Harlikwin

Yeah lets see how much of a "sim" it is. At least the trees aren't hot anymore during the day. And depending on what part of the FLIR regime you are in, I.e. MWIR vs LWIR and time of day background is fairly critical. the whole "it sees heat" is so stupidly misunderstood by most people its not even funny. An actual IR signature is reflection + emission, all modified by reflectivity and emissivity and the time of the day. MWIR (read that as TGP's we have are much more effected by reflection, and for them emission is an is a problem in some cases), For LWIR (read that as the AH64 FLIR) emission is more of what they see, but still you get some of reflection at lower wavelengths.

Yeah that makes sense, I've seen the vid of the various textures you show here, hence my comment about it being a WIP, that first picture 2 of the trucks look ok, the other 2 vehicles do not for example. Overall I Think the people look to bright, but thats also a gain/contrast thing as you can see similar things on other videos.

What do you mean?

Honestly judging by that video, (and this is daytime image) it looks like its got some ways to go. Like that "hot" truck on the left looks like its missing textures at least. Also the smaller "hot" vehicle while a bit better still looks off frankly. Also in the next snip Especially for a daytime image where you will have much less thermal contrast and usually additional clutter. Frankly these "seem" like they would be taken at night under very cold conditions given how much this stuff stands out. And again, the vehicles look off in terms of textures. There should be way more fine thermal contrast, like windows should look "cold" and I'm not sure why the back or top the vehicles are so hot. Usually you get heat from engines (visible under the vehicle as well) and tires will often look hot. Mostly it still looks like its a WIP to me. Here is a "real" thermal image of a vehicle(s) Like that car in the middle you can see the front engine compartment showing hot. And other stuff has way more "fine" structure to the image, like there is no "Glowing" blob. Generally speaking same thing for the "people" in the images. Clothes give off a totally different signature than unclothed parts of the body. Like you can see the exposed face much more easily than the rest of the body for example.

I agree with you, though, deka never said they were focused on Chinese/eastern stuff. In fact at one point they considered the 105. But at any rate unless its a totally new Dev team, HB or Deka are the only 2 real 3rd party choices. Frankly I'd buy salt futures if it was in fact deka that did it, the tears would be amazing.

The HB doing it argument is mostly centered around their existing experience with the F14, plus they already have a ton of leads in the naval aviation community to help out on it. Plus certain systems and "modes" of interaction for "jester" would likely be at least slightly similar on a naval F4. And of course re-cycling the Forrestal.

Also good luck getting any doc out of the MOD

I mean if you are looking for warthunder level of modeling, yes, but you're still wrong even there. Vague looks aside the AF and Navy phantoms rapidly diverged Aerodynamically, and systems wise. I'm not gonna even talk about the bad-teeth austin powers british F4.

I'm not entirely sure how the seeker/logic on it works, there are lot WTH things about it that don't seem right, i.e. sources list it as PbS seeker but operating more in the vis range which seems rather unlikely.

Yeah I think its gonna be a loong time before that happens. Esp the Royal phantoms, good luck getting anything out of the MOD. Personally a 70's era E and J would be fine. Maybe even an 80's E if it can be "nerfed" enough to more relevant as a 70's bird. Mainly I think you want to cover the "high points" of the phantoms carrer i.e. the 60's and 70's IMO. With maybe some 80's era bombing capability.

Yup. I think at a minimum you need a USAF one and Naval one. TBH they are different enough to be their own "module" so it will be interesting what actually comes of the "mystery" announcement. The E or various versions of it were the most prolific, but given the whole naval focus of HB and their ties/access to that community, it may likley be a naval one comes first.

I mean I do know some of that stuff. But I don't think DCS needs to go totally down that rabit hole, plus actual details versus different ASM warheads are largely classified. At best you can use the "size" of the warhead to relate damage somehow. But like a harpoon hitting a frigate means Mr frigate is gonna have a bad day. Maybe you can localize to a "few" different locations, i.e. Stern/mid/fwd. And then work out which systems are "out".

Against a spin-scan seeker (AM) you basically can get AGC capture, and you can then manipulate the phase of the envelope so you can mess with the position vector that the seeker is calculating. Versus con-scan seekers (FM) your jammer needs to be able to match the modulation frequency of the seeker, which then means the tracking error output will be kept at the equilibrium point, i.e. it the jammer will adjust the phase delay which will then appear as a "wrong" target position indication. So, IR jammers can also work against FM seekers (its harder tho) which opens up that list quite a bit. Its not untill you get to pseudo imaging rosette scanned stuff and then modern imaging seekers that the old school jammers are less and less effective. But by then you have more modern DIRCM countermeasures being deployed as well. Also, you are wrong about the 9M31 (9K31/SA-9), due to the fact its seeker is operating in a totally different way alot of "Traditional" CM's don't work well against it. It was actually the first "all aspect" seeker, but its modeled incorrectly in DCS as a gen1 rear aspect seeker whereas its use case is much more complicated, but it is under good conditions actually a fully capable frontal aspect seeker (it mainly needs a uniform background to work tho) (And yes ED knows very well its wrong but its complicated to model). And if there is literally 1 SAM that needs to be the top of the list to add in DCS its gotta be the 9K32M/SA-7b due the fact its the most profilic manpad system ever fielded, even though it kinda sucked. It saw use on every battlefield of the cold war and into the modern era with terrorist groups.

While that would be great, I think the scope within DCS needs to be to have ships as "reasonable" targets. I personally don't think DCS needs to be the everything to everyone simulator. I mean CA turned out to be kind of a dumpster fire. Realistically from the aircraft point of view a ship is a target and sam site. Meaning, decent "SAM" modeling: I.e. multiple types of radar, air search, sea search, etc. And then usually depending on the era several track/guidance radars. Decent protection from air launched threats modeling (CIWS, anti missile systems, jamming, and other countermeasures). Including the ability to turn off radars if needed. And finally some sort of reasonable, if the ship takes a hit, its probably out of the fight for the duration of a DCS mission, or at least elements of it are.

In the context of DCS I think we really need #1 and #2 the most. As well as CM's for ships. And a vaguely decent damage model that reflects mission kills, rather than having to sink the stupid thing. For most DCS missions I think thats enough. I actually find the fact that ships engage other ship groups to be a problem on several servers where its best if they don't actually do that. And there are plenty of examples IRL where that wouldn't have happenend, so some sort of ROE for them to just self-protect with Sams would be good too.

I honestly want more "older" systems/assets in game, TBH we need Gen1 shorads to cover the 70's and into the 80's. And yes, CCM for seekers got really good really fast in the 80's but for Russia too. Stuff like rosette scanning and CCM logic got good primarily because you could have re-programable computer chips that could do advanced logic, as opposed to primitive AM/FM seeker heads. I mean bottom line if ED are gonna fix IR missiles like they claim they will, it should cover the gamut from stuff like the Aim9B to the 9x. And you can include early versions of the stinger in that pretty easily, no more excuses about 3D models there no one sees the inside of the seeker head. Same for stuff like the chaparral. I mean really how hard would it be to add an A version or a C, instead of the 90's G version we have. And really how hard is to add something like an Sa7 or redeye, the hard part there is the infantry model which is done.

I very much doubt anyone is flying a helo with NVG's in non NVG compatible cockpit, unless they are suicidal. Militaries and civilian organizations worldwide don't spend big bucks to make pits NVG compatible for no reason. If night flying with NVG's was a simple as strapping one on and pretending it was daytime aviation would be a far happier, cheaper, and safer place. But its not. As it stands your pit is using red lighting which is not compatible with NVG's, in fact its among the worst lighting to use for that purpose. Especially if your Mi-24 is an 80's version it absolutely shouldn't have NVG's as the Soviets didn't really have anything appropriate for the purpose since they were largely using gen0 NVG's for their head mounted NVG's. Here is a high level overview for you on lighting. https://www.consolite.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Basics-of-NVG-Lighting.pdf Honestly I'm not even sure what you are trying to say in your correct/not correct statement above. If there is a NVG compatible pit its gonna look totally different than the pit that is currently in the game. I.e. it will have "blueish/green" lighting like your F18/F16 pits for example. Also, whats up with the white output phosphor you guys seem to have in some of your NVG models. That is a very recent and very modern addition to NVG world and again is certainly not relevant to 90's or early 2000's systems.

Really. Lets have that conversation. That form IRCM works fine on a wide variety of seekers. Which were around in the 70's 80's 90's and even modern era. They work great on anything with an AM modulated seeker, and partly why FM seekers were made, and again depending on pulse programs they can work there too. There are plenty of documents on how they work, and how well they work out there too in the professional literature. Its on ED to actually model that, which well, they don't currently. Or shall we talk about the ED "flare as a dice roll" IR flare model. Cuz well that largely depends on a variety of factors that are not modeled in DCS, cuz you know, "flare "programs" are "thing" not just pump out a billion flares cuz in DCS each flare has a 1/32 chance (or whatever) it is to decoy missile XYZ. Being "very nice" about it, ED's modeling of anything relating to IR missiles or IRST, or IR TGP's is not good at best.

I mean aside from the fundamental fact your "NVG" model is broken in this and most other contexts.

Its a great theory, but Kate said ED is not doing the F4. A J would be a terrible E-simulator. Totally different and much more capable radar for one.

Maybe so, I guess we will find out in about a year I guess.

If it is HB I Don't doubt that they would do different versions. But the F14A/B analogy would be more like a F4J/S. The F4E has a totally different backseat/radar/other systems. The naval thing makes sense since they could leverage "jester" from an AWG9 to AWG10 mode of operation more easily. And then the forrestal.

LOL nice... So pretty much no one knows. Though I bet if its HB doing it its gonna be a naval one first.

This is how its done. NVG's are focused at infinity to look outside. And you don't want to be fubmling with them to try to read instruments while flying.

The main thing is, #1 you can't read any instruments in that case. If you your cockpit lighting is to a level where you can read it with the naked eye i.e. look under the gogs then its too bright for the NVG. At best you might be able to kinda look outside if you put em up to the glass but reflections will screw you. Basically all aviation gogs have sets of filters at specific frequencies of light to block them, and the cockpit instruments are modified to only emit that specific frequency of light. So you can see your instruments and you can see outside.