Harlikwin

Aha awesome. Yeah lets hope NVIDA didn't pork the 4090.

Anyone know more on this story why it doesn't work with these headsets/cables? https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5382/~/compatibility-between-geforce-rtx-3090-ti-and-certain-vr-headsets I'm mainly wondering if its gonna be an issue on the 4090.

I went from a 9700k at 5ghz to a 12900k at 5ghz and saw a pretty big performance boost (both with a 3090). 20-30% more frames IIRC

We are getting the Pirate with the Typhoon. Just not at release probably Last I heard they were modeling a German Typhoon, which doesn't have it. I mean ED primarily needs to fix the IRSTs and IR missiles working through clouds. The mig23 IRST is pretty primitive relative to modern ones, so it shouldn't be all that hard to model. Be nice if they did like some sort of dB based attenuation based on range/weather aspect and then some sort of basic contrast model for lookdown/lookup.

Yeah pretty interesting if Deka is doing a J10 of one sort or another, I'd assume the earlier J10A might be easier from a "sekrits" standpoint having way more systems commonality with the earlier JF17. But that is certainly a 3d model of J10B/C. Also, personally I'd prefer a J10A since thats alot closer in terms of era when compared to the F16/18 we have i.e. 2006/7 for the J10A. Whereas a J10C (2018?) would I guess be a counter to the typhoon, though I wonder really how that would pan out. The amusing thing with a J10B/C is that IRST modeling and IR stuff is currently broken in DCS since the new clouds came and who knows when that gets fixed. Plus I really wonder if Deka could actually model how modern IRST's work with all of the various techniques that are used for passive ranging. (notably I think this is one reason that we aren't getting PIRATE on the EF) And I'll make the same comment for modeling a modern AESA radar with the level of accuracy desired by DCS players.

Heh, My first impression of this was actually quite good on release day. But then again I have seen far worse day 1 releases in the past. A few patches in my impression is. Graphics/cockpit, Mostly Good (The sight symbology could be more readable in VR, but we have a mod now) still think the cockpit is a bit a dark, but it improved from day 1. FM, quite good for a day1 release, and Aerges was quick in fixing the overspeed issues that cropped up after the first patch General systems modeling: Very good, lots of ways to realistically break the plane, and battle damage is done really well. I'd guess there might be some stuff missing or to be tweaked, but for a 3 month old module its very very good, esp considering past releases from other devs. Nav systems are well done, as are other basic flight systems A/G systems/weapons. Generally decently done IMO, not much to model just a depressible reticle and its up to the pilot for good or bad results. A/A systems/weapons. This is where I will have to be critical. Radar modeling, is not good, various inaccuracies exist, for example there should be far more clutter when looking down and less/no clutter when looking up. Also there should be more noise in system at low altitudes from radar sidelobes. All of these should definitely effect detection/lock ranges. Radar guided missiles: EM seems too good for what it is, especially in look down/low alt scenarios where it should work poorly, yet does not. Kinematically it seems "ok" overall just the seeker seems to overperform. IR guided missiles. Various inaccuracies on how these work are present. Its been detailed in various threads. However Aerges has been pretty responsive in fixing stuff, now the F1 has the distinction of having the only correctly aim-9B in the game, complete with a seeker null. Gunsight. Not really working well at this point, but radar modes are missing for it, hopefully coming soon. In Conclusion (8/10) Overall its a really good module, especially if you are mainly using it as a strike fighter. They need to iron out the radar and air to air stuff though and 100% sure they are working hard on doing that. In a few months I hope if I go back to this list at least 2-3 of the "negatives" are gone. And really no EA product is ever complete, so I'm more than happy with the way it shipped on day1 and happier still with the progress made so far.

I would assume the RWR is very much a WIP at this point, considering it comes with the F15 RWR soundtrack (i think). But at the end of the day it should be about as useful as a SPO-10, that is not very useful.

Yup broadly correct... I'd expect 7E and 7F for both versions of the phantom we have. IDK on the 7M for the F4E, I've heard it both ways. And yeah, in terms of look down shoot down, I think its down to 2 things, #1 the actual radar model that HB does, if its good the F4E should be pretty limited there and likely at low altitudes as well. Though given how the recent F1 radar should also do poorly in those situations and does just fine doesn't really fill me with hope, but HB has far more radar modeling experience so hopefully they make the F4 radar accurately to account for these issues. From the ED missile end of the equation I honestly don't think they really differentiate much in terms of SARH seekers at this point. Looking at it empirically there doesn't seem to be much difference between how say a Matra 530EM works and an Aim7M when it comes to guiding on lower flying targets or at low altitudes, both situations where the 530EM should fare far worse than a aim-7M. But thats also like a radar modeling problem cuz I'm sure the only thing the missile cares about is if the target is locked or not. For sidewinders for the F4E we have it should be able to 9B, 9E, 9J/N and the 9P1-5 series, as well as later on the 9L/M. That being said, on the later 9L/M its an open question whether or not those airframes were integrated with the capability to use the more advanced seeker pointing capabilities of the 9L/M (i.e. SEAM like modes) as the earlier 9B/E/J/N/P1-3 did not have this. So the aim9B should have no uncage, the 9E and J/N/P should have uncage capabilities and its an open question if the f4E was upgraded with a SEAM computer (which could slave the seeker to a radar target, or order the missile to "nutate" the seeker in AF speak) to handle the 9L/M any better. Worst case they should behave like the 9J/N/P in basic boresight modes.

IDK, the F4U seemed pretty much done a while back, so unless everyone misinterpreted that, IMO its a bit weird that its not out yet. But I suppose it could have been less done than presented.

Most ranging lasers used by militaries are NdYag lasers that operate at 1064nm. Most 3rd gen NVG's operate up to about 850-900nm. Therefore you aren't going to be able to see anything for an actual ranging laser. If you can its mismodeled. There are laser marker lasers that typically operate at 830nm which are designed for NVG's to see, but they aren't used in military LRF's.

Yeah IDK, I have no insider info. But the whole thing is just weird.

I'd just be happy with some improvments to the Air-to-ship interactions, better ship damage models, better missile damage, specifically being able to knock out ship radars for example. Or other combat systems. Rather than the "health bar".

Yeah the whole situation is a bit weird IMO. Best guess on the corsair is that they are waiting to finish the asset pack for it, waiting on ww2 Marianas to release it, or waiting on an unannounced zero to fight against it, or some combo of all 3.

I don't think anyone really knows, there isn't much on the 530 guidance on the missile side that I have found. Though given its a 60's missile that may be the case. What we do know from the manuals is that once you are locked by the Cyrano radar there is no further change in frequency/PRF/anything from a locked up state to a missile just got fired state. So from that perspective there shouldn't be any difference in "state" an RWR could see there to indicate a missile has been fired. Other radars do other things like switching to CW illum for example for some US radars which can be detected. But this doesn't seem to be the case for the Cyrano.

I'm far more interested in the idea that the maps could be "stitched" together at some future point in time as ED alluded to in some vaguely recent update.

Well it looks like the big 4x and even 2x jumps in performance are based around implementation of NVIDIA specific technologies and rendering techniques, which ED has in the past said they don't want to do, i.e. implement NVIDA specific stuff and/or AMD specific stuff. So while I think yeah maybe there will be a performance jump, its not going to be huge. And especially since DCS is still largely CPU bound in VR in my experience.

IDK, on the whole FM debate I took his comments more as control comments. I.e. it was difficult for him to replicate the control inputs he expected with his setup in DCS. Which is something entirely different than FM IMO. What he is saying IMO is I move my controls to positions A,B,C and expect result Y. And I get Result Z. If it move controls to positions D,E,F and I can get result Y, but my controls are off from the real thing which he flew a few hours ago. And he does detail that he spent a ton of time tweaking the controls to get it as good as he could, but perhaps not good enough. And that the apache seemed to have been developed with standard "HOTAS" controls i.e. a throttle vs a collective which has perhaps led to the results he was seeing. So IDK, its a point of criticism, but IDK if its really fatal as for most DCS users we won't have the "correct" controls, nor will the they be setup "correctly" to provide the correct inputs.

So I'm trying to use this, and I get an error: No connection to DCS detected. But I can see the select WP dot... So... any ideas?

Cool thanks.

Is this a graphical thing, or it has some functional role in how the missiles work in the game?

Can anyone tell me what this means in the patch notes? Weapons. AIM-9B/P/P5 - added nozzle exit area Also do the other sidewinders i.e. the Aim-9J/L/M and the Rb24/24J also have this nozzle exit area?

This looks sweet, thank you.

No one plausibly thinks Israel and Egypt are going to war at this point, not since the Camp David accords. Syria Modern, fine thats a different deal. But this IMO would be far better as a historical map. But I get it, its easier to pull data off goggle maps to build a map, or however they do it, than try to piece a map together from historical imagery like ED did for the channel map.

Well, the post 91 mods to those would be "russian". i.e. any sort of new RWR/Radar/IRST/engines etc.

Honestly only ED really knows, and they will tell us when they do actually know. I honestly figure the political situation probably screwed them hard on lots of things. That being said certain modules are still coming, so I hope the 29 is just a delay. From what I understand of the various "legal" issues its mainly russian info moving out of russia, i.e. russian manuals being used. That being said the 9.12 29 was exported to alot of nations, and I bet German, Polish, Czech, Cuban, etc. Docs are out there. So if they can make a case of we used "foreign docs" it might fly. The other interesting "chiz" post recently was that there is apparently a real legal difference between "Soviet" and "russian" stuff in that regard. So that may actually be helpful in the sense it might be possible to do "soviet" stuff. But not "modern" russian stuff.