Harlikwin

MSI probably can't/wont be done well, but on the upside at least HB won't have to try to model a modern IRST like PIRATE for the German Trache1/2. The main issue is DCS itself, IRL all sensors have limitations and uncertainties, which for the most part aside from razbam and the M2k radar for example are absolutely not modeled at all in DCS. Like the F18 and 16 radars both should similar problems in similar situations, but ED doesn't model it. IRL that radar contact is basically a "sphere" with a plane somewhere in it, that sphere of uncertainty gets smaller as you get closer. No one models that, which is why RAID for example is worthless in DCS because all aircraft show up as discrete contacts even when they shouldn't. And this "sphere" is highly relevant for weapons performance. Imagine shooting your aamram in TWS against a sphere with like a 5 mile uncertainty. Well Mr AAMRAM can go, and hopefully when his radar is turned on he can find the enemy AC in that sphere still even though its not where the Viper radar told him its at, rather its like 3 miles to left and 3000ft higher. Which incidentally is why no one in the real world would want to use TWS for actual engagements, and used STT when possible, because the actual errors when using those modes were less due to much faster update times, i.e. Mr Radar has 5000 hits on a target to figure out exactly where it is instead of say 500 or 100. But again, uncertainty is not modeled in DCS, even though its highly relevant for modern modules. You have no idea what I have or havent seen, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts its more than you. But the point being is that public data to check against is very useful for the community. And for modules much past the 90's you most folks aren't gonna see it, which makes checking accuracy of a module hard, meaning the overall quality of the model is lower. And its much easier and "safer" for everyone to work from public docs. That being said, even HB didn't model systems like the APX70 combat tree (VN era system) in the F14, because there likely aren't enough docs out there on it, or how it interacted with soviet era IFF systems. Even though literally most "in the know" people in the community know it has it. Does that effect how you employ the F14? You bet it does, and it leaves the module less capable than it was IRL. And if your expectation is they can do "better" with modern jets, well I guess you can think that but very few other people will. As for the EF pilot comment, do you think he is credibly giving up any actually classified info he can goto jail for? LOL... Nope. At best he's probably providing a level of disinformation making sure nothing too sensitive actually gets modeled too correctly since it has actual national security implications, cuz you know he took an oath at some point. So yeah, his commentary on the FM might be useful, or not. Since that matters alot less than say classified performance data on sensors or missiles etc. Esp since those are still in use.

Yeah its interesting but lord both the CPU and GPU frametimes are horrid. I assume its because of the high pixel count on the aero I guess. I wonder what these numbers would be like on a G2.

Not really, I just have an actual understanding of how alot of this works, and where DCS falls well short. I get it that they "try", but like on the whole MSI thing, that is literally what makes the hornet "good" IRL. But its entirely missing this system. "Modern" fighter combat isn't about dogfighting, and turning and burning etc. Its 100% about networked sensor systems and who sees the other guy first, gets a solution on them first and kills them BVR first. But literally no plane we have in DCS has any of that modeled from a sensor standpoint. Instead we have the 3rd generation part of 4th gen planes modeled but mostly not any of the 4th or 4th gen+ parts. What is sad is that most "modern" DCS players don't actually understand this.

Yeah thats the irony/issue right. Until ED actually manages to improve performance to "normal" game levels most of this is gonna be very small incremental improvements.

Who is marking all these things as a solution? None of them are.

Yeah, for me at least in MP, CPU is the issue. In SP with a light mission I can pull nearly 90fps with a 12900k/3090.

Clouds are synched in MP right now, just static. And yeah I forgot the AI sees through clouds too.

Will these finally block IR missiles/sensors from seeing through them?

Yeah and this is a very good point, its very hard to compare pancake to VR. IDK if the CPU issues DCS has cuz its literally having to draw the same frame twice, but I suspect thats part of the issue.

Yeah I mean it depends on your settings, I've optimized mine for online play and spotting. I'm sure I could do things to make it worse, but online its 100% a CPU problem for me not a GPU one. Offline yeah it would depend on the mission. At least in VR Id say you won't see much improvment. My 9700k and 2080ti to a 3090 maybe netted me 5fps in VR. Going from 9700k to 12900k (both at 5ghz) netted me like 25-30 fps. The performance difference between my 9700k and my 12900k in DCS was massive. And it makes sense if you look at the single core benchmarks. Its not just about GHZ, its things like Cache and IPC etc.

So, for reference, I went from a 9700k and a 2080ti to a 3090 and saw like maybe a few more frames like 5-10fps more. I then swapped the 9700k for a 12900k and saw a decent 20-30% frame increase. Going from a 1080 to a 3090 will alleviate any GPU bottlenecks you might have, but honestly you need at least a 12900k to get much out of a 3090. In VR rn online CPU is still the bottleneck, and I don't get the full performance from my 3090 it sits at 60-70% utilization.

Honestly IDK who the scalpers think they are going to be selling to. Previously the crypto miners I guess were willing to pay stupid money for cards since they were making money off them. But from what I read that market is basically dead at the moment. So I hope these scalpers loose their ass on the cards. I'm seeing 4090's north of 3k right now. And I doubt anyone is willing to pay that premium.

Well doing some optics math With 640x480 sensor and a 1.4x1.9 FOV and a 2x6m target, I'm getting a detect range of ~20km or so i.e. 2.6x4.3 pixels at 20km which is well within the "detect" Johnson Criteria. At 15km its 3.5x5 pixels which is a bit optimistic for "recognition for Johnson criteria. At 10km its 5.2x8.6 pixels which is on the ragged edge for "recognition", and at 8km its 6.5x10 pixel well within the "recognition" criteria. If I bump the sensor to a 1024x768 20km = 4.1x6.9 (detect) 15km = 5.5x9.2 (ragged edge of recognition) 10km = 8.3x13.8 (recognition) For reference this is a common "johnson critera" in terms of number of pixels for a man sized target. Detection 3.5x1 Recognition 13x5 Identification 28x8 So I guess depending on how optimistic you want to be about the sensor capabilities, and how much the manufacturer is over or understating those capabilites. Its fairly plausible the IR sensor is likely either 640x480 or possible better.

Yeah, I just tried this. I remember doing it once before and it worked, but it seems like there is something else I need to do to get it to forget the device or something like that because the Z-boot device or new drivers are not loading up.

Its impressive they have anything.

Yeah, currently with my 3090 and 12900k and a G2, on heavy MP missions in VR (ECW) I'm getting nearly identical CPU/GPU frametimes. Offline of course is much better, and there the GPU is usually the limit, so I might consider it, especially if ED actually delivers some performance boosts from multicore.

Jolly good, thanks for your contribution.

What does this have to do with the WMD7?

Interesting, is it just the 2 pages or is there more actual info in there? Also as I understand it China also had Lantirn "copy/equivalent" that preceded this pod right? Its always been weird to me that this pod has basically a 3rd gen imaging sensor(s), but can't do stuff like stabilize the image at a distance i.e. area track. Using the laser for coordinate generation makes perfect sense though. I have seen this language in several places related to the WMD7 though "Automatic tracking targets after identified" which seems to imply it needs some sort of point track lock maybe. Or it could mean it can be stabilized on a target after its detected, which in the case of a building could be quite a ways away. In terms of zoom the NFOV is comparable to western pods. Is the sensor resolution actually known? If not I can take a stab at back calculating it from these FOV and the detection range. WFOV: 4.3°×5.8° NFOV: 1.4°×1.9°

Depends on when you are talking about. And who has access to it. Early 2000's GPS coupled INS were 5-15meters accurate for ownship positions. With DGPS its better but that all depends if you have access to those signals. And well, it all depends on the WMD-7, which I'm not particularly familiar with since there isn't much info on it.

Modern point tracks are way more processed than "contrast" lock. But at any rate, I thought you were talking about being able to cue the pod at longer ranges and have it be stabilized. I guess its possible its not, but that implies a much lower capability than the date it was built would suggest as well as the rest of the components used. Well the issue with "simple geometry" is that it is in fact not simple. You have errors and error propagation for coordinate generation starting with the basic fact most aircraft only know their own absolute location within a few to 10s of meters with GPS. From there you have additional problems with pointing accuracy and so forth. Your primary sources of error are Ownship position error, Operator error (is it really on the right pixel), then you have heading error, bearing error, alignment error, pointing error, and range errors which then result in altitude errors which is generally why you need that laser range. So you will have pretty large CEP and LEP at longer range. So yeah, depending on the actual range to a target you have "rough" coordinates, maybe enough target a big building, but not a tank or truck.

I think your guys terminology is a bit imprecise. I generally agree that it seems odd that the WMD7 cannot do something like an "area" track, usually this is done just using image comparison, techniques like edge detection matching etc. That being said, while this type technology was originally developed for pods like LANTIRN, IDK if the WMD7 would have this tech or not. But its not exactly a "contrast lock", its more sophisticated. But to me it seems like 2000's era TGP would likely have this capability as the algorithms are generally known and processing (which was the original issue) at this point is no longer a limit. Where you have to break that out is can you generate actually usable coordinates from it for targeting weapons. For the best case of that with highly precise coordinates (like a tank) that you most likely do need an actual laser defined point on the ground. That being said there are angle rate tracking techniques to get rough ranges and "coordinates" that are employed by western pods, but IDK if the WMD-7 would necessarily do this. And the issue with these coordinates is that they will be wrong from longer ranges. No one use <profanity> like TOO for long range targeting for JSOW's or JDAMs etc. and this is something ED and other devs have gotten absolutely wrong. You can easily check the range of WMD 7 for detection of objects using johnson criteria if you know the sensor FOV, the sensor pixel count. But 22km doesn't seem to bad to me for those sized targets.

I mean maybe he has, still I doubt anything sensitive is gonna be modeled well if at all. I mean Pirate as an example is system with decades of development that went into it and only recently has it really reached somewhere near its actual initial promised potential from 30 years ago and it still has issues. And I very much doubt any of the more interesting things it can do and even more so its weak points will be modeled with any real fidelity. AFAIK, the whole deal with Deka is one of "just trust us", and I personally don't consider anything about the Jeff on a systems level to me modeled accurately, from the FM to the radar or other systems. They might be "close" but none of its accurate IMO. As for the 23 thing you have it backwards, the guy making the 23 had access to all the docs needed to do it. As for HB I'm far more interested how the F4 goes since that is pretty well documented publicly.

I mean I appreciate your optimism. But if ED can't decent documentation on literally 90's era MSI systems, I don't think the German MOD and certainly not the British MOD (Pirate), are absolutely not gonna be giving out details on current in-use systems. At best it will be entirely made up IMO.

HB is pretty close to ruining its rep by even trying to do the EF. They are relying on the ignorance of the customer base IMO. Because the customer base doesn't know what it doesn't know. Even the basic versions of the EF had systems like MSI that aren't in DCS, sensors like IRST currently aren't credibly modeled in DCS in any reasonable form. And lol AESA radars? Nope, not gonna happen IMO.