TLTeo

The APG-73 is an upgraded -65 though, so it's not crazy to expect our Hornet to have the same features.

What they are saying is that regardless of the value of the CM resistance, missiles will always interact with chaff in some unrealistic fashion until the current implementation is reworked

Again, if you're inclined to complain about the patch being delayed, please roll back to right after the new lighting was introduced last year, then come back and report on your experience.

The Mig-21 may have nukes, but a) they are not simulated well in DCS anyway, b) they are more of a joke and more importantly c) ED have said they won't allow any more modules to include anything like it again. So yeah, the discussion is kind of pointless. It's not happening.

Fair enough, just wanted to avoid the mods' wrath!

Still much further along the way than anything Razbam though On a serious note, in the original announcement they said the art and FM were done, basic systems were done, but (some?) advanced systems and their interaction in the cockpit were not, and that's for the simpler -C variant, so no MFD, ground attack suite, etc. So yeah to me Q2 sounds optimistic, but 2021 sounds feasible.

Just to be sure - this doesn't break rule 1.16 right?

Uh, I thought they were also cooled from the pylon. Interesting, thanks.

Makes sense. Whoever decided the AIM-4 should store its coolant internally reaaaaally messed up.

Nice post. Out of curiosity, does anyone know for how long the earlier variants can cool their seeker heads? That's the one (small) advantage I can see the early AIM-4 having, but that missile only carried enough coolant for a minute or so. Modern AIM-9s can stay cooled for a couple of hours, but I imagine it took a while to get there.

This is also something mission makers should always do to mitigate the AI's flight model dodginess at higher settings. Unfortunately, many people don't because "the mission should be challenging" - which is honestly meaningless when that challenge is in the form of dumb but physics-defying opposition.

It does, except as I wrote the same exact computer was not dropping this much FPS a few months ago, running the same mission (not that it matters - it drops down to 10fps even in a simple cold start mission). As I wrote, I could easily run time sped up by a factor 15/20 without any issues, not going beyond 3x is pointless. Something's definitely changed since this summer, hence my report.

So I just came back to DCS after a break of a few months. I noticed that when I speed up time to test my own missions, the FPS drops down from ~60-100 to 10, and the GPU and CPU load drop as well, to the point where the game lags if sped up by more than ~3. This was not the case this summer, when I could increase the speed up to 15-20 without any issues at all. The only things that remain unchanged are (low) HDD/SDD use and (high) RAM use, while CPU and GPU use drop. Has anything changed since then, or is it some weird driver issue on my part? My specs are as follows: Ryzen 5 3600, AMD RX 5700, 16 GB of RAM. edit: I should also add, this is entirely independent of graphics settings. Turning everything to the lowest had no difference, the framerate went down to 10fps at 4x speed. Also, it seems like the performance drop has some sort of cycle - the game runs through 4-5 seconds extremely fast, than hangs for about half a second, then runs fast again and so on. It's as if something every second or so was holding up the game.

I suggest a simple exercise to all those who are complaining about the patch being delayed: roll back to when 2.5.5 with the new lighting was first released, and post here whether you enjoy major features being rushed through.

FTV have partnered with IndiaFoxtEcho to release the MB-339 as a full module so my guess is, this particular community mod is done for. I wouldn't be surprised if the G-91 was their next module though.

IIrc, Cage/SEAM either slews the seeker to the radar (if you have something locked) or initiates the search pattern (even though it doesn't show up on radar). The procedure is just to press the button when either you get a lock through e.g. VSL, or your ADL is pointed roughly at the bandit.

Just to quickly clarify - TERNAV does not use the radar picture as input to be compared with its database, it uses the radar altimeter. This means it stops taking accurate fixes if you are flying higher than a few hundred meters. As long as you approach your target below that altitude and over the ground rather than water, its fixes should be accurate enough that you don't need to do it manually. You can test this quite easily by flying e.g. one of the missions in the Red Flag campaign. While you hold at 5000 meters your TERNAV accuracy will go down to 2, but after you pass Irish and descend to low level it goes back up to 5 and takes you quite accurately straight on your target.

In order to speculate you need information. We don't really have enough.

What was your AoA? Above 15 units or so, aileron input results in roll reversal

Only in TWS, they are a Fox-1 all the way to the target if you fire in STT

Looking at the FB video, it looks like Terrain Avoidance here means something like the modes in the Viggen or Jeff, where the radar is showing potential obstacles and their azimuth, rather than e.g. the Skyghawk, where the antenna is just scanning up and down and only showing what's straight ahead of the jet. Cool stuff, it's going to be really handy with the new clouds!

It's also pretty useful to estimate the distance to the target and know whether you're within missile firing range or not.

I mean, looking at those DCS screenshots, the jet at FL450 is flying at Mach 0.92 but IAS is only like 250 knots. That means your wing is already doing lots of work to just keep the plane in a straight line, so if you want to orbit during a CAP you need to ask the wing to produce very, very little additional lift (ie, a very wide orbit with a gentle angle of bank). If you try to turn tighter then you're back to needing high AoA, which you'll only be able to maintain in burner. TLDR is, maneuverability sucks at FL450 with any jet, moderate your expectations and you won't be disappointed

The Draken is such a good looking aircraft. I really hope that HB get back to working on it after their current (hopefully last) big push on the Viggen.

Yep, I 100% agree. There are much more interesting AI models that would actually add something new to carrier decks - Greyhounds, Prowlers, Super Hornets, recce Crusaders, to name a few.