). On mission start one of the locations would then be used to spawn the unit on. Could have different options to spawn groups in formation (around choosen group leader position) or maybe even spawn each unit of the group individually on one of the dedicated positions. -> Have similar options for Waypoint positions. This could be just a defined creation radius per waypoint, which would create the waypoint randomly within the specified radius, or a solution similar to the proposed random start position, where you could use an option on the waypoint and designate different position for the waypoint, where the game would then choose one randomly, either once on mission start, or everytime the waypoint is activated (when doing waypoint loops) -> have either/or conditions for unit tasks/options in order for the game to randomly select one of a set of preset task/options. At the moment, you can only set a chance for the task/option to trigger, but it would be very helpful to have an easy way for the game to randomly pick one. Alternatively have more randomizations options within the unit tasks/options setting. For example: Randomize CAP search area between min/max values... -> generally add "random between" min / max values instead of a single value to all ME fields, where it could be useful. This could be airspeed, flight height, (end) conditions for tasks, timers, unit task properties etc. In order not to clutter the UI it would also be possible to support a certain syntax for the field, so you could just put in f.e.: "15-30" and the game would select a number between 15 and 30 whenever that value is read by the game. -> generally add "value a OR value b" syntax to all ME fields, where it could be useful. This could be airspeed, flight height, (end) conditions for tasks, timers, unit task properties etc. So you could just put in f.e.: "15 or 30 or 45" and the game would select either one whenever that value is read by the game.

*bump* Nearly a year later and no sign of the promised dynamic weather yet. Having some "bigger" weather presets with more internal variety could be a very quick and easy addition to substitute a true dynamic weather. Of course the dynamic weather simulation remains the ultimate goal, but until then this proposal could be a really good stopgap.

Hello, since one of the last patches, the Mavericks in PRE will NOT slave to the TGP/SPI when MAN (manual handoff) is selected on the TGP screen. Is this correct behaviour? I would assume that AUTO/MAN handoff should only affect the actual handoff and not the slaving. I also don't see the usecase of having PRE Mavs not slaving to the SPI. I don't even know what they're actually doing when TGP is in MAN. Maybe thery are just snowplowing? Why would that be useful? There are the dedicated modes (BORE/VIS) for hip firing and they do come with proper HUD symbology. PRE Mavs with TGP MAN seem bugged... *tested on stable branch*

a very beautiful aircraft with very interesting handling characteristics probably (delta wing without FBW). very excited about this one!

thanks for the answer. didn't think of tactical shuffling;) when you say triple-A, you probably also mean point defense SAM, right? SA-13 and similar?!

I appreciate that the Syria map has preplaced positions for SAM sites. Hardened positions for SA-2 (maybe SA-5???) are quite easy to identify with their 4 to 6 big round revetmets for the launchers and a collection of bunkers that can also double as elevated radar positions. However i am a bit puzzled about the hundreds of smaller, boxy revetments that can be found all across the map on airfields and soemtimes dotted around SA-2 sites. They are big enough to take an MBT, but are too high for an MBT to actually fire it's main gun above it. They are also facing random directions sometime, so i doubt they are for MBTs or artillery pieces. Maybe just random fortifications for supply trucks, spare parts, AA point defenses (IR, AAA) etc.? I just feel that they are too numerous for AA point defense and trucks. So what are they used for?

Hello, i recently purchased the Syria map and want to start building some missions. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the sheer size though. Is there a rescource somewhere that lists points of interests on the map? Especially interesting military targets, both for historic and purely fictional scenarios. Maybe some list of interesting historic raids that happened in that region or just areas that you like to build missions in for whatever reason. Does the map f.e. cover the targets of some of the IAFs more daring "excursions"? Any help and/or inspriration much appreciated. Thanks!

it wouldn't. it can still be valid to critique somethin though. my assumption being that the OP maybe has correctly identified a problem, but hasn't come to the optimal solution. that can happen, so giving negative feedback can be constructive. i have nothing against the original solutions suggested here.

doesnt't work if you have to work with modifiers. i don't have "enough" buttons on my hotas, so i have to put less important functions on a modifier combo. but i agree that checking the manual is the way to go and that's how i'm doing it. if you have to work with modifiers, you just have to do some more reading first in order to judge which functions get the modifier treatmrnt...

well.. then let's wait and see what ED is cooking. labels don't count though. they are not particularly immersive and in my case they would not help, because i want less (!) subpixel spotting not more

you are right! rain on the canopy has better resolution and seems to have a more realistic pattern to it. interesting. reddit also pointed out grass moving from rotor wash...

mhm... i get where you're coming from. i mean ideally ED comes up with the optimal solution, that works for every resolution and produces realistic results while maintaining similar practical spotting on different setups for competitive MP. i just somehow doubt that they will pull off that "perfect" shot. maybe ED could build a "default" solution that tries to reach that ideal goal (realistic looking and usable for competitive play). that would be the standard and would by default be enforced on every server. they could then add an override option where user could tweak the subpixel spotting in one or the other direction. this would need to be allowed by the mission designer, so it would default to "off", but would allow for different preferences in SP and COOP play, if the host decides to allow it. similar to those difficulty related options, that can be enforced by the mission/server. i agree that there should be one "default" option, that is as close to the perfect solution as possible, that would be the standard for all of competitive play. but take me for example. i have 27" monitor with only 1080p. i like it. looks good enough with 4x MSAA but the subpixel spotting pixels are huge... and can somewhat break the immersion. i will always have bigger pixels than someone on 24". ED can tune their subpixel modell for resolution, but they cannot tune for monitor size and viewing distance. therefore some flexibility for SP and COOP could be helpful!

sure... can't argue against that. i just see way more QOL potential in optimizing the module specific mapping. in an optimal world, we'd get both of course...