Harlikwin
-
Posts
9396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Harlikwin
-
-
16 minutes ago, sirrah said:
I strongly agree with this (although I'd add that imo ED is "ambitious" in a positive sense of that word)
DCS (and its predecesser versions) has evolved to something extraordinary/unique and I feel kinda sorry for the devs that lately there seems to be this strong, very vocal, movement of (what appears to be mainly new) unsatisfied DCS players. I'm not judging anyone here and all should of course feel free to express their concerns, but what I don't like, is all these posts saying stuff like "we want change". Not sure why anyone would feel entitled to speak for everyone.
I'm very happy that we have DCS and I have all the trust in ED knowing what's best for DCS.
Do I like to see improvements to specific DCS features? Of course I do. But I'm also very aware, that what I want, may not be what is best for DCS to evolve further. I (or in this case I dare to say "we"
) jsut don't know the bigger picture.
I hope all this spreading negative flow (it's even worse on YouTube I noticed), will soon make place for positivity (Kumbaya, my lord Kumbaya
)
I think the sentiment has been there for a very long time, and people have given ED a chance... But the game is big on promises and potential, but falls pretty hard in terms of practical execution of many things that "other sims" got right on day 1. The complaints about the core game have gone back years and its still nowhere near what it should be and the standard "its complicated" excuses have worn thin. I'll give credit to ED for improving performance, that was a big task and they did manage to do it. But it was an existential task, if they didn't do it, DCS would be dead. Similarly improving the core game stuff is the next existential task, and the list of what needs to change is pretty large, and everyone has different priorities. I listed some of what I thought was important earlier, but frankly I have little hope for improvements on most of it because its clear to me that what I consider important isn't important to ED. But I'm far from alone in that crowd. I mean you can go back every few years and find similar videos to this, the "beautiful mess" one from a few years back has exactly the same message, fix the core game, and then there are famous former DCS celebs that have said the same thing. And yet over the years basically nothing has changed in that regard. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, for the time being I'm out of passion and support.
-
6
-
1
-
-
Since I can't seem to get a clear answer on the english side of the house for this. Will iranian airbases be included with Iraq map (they would be even in the "high detail" area).
-
Any word on if iranian fields will be added, they are in the "high detail" area but don't see anything listed. Major mistake if not.
-
7
-
-
53 minutes ago, Beirut said:
I'm an SP flyer and know little about the MP environment other than I've heard sooo much complaining - not from you - about "OMG!!! It will split the community!!!" about this, that, and the other thing, that I have little patience or concern for MP needs.
I'm just admitting my bias. I'm not saying you're wrong.
Well, the MP guys care as much for your opinion as you do theirs. It is what it is. And the splitting the community thing is a real issue in MP. An easy solution would be to offer server licenses like other games do, but thats not how DCS/ED works.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:
What I would love to see is an overhaul of Caucasus. Mariannas is the second free map and it looks so much better. Yet everyone is playing on Caucasus. If it looked better, it could encourage beginners to stay and buy aircraft or other maps. But if you come to DCS the first time and only see Caucasus, you start to think why does this sim look so bad.
There is a free reskin mod thats good. But it doesn't pass IC IIRC so no MP love.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Beirut said:
The South Atlantic map was a nice change of pace, of region, and of terrain. It showed an interesting new angle to the sim; an out of the box map that had several benefits, not the lest of which is many of us, I think, enjoy DCS as a flightsim and not just a combat flightsim. I don't just enjoy the Hornet because I get to blow **** up - which is admittedly very cool - but because it's the best representation of a Hornet I will ever experience in any sim. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does a lot of flying in DCS simply for the fun of flying. Also, the South Atlantic map is gorgeous and allows for some excellent flights, both combat and just for the fun of flying.
I would reiterate that one of the big problems with DCS is messaging. ED does not communicate with its audience very well. While the intent is there, the end result is... mushy.
Frankly I like the map at this point, mainly the SA portion is actually pretty cool to fly thru. But like the conflicts/potential conflicts are basically missing there. So no one really bought it or uses it for MP.
IMO a good MP map needs to have the following elements:
A relevant conflict (or more than 1). And the planeset to support it.
Some terrain variety (hills/mountains/valleys for helos etc)
A decent airfield distribution to minimize flight times for the aero-quake crowd (of which I'm part of).
Cauc works well for this on the latter 2 points, and well you can at least hypothetical a conflict there anywhere from 1950 to the present.
Syria hits on all 3 very well.
Sinai,
Well misses on the conflict thing mostly/sorta.
Terrain is flat/boring
Airfields are sort of okSA
Hits on the conflict but misses on the plane set.
Terrain in SA is good
Airfields are grim, too smol for most fast jets unless you are creative (I managed to TO/land a mig29 at each one), but well... You aren't doing it in a viper.
-
31 minutes ago, NineLine said:
There is two points here I will make as I understand this is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
1) Any Redfor jet, even export or older variant will still have limitations on what we can or are allowed to do. I know some of you see this as not getting things right or not understanding something but most times its limits to what we can do. I am sure we would all love a 1:1 jet simulation, I shouldn't have to explain why that is not possible.
2) If we wanted to make FC aircraft have clickable cockpits we could do that very easily. So please, even if it's not your intent, do not be insulting and say we are not doing anything more than that.
1) Well, the mig23 was doable for 3rd parties, and the SU-17 is also "maybe" being done by 3rd parties. Frankly I don't care who develops it as long as its good. For ww2 tho, its generally less of a problem but its head scratching why the decision to not have a coherent plane set exists.
2) I expect the 29 to have a nice clicky pit, and hopefully the old school soviet era nav system and Lazur datalink (a core feature would be interesting AI wise), its not 100% clear what exactly you are doing with (if its gonna be a export polish/german one, it might be neat to also have an option for a garmin duct taped to the hud). But ultimately where I will grade you, and alot of other people will grade you will be the Radar and EO/IRST which are very very well known in terms of technical parameters. If the EO sees through clouds for example, well game over. Similarly, the radar had various problems locking stuff in LD/SD situations due to the inadequate processor. I honestly hope you guys can do a good job on it but your track record with sensors to date is frankly poor relative to what 3rd party devs have been able to do. I understand you guys have a mig29 pilot or two on hand to help out with the finer points of what the "limitations" of the sensor systems were and what circumstances they should have problems with.
Fundamentally I think you guys really need to evaluate core gameplay loops when thinking about modules. I.e. The whole chinook troop/logi thing from what I understand/hear from others is that its still a pretty big mess. But that was a "good" idea, just needs to be implemented better (And transferred to the other cargo helos).
For the kiowa/gaz for example, a good gameplay loop to add to the game would have been some sort of additional "scout helo" gameplay. I.e. rather than just making it a poor mans apache it would have been good to have the kiowa be able to direct AI/player airstrikes by other units, or even call in artillery. That would have significantly enhanced the value proposition of the module.
For various fast jets, well, the big thing is the air to ground or air to air "experience", and that needs work frankly as I noted above. And obviously for good MP you need some sort unit "balance" which well, finally was getting there and in lets say January I was excited about DCS. But then the 3rd party problems have really soured me on DCS.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Xhonas said:
I started flying DCS more than 5 years ago. I'm a long time customer and i have bought almost every ED module as well as many 3rd party developer modules. I share the same frustration as many of the people in this thread. What bothers me is both the strategic thinking (or lack of) by ED and also the operational aspect of developing this game.
1. I dont speak for everyone, but me and many people (that i know) wouldn't be much bothered by the slow progress time in the development of early access products if you guys kept them bug free. It is really annoying having to deal with a different radar bug in the F/A-18 or the F-16 every semester !! Well, now the F/A-18 is out of early access but the radar is broken in many aspects. For sure you could say that it is still possible to use it, yeah, but the current bugs reduces its mission effectiveness to the point that it can get you killed (got me killed, and you can't say that it is a skill issue or that i am a bad pilot, modesty aside) and that makes it a very frustrating experience. "But we are improving the radar" cool i appreciate it, i sure do, but please, while you develop a new / refactored radar, keep the current one bug free. Last year the F/A-18 radar couldn't guide a sparrow on a cold target for 6+ months!!! And it was reported on the forums for at least 5 months before it was fixed. Why? is the radar too complex and you don't have the manpower to handle it? if that is the case, i would rather have a simplified fc3 radar in my F/A-18 than have something complex but full of bugs. However, it is hard to not compare this to the F-15E Strike Eagle developed by RAZBAM. They have one of, if not the most realistc modern pulse-doppler radar simulation ever created in DCS, decades ahead of ED model and even tho it is not supported right now due to recent events, it is working like a charm. So, why can't ED provide the same quality and stability to its products ?
I wanted to buy the Afghanisthan map, but after trialing it and seeing all of the problems already listed on this thread i decided to wait, iraq was the map that i most expected but i wont purchase that either if the situation don't improve in the near future.
2. You have a lack of vision on selling modules. You guys have stated many times that you need to pump early acces modules to keep the cashflow. Why do you start selling the most modern / versatile version of an aircraft at first if you can't deliver all the features on release? Let's take the F-16 for example. You could have developed an F-16A as a start (simpler than a modern F-16, less systems), or if you wanted to start with something more modern, an F-16C block 30, without HMD, without HTS, just a radar, datalink and tgp (free of bugs) and charge full price for it. Then you could further develop all of its subsystems and start working on the F-16C Block 50. Then 1.5 ~ 2 years later you announce the F-16C Block 50 with all the fancy toys (hmd, hts, sniper and more weapons, FM wouldn't be a problem since blk50 is basically a heavier blk30) and charge a fee for those that owns the blk30 purchase the blk50 version and full price for those that dont have any version. I would pay for it, no problem, many would too as many people would love to see more version of current fighters and by doing that the extra cash would serve as an incentive to actually finish the work on the module. You could have done the same thing with the F/A-18, sell the F/A-18A with the weaker engines, no hmd, no DL, then offer an upgraded version - F/A-18C lot 20 with all the fancy toys. You did a similar thing with the Ka-50 and the A10C.
3. Digital COMBAT Simulator needs to improve its COMBAT simulation. Especially sensors and A.I tactics. Currently ED radars are not modelled up to 2024 standards. Razbam F-15E, M-2000C and Heatblur F-4E are in the game to show that ED is far behind in the simulation of radars. Even the snail game (thunder game) that is not supposed to be a simulator has a better overall radar simulation -- and free of bugs -- when compared to what ED is offering us. The snail game is decades ahead in the simulation of IR missiles, IR in general, FLIR and countermeasures (both flare and chaff). DCS doesn't model the IRCCM mechanisms of the missiles, the interaction of flares with misiles, although it consider some important variables, still relies on dice roll to give results, and dcs doesn't take into account: flare caliber, flare temperature, flare luminosity, flare wavelenght, also IR missiles don't consider flares as a heat source in DCS, IR missiles can see through clouds... meanwhile, the neighbor has all that and a little more... Countermeasures, chaff doesn't show up in the radar of ED modules and the interaction of chaff with missiles in dcs leaves a lot to be desired.
AI tactics: in that single plane game from the 90s, the AI is able to perform interesting BVR tactics when flying individually or in a group. They fly in formations like Box, Champagne, Vic, they have combat flows like grinders and they can maintain mutual support. When defending a missile, they go cold and do the snake maneuver and keep high speed. In DCS the A.I is basically replicating growling sidewinder moves which for the A.I is super innefective (especially when flying in a group) and unrealistic. No tactics employed, just air quake tactics (that dont work for a.i). In DCS while flying in a group the A.I doesn't employ any of the basic tactics that i listed. Why? I know that we are not supposed to mention or compare DCS to other games in here, and i hope i don't get a warning for this, but it is hard to not compare because in DCS website says that DCS aims to be the most realistic combat flight simulator of the market, so why older games and free games have features that decades ahead compare to what we have? And with this i'm only talking about air-to-air, air, if we mention air-to-ground there are IADS Sam tactics that are basically non existant. Yeah you recently added an option for the SAM to turn off the radar but that is just a minor thing, it is not really an IADS tactic just a self-defense tactic for a specific samsite.
Well, i think i have wrote too much for today. The main point of frustration for me here are the bugs. I can wait a little bit for new features (not 5 years), but the long standing bugs are very frustrating!
@NineLine @BIGNEWY I hope you guys take this as a constructive feedack to Eagle Dynamics. I've made some comparisons, but not in a disrespectful way. I care for your product that is why i took my time to write all of this.
Yeah, I mean the video and this post is it in a nutshell.
I've been in DCS for like 6-7 years at this point, and in the past bought almost all the modules. But this year, its 1/however many. I no longer have any faith that DCS is gonna get fixed in any reasonable amount of time. And each year that drags on with major Core game problems further reinforces that point. Hence I've stopped buying stuff for now.
Realistically the problem can be broken down into 2 categories, Core game issues and the module issues. And until most of this is addressed I'm not really buying anything new, there is basically no point.
CORE:
Clouds/weather: At this point the core game stuff is pretty unforgivable. Like we don't have weather system anyone can actually use because clouds don't block LOS for the AI or IR missiles. That is major fail and its been this way for IDK, 4 years or something absurd like that. And weather has major impacts on air ops, be in WW2 (love getting sniped by 88's thru clouds) or modern.
Ground unit AI:
The main thing here is just how units react to air attack, like no tank commander is gonna sit in an empty field with enemy air/helos around, he's gonna find cover. Nor will that commander be taking pot shots at passing fast jets, he's gonna hope they don't see him or have something more important to do. AI of this sort is not hard to implement. Also some sort of mission/kill/morale kill for units would be great.
Also, giving us more relevant target types than "tonk", probably the worst thing DCS is guilty of is that the A-10 module came first and the focus was bombing tanks-n-toyotas. Whereas in an actual modern air war, you are hitting depots/bridges/C3I etc etc. Yes there can be some CAS, but the focus in DCS is waay too CAS centric. (I also realize that this is partly a mission designer problem).
Air-unit-AI
Its been improved lately but still pretty bad. Especially wingmen. Post above covers some of it.
SAM/IADS
This is a huge topic, but at a minimum fix the AI SAM guidance behaviors on a basic level so I can't abuse the existing guidance behavior which is wrong (i.e. always flying lead pursuit, so I can easily fly SAMs into the ground). There is nothing sekrit about this, documents are out there starting from the SA-2 and up through the early double digit sams. I am playing a air-combat game and a big part of that is dealing with SAMs/IADS, and IADS doesn't exist at all in DCS. Also it would be nice to have more actual relevant sams for cold war which would be pretty easy to do as the 3D models can be recycled i.e. early Chapperal, add early manpads Sa-7/redeye/Sa14 etc (who cares if you use the igla model, no one can tell from 5k feet).The CORE game is about Air-to-Air combat and Air to ground combat. FOCUS on fixing how that works.
Modules:
Frankly I have far fewer issues with the actual modules in DCS but there some serious general problems that need to be addressed.
Coherency
The biggest general problem is the slapdash plane sets. 0 coherency. WW2 is great example, you have some 1944 allied planes, a 1944 map or two, and then 1945 German unicorn planes (109K? why not a G-6?). Like who the hell thought that was a good idea? And then there is the I-16, like why? I predict that DCS pacific war will be an absolute disaster for the same reason. We have what the F4U (coming 20nevernever) by the look of it, and a hellcat... Well where is the Opfor? Back in the Day when BST was around you at least got "matched" sets of planes which was a really good idea, and I wonder whatever happened to that. Yes, Mig15 vs F86, smart...
Modeling standards and parity.For DCS to be good, you have to model things to roughly the same standard across modules. I realize that this is hard and requires work, but its the only reasonable way to do things, especially for MP. Currently there are huge disparities between modules radars and how thats modeled for each jet and this leads to abuse and "gamey" tactics. The F15E radar is basically the gold standard for how modern radars should be modeled. And frankly no ED module is even close to that level of fidelity which is tragic. But its also a problem for older modules, i.e. the F5E or the Mig21 radars by 2024 standards are really poorly modeled. Frankly there needs to be a 2-3 year update cycle for older modules that brings them up to modern standards if ED expects to keep selling them. I realize its work, but probably the biggest draw to DCS is the large planeset, especially for MP.
SENSORS
The other major elephant in the room is sensor modeling. This means radars/RWRs/TGP's/DL's etc. Modern air combat is 100% about these sorts of systems and in general with the exception of the F15E radar and the older F4 radar, sensors in most DCS modules are really poorly done. Frankly its my opinion ED should get out of the modern jet business and focus on WW2 or Korea/VN era because its pretty clear that modern sensors are not a thing ED knows how to do. I realize you guys are "working on it" and its complex, thus far I have 0 faith that it will be done well at all. This is triply true of things like TGP's which at this point are symbiology simulators, none of the major IR pain points are modeled in DCS at all, no Diurnal crossover, no real difference between IR images for day/night, no signal attenuation due to range, ED is using a LWIR (I assume) model developed for the Apache (LWIR sensor), for all the modern jet TGP's which are MWIR with the exception of lantirn.
Modern air combat is ALL about the sensors, and DCS fails pretty hard for the most part here (F15E/F4 exempted). The one saving grace I suppose is that the audience/community doesn't actually have any clue how any of it supposed to work or look.Parting shot on maps:
A big problem with the various maps is that they make very little sense. And IDK why ED commissions some maps. The reason Cauc and Syria are popular are because they are interesting and relevant places to fly, plus cauc is free. But terrain/geography in a relevant place is crucial. Caucus has mountains which make for interesting gameplay. Syria, well also does in various decent spots along with a good airfield layout, plus to Ugra's credit they are constantly improving it and upgrading it, I can't really say the same for any other map (normandy I suppose gets some updates).
South Atlantic: Fails because no relevant units to do the falklands air war. And while I like the map, the SA part of it, there are no good ways to setup a MP sever with em.Sinai: Fails, its a modern map for a war last fought in 1973. Literally the Dev should bust out the delete tool and look at historical sat imagery and get to deleting. I guess we now have modern conflict there, but its basically JDAM vs toyota at best, which isn't interesting at all. I regret buying it.
Kola: this may end up being good someday when its done, but the actual fought over part of the map (Rus/finn border) is basically flat.
Afghanistan: A map for bombing toyotas... like I don't get the appeal, nor did I buy it.
Iraq map: The decision to not have Iranian airbases is mind boggling, literally one of the biggest/longest air war of the 20th century was the iran/iraq war. And DCS at this point at least has enough of the plane set to actually do it right. F4E/F5E/F14 vs Mig21/(well we woulda had a mig23 who knows now)/mig29. Instead ED inexplicably thinks bombing Toyotas is what people want...
43 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:Personally I really feel for ED.
They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The reality is that they have a finite amount of time to conduct development. As for where that is then focussed, we as the community are the people who influence it. Quite clearly there's a multitude of "asks", from "give me a new module", to "improve performance", to "finish X" etc.
ED tread a fine line, attempting to balance their workload, such that it meets the majority of customer wishes, whilst hopefully not doing it inefficiently.
Clearly, the you-tuber in question has his own specific set of "asks", and that's his prerogative. Question is, should we de-prioritise getting say Vulkan ready, or introducing the upcoming Mig29?
About the only way that I see to help manage expectations is for ED to run a poll every year, such that they can show how they respond to customer priorities.
Yup fair point. ED has at least somewhat fixed the performance issues and VR is now pretty playable. As for the 29 I'm bracing myself to be dissapointed. I doubt ED will get the radar or EO/IR systems right. And if the sensors are gonna be FC3 level, well I already own that jet.
-
13
-
4
-
-
So are there any iranian airbases on the Iraq map. And if not why not. The iran/iraq air war was one of the largest/longest air war of the 20th century.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, F-2 said:
Turns out…. *rimshot*
-
19 hours ago, F-2 said:
I suspect the actual turn performance is correct but it’s not bleeding as much as it should.
Ive also heard the Mirage is generally out matched by the Fulcrum by someone who flew against one.
Yeah, I guess we will see how it all turns out.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Apok said:
You have similar claim by US pilot that flew German ones on NATO test fights in 90s against French.
I think the issue here is likely the M2k FM, or at least in large part.
-
1
-
-
On 9/25/2024 at 3:14 AM, Schmidtfire said:
I agree. Static crew would be better than nothing. Or a static crew that only move head and twist upper body a little bit to appear alive.
Watching videos of RL Kutznetsov operations, seems like there ain’t much crew on deck anyways (unlike US carriers). But I can be wrong about that.
Honestly the biggest think with the SC kuz and crew would just be having a guy guide you to the correct holdback ramp position or some "abstraction" to enable that. But I doubt ED does anything.
-
3
-
-
On 8/11/2024 at 1:51 AM, Vibora said:
This is our changelog. ED should publish it today.
*Edited*.
DCS Mirage F1 by Aerges
FM and flight controls:
-
Corrected roll moment appearing when all bombs are dropped from AUF-2 pylon.
-
Decreased rudder roll authority.
-
Decreased pitch authority.
-
Decreased AMEDEE internal curve.
-
Changed pitch trim proportionality between 'up' and 'down' regions.
-
Updated the logic of 'Extra backwards stick travel' mode special option.
Systems/cockpit:
-
Implemented '(C+M or SW)R' button logic in 'TL' or 'BZ' auto acquisition radar modes. The logic:
-
1st button press enables '(C+M or SW)R' mode.
-
With '(C+M or SW)R' mode enabled, and no radar track, the automatic lock will be inhibited until the button is released.
-
With '(C+M or SW)R' mode enabled, and a target tracked, the button release will break target lock, and will restart search.
-
Depending of the time the button was held pressed:
-
Less than 0.3 seconds - the radar will start the search 150 m ahead of the previous target range.
-
0.3 to 0.8 seconds - 1) in 'TL' mode the radar will do the same (start the search 150 m ahead); 2) in 'BZ' mode the radar will start the search from the scan area center at the nearest elevation bar to the previous target.
-
More than 0.8 seconds - the radar will restart search normally.
-
-
-
'(C+M or SW)R' button now will not have any effect if pressed with Master Arm in OFF. Before when (C + M or SW)R button was pressed with Master Arm being OFF, the mode became active once Master Arm was switched ON.
-
IDN knob rotation was fixed in F1BE
-
Fixed rotation of altimeter Kollsman window and IDN knob.
-
NWS steering high sensitivity magnetic hold button now deenergizes with NWS on/off switch.
-
Fixed IDN TACAN distance display counter - the maximum displayed value previously was limited to 300 NM.
-
Fixed A/A TACAN mode. Now it is transmit/receive mode (previously it was receive only).
-
Fixed combat flaps not resetting after a new mission start.
-
Increased randomness for engine fire behavior and evolution.
Payloads:
-
Fixed GBU-12 not following laser spot when launched from AUF2 rack.
-
Restored CLB4 SAMP400 HD and LD.
-
Added GBU-16 for central station and GBU-12 for outer stations.
Sounds:
-
Reduced trim hat sound gain.
-
Adjusted trim hydraulic sound gains.
-
Pitch trim hydraulics sound is correctly looped now.
Misc:
-
Updated ES Flight Manual.
-
Added liveries for missing countries.
-
Fixed refueling light being always on.
-
Adjusted refueling light visual look.
-
Added model SHELL for refueling probe (it now has a contact model).
-
Increased compression visual effect of wheel tyres.
-
Fixed several damage model connector issues (related to flaps and fuel tanks).
-
Now the damage cells that depend on outer wings damage cells are the ones for outer slats, not the ones for inner slats.
-
Improved LODs (WIP).
Any news on a radar model?
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Chizh said:
I dont know what is Barker-7
Datalink correction signal for R-27 series of missile. Surely you have this information in those vast archives you mention, and I'm sure you will do a great job implementing this unique capability for the missile in the DCS Mig-29 module.
-
2 hours ago, F-2 said:
Magazine article I want, but I love the picture.
Czech article by the look of it.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, F-2 said:
That’s pretty much exactly as I heard. I really hope they do a super detailed model as the amount of documentation is pretty crazy.
Well, the mi24 was done well, so I hope the 29 will be too.
-
5
-
-
On 5/21/2024 at 3:10 PM, F-2 said:
As I understand it SP mode is also removed from later build Soviet Fulcrums as well and was not generally used in practice
Your right about processor, though I understand it both were considered insufficient until N019m. The manual ED use I believe is for export aircraft.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2378427/
in theory that is enough for an ultra real radar model and it describes N019B in great detail. They could probably estimate the difference in performance due to processor speed.I don’t think in terms of operations per second N019 and N019EB are that different, like 170,000-200,000 compared to 400,000 in N019M on the Mig-29S. The only available manual newer then the above is ironically the zhuk-me so it can’t be directly compared.
I mean realistically from what I've read is the earlier radar and presumably the export one suffered from being overwhelmed with clutter processing at times over certain high clutter terrain. Also in general they should suffer more than contemporary western radars since the inverted cassegrain antenna while having good gain, also had much larger side lobes compared to planar array antennas.
So if ED should elect to do a real radar model like Raz or HB, then it should have trouble on the deck, and then when looking at city "terrain tiles" as one example.
-
2
-
-
On 4/7/2024 at 5:38 PM, F-2 said:
The 9.12B has a weaker processor but it has the same range as the Soviet and Warsaw pact version per overscan.
The export version was also missing one of the autonomous search modes.
Range is a funky thing as well because of course it depends on processing alot in some cases but not others, i.e. in lookup it should have similar performance to the regular soviet radar. But in the presence of clutter or jamming I would expect that weaker processor to have significant problems and not process as well or use simpler processing schema, hence more clutter. IIRC mig29 pilots of the 9.12 reported a good bit of clutter issues over radar/radio reflective terrain i.e. cities/marshes/swamps and so forth.
Similarly, for the IRST, the consensus was that it was worthless as a search instrument, but worked quite well with the helmet in WVR missile cueing. Though ED would have to actually build an IR/IRST model for that, and I'm not really hopeful about it.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, SparrowLT said:
So we are gonna have a funny situation..
We have 3 Flanker cousins, all with working datalink showing contacts in the HSD , and i asume in real life they had same datalink option as the Fulcrum to display DL targets into the HUD with all the interception steering info... but being FC3 no working that besides showing on the HSD
Then now we are gonna have the Fulcrum-A with working datalink in the HUD with all the selection and steering info... but no working HSD....
Fulcrum "DL" didn't work like TAKT that you have on the SU-27 variants. IF we get one in our "stripped down" variant, it will most likely be some form of Lazur which was used by various warpac countries. Which is basically GCI steering commands. Razbam had planned to have an entire GCI system for the mig-23 with Lazur with both AI and human steering, but I very much doubt ED would even consider adding something that cool.
I'll be happy with an IRST that doesn't see through clouds and actually has the limitations of KOLS.
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, PhantomHans said:
Tbh, while I understand that a 2003-2023 Era map is likely I really hope we get a 1990 version.
Needs to have some iranian airfields before I buy it...
IDK how much the region changed from the 90's to the early 2k's, but it probably changed a decent bit after that.
-
1
-
-
On 5/16/2024 at 3:21 AM, The_Tau said:
For me having ED doing all the missile stuff is better than what i was before, namely for years MiG21's R3S was completely different than AIM-9B, even though one is a direct copy of another. Key problem with ED that changes and updates it make literally takes years....x
While I agree one party doing the modeling is better from a consistency standpoint, there are still a bunch of problems, i.e. there are 2 different magic2's in game now with different performance (and thats a recent example). Plus ED is SLOOOW to fix any missile.
And, unfortunately you are wrong on the R3S, but its an oft repeated myth, cuz its copy pasta-ed all over the web. The R3S is derived from the sidewinder but not a copy. The seeker is probably the closest part, but it has more gimbal angle IIRC, and a different track rate. The rest of the missile actually has some significant improvements. The main two are the gas generator which has a longer burn time/different composition (more flight time). And then a decently better rocket motor. So overall the missile has a decent bit more range than the 9B.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:
If ED will modell it like you wish, you'll probably whine about how your high end PC produces barely 15 fps during Fox-2 lock, and freezes during look into a lake. Beware what you wish for.
Brother if Razbam and HB can do a whole decent radar sim on one core, this is vastly easier.
-
6
-
-
14 minutes ago, IvanK said:
If and When the R550 Magic I default 30 x 30 scan an 5 x 5 scan is implemented life will be much easier
So I realize its likely a bit political, but there are 2 versions of the magic II in the game, your's/ED's and Razbams, maybe since they are IRL the same missile they should be the same in game.
DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion
in Chit-Chat
Posted
The two main things ED needs to fix are
1. Core game stuff thats variously either broken, sucky or missing entirely. And thats a long list.
2. Have a consistent set of standards for modules, be that their own stuff thats fallen behind (i.e. F5, F86, huey etc) and update them. But most importantly have a set standard for sensor modeling and it needs to be a high standard. Currently the Razbam M2k and F15 and the Heatblur F4 are the gold standard for radar modeling in DCS, the F16 and 18 are nowhere near it, and the less said about modules like the F5 and mig21 the better but they are in Dire need of updates to bring their radars to the same standard on modeling as the rest of DCS. Honorable poor mention to the F1 radar as well, but at least its being worked on.