RentedAndDented

Hi there, So twice now this afternoon, I've had a message that my account has been logged into by another user on a different computer. Each time it happens I have immediately reset the password. I have also changed the notification address in case my email was compromised, and the original has also been reset. If this does not cease after these steps, what can I do? I'm a bit concerned the second event occurred so quickly after the first with my password reset. Thanks.

I get the same on landing. What I see in perfmon, I ran a quick trace, is that the core running what seems to be the DCS main thread just starts getting smashed at 100% at about the time I land and start to see the problem. When I takeoff and fly away, the framerate comes back but it I turn back to the airfield or look at it, the framerate drops massively again. Pagefile and memory usage looks quote consistent. The GPU is doing f-all, it's a Radeon VII so when it gets hot it tells me all about it.

I don't know if this may be why, but I have been fortunate enough to see an RAAF and a USMC Hornet side by side at a Pitch Black open day. I don't fully recall what differences were, but I saw that there were clear physical differences in the pods although they were both definitely centreline mounted Litening pods.

This pic, IIRC, is from the F-16.net forums from an old thread about EPE motor Hornets vs. F-16C HAF jets. There was a guy arguing that an F-14 out turns everything. I think there was an argument but I was skipping over those.

I think there is a disconnect between some of the external companies and ED about missile drag (it's widely stated to be the case at the moment) but I am not sure what is what, I am just not that knowledgeable. Maybe it really is just an outmoded weapon nowadays (hence the AARGM and AARGM-ER). The LD-10 is newer so perhaps that is the difference. But, the SA-15 engaging one and not the other, I am not so sure.

Hey I can do unsubstantiated physics too. Longer and wider body (giggity) = bigger rocket motor and the missile never peaks anywhere near the speed of the LD-10.

It doesn't appear to be in game, it is still doing 1000+ kts when it hits where the 88 has slowed to 570 ish. The problem is that if the SA-15 is attacking the missile, it's so slow that it has heaps of time. Twice as fast would be much harder.

Thanks, frametimes improved just a little bit but the trace is now super flat. I was limiting FPS anyway to hit my monitor's freesync range, the effect though seems to be making it seem a little more buttery. Also less fan noise seemed to be happening but that can be a subjective thing.

So I was just mucking around with the two against a SA-6 and a SA-15, and the LD-10 seems to be FAR more effective than the AGM-88. First, it almost always destroys the target. Second, it doesn't get engaged by the SA-15. Third, part of that might be because the HARM bleeds speed like a parachute by comparison. It really makes a mockery of the H and it's really just ARM IMO. Also, there is a profile difference. The HARM seems to fly straight at the target where the LD-10 seems to fly level to a point then dive. I had read that this was due to the AGM-88 not knowing the range to target. However, that geometry is basically just right angled triangle and I could see a way for the LD-10 to do this without having explicit range information. Why would the AGM-88 not do the same thing? All it would need to do is fly level on autopilot knowing it's altitude. It knows two angles of the triangle, 90 and 90-depression angle, and therefore the third. The rest of the triangle can be calculated including range, assuming level terrain.

I would tend to disagree to an extent. I think Wags is right in that you're only really going to be using AG radar for quite a small subset of the AG mission set. The pod is the better choice for the majority of it. I agree that the AG radar is something that needs to come but, like the man said, priorities. And let them optimise it too, god knows they get enough heat about 'optimisation' over on the reddits. Personally though, I agree with you. Back in Jane's F-15, there was nothing better than radar mapping an area, finding your target, and unleashing a standoff missile at it, or even long range toss bombing. I preferred that so much compared to tank plinking missions.

Hey guys, I know the UN campaign is a bit of a bugbear but I am now stuck. I just wanted to make sure the issue was on the radar, because I think it has a lot to do with the minigun re-balance. I suffered the formation flying, saved the dying troop guy, figured out I need to tell my wingman to lose his weapons etc, but now I am stuck. Basically, I can put a CRAPLOAD of rounds on a Hummer and it doesn't die, it seems they are considered armored and I don't think that they really are. I don't think this is right. I understand they miniguns may have been too powerful but now they seem less than useful, really. The gun on the Hummer at least should be knocked out at say 75% hitpoints remaining. In this mission there are a few of them to take out, combined with that and the fact that troops don't seem to be dying much either, you end up winchester long before the mission is complete, even if you get lucky and take out a Hummer with rockets. The wingman is basically useless too. Also, there is a point in this mission where the blackhawks won't takeoff because they are under fire. So they sit there, under fire. On the ground. Oh no, let's not fly away from the bad men with guns. As a suggestion if there are RPGs there, at least make them takeoff when the RPGs have been taken out. So, there's only 6 of the enemy left. And I am winchester. And my wingman decides to crash because he seems to be set to fly underground or something. And all I can do is fly around. This mission has some really strange things going on. This campaign needs an overhaul, IMO, tweaking won't suffice. Anyways in the meantime I'll start the Argo campaign. I hope the UN one gets fixed up.

When I used that test mission and looked at some of the other tracks people were posting in support of certain outcomes I had the following observations. 1. The test mission is the same for everyone and enforces some flight discipline as it won't record outside of it's parameters for sustained turn. It's a very narrow focused tool we can use. 2. Using infobar or tacview might be accurate or not, either way it does NOT enforce any parameters for a sustained turn. We have to take their word for it. 3. Outcomes using the test mission seem to be close to the GAO document. 4. Some of the posted tracks that were being cited as evidence would not have produced an output from the test mission, nowhere even close. I pointed all of this out previously and was largely ignored by a certain posters almost completely, but was challenged to provide a track. I did so and there was no further comment on that either. My numbers for the Hornet were quite close to the GAO document, like yours, and they showed the F-16 becoming superior at higher speeds at 15,000ft or higher, all measurements taken using the test mission file script output. So, I gave up arguing. They'll use whatever 'evidence' they have that fits their narrative and seem to have a wind source that far exceeds my own. Lastly, to be clear, I am not saying that the current state is correct, I would have *expected* more of a difference, but I can't definitively say that something is not well modeled.

The problem here is the use of sea level. If you go to 15,000ft and get the speed up and the F-16 starts winning. There would be a question in my mind as to whether sea level is a realistic altitude from which all of those pilot accounts speak for. Due to the enforcement of a hard deck for all of these friendly dogfights, virtually no engagement will take place at sea level. I don't think the Hornet is overperforming or if it is only slightly, it matches the GAO report as it is now. Also, you're using the G-limit override, and a real pilot won't use that in a dogfight. That is a real world limitation and a part of the Hornet's rate fight issues - it has to get slow to turn competitively and when it does it has to be careful not to lose all that speed.

That definition is nice but it doesn't hold up to reality in a lot of development processes. I look after a fairly large environment on my own, basically. It's held together by bandaids and the users are responsible for validation testing, but if they don't do that testing it's basically my fault. This is probably more extreme than the ED situation, but would you prefer they used an open beta, or spent half of their workforce budget on testers and did it RCV style? You'd be waiting longer for everything in general that way. They're not trying to be bait and switch indie devs or rip us off I'm sure, but they have limitations. I think the biggest weakness right now is that the modules and the core aren't separate enough. I'd like to see modules become more standalone so say a Hornet update isn't tied to a core update and can be done on the schedule of the Hornet team (obviously with things like new radar APIs that might not be completely possible, but the C-101 guys don't need that, for example).

Video is coming up as private for me. But - are you on the SA page by any chance and not the HSD?

It's fair to feel this way I guess, but in the end if moving him back would delay both even further, I would make the same choice knowing I'd wear some pain in the short run. Seeing Nineline talk about the radar being implemented as an API properly is a good thing on an entire DCS level, because it means that they can more readily change the radar simulation without breaking modules in strange and amazing ways like was happening a little while back.

In terms of the Pylon weight/drag of the F/A-18, it is there even if you take it off. If you recall, the ability to remove the pylons came some time after release, after the FM was done. It's purely cosmetic when you take them off.

I think part of the problem here is that you're misrepresenting, in my opinion, what was being said about sensitive data, or at least you are making interpretations that go way beyond what was said in the FPP. You seem to be saying that ED is fudging things when they don't need to and I really don't think that is the case. Wags is more professional than that, he's doing it where he thinks it necessary, and he is qualified to make that determination. The information might be accessible but on the other hand, there might well be a few legal and reputational issues with their SME partners that they might want to take care of, should they actually implement that sensitive data. I am not saying you are wrong about your data interpretation, but there are many other people here saying that the jet is very close to their data. Something may well be amiss here with what data is being used. Personally I actually agree with you, on a layman level. It does feel like a faster accelerating Hornet with no AoA capability, because it can't sustain a turn like I expected it to - Hornet seems better (being a layman my expectation could be completely wrong).

Just an FYI - I managed to resolve this in one of my missions by timing the flights such that the catapults were free before they spawned, rather than assigning them all to takeoff and letting the game handle it. If I get the timings right, it doesn't slow things down too much.

I had a Seahawk taking off before the first group of Hornets. Once I removed it, the first group took off fine, but then the following group lead crashed. It's only the F/A-18C Block 20 AI Hornets that seem to be affected. I have some of the older C model AI Hornets in the mission for SEAD. They seem to take off fine. When observing one of the Hornets destined to crash on the cat, it disappears from view at certain viewing angles.

I have also been seeing this issue. My first and third AI Hornet fly into the water in one of my missions, no matter what I do to them.

This possibly isn't unique to the Hornet. I have noticed the lead in an AI flight of 2 will not have full leading edge flap extension, but the number 2 AI will.

When people buy a product under early access, and think it's unethical that the list of features ready for the EA is updated prior to EA release, rather than them finding out on the day. Because it's 'silent'. On a list that they were advised is subject to change. Which was then changed accordingly, and people could see that the change was made, prior to the EA. Because it is 'silent'. If this logic was taken to court, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

What temperature was the baseline before it was modelled? This is also happening with the F-15C but it's not something I was concerned about.

Not necessarily mod related, I am on a clean install with no mods and I'm getting it.