MurderOne

In my initial post, be aware, I am not advocating for "worse performance". I am merely inquiring as to whether or not these variables of pk are incorporated in the DCS we know and love. I apologize to the apparent elitists who feel that since I have not conducted my own "scientific testing", that I am to be disregarded. I am merely making an inquiry. That aside, I present the following. I have excerpted this directly from 2008 Rand Pacific View Air Combat Briefing; I cannot currently locate the 2016 briefing. I too, personally, dispute the pk as presented in this instance; 13 fired missiles for 10 kills, 6 of which were BVR. Total kills should present a .77 pk. This data does not include what the 2016 report contains, which does indeed change the total data, though it lowers the pk slightly overall. While these were not target drones, there was no ECM used, nor evasive maneuvers of any sort applied, and these were all real world kills. – U.S. has recorded ten AIM-120 kills – Four not Beyond Visual Range – Fired 13 missiles to achieve 6 BVR kills Pk = 0.46* – Iraqi MiGs were fleeing and non-maneuvering – Serb J-21 had no radar or Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) – US Army UH-60 not expecting attack; no radar or ECM – Serb MiG-29 FULCRUMS had inoperative radars – No reports of ECM use by any victim – No victim had comparable BVR weapon – Fights involved numerical parity or US numerical superiority

I was curious if any real world data as far as pk was implemented in DCS. It seems the AIM-120 is way more effective in DCS than the real world (so much so, that I feel like I'm cheating in MP if I use it, and I know I'm a dead man if it's launched at me), where basically firing against drones, achieved a 0.59 real world pk according to the RAND Air Combat Report. AIM-9M had a real world pk of 0.23 in Desert Storm (48 fired, 11 kills). Now with the F-14 on the horizon, we'll probably be getting the AIM-54, which on paper is a terrifying weapon, but from what I personally witnessed in TACTS, missed more than 75% of the time. Several real world launches also demonstrated misses. I'm sure that missiles from every nation share similar characteristics, though we all want to believe "ours" are the best. While I haven't done any sort of "scientific testing", it seems all missiles perform better in DCS than their real world counterparts. My personal disclaimer: I come from US Naval Aviation. F/A-18A/B, C/D. I shared hangar space with F-14D Bombcats. I am a fan boy! If anyone already has done testing, or if the real world data does indeed match, I'm all ears. I just want it as real as it should be, or could be, though I understand there has to be a "fun" factor I guess beyond what is real.

I ran into a similar problem some time ago. I reinstalled on more than one occasion (Rift software), and then I launched DCS one day and I noticed Steam was also running. I shut everything down, rebooted the pc, made sure Steam was not open, and launched DCS. I now always make sure Steam is not active when I launch DCS, and have never encountered the issue again.

I enjoy both of those. With that said, the F-5 is more primitive, and you're limited to 2 AIM-9 and guns for air to air. But, it IS a fun plane. The 2k is definitely more advanced, and thus, more complicated to run. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, both present their own challenges, and both are enjoyable rides.

Are there variations on how different parts of the world interpret mils? It's stated many places that the GAU-8 puts 80% of rounds fired in a 20 foot circle at 4,000 ft. I know this is contradictory to Dennis Jenkins claims of a 40 foot circle, but he's about the only source I can find citing 40 feet vs 20 ft. How far off of 20 feet is it in game?

.

It is kind of freaky having the basket swing through the cockpit when you are learning the system.

At the PS C:\blahblahblah\bin you have to type "cmd" to run the updater. Type cmd, then do the rest.

Looks great, seems easy to navigate. Congrats!

The frustration of flying over the target area, hitting the tdc action, etc., and repeatedly not locking up was to the point of making me insane. And all I had to do was "sensor forward" to slave the Maverick. It's nice to have figured it out, while slightly embarrassing to have to admit "pilot error". That said, I'm hooked. She's a wonderful bird, and I cannot wait til everything is fully implemented.

After taking a break, I went back, and made a new attempt. It turns out, in my frustration, I was inadvertently skipping a step. I forget already what it's called, but it's the one that uses sensor forward...

I've read the threads, I've watched the video tutorial and followed the procedures, and I do have my controls mapped. But there is nothing I can do that makes the AGM-65D lock, then I'm stuck flying around with them or dumping perfectly good missiles. Is there a trick I'm missing? I've only been flying her a few hours, VTOL is amazing, Sidearm works as it should, bombs seem to hit pretty well, but no joy with the Mavericks. Help? Idk...

Clearly there is only one choice. Blue Thunder. Just kidding, but I'd dig just about anything they put out. AH-1 of any variety would be spectacular.

I too have been an "off and on" customer since the early days. Moves, military service, dead pc's...I couldn't even tell you what my name was then (related to the products). However, none of that matters. What I appreciate most about this is that ED thought enough of it's customer base to put that letter out. That's awesome; keep up the outstanding work.

I too have recently noticed a differing behavior using laser guided bombs. Where I used to have a high success rate, now a large percentage of the time, my bombs fall short. I tested this again last night at an indicated 13,xxx altitude; bombs short. 7,xxx, short again. It does not seem to matter whether I lase at release, before release, etc.

I am running 3 sensors, 1 behind and 2 in front corners. Works fine. I'm not sure about adding any other tracking.

I've stated it already, I'm going to have fun regardless. But to simply say the better pilot has the advantage, while that might hold true in the real world...it's not necessarily so in this frenzy. I might be an outstanding pilot, and I might have this wonderful "advantage" of VR. But I can't see you. Once I do finally see you, if ever at all, I cannot identify you. If we're at range and I happen to lock you up, good on me. I used radar or another sensor to figure you out. So, while a better pilot may very well have an advantage, a pilot who can see absolutely has an advantage. If you can see me at distance X, and I can't even see half that far, I could be a pilot 10x you, and you would wipe the floor with me.

Advantages and disadvantages ensue with VR for sure. I don't think it has anything to do with elitism. I don't think I'm better than you because I fly in VR. Of course, if you're running 4k and can see my pilot looking around in the cockpit at 3nm, I'm already dead, because I pretty much still cannot even see you. I'm still gonna fly, I'm still gonna do it in VR, and I'll still get killed way more often than I'll make a kill, and I'm still gonna have fun regardless. Though I'd be a liar if I said it doesn't get frustrating on occasion.

I fly mp in vr. I get killed...a lot more often than I make a kill. That said, while there may be some disadvantages due to resolution/system capabilities, there are advantages as well. I don't know that they necessarily even each other out, but, the important part is I have fun regardless. For instance, I can look right at a plane I'm engaged with, start maneuvering, and while "keeping eyes on", I completely lose sight of him. That's frustrating, and as an example, I was vs an M2k recently, he was clearly showing on my rwr and I was attempting to maneuver towards a solution, I could not visually see him for love nor money. Next thing, I ate the heater he just launched. Would it be great to have a few vr only servers? Sure. But we'd probably be very limited to how many players would ever be on at any given point.

I re-digress. Whilst making tracks, which I now do not need...I discovered (by using the controls indicator) that after applying my ground brakes, they were indeed remaining engaged by 50%. Reducing a saturation setting caused this, I have remedied the issue.

I'll do it again and see about a track. However, the video does show something. It shows 30% more throttle being required to taxi following use of the wheel brakes, and drunken monkey takeoff behavior. But I digress, I'll try a track.

I'm sure it is. If I have enough runway to avoid wheel brakes, I have no landing problems. If not, even with the brakes released, it's still a fight. So far there's about 12 minutes left on this video upload. It's only 2 takeoffs, the first with zero wheel brake interaction, the 2nd with wheel brakes.

Love this.

I am currently uploading a video to the yoo toob. I will add it to this as soon as it finishes and so forth. I am going to describe the issue I am experiencing, which will be demonstrated in the video. Situation: Cold Start, no weather, wind, etc. First run: Fire it up, taxi, takeoff, never ever touch wheel brakes. Everything runs beautifully, takes about 60-65% thrust to get going, takeoff run uneventful. Second run: Fire it up, hit the wheel brakes, aircraft requires 85-90% thrust to maintain movement, takeoff run looks like a drunken monkey. I have played with the control axis, saturation, axis reversal, etc., to no avail. It appears that once the wheel brakes are touched, they drag fairly hard. I do not know if this is true to life, as I've never flown a real F-5, but it seems unlikely. I am also unsure what kind of video quality I will get, but you should be able to see the gauges when I lean in. As stated, once the video is ready, I will add it. This is and can be a very aggravating situation, especially in multiplayer where you may need to stop your aircraft due to traffic, as it seems after the brakes are used, all bets are off.