deadpool

Hi Chizh, thank you for taking some time to answer questions here! to 1.) Awesome! to 2.) Especially when lofting them now they do fly a considerable bit farther out than before, don't they? to 3.) You do a 180° turn in the horizontal without chaff above the horizon and the missile will still go dumb, not reaquire etc. Not every time, but every once and so often that it shows. And the notching part was also aimed at the PD radars of the F16 and F18, though I can speak mainly for the F16. People go into a notch (with thousands of feet separation to clutter) and still end up disappearing from your radar screen completely. The non-doppler component of the RWS mode should have kept them on the screen (and would have in case of an F14s radar) BR, Deadpool

It was irony, yeah.

I adapted DATIS to do just that for SRS. Please find the readme with instructions how to do that at this link: https://github.com/destotelhorus/DATIS

Radar emissions are no laser pointer. The radar distance warner of your car will also work at a slight angle. It's now just a matter of taking the quickest echo as closest distance, guessing that the ground is closest directly below given a near flat surface.

True for switching into an ACM mode. False for switching into DGFT override mode. (Which is how you will usually end up in ACM modes). There, it is only true if you have no target locked already. If you do, then you take that "with you" into DGFT override mode.

Have you searched the forums whether he provided crash logs or not? Or are you just blaming someone who demands the service he paid for?

I know about the history, but I chose not to accept it as an excuse to keep going on like that. I do agree with the rest of what you said 100%. And congratulations on your new position! First off, DCS is an amazing product. It is extremely complex and always getting better. I applaud the developers / programers working diligently to make things better. Since there is a huge disparity in airframe capabilties, why not set them as equal and see who the better tactician is with their forces? (Think Chess) This would make PVP much more enjoyable instead of getting shwacked by a hornet at 180kt. (There is a reson these are soon not in the inventory anymore and I love nastalgia.) Of course, DCS cannot keep up with all of the aircraft types and modeling changes with actual intel, this would provide an equal playing field for all. I can elaborate further if required. I know each ariforce is different, but the IRIAF for example in the F-14 gives no credit for service life. In fact the failure rate is often at the peak of the comparison when the adversary is way below you. I am hoping for a more level playing field knowing this is a sim game and a great one at that. This would allow the powers at be to focus on engine improvements and bug fixes and not have to be intel experts modelling aircraft flyouts. Creating a few classes of aircraft would work as well. Keep up the great work and send spears! - Just a thought from some random fan. Above text slightly altered by Deadpool to fit the bill.

Sorry to ruin the thread, but with a bit of bitter sarcasm: It would have been more realistic, had you installed the VM without a disc. then waited a couple of months before you installed the disc, but then limited the network interface to 10kbit/sec. Then waited a couple of month to change it to 1MBit/sec, but with CPU throttled to one core now. I think that would come close to the average state. Especially of the F-16. But not to be too negative: I know that a lot of people are hard working making things better! Keep up the spirit! This is an amazing ecosystem to preserve and enlargen!

Yeah, there's a nice GBU-24 thread especially for the F-14 guys. Waiting for quite some time for that, hinging on the Paveway III guidance.

Thank god when buying an aircraft you're not paying for that effort :-D

Different effect I'd say. This defect is not about transitioning to supersonic or vice versa, this is about the FPM moving up and down during speed changes and staying there for too long. But your video was awesome and it would make sense to have that in a different thread as something to implement!

So, Sharpe_95, you agree with me. Let me say that I do fly in a hardcore milsim community and most points you said hold true for our missions. Including different human AWACS/GND/TWR/LSO/JTAC/.. throughout the entire mission, etc. and I am very thankful to be a part of that, though no one there deludes themselves into thinking they are real fighter pilots. That said, DCS is in such a horrible state, that half your statements sadly fail due to game reasons, for realisms sake most planes would be grounded: - pulling 9g .. I wish in the F-16. Seat, Overpressurized mask, gsuit .. they don't do anything for me - radar sadly doesn't need ground clutter not to work in the F-16. the ACM modes are just sluggish, take too long compared to any other plane in DCS, don't work at all like they should or (and this is my fav) you lose a target in the notch even though it's above the horizon. ( and this shows how messed up the radar model is, as even the 70s F-14 radar correctly models you still being able to get that target if you disable the notch filter (which in the f-16 is automatically done in over the horizon conditions) and/or don't give a crap about the doppler component of a PULSE doppler radar .. the pulse part works pretty fine in those conditions .. why wouldn't it??) - BVR which in DCS means Barely Visual Range .. reminds me of the joke: How do you do BVR in DCS? You turn on the fog. - two factor auth for IFF .. yeah .. until last patch we (f16) hat an all friendly datalink .. And I don't see the problem in getting the information about a weapon to model it. I see the problem in actually writing the code to model *any* aspect of the weapon. Look at the ridiculous guidance in the current OB AIM120 or even AIM9. Just yesterday I saw multiple AIM9s flying towards a moving and flaring target. Pulling *away* from the target not towards the flares, but the other side (which makes NO sense) and then going for a ground contact .. just .. w .. t .. f? But yeah, we advocate for the same thing. Realism is a mindset that we have to roleplay and have to enforce upon ourselves mainly. Yet DCS, the self proclaimed provider of the best sim for the F-16 enforces negative learning on people since 6 months and will keep doing so for a year to come. They don't make it easy and they have a lot to make up for. As for payment. I paid for tons of modules, most of them unfinished. I think a subscription model would have been wiser also, but by now I am a customer. I demand the final product on a realistic schedule and I am willing to help with bug reports, etc. But my trust in what ED can deliver nowadays is severaly diminished, and that's a point ED has to own and noddingly accept. I'll have a look at that document, sounds like a good read! Thank you! BR, Deadpool

Hi Chizh, I can absolutely understand the motivation behind having some sort of "ruling authority" on realism for DCS, as the thread title clearly reveals there are some loud voices out there. Now here are my thoughts why it shouldn't be ED, sadly: 1.) ED has enough on their plate. They just postponed a prime module for an entire year because they misjudged their ressource planning. Does taking over the missile development for the 3rd party devs mean that the F-16 is going to have to wait even longer? Will you finish development on the Phoenix guidance, as it is currently a heavily modded and pressed into shape version of the AMRAAM Fox-3? Where will the time for that come from? 2.) People have been saying for years that the ranges for the missiles in DCS so far (in particular the AIM120B) are Airquake ranges. Whenever I spoke of BVR, I said it meant "Barely visual range". (And I don't mean this in a condescending way towards you developers). It took the arrival of the SD10 from Deka to challenge this and to successfully get changes on the range of the AMRAAM initiated! This would not happen if everything had been in the hands of ED. We would still have the same AMRAAM ranges! 3.) Notching and radar in DCS are very arcade and joke'ish. It looks as if it's build that way for competitions where you can pull off these maneuvers to gain an upper hand instead of having to go realistic routes. I would love to see that notching aspect of missile guidance challenged by a third party developer! And I have my hopes up for TrueGrit Virtual Techologies here. So these are my three big points why I don't think consolidating this in the hands of ED is a good idea.

And just because of things: Others will always see your bullets with tracers (even from the front or from the sides (which isn't necessarily how tracers work) ... so if you think you can get some stealthy gunshots at someone by not taking the tracers -> nope.

Point is: If you out them in, people can use them but don't have to. If you don't put them in, people have no choice. In milsim communities they might follow and not use them. On public servers some things are already restricted. Should I feel bad about firing off 6 phoenixes in the f14 and going back to rearm when I have just thus bankrupted a small country?

Or .. gives a RWR launch warning!

it's just especially problematic in the F-16 as you desire the area between 7.5 and 9g to get an advantage. I wouldn't get my hopes up though.

I really have a hard time not choking on tears when this "reality" argument is still held up. It was announced as the best simulation of this particular verison of the F-16 etc. and there were even some snide remarks towards some other F-16 sims out there in terms of them offering dozens and dozens of subtypes, etc. an not getting it right. and now we have this state and the admission (albeit not in the f-16 forum, but in the f-18 forum) that the f-16 started with too low of a rotation speed and is now falling back down hard on the ground and no one cares. for crying out loud we are flying this plane since months with broken FCR, a waypoint and tpod system that is so far away from reality, ... so, ed .. nice blahblah with the "realism" .. scrap it and give the f-16 folks some gimmicks and make it up to them whether they use it or not. I think after this is through, anyone who's still sticking to the f-16 and doesn't ragequit whenever the ACM modes frustrate the heck out of you again deserves some gimmicks.

Yeah, the F-16 is the only modern plane that requires human sacrifice, 10 minutes down in the pit to get trimmed. The F-16 is also different from other planes of the similar generation in that the ACM radar modes are calculated by the amiga 500 fire computer, taking about 10 times longer than in similar planes.

If ground units way off yonder are the problem for FPS then the problem is actually the game engine. And they are aware of this. Each patch the last half year has increased the tax on performance and there needs to be some "Housekeeping" done sometime soon and things will be better then.

I love the info from SpaceMonkey037 and I think given source material or cross checking that the DEVs would appreciate getting this as realistic as possible.

This might be a duplicate of this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269074 (about 1.5 months old) and this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257642 (6 months old)

yeah .. let's see what FCR hostiles mean .. I mean Leading edge flaps, and lights weren't anywhere on my personal priority list .. so yeah .. thanks .. I guess ..

was the AI flying a block 50 or block 52?

ED it self said that they won't be doing much work on the F-16 this year .. so ... with current schedule you can expect work to be done in 2021. And you can believe that they will have other projects that get pushed into the middle of it again, so I don't have any high hopes of seeing anything before end of 2021 by now.