Snappy

Hi , would like to upgrade my RAM from 16 to 32Gb. My Mainboard still uses DDR3/DDR3L so I'm stuck with that. I'm not much of a hardware person, did some reading and looked up my mainboard& CPU's ram specification. It says CPU: "DDR3 and DDR3L 1333/1600 at 1.5V" MB: "Supports DDR3/DDR3L 1600/1333/1066 non-ECC, un-buffered memory" Now I have some questions. The CPU specification, does that mean it supports DDR3 at only at 1333mhz and only DDR3L at 1600Mhz? Or does the 1333/ 1600 Mhz speed refer to both variants ? Also regarding DDR3L : Does it make sense to buy that? I read a bit about it and it seems to run at a lower voltage than DDR3. But would that alone result in any noticable performance gains in DCS in comparison to basic DDR3? I mean as far as I understand it I can't overclock it anymore anyway if the MB is limited to 1600Mhz and its already operating at that. Last question: Regarding the actual stick configuration, I'm now running 2x 8GB, DIMM at 1600Mhz. Is there any issue with getting additional 2x8Stick at 1600Mhz if its not from the same manufacturer ? I looked online and didnt get any clear answers on this. Is it better to buy a 4 set of 8GB from the one manufacturer instead? Thanks a lot , Kind regards, Snappy

@Alpenwolf thank you very much for your quick reply! Completely understand your concern of making a change that will disrupt other things in the mission setups. I will check the dynamic weather settings out in the ME and report back. @Shadow KT Good input , thanks. I never really noticed the wind in the briefing screen, will look for it next time.But regardless of it being in 3 layers, the very fact that there is wind (unless it is 0kts windspeed?) already should tell that the pressure is not 29.92 everywhere. otherwise there would be no wind as wind is mostly caused by differences in atmospheric pressure. As for the Viggen‘s design, I don’t know, pretty sure the swedes had their reasons for doing it that way, as you said guess it’s primarily designed with use in scandinavia and baltic area in mind. BTW the problem in the Viggen is not about getting QFE. fortunately the kneeboard calculates it for all flightplan waypoints in its navsystem. Targets of opportunity are another matter though. But good that you mentioned it, because that gave me another idea. Maybe the change in elevation of terrain over distance in the CW server caucasus is larger than it appears to the eye / I underestimated the changes in terrain elevation. This I will check as well, because it would account for large variances in QFE while the sea lvl referenced QNH would not necessarily have such large changes over same distance. I‘ll do some testing. Thanks a lot guys! Kind regards, Snappy

@Alpenwolf, one minor request/feedback, though I suspect this has more to do with DCS's buggy weather system than your server. But could you maybe in the weather setup for the missions (if its possible) select a slight more evenly distributed air pressure over the maps? At the moment it is extreme and unrealistic. For example in "when mountains cry" the distance between Vaziani and the third red lake / Water factory is just around 130 km , but the pressure already changes from from 959 hP/mb to 804 hP/mb, so about 155 hP/ millibar over such a short distance. That is extreme by meteorological standards!! I mean consider this for reference: Locally a drop or rise of just 7 hP /mb over 24 hours is considered relatively large and usually indicates the arrival or exit of a larger pressure system. And the the lowest ever (!) recorderd air pressure , was as far as I know just 840 mb somewhere in the pacific during a major typhoon.So still much higher than what DCS does. Normally I wouldn't get wound up about this and I guess for the fighter types it is of little issue. But the problem is for the strike aircraft , the Viggen, a lot of the HUD symbology for bombs and other weapons is based on correct pressure settings (QFE actually, but thats closely related to the general pressure QNH). That mean due the large changes of pressure, combined with the fact that these occur over a short ground distance, that means the attack symbology or cues often just become visible on the HUD glass for the pilot very late, shortly before reaching /overflying the target. Before that is it not displayed since it is either above or below HUD display range/out of view. This makes setting up stable bomb parameters unnecessarily difficult. There are weapon delivery modes that use radar alt instead, but they are not suitable for every weapon and especially not every situation on CW server where a low level - level pass is often the best option. Well as I said, I think its mostly DCS weather system , but if you could look into it if it can be when you set up the mission it would be nice if this could be improved with less stark changes. It currently that way in many missions, at least those on caucasus terrain. It would also make the weather a bit more realisitc , though I think many people couldnt care less. Rant / pet peeve over Sorry. Kind regards, Snappy

Cobra, thank you for chiming in here and good to hear a lot of work is going on in the background on the Viggen. That being said, I would honestly appreciate a bit more developer presence on the Viggen forums. Contrary to things in the F-14 forums, bug reports here rarely ever get any official reply or even acknowledgement and it has been that way for a long time. So we have no idea, what things you are keeping track of and what may have gone completely unnoticed or slipped by. Especially in the lead-up to -out of early access- . Kind regards, Snappy

When is the abyssmal AI, as well as the announced new FM for the AI aircraft planned for release? This is a huge , not to say gigantic weakness of the sim that existed for years with near-zero improvement. For a sim that has a supposedly extensive single player majority user base this is lacking big. Also it detracts from employing tactics , because the AI aircraft do not feature their real world weaknesses and strenghts which you would normally exploit /adapt to. On the contrary, some have superpowers. And don't get my started on my AI wingmen.. Regards, Snappy

Hi @Flighter, is there any chance you can reset both servers or reboot them? The server lag lately is really bad, as in unplayable and it happens more and more often .Teleporting and rubberbanding all over the place. Its not just me, everybody has it when you ask in chat . The german server seems worse , but the one in greek is not much better. Not sure what causes it. Thanks a lot . Hope you are well. Kind regards, Snappy.

Hi Flappie, I know that ENKEL- launched cannot be programmed.Maybe I formulated badly. I wasn't asking about how to program sth that is not possible. It was more for technique in launching or approach tactic . (which you later in your post gave ) My thinking with ENKEL / GROUP was the following: Shoot one missile in enkel, making it just definitely go for the first front row (of the ships) target it detects. The other missile in Group mode , should by design definitely go for a the second or third row of targets in the detected group. Thereby making sure they dont target the same ship since "group" - mode missiles should always go for depth not not front row. As the manual says later on,they only go for (grouped (in depth targets )) . If they dont detect multiple target rows they rather go on past the targets and not hit anything. But as I wrote above for various reason thats not always practible since multiple ships not always are positioned in a way that it constitutes a "group" for the missile or the approach angle makes it impossible. But thanks I will try your approach of aiming to left and right side of the formation..Maybe that works. Regards, Snappy. (BTW, this is OT, but re your other post for the AKAN gunsight.Did you figure it out how to bring it up? If not let me know I'll put up a short track for you)

Hi, is there any effective way to prevent my 2 RB-04 from going to the same target when attacking a group of ships? Because in my experience, even when waiting quite some time between releases they often seem to go for the same ship. Guess if the convoy is big enough i.e. deep enough for several rows I could send one off in group mode and the other one in ENKEL, hoping that the group one goes for the 2nd row. But thats not always feasonable, if the ships are not staggered deep enough or my approach direction is not suitable for group mode. So are there other ways to make sure they go for 2 different targets? In a low threat scenaria I could circle and attack from another direction, but against a well defended group of ships I'd prefer to take my shots and get out as fast as possible. Kind regards, Snappy

Slightly OT but that simulation (strike fighters ) is much better than its often given credit for btw. Sure it can't compete with DCS in terms of FM and graphics, but it's got its strength in other areas and its far from arcade-ish. Survey sim is a better tag. Regards, Snappy

Not arguing the limit-of-range part or the skill & bravery of the argentinian pilots , but systems-wise ( HUD for example )and especially radar-capability -wise the Sea Harrier was far ahead of the mirages and A-4. Plus they had the benefit of all aspect sidewinders, which the Argentine Air Force had not ( as far as I'm aware.) and which represents a significant tactical advantage . Still, challenging conditions for both sides , no question. Regards, Snappy

I have the same experience as Quigon, rounds have a tendency too fall short by some margin .On both Caucasus and NTTR. In my personal opinion, the gunsight and firing cue could use a rework. The firing cue seems to come too early which is why the rounds fall short . Yes there is the mention of a short delay between cue and trigger pull in system design, but I think that is only to account for human reaction time. Presently you have to wait until shoot cue, then hold back for another one and half second or so( which is hard to estimate ,making accurate gun runs difficult) and then pull trigger to get the rounds on intended target . That is making the system error-prone, which doesn’t make sense. It seems more logical to get the firing cue when you really have to pull the trigger right away, because that is a clearly defined point in time, not a guess the pilot has to make sometime after appearance of the cue. regards, Snappy

@Spiceman yes I got that ground clutter part, of course you dont want to get this clutter messing up your radar picture , but I thought it was the MLC that filters the ground clutter returns out, not the ZDF , despite the ground being close to or at zero doppler. @Noctrach No problem, ok it seems the wording in the manual isn't completely optimal either then. I'll just go with what you , Saber and Spiceman said. ZDF filters a certain closure speed band and MLC filter a certain groundspeed speed band with the accompanying implications for detection. Thanks again everyone , for your help in explaining. Kind regards, Snappy

Cougar, can't remember exactly which one, but I think in one of Fighter Pilot podcast episodes on TOPGUN ( the real one, not the movie) it was mentioned that due the increasing complexity of the multirole spectrum, the whole true multirole approach (as in each pilot does everything, every role the aircraft can do) might no longer be feasible and that squadrons in the future may focus again on certain roles only. But if I understood correctly it was more of a future lookout/possibilty nothing definitive yet. Of course I also don't know, if that would imply that a squadron will for example, exclusively train/do Air2Air or whether it means Air2Air will be the main thing for them , but they will still train to a lesser degree A2G or SEAD for example and stay current in those areas too. Regards, Snappy

Hi Guys, thanks for all your detailed answers! It has become semi-clear now , but still I 'm confused - sorry! The MLC is more or less clear now to me, but the ZDF still is murky.. @Noctrach Why do you say in regards to ZDF , that the F-14 own groundspeed is not considered with this? Heatblurs own manual states (bold underline by me) re the zero doppler Filter "The blind area is centered around a closure rate of negative own groundspeed..." and later again "The resulting blind area is 200 knots wide, meaning that a chased target moving at a speed of within 100 knots(+/-) of own groundspeed will be invisible to the radar" Is this an error in the manual or what? Btw I find the 2 sentences from the manual in themselves somewhat contradictory, because the first sentence makes it sound like if ownship is doing 400kts groundspeed the blind area is affecting targets pulling away with -400 kts negative closure (+/- 100), while the second sentence makes it sound more reasonably that target of 300-500 groundspeed , not seperation /closure will be filtered out. @Noctrach @Saber2243 Your scenarios are both good , if the ZDF is centered on closure rate . I think my confusion really hinges on whether the ZDF speed band is based on own groundspeed or closure rate.The heatblur manual makes it sound like its own - groundspeed based. @Spiceman, Thanks for your link! Funnily I had just watched your video yesterday evening and it was part of my questions came up. (Not that anything was wrong or off with your video, on the contrary, it illustrated well the practical workarounds , its just that I kept thinking a bit more about it and trying to understand , unsuccessfully ) Kind regards, Snappy

Hi, recently started to get aquainted with the RIO seat and diving into the radar basics (still just scratching the surface) and have watched /read some of FlyandWires excellent material and the Heatblur manual part on this but I still have problems understanding the two filters. Both filters seem to aim at filtering out returns that are within certain ground speed range, but what exactly is the difference between them? I know the following contains massive oversimplifications and potential misconceptions on my side, but I thought the big advantage of Pulse Doppler vs classic Pulse was, that (besides different working principle) the PD radars were not suspectible to ground clutter returns since this gets filtered out inherently by removing everything that is own-speed +/- a certain variance. But the two filters have me confused and raised several questions: The MLC makes sense to me, as it filters out the ground returns, the ground is "moving" relatively at my aircrafts own groundspeed , so filtering that speed range out in a look down situation makes sense. But the Zero doppler doesn't make sense to me yet. Heatblurs F-14 manual states it is applied for targets with negative closure, i.e. moving away from ownship , but then when its talking about the filters speed range it says quote: "The resulting blind area is 200 knots wide, meaning that a chased target moving at a speed of within 100 knots(+/-) of own groundspeed will be invisible to the radar" Quesstion 1 : That +/- has me confused.If a target is moving at -100 kt of own groundspeed it is actually not longer moving away its coming closer, or am I getting somethign wrong ? Question 2: Also that speed range of +/- 100 kts of the is within the speed range of the MLC filter with +/-133 kts. So why the need for an additional zero doppler filter if the value is already included within the MLC filter band? Question 3: And is the Zero Doppler Filter a Filter at all? Because in the manual it sounds more like a hardware/physical limitation of the radar that it just can't detect targets without a doppler shift. Sorry if those questions are somewhat dumb. I'm not too technical a person and having some difficulties in getting my head wrapped around this radar stuff. If somebody could explain or answer my questions in a semi-simple way that would be great. Kind regards, Snappy

There I was, thinking you were asking a true question with an interest in learning.. Regards, Snappy

Moxie , you re not completely wrong, sometimes the DM is off big time. But then again, the Mirage is far from the only module with issues regarding DM. Can't say how many times I've poured round after round of 30mm into the F-16 and the thing still keeps flying fine in MP. So it averages out somewhat. Guess this hopefully is getting a re-work across the spectrum, when ED implements the new DM for newer jets, should be around 2024 or so. Kind regards, Snappy

Sure, mission editing can be interesting and open up the horizon some more. But it is a very valid point , that sooner or later you re noticing the very limiting effect of DCS' abyssmal AI and its performance. It really gets annoying. You can offset it some with cleverly designed /scripted missions, yes. But nonetheless AI and its FM severely limits DCS once you start interacting with it, whether its in a fight or your -supposed to be helpful wingmen- and it really becomes annyoingly repetitve to see them make the same dumb moves or overpowered maneuvres again and again. For a sim thats supposedly is heavily focused on its single player userbase this is a sorry state and has been for years. Well , lets hope things get better once the dynamic campaign gets out, because I really cant see that working without a significant upgrade to the AI behaviour in general. Regards, Snappy

Hi. IFR = Instrument flight rules IMC = Instrument meteorological conditions. IFR refers to the set of aviation rules a flight is performed under/in accordance with, as opposed to VFR , visual flight rules. In simple terms, there are different requirements to a lot of aspects of a flight. Pilot certification, aircraft certification and necessary equipment, routing, alternates ,weather minima and so on.The list is rather long. IMC refers only to weather conditions. In IMC the weather is such that you can only do a flight in under IFR , you can no longer fly in VFR, because the weather is too bad to meet the requirements of VFR/visual flight rules There is also VMC, visual meteorological conditions, meaning the weather is sufficiently "good" enough to perform a flight under visual flight rules. You can fly IFR in VMC, no problem ( no one stops you from flying on instrument rules in cloudless sunshine) , but you can't or lets say shouldn't in the strongest sense of the word, do the opposite, fly VFR in IMC. (because besides the legal issues, in the worst case , you re now in a cloud area , without an adequately equipped / instrumented aircraft and you as a pilot might not have the necessary qualifications for navigating/flying safely under these weather conditions) here are a few links with some deeper information on the topic, if you re interested. The official FAA one (last link has lots of good free book material on all that stuff), check their "instrument flying handbook" it gives a good idea of what flying IFR entails. https://skybrary.aero/index.php/Instrument_Meteorological_Conditions_(IMC) https://skybrary.aero/index.php/Visual_Meteorological_Conditions_(VMC) https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ Kind regards, Snappy

@Alpenwolf, thank you very much for your in-depth reply and explaining / giving a bit of a look inside your thinking . I appreciate it man! I agree, it's "unfortunate" ( in the cold war context that is ) that ED is doing the -D instead of -A Model, or even better the AH-1 (though I guess, even when or if it comes , it will be one of its newer versions). The wait & see approach is fine for me. In a more general sense, (this is now my personal opinion only) I much prefer having less modules available and more authenticity in regards to cold war era, including the problems arising from that. I mean, whether people like it or not, Helicopters being a major problem for fighter jets isn't necessarily unrealistic, especially not with cold war technology, Just look up the results/conclusions from the J-CATCH (late 70s/early 80)s experiment if you haven't already . Pretty eye-opening I'd say. Nowadays it might be different, with improvements in radar & filter computing technology and ability to detect even small targets over ground. But during the cold war things were different. Yes, unfortunately we are far from complete equipment for both sides, so gameplay will always be somewhat affected , but personally I'd prefer to keep it strictly CW- unit wise. So for helicopters that would mean UH-1 for blue, Hind and Mi-8 for red. Yea, I know, blue 's got a disadvantage with limited attack capability there, but hey then again, they get the F-14A on the jets side , which is a major asset with its radar. Either way, each side likely has to focus on their respective strength and try to exploit the others weaknesses and some advantages can be reduced or offset by quantaty management . I guess you 're already doing good job at trying to keep things from getting to shifted into one sides favor . Well, as I said, in the end its your server, that was just my personal position on what constitutes a real cold war server. On the positive side, it looks like quite a few cold war era aircraft are coming our way, with Mirage F-1 , Mig-23, F-8 and so on. Hopefully that will allow a gradual phase out of all the non-CW units like the Harrier as you mentioned. Sorry for the long rambling discourse. I'm not that often on the server, mostly due to time constraints on my side, but I very much like that you're focussing on CW scenarios and find it very re-freshing compared to all the generic 2000 & post 2000 setups usually around. So thanks a lot for your server and the efforts you put in there. Kind regards, Snappy

What again is exactly „cold war“ about the AH-64D? I mean the KA-50 is already stretching it thin with a lot of creative imagination. But the AH-64D? Sorry no way. The first prototype flew only in 1992 and I think it entered regular service in 97. Both events definitely well after the end of the cold war and the soviet union. I mean , of course in the end its Alpenwolfs server and he can decide what he wants to do or not, but I really have problems seeing why you want keep calling it a „cold war“ server when there are plenty units and their avionics that simply didnt exist in any form during the cold war. Probably it’s supposed to be a cheap stand-in for the original AH-64A, but the capabilities the thing has, even in single digit numbers and the tactics it’s capable of due its avionics simply do not belong into that era.. I don’t really understand where the limit is for the cold war definition. At some point its better to drop the cold war pretense and rename the server. Otherwise how about accepting that some shiny new toys just cant be used here and strive for some authenticity instead? This is not an attempt at trolling ,just trying to discuss what the sense of a CW server is, when lots of newer stuff is pushed in. regards, Snappy

Be that as it may, it doesn’t seem to stop them from keeping constantly promoting it, just see the latest newsletter. I find that pretty annoying, given the bugs present in many FC3 modules , which have been there a long time. Regards, Snappy

Ok, just in case anyone else has the problem with getting directly into F10 view,being unable to get into cockpit view and fly the aircraft after starting any mission. My problem was solved after installeing this library package. It is different from the one Reverend Kyle linked earlier on. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/the-latest-supported-visual-c-downloads-2647da03-1eea-4433-9aff-95f26a218cc0 Thanks a lot to the very helpful & friendly guys in the A-4e Discord server, they sorted me out with that one. Great support there ! Kind regards, Snappy

@Reverend Kyle, yes it does. @ Baco the folder structure is as you mentioned . Inside the mods/aircrafts/A-4ec/ and then the various subfolders. Not sure about the source code. I downloaded the upper most file of the 3. Not the Tar and not the source code. I'll try their discord channel now. Thanks a lot anyway for your ideas guys. Kind regards, Snappy

Strange, I have the same problem, with being put directly into F10 map view after loading any mission. However I definitely installed into saved games folder and when I tried to install the aforementioned c++ library I got message saying that my system already has a newer version of the library installed. Any other ideas? I followed the instruction for install and deleted the old A-4 and keybinding folders first. regards, Snappy