Harlikwin

Peak sad about that. Hopefully they can find the docs somewhere at somepoint and add it.

What exactly does "AI now able to fire HOT3 missiles" is there some sort of petrovitch or does it just mean AI choppers.

It looks decently far along modeling wise, and its a simple enough A/C so lets hope its out quick.

First post and all that. Super excited for this module.

Yeah I'd expect there to be minimal noise at higher altitudes in general, or when looking "up". And more noise from sidelobe clutter etc at low altitude, and probably the worst at low/mid alt looking down. Any comments on blind speed. I did post an entire mathematical model of how all this works a while back.

Could we get some more details on what the radar overhaul will entail? Specifically I'd like to ask the question why MTI is not actually being modeled and the radar is working more like a PD radar. I guess some of this might be addressed in the "dynamic noise" model (will this include sidelobe issues at lower altitudes, will it be effected by where the radar is pointing (up/down)?. An MTI radar model should also include things like multiple blind speeds, and various other problems in lookdown. I don't know it for certain, but the current radar model looks to me like its simply the FC3 radar with a noise animation which for a FF model is quite disappointing given what other developers like Razbam, Heatblur, and now even ED are doing.

I mean I agree. All I'm saying is that compared to real life where you don't have unlimited lives to figure out how to "game" the missile defense. And you know there is an actual risk of dying. You are gonna fly very differently than what DCS looks like in PVP.

I mean probably not really unrealistic. DCS PVP being what it is people have learned how to deal with the missile. If you take a hard look at the iran iraq war alot of those "fighter" kills were against non maneuvering targets that had no clue they were being shot at. So, a totally apples to oranges set of expectations. And yeah I would expect the AWG-9 to have issues holding tracks vs maneuvering fighters. People may not like this since their expectations largely come from movies but it is what it is. The biggest realism flaw being that in DCS you know how to deal with it. IRL I think that level of understanding probably existed in the sense that there were likely recommended tactics (run!) if you got fired on by a tomcat. But we will never know what those were and how effective they were. The iraqis eventually did figure it out though as the losses to phoenixes in the late war were far lower.

I doubt there is much in the way of mig-27 docs floating around out there. 23Bn yeah doable, but it doesn't bring much capability over the 23MLA, and the Su-17M4 would be better.

Thats funny, My VR dots look nothing like this, far smaller and more subtle. varjo Aero, I forget the res 4k ish.

Problem is that IRL most of your opponents didn't know how to deal with the missile/radar. I.e. the first year or two of the iran iraq war. In DCS every players knows exactly what DCS mechanics to use to defeat it. Also IIRC the phoenix seeker was HPRF only, meaning problems when dealing with beaming/cold aircraft. But again, it was fine vs bombers/kingfish/cruise missiles etc coming right for ya.

ED doesn't model anything relating to sensor performance. In fact the ATFLIR/LITENING are not even working in the correct "band". The apache FLIR that the FLIR "model" was built for uses LWIR radiation, while ATFLIR/LITENING etc all use MWIR due too superior range performance in that band. ED models nothing of this. Nor things like degradation with digital zooom and so forth. I also have little doubt they will model even a fraction of what SNIPER can do, because most of that is actually classified AFAIK, especially the A/A stuff. So more or less, you will get a reskin of a TGP and some different A/G symbiology and thats gonna be that maybe some better "zoom".

Yeah but they still show thru planes and clouds right? That was the issue on ECW when they tested it. I mean it was hilarious. Also they don't scale with monitor res either IIRC

The problems with the neutral dot labels is that you can see them through clouds, and through the floor of your plane, and there is no difference between air and ground units. Honestly if ED fixed all that then I'm sure more servers would use them, even add in some tweaks for server owners to set size of lables and compensate that size for different resolutions as this mod does.

If ED is serious about actually modeling a SNIPER pod I 100% expect that all of this will be included. They apparently have access to the full documentation required to give us a high fidelity reproduction of the SNIPER pod. Which as everyone knows is the precursor the F35 DAS system. So I'm 100% confident they will do their absolute best to give us the best quality model they can. Not just some symbology overlay over the current LWIR (totally incorrect) apache IR model.

Great I look forward to all the advanced air to air modes, finally some IRST action! Though that does mean you guys will have to fix the whole IR through clouds issue! Also really really forward to the new MWIR model you guys will have to develop for it. Cant wait!

That sounds far more realistic to me.

Yeah, some clarification on that point would be good. I don't think anyone thinks it realistic to be spotting "dots" at 50km for a fighter. But I think the mid range spotting like 10-25km or so should be better.

Fair enough. I would say I want enough flexibility in the spotting system to where one can have a "realistic" preset. But that allows MP server owners enough flexibility to change how easy or hard spotting is for their server population. The average DCS player is not a well trained fighter pilot with 20/10 vision, no matter how much they want to pretend thats the case. The current dot system works ok, but as the mod shows it can be improved to account for various factors ( Also I'd split it into air and ground objects ). The current "labels" system has the issue that you can see the labels through clouds and also through the plane itself. So really there isn't a good middle ground there. If you fix labels so you can't see them through clouds / plane and have different categories for air / ground. As well some options for how obvious / not obvious they are ( as well as range ) I think that would be a good solution. I bet if you did a poll of the ECW server ( and they do them there all the time ). I'd bet the number of people that would say spotting in DCS was good would less than 10%. They have user base of 14,000 unique players as well and are focused on visual spotting given the era of the server. Similarly for the 4YA WW2 server, I'd expect that to be the same, though IDK if they do polls.

Nothing subjective about how you calculate PPD. Human retinal resolution is about 75ppd. In VR the current winner is the Varjo Aero at 39PPD, so about half retinal resolution. And I assure you spotting is terrible, it was actually far better with the reverb G2, which has less resolution. The game does look nice tho. You can calculate PPD for monitors too, and I think 30 something is a typical resolution for someone sitting 2-3 feet away from a standard monitor.

I fly in MP exclusively. I fly in VR, with a Varjo Aero pushing 2 4k screens at 39 ppd. ( retinal resolution is about 75ppd ). I can't spot anything. I can tell you these 3 things with 1000% certainty. 1. Almost no MP PVP server uses labels, its culturally forbidden. Also the labels have their own problems ( you can see them through clouds IIRC ) 2. Exactly 0 people in the entire PVP MP community think spotting in DCS is ok, or good ( the poll in the mod is 95% of people found the mod an improvement ). There is a recent mod that scales the dots you see at 1080p to be the same size at higher resolutions. The solution for years in the competitive MP PVP community has been to lower the resolution and turn off various graphics to deal with the spotting problem. 3. In VR, with the latest hardware you can't spot well at all. With the aforementioned mod I was able to get the spotting back to something approaching reasonable, and I used to fly IRL for that basis of comparison. All that mod does is it basically removes the dots at longer ranges, and slightly makes things more visible at medium range like in the 5-10mi region. A good solution to this might be to take a look at that spotting mod I mentioned, and implement it server side and let server owners "pick" what is realistic. But it should be scaled the same for all resolutions, and maybe tweaked a bit more for VR, since I needed to tweak that mod for the aero since it has such a high PPD for it to be usable.

That would be the worst of all possible worlds. I did finally get this working on my Aero with some tech support from the OP and it makes a big difference.

Honestly both size and range would be good things to have tweakable server side if ED IC locks this. Honestly if ED is smart, letting users and MP server owners control this sort of thing is the best way to go. It basically gets the community off their back cuz you can set it to what "you" feel is realistic. Yay no more flame wars. You can have some "default" that ED thinks is right as well but if people don't like, presto change-o.

Any word on when IR guided missiles will stop working through clouds? Thats a major realism problem for DCS.

Yeah I think the long range stuff is far less important, and by long range I mean 30 miles or whatnot. The midrange and close range spotting are the major issues and have been for quite some time. There were some improvements to this a while back, but they stopped. I also think adding this file to be IC locked is a terrible idea as that puts everyone back to the same crappy default spotting. ED needs to figure out how to have acceptable spotting at any resolution before doing that. When I went from the G2 to the Aero my spotting got noticeably worse because my resolution went up significantly. So the choice becomes having poor visuals and some level of spotting i.e. the 1080P solution for all, or having nice visuals on 2k or 4k monitor or in VR (which runs at those resolutions out of necessity). And that is a totally crappy choice. Honestly I don't see why a resolution scaled "dot" would be all that hard to do. Also as for IC, I think it would be nice if server owners could basically set the dot size to suit their player base in terms of what their community thinks spotting should be.