RentedAndDented

You mean someone made an obvious counter-argument to your....'measured' deduction that absolutely all situations are the same, which they aren't. Here is another one. If G-LOC is not a thing in the US Air Force F-16 fleet because the pilots are perfect, why did they spend millions of dollars on GCAS, then Auto-GCAS? It wasn't the sole reason, but it sure is one of them. Also, if I G warmup my pilot sustains 9G for about maybe 20 seconds. It is my opinion that this needs a small buff in the viper but not a huge one. ALso, the faster you're going the more the G-force affects the pilot. Mover was talking about it in one of is videos where he was struggling to stay conscious. ED are probably looking into things like this as well.

It may depend on how it is being measured. If the CPU is absolutely smashed, the reporting software might not get a reading for an interval and effectively counts it as 0, which might make it look like a low reading. It could be caused by not getting a result from just one core, meaning it times out for all of them. If you are getting a whole CPU result then it is an aggregate speed being reported, as cores are clocked individually on Ryzen 2 and 3 series chips. I think this is more likely than the CPU actually dropping to 1.5Ghz.

The Su-27 is not supermaneuverable, the term has been corrupted from a concept to a marketing term. To be supermaneuverable, it needs to actually have control post stall. Once the Su-27 is in the Cobra, it has no control, it simply recovers in a predictable fashion. Same like a tail slide, which an F-15 can also do.

There is another option, being VSR, but it also has it's compromises. I have a 2K screen, I run it at 3800*1200 and it gets scaled down (which is basically what SSAA is). It is slightly different to 2xAA in that there is still a teensy bit of aliasing, but it's much better than none and the impact is far less. The compromise is that I need to run my Desktop at the same res so I can run the game in windowed mode. However, now I am used to that and I run all my games that way.

Well yeah, it's a light fighter with only as much installed thrust as it weighs when empty. It's not exactly truly a slouch, but in modern fighter terms it is underpowered. And yet, the aggressors make it work very well. It can be done, it just needs proficiency. I find it very difficult to beat an AI F-15 and it's not because it has endless power, it's because the AI F-15 seems to have no control issues at low speed, and you can see the plane 'cheat' as the nose yaws around and it crabs to point at you when it is very slow. I can get him slow, but he then seems to fly like a Hornet.

The cheek mount fairing is nothing like the ATFLIR mount. It's massive. My only concern is that it doesn't look right. When it comes to how the ATFLIR is inside the cockpit or what capabilities it has vs. Litening, my opinion is that the limitation of a screen being displayed on a screen, and the current render limit, will negate a lot of the real differences. I don't think we are getting ATFLIR proper anytime soon.

Hey guys, So with Supercarrier coming at some point, and after that the Raven One campaign, would it be possible to simply have a visual representation of the ATFLIR using the current Litening pod system? I know it means work around the modelling etc, but it would help with immersion so that you are at least looking at the correct pod, especially with that campaign. I know some will not agree with my point of view, so I am perfectly willing to have a discussion. Cheers!

Potentially, yeah. Edit: But then, I just went to the actual page and saw all the songs are listed so I probably just don't know what I am on about.

I thought it was cool, nicely done. I am just concerned you're gonna get done for the music there....hope not.

I've seen it mounted on RAAF Hornets several times, always on the centreline. Anecdotal yes, but I've never seen a cheek mount used. And, I am not military so maybe I wouldn't know, just saying.

My opinion is that this is something ED need to figure out, being able to have modules independent to some extent of the base installation. So, allowing the publishers of a module the ability to publish themselves. This is perhaps not possible, and even if it is it is not trivial. As one example, they'd have to do things like version off the API so things don't break on updates to the API. I am sure there would be hundreds of others.

No worries, it's very educational isn't it? I hope it gets more views now.

My opinion of this issue is that they've optimised the GPU load a bit, but there is still a problem with CPU load. It feels to me like they're at the limit of their current program architecture, but I'd be happy to be wrong.

So I haven't experienced wings coming off in DCS, but breakups in the civilian world do happen. It might be a damage model issue rather than a vortex modelling issue because you might not experience catastrophic structural failure in the fighter because of it, but he says quite clearly structural damage and overstress is a concern.

Watch this then, it's an old USAF training video. It also deals with the interval takeoffs.

No, he was in a formation takeoff. But why would it dissipate in 15 seconds? A wake vortex is at its worst when the plane is slow. It wouldn't fully dissipate, but it wouldn't be as dangerous after 15 seconds. The F-104 was TOO close as it says. The point is that the vortex was still powerful enough to overpower his control authority at those speeds. Also, it wasn't THAT violent in your video and equal weight aircraft under a heavy classification don't have a wake vortex spacing requirement. But, does it really make sense that you'd have no effect at all? Of course you would, it's still there. Medium to light classification is 5 miles. It seems like you expect nothing? Why do you think your uncommanded roll is unexpected? That seems unreasonable to me.

Well then you didn't read my post, because what happened to you is exactly what happened to the F-104 from that post (except he DID crash), and I was explicitly talking about the jetwash as a challenge on takeoff that ISN'T modelled in DCS.

Again, I disagree. The wake being persistent is real. Real world operations accounts for wake turbulence. There may be an issue in DCS if it is generated prior to rotation, but after that no, it starts. I have found what I think is the F-104 incident I spoke of earlier, where the pilot of the second aircraft in a crosswind did not allow enough separation, and the wake moved into him due to the crosswind, whereas normally he probably would have been fine. I beleive the rolling that the pilot couldn't stop is the wake vortex, it certainly fits, but the description here is limited. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/55716 DCS does model this, and again, the wake descends. If you allow a realistic separation time it will probably not be an issue. Another thing that happens that DCS currently doesn't model is the need for takeoff separation due to the exhaust of other aircraft. You can see that happen here at 1:02.

Probably because they are aware of it and manage it. Also, like I already said if you have no wind it won't move. Why do airliners have to wait 2-3 minutes to takeoff if the aircraft preceeding them was a heavier design? It's because the wake vortex can persist at dangerous intensities for some time. Edit: A bit of research on the interwebs shows many pilots talking about hitting their own wake. The thing is, that the wake generally descends. If you hit your own wake, that means you descended during your own turn, or are just lower than when you last passed over the area. If you watch the ED visualistation video here: You will see that it does in fact descend. This video is actually very good at showing you what is going on. IMO it is very impressive work. Good alititude management would likely resolve the issue with hitting your own wake. Goes for me too as I have hit my own doing the same thing.

From the wiki article: 20 September 1999 – A JAS 39A Gripen from Airwing F 7 Såtenäs crashed into Lake Vänern in Sweden during an air combat maneuvering exercise. After passing through the wake vortex of the other aircraft, the Gripen abruptly changed course, and pilot Capt. Rickard Mattsson, got a highest-severity warning from the ground-collision warning system. He ejected from the aircraft, and landed safely by parachute in the lake. 7 January 2017 – a private Bombardier Challenger 604 rolled three times in midair and dropped 10,000 ft (3,000 m) after encountering wake turbulence when it passed 1,000 ft (300 m) under an Airbus A380 over the Arabian Sea. Several passengers were injured, one seriously. Due to the G-forces experienced, the plane was damaged beyond repair and was consequently written off.[33] In the latter example, the A380 is flying straight and level. There is a huge weight difference between that and a Challenger so the result makes sense. The 6-7G that you say you were pulling will increase the wake turbulence accordingly, as well as it's impact on other aircraft. Also, why would who made the wake turbulence matter to the aircraft flying through it? I've noticed this too and I don't see why it wouldn't be a problem. If you're doing it with absolutely no wind, then it won't move and will stay on the runway. ED do model the effect of wind on the turbulence, set a breeze so it moves off the airshow area before it completely dissipates.

I agree, it depends on the amount of air you are actually displacing.

I don't agree. There was an occasion I read about years ago where two German F-104Gs were on takeoff, and the wake vortex from the first one flipped the second one over. That's a slow flying plane, it's on takeoff. These forces are incredibly powerful and violent.

Yep, and I saw that technique in an old tactical formation training video from the vietnam era - the flight lead rolls into the turn direction, rolls out, then turns. I dunno what they do IRL for tanking.

Well DCS is very reliant on a big render thread that will eat up basically a full CPU core. 30% utilisation is very likely that process eating a core up and a few other processes doing things like sound, and whatever else you have loaded. Is there one core being maxed out?

It is command guidance to the missile, they're not actually riding a radar beam. It can use the radar to generate the commands, or the EO system in which case you would get no warning. The encyclopedia is probably a bit wrong there.