Harlikwin

I mean honestly this is kinda my point. Nothing in DCS modern is modeled well if at all. There are no documents, even stuff from 90's platforms is hard to find good data on. So you end up with "modern" DCS air combat looking like 3rd gen fighters with more thrust or a bigger missile. Instead of working in a 4.5-5th gen sensor-shooter centric kill chain, which is what "modern" air combat actually looks like. I mean we don't even have 90's era sensor fusion stuff that should be on the hornet, and there are at least some docs that ED does have on that. Personally Id prefer the focus of DCS to be planes we can actual model to a good degree of fidelity, in terms of FM, sensors, weapons etc. And unfortunately "modern" anything makes that very hard to do credibly.

I mean it is a pulse radar with little filtering, so low alt performance should be terrible due to sidelobe and clutter issues. Look down should in general be bad, but its going to be better at higher altitudes and lower grazing angles. Its also gonna depend alot on the target/aspect/strength of return. Best case its gonna be fine at med/high alt in lookup/co-alt situations. More modern systems for sure. But who knows if it will be modeled. Stuff like 70's era SA-10 were using basic LPI/LPD techniques even back then. But ED's modeling of SAM radars and actual SAM guidance techniques for even stuff like the single digit sams is not good, esp the SA-2 and the SA8, i.e. in terms of not modeling actual guidance modes or the optical trackers correctly. And honestly I do not think it is a priority for them to fix it.

Yeah honestly it does sound a bit suspect. I've got an MSI water cooled card, so maybe the issue is also card/case specific. I have plenty of room for the connector as well.

Yeah I'd agree on the Magic1 but honestly its down to personal preference and the shots you end up taking. Honestly I'm increasing convinced that the ED Aim9P is wrong in terms of G capability, since it looks like the modeled the Aim9P3 for this. And afaik this is still using the Aim-9J/N guidance section so I don't really see why it would all of a sudden pull less G's than the 9J. And while I have seen solid G numbers for the J, I haven't really seen much for the 9P1-3. At any rate Aerges still needs to model the Cage/Uncage button for the Aim9 series of missiles and the return to boresight mode for the Magic1 as well.

Yeah IDK, the connector is a bit jank IMO, and you can run it with only 3 PCIE cables (using one as a double). I think people bending that connector is a very likely issue, since it sticks out from the case so far. I've checked mine a few times and its straight/slightly drooping for about 30mm ~1". And so far it seems fine. Also it sounds like some of the PSU manufacturers are making 3-4x PCIE cables to that adapter themselves to help with cabling issues.

Well, my 2 cents and non exhaustive testing.... 12900k/3090/4090 Generally with my (mid/high) settings I was getting like 12-15ms frame times with my 3090. And now with the 4090 its literally like half i.e. 7-8ms. On most maps that I did a quick check of. Problem though. My CPU times offline are like 5-7ms (so, 5-7ms+7ms = 90FPS just fine) so looks/feels great offline on empty maps... However if I join an MP server with units, I'm often seeing 10-16ms frametimes. So basically 45fps locked at the worst case, and then like 60's-70's on the upper end, when the CPU time is low. I did also see some major uptics in "other" sims.

Yeah the range is the same. And the seeker should be better than either the early sidewinder or 550.

Yeah correct on all counts, modern radars know which way they are pointed. And yes false alarm rates are their own thing, though if you point it at the ground you are gonna get more clutter/false targets so its not exactly unrelated.

Nope not at all, I mean all radars will have a false alarm rate. Then you get into stuff like side lobe clutter at low alt, which again is barely modeled (i.e. autogain circuits tend to deal with this on modern radars but it basically means you get less range out of a radar at low alt)

Precisely. And honestly I think devs need to held to a higher standard on this stuff. Especially ED when it comes to core stuff. And double plus for actual IR modeling. But to do that right they need to actual model things like object IR reflectivity/emissivity correctly for background/map objects which is no small task even if implemented simply. (you could do it by there being some time of day based probability over different terrain types of there being some reflective/emissive down there, with a very high probability for areas with man made objects i.e. towns/roads/rail etc) False: They actually do use some ray tracing for it so it interacts with the ground, they basically put all that processing on a second core to do an actual "simulation" albeit a simple one. Do I think that its 100% correct? No, of course not but it does give you some basic behavior that should be there. Also I think the mirage does model merged contacts as well.

I mean radar physics/function are pretty well understood at least for the older stuff. Once you know things like antenna gain, power out, etc you can get some vaguely useful models since what a radar signal does when it bounces off the ground or an airplane is known and can simulated. IRST, its sort of the same in that regard, but the problem is what makes modern IRST "good" isn't the physics generally speaking. Its literally <profanity>loads of processing/algorithms, and how all that works is most definitely not public domain. And thats saying nothing of the current state of IR modeling in DCS which is terrible, I mean stuff like clouds blocking IR (and also reflecting it) should be a basic feature of the sim, and its not. Not to mention ground reflections etc. I had high hopes for the "flir" model from ED, but well, lets just say its not good despite the work they put into it, primarily because they focused on units not "background". I'm not talking about doing any of this in real time necessarily. But you do need to simulate/display things like false contacts. And aside from the M2k RDI radar I can't think of another radar in DCS that does it. Or simple stuff like merging far contacts into a single return. Alot of people have talked about, we just need to model what the pilot sees, well yes thats right, but aside from the M2k radar no one is doing it. I guarantee you that both the APG73/68/awg9 etc will have a false alarm rate, and they don't have magical resolution at long range to break out contacts. And they all suffer in terms of detection range when flying at low alt due to sidelobe issues, and the resulting processing therof. And then there is the meme that is "notching" in DCS, and as a hint, for modern radars that mostly doesn't happen. And yet all of these "pilot side" things aren't being modeled currently on the majority of modules.

Thats the fundamental problem, there is some general info on it, and of course the basic physics of it. But actual helpful details, not so much. Well, thats where I'd say you are both wrong and right. For example you can do a pretty good job with older systems, since there is a good amount of information on them, and you can basic physics to fill in the gaps. I.e. the RDI radar on the M2k, or the AWG-9 to various degrees are pretty well known how they work. I.e. you can build a radar model which is what Raz did with the RDI, and hey you have false targets in certain situations, when you are in situation A/B/C. Is it 100% right in terms of things like false alarm rate? No, that part is likely an educated guess. But it ticks most of the boxes of "simulation".

It could certainly carry it, internally it should work just like the Aim9P it already has.

Yeah IDK, seems like pretty easy question to answer. I did ask Chiz some months back about it and he said they were planning on fixing it, I figured 2.8 might the time to do it, as it has all sorts of cloud stuff. I mean in practice its a simple LOS check for units if they just want to make it binary, which would be fine by me. They could get more fancy later with IR seekers and dB signal reduction, but for now I'm sure everyone would be happy with a simple +/-.

lol, will do I guess, but I don't have much in the way of hard data.

I mean my FT on an empty mission (not this one), are like 7-8ms... Or last time I checked they were, but 12900k, 3090, G2 100%. The aero definately is asking for more pixels tho.

The IR 530 has the same range as the EM version, same motor etc. So, IDK you might know or if our resident Mirage pilot might know. In terms of maneuvering the 530 seems to turn immediately off the rail and be able to pull very high G loads when doing so. Is there any evidence it could actually do this? For example most sidewinders and sparrows of the era could not. The sidewinders from the 60's/70's etc had a ~.5 sec delay before they could maneuver for a variety of reasons. I forget what the delay for the sparrow was but I know it had one.

What is your setup? your CPU frametime seems far more reasonable.

Yup I see exactly this with my 12900k and 3090. For VR, unfortunately the reality is that its all CPU limited at this point, not generally GPU limited. I mean I can crank up stuff for the GPU to do, which is mostly pointless, but until we see improvements on the multicore side for DCS I find the latest greatest cards dubious. Can you comment roughly how much of a boost you got with your prior card? A 3090 of some sort I assume?

The very basic physics are the same, and not hard to calculate or approximate in real time. And FYI pirate does both, it absolutely is used as an imaging FLIR. And yes classified stuff absolutely plays a big role into how it actually is able to generate those tracks with the accuracy it does, and no one is going to tell you how accurately its actually capable of doing it. As for "accuracy" not being modeled in DCS IMO its pretty criminal that it isn't since literally the last 40 years of sensor development have been all about how to reduce "uncertainity" in all of these sensor systems, and using sensor fusion techniques and track files and kallman filters etc. Do you need to model it all down to the last detail? No, you can't and it would be hard. But the fact that DCS has not even attempted to do it outside of the M2k radar is a real shame, because it is doable in broad strokes (as the M2k shows), and if it were done consistently right in the major modules, you'd actually see some very big functional gameplay differences between sensors on a mig21, the mirage F1, and the F18 for example. Which would lead to some serious gameplay changes for all of those modules. But as it stands in DCS a radar from the 1960's is just as good as one from the early 2000's, with literally no drawbacks modeled. And the fact from a radar standpoint that you can fly a mig21 like an F18 is well, not particularly realistic. Simply put, from a sensor standpoint, the defining characteristics of Gen2 fighters was that they had any sort of radar at all, and they were terrible by modern standards, Gen3 greatly improved the functionality of those radars allowing to do stuff like lookdown shootdown, and finally gen4 made those radars good, longer ranged, easy to used, and integrated them with other sensors, and really most us gen4/4.5 fighters have stuff like MSI, its just not modeled much/well in DCS.

You can't really do much with the system "output" without actually knowing at least in some detail how it actually does work. And respectfully no, an IRST seeker works nothing like a radar in the sense you don't get "range" from an IRST without doing some fancy things. So no, unless you know how to model how exactly the IRST is getting ranging info, and how "good" or "bad" that info is (and in many cases its going to be bad) you can't really model it well. I would not call what Razbam did with the HST "good" not even remotely. All it does is mark all "units" in the hud, and generate some "not-so random" noise. It doesn't operate in game at all like an HST, nor does it even remotely replicate what that display should look like. Yes there should be noise, but its very much not random. But they did the best they could with the state the game is in. I had high hopes for the FLIR remodel would let them model some of what those false signals should look like, but thats apparently not how it works. And like all IR systems currently it sees through clouds, that is pretty basic thing to get right about IRST's and IR seekers, and yet like what 2 years later since the clouds were introduced we still have this not so minor problem?

Absolutely correct. And those early systems are currently badly modeled in DCS (IR sees through clouds, no IR clutter etc). And pirate is a quantum leap (literally for the detector ) above those sorts of older sensors, and yes it can basically create and correlate track files as well as ID targets in some case like NCTR and has much better resolution than radar so it can do stuff like "RAID" (well it doesn't need to it is more the point). And honestly beyond, "broad" descriptions, no one is going to disclose much beyond the most general details of those capabilities.

Part of the issue during the last cycle was the fact crypo miners were still buying these cards and willing to pay a premium. As I understand it the entire crypto market has mostly collapsed, so the demand for this should be significantly lower. Hopefully the scalpers loose their asses on this.

I have heard theories that by upping some gfx settings in dcs you can unload the cpu since at some settings it might shift to the gpu. Idk if I believe it, but going from low to high shadows had little impact for me.

Pulse with MTI not doppler.