Harlikwin

Late next year!

Irrelevant to DCS, it uses 1 core.

Thanks! precisely what I was looking for.

And for DCS it still not enough to run a 12k headset. Cuz CPU gets a vote too.

Is there like a chucks guide or anything for this. I saw this: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cUH7jpAoGHm-IzUDnv_NDhiZlvX55Q9WvpgR1d9ksYY/edit#slide=id.gd4f11abbd6_2_0 But it seems to be somewhat out of date. For things like AAR or CV landings, radar etc.

probably not

Most of the DCS "modern" fighters are like a bit less than half that value. But that seems fine for the AWG9

That cold war server is literally the worst running server in all of DCS. Its not you, its them. I normally barely ever see drops under 45 on any other server, but theirs I'm regularly in the 30's and even 20's.

So this is a thing, where the radar is locking chaff... In DCS even. https://streamable.com/2vx02j

Well not really if the CCM and other seeker params are all the same. I don't understand why this is hard to do, except if there is no actual data on what differentiates an "OG" phoenix from an 80's one. And this might actually be the case. On the upside at least there is a bunch of data on the 7E and earlier sidewinders.

So not open a huge can of worms here, and I never did see the "original" logic you guys presented to ED (link if there is one would be great if you explained it before). But, if the issue here seems to be one of missile capabilities vs "time". We all know the 1975 phoenix was less upgraded than an 80's one and also most likely less capable than the C, I don't think anyone is contesting that. But you guys per ED have decided to model a "late model" phoenix. Wouldn't it be easy enough to offer an "early" variant like what iran used and that would fit the 70's scenarios some people want? Like just have 70's phoenix A with worse CCM, 80's phoenix A with better CCM or whatnot.

Yeah thats my perspective, I want the model(s) I can reasonably cosplay the most nations with and are "nerfable" for online use.

Yeah I wouldn't mind a pave-spike version. Id also think something that could stand in for an Iranian F4E would be a good thing to finish out that nations planeset.

It all gets back to the "cosplay" aspect. And how much "nerfing" can be done. Like we have people arguing that our block50 F16 from 2005 is a "realistic" stand in for a Block15 F16A if you remove "aamrams and JDAMs". Its a laughable assertion, even with all the advanced weapons removed its still way too good, and server owners have to come up with meme ish tricks to try to disable things like JHMC's and datalink (and TBH they largely can't). And that doesn't even begin to touch on stuff like radars or better TWR etc. But its down to the approach developers take, and thus far the trend is toward "moar power!"

Yeah, I know. I'd just prefer more of a 70's-early 80's version. I really don't think another TGP wunderwaffle is really needed.

Ah, sticking with the "most capable" if not most relevant variant theory.

Yeah it might be. And I'm not contesting the "Reality" of it, rather the other way around. But I'm just thinking, is there some newsletter out there where they actually said they would "fix" IR missile stuff in DCS. I mean the community clearly wants it. But thats the case for almost everything.

I mean I know I've been cheerleading the effort in many ways, but for the life of me I can't remember what that was founded on with regards to the IR rework. It might have been something Chiz said at one point, but I honestly don't recall it being in anything official.

Does anyone have an actual source from ED that the IR overhaul actually will include things like missiles? I feel like it's a topic that has taken on it's own life but did they actually ever state this somewhere?

You have DIRCM on some helos. Just not the apache version we will get. And yeah flares are fairly sophisticated these days. But the can of worms there is just like ECM/ECCM the details arent exactly known and that limits what you can reasonably expect to model. I mean we have no "simulation" of IR seekers. So CMs are all the same and it's a dice roll. I mean our IR missiles and IRSTs all see through clouds right now (hint they cant IRL) as does the AI... sooo most people interested in realism are only flying with clouds as a "decoration". Which is a shame as the tactical effects of weather are very much a real world thing.

Yeah, modeling radars to a similar level of fidelity has to become a thing as well. Esp with the new razbam M2k model, makes ED's work on the hornet and F16 look not good by comparison. Honestly, while the iranians certainly got kills with the phoenix, how many vs how many missiles fired is still pretty contentious. If you assume they expended most of their missiles (274 to get say 78 kills, and say they still had 50-100 operational so 174 per 78 kills, still not "great a pK". Even the Aim7M had like 50-60% pK in ODS.

And this why "modern" DCS is a problem, way too much conjecture and not enough actual data.

Yeah saw that vid. But lets be honest, clouds need to actually block IR missiles and AI. Clouds have actual "tactical" significance, I personally don't care too much how they look as long as "work" like clouds.

Yeah I guess, but it would be easy enough not to use new map parts for "new features" videos or drop them with the new area or something.

So, all the new "Feature" videos are great. But could you guys also add the .miz file Wags is using for those so its just something we can DL and use to follow along.