deadpool

I'd say by placing the waypoint at your altitude level. That way you're directly flying through it.

No idea, whispers say "no". But I am giving this new guy a chance, let's see what he comes up with in 2 months of full time work on the mavericks .. maybe they will be close to complete. That's kind what I expect after all this time. And from what you get after these 2 months of full-time-equivalent work you can guess how long the rest of the Viper is going to take :-D

Let's see how the Mavericks are implemented first. Depending on whether we get the TER with 2x (or god forbid 3x) Mavericks, there is usually some boresight adjusting involved before TGP/MAV handhoffs are precise etc. All of this will not be in. So put MAVs rudimentary in (I would be happy to have them nontheless) and I raise my 20-25% to 22-27%. I kind of predict that for example, that doing this won't work when we get the MAVs: - Have Mavericks on two pylons - Select station 1. Lock MAV on target - Use NWS button to switch to a second station with MAVs. - Lock that MAV on a different target - Fire the two MAVs in quick succession.

Your point is valid, but did apolloace really use Steam (which would then be not EDs "fault" at all) or did he use non-torrent? Because if he - like I suspect the majority here - uses normal updater without switching to http-mode, then I'd say torrent uses preferedly UDP. But TCP got some nice additions to make it very suitable for high speed data transfers over the years. All the best, Deadpool

Yeah, dropped a GBU on a moving tank yesterday while the target was tracked by my tpod. Due to laserpoint not being synced on the target, but always slightly lagging behind, the bomb fell a few cm behind said tank and it didn't go boom. Quite anticlimactic. This issue + laserpoint lagging both combined made this possible.

If the target is "donated" on launch by the AWACS, I would be really interested in knowing what the RWR will output. (And what it should output).

(I'm not from ED or associated, just a curious person) Would be interesting if you could generate a trackfile in the triple buffer off mode and then replay it in triple buffer on mode and see if that changes the playback already. That would narrow it down to a "runtime" or "decisiontime" incident.

It's definitely the only way. Community contributed bug reports is definitely a huge thing, yes. But the majority of bugs should be found inside the development pipeline by ED's and third party's own testers. But of course - especially with games - and open beta, using the users as beta testers is an economical measure that makes sense.

BVR, yes. BFM, definitely no.

It was reported in Dec 2019 already. The ACM modes in the F-16 take way longer / aren't working in comparison to F-14, F-18, etc. Threads: Most likely thread this should be merged with https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257840 and/or https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=262460 Other information about Boresight mode in particular not slewing the radar continously: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268397 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=253449

I second that MRM does not mean ACM modes. DGFT means ACM modes. Beware: there is a current defect, that when having a locked target, switching to DGFT and subsequently to ACM will drop that target. That is not correct and was reported already.

Yes, yes. But in DCS we have a model pilot who behaves statistically the same. Beneficial effects are however: - G-Warmup (modelled) - Seat inclination (F-16, not modelled) - Overpressure mask (F-16, not modelled) - G-Suit (no idea if the model pilot behaves differently in airplanes with G-suit than in airplanes without one)

I'd say about 20-25% if you take TPOD and HTS and stuff into account.

Well, I had crosswind conditions (well within operational limits for the airport and viper) that had me do a full rudder deflection at 100kts on the runway and I still would yaw sideways towards the green. so I tend to activate NWS as early as possible, as the plane's behaviour on the ground is just unrealistic anyhow. And I didn't even land crabbed in the crosswind. Try doing that and you're done for immediatly.

The hornet isn't 95% done, far from it. And they (the customers that bought it) deserve it to be finished before the Viper. Sad truth.

First of all, F-35 and F-22 also have more reclined seats, although not to the extreme point of the Viper. And now for the helpful bits: In DCS it seems you can exceed limits for a brief moment of time (~3 seconds) before your pilot seems to lapse into dreamland. F-14 and other jets can use those 3 seconds to get to whatever amounts of g instantly. The Viper - contrary to literature - is really taking a damn long time building up the gs .. so you can't use that "spike" effectively either. There are a couple of other bits in the viper that help in high-g conditions. A good G-suit The reclined seat (although if what I heard is correct that's mainly as blood doesn't collect that much in the legs due to the specific leg angles? no source on that though) And the overpressure mask that helps to get air into your lungs when pulling gs. Should they give the viper-driver a slight edge? yeah .. Right now this whole G issue (combined with some engine performance and onset stuff) is what makes the F-16 quite teethless in dogfights. The regime you're supposed to be good in .. is not accessible. Thanks a bunch. And because you brought up other planes, Zergburger, This is a game and aspects like the crew chief yelling at you, or the airframe being worth scrap after you bring it home aren't modelled. This means the G-Override button in the FA18 is almost constantly pressed. This means the F-14 pilots don't give a cent about their INS, their Flaps, their wing sweep mechanism, or stress fractures. And that's something they get away with. And by that they are put in a place where they are able to pull more G than the viper driver. Yet another laugh and spit in the face in terms of realism. But hey, there are other games where this is modelled correctly. This is something that needs serious rework before the F-16 is usable in dogfights against anyone but beginners.

I need to write things down, but I have a couple of ideas how to build an Environment-SNR-based radar logic that takes chaff / statistically modelled birds / ground, whatnot into account. That matches with what I heard from IRL pilots as well. You basically try to keep the radar guessing and make it hard to aquire / reaquire. Basically don't wait until you're fired upon.

The AI knows better than to waste a missile on someone who's so close to notching :-)

Also just to add: When firing a FOX1 on something and retaining a solid lock all the way through .. The missile has no chance in hell to go for chaff! ... Just saying. It has in DCS.

+1 :-D

Having to push AA again could be because you end up in NAV mode? Unsure about this. But if so, it might be related to this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268399

The doppler component is used in a heavy zero speed clutter environment (ground or chaff) to be able to have some criteria to make out the target. Imagine you are running after a guy who stole something from you. Now even if it's very crowded it's a safe bet that he will keep on running and thus you can easily make him out even in a crowd. But if he stops running in a crowd, you'll lose him .. if he stops running on an open space, you would be pretty dumb to lose him. Are you telling me that in order to get a look down / shoot down capability the entire set of modern radars has sacrificed the little MLC AUTO switch from the F-14 and made itself completely blind for beaming targets? I think not. A modern radar might be even more awesome. Think of a line going straight from your radar to the target. You ---------------------------------------> Target Ground Then your radar would be awesome enough to know the target range when locked and apply range gates to it .. so that returns outside of that gate won't even be taken into account for drawing conclusions on its position. You ---------------------------------------> Target Ground | Range gate |

I think you are mistaken. Take an AWG-9 set it to RWS or even TWS (any PD mode) and have MLC to AUTO. If your radar is now looking up more than 3° it will disable the MLC. Now your radar sweeps across the sky and you get returns for the different planes. MLC means that those returns with a doppler shift of less than 133 kts +/- will be analog filtered out. They won't reach the weapon computer and won't be shown. not even on your DDD. Now given a target above 3° will generate a nice fat return, albeit without a large doppler shift as he is notching. You will still get the blip and all the other bonus features that come with it (making the target go boom for example). And that "return" is what I mean by the other component to a radar return other than the doppler one. Now why am I saying this? Because that's what happens automatic in the F-14's radar system. In the F-16 radar system the MLC so to speak won't disengage and you will lose the fricking contact from your scope .. even when you're looking up. The F-16 should have even more automatisms in it's radar. (Same goes for the FA18) Yeah, it's still the case and it's absolutely arcade. Right now you can notch when the missile is looking almost level. You can notch when you're 6000ft away from the ground and the missile is just a few hundred feet away from you. It's just a huge big counter that reminds me more of dark souls than flight simulations.

You are right in part, but even if you buy EA you can still be very annoyed by the fact that "your" plane got dropped for a year or so, after it was specifically said that this won't happen. EA is not an excuse for every kind of business behaviour. I would like to also ask you to look at which modules are EA at this time, (and also for how long). Prop-Planes: EA I-16 EA Christen Eagle II EA Yak-52 noEA Fw 190 A-8 noEA Spitfire LF Mk. IX noEA Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst noEA Fw 190 D-9 Dora noEA P-51D Early Jets: EA MiG-19P EA Hawk T.1A (discontinued in EA, never even finished) noEA F-5E Tiger II noEA L-39 Albatros noEA C-101 Aviojet noEA MiG-15bis noEA MiG-21bis noEA F-86F Sabre "Modern" Jets: EA JF-17 Thunder EA F-16C Viper EA F-14 EA F/A-18C Hornet EA AV-8B Night Attack V/STOL EA AJS-37 Viggen noEA M-2000C noEA A-10C Helicopters: noEA SA342 Gazelle noEA Mi-8MTV2 noEA UH-1H noEA Black Shark 2 Environment / Surrounding: EA Supercarrier EA WWII Assets Pack noEA NS 430 noEA Combined Arms So if you want to fly modern jets, yes. You will not get around EA stuff unless you go for either Mirage and A10c. (and have a look at how finished the Mirage is in their forums)

You were comparing apples and oranges there. One is my own opinion to get the individual systems where we have the information as realistically modelled as possible. The other was me being a bit water-eyed about the fact that ED promised such a specific realistic F-16 version and then left us out to dry so hard. It's like getting hopes up extra extra extra and then smashing them into the ground. This was no normal EA, this was a belly landing at takeoff :-( But you're right in another regard. In terms of what to put on the pylon if theoretically possible, but just not flown by that specific squadron / that specific F-16 model from that day at that zodiac costellation etc. is where I get weak for the sake of flexibility. But if all else fails, I am very close to you on that one, @mvsgas. I'd rather have it realistic. I am just frustrated how that is upheld for the F-16 in a PR way (or was) and then got chopped and kicked so hard .. (way harder than usual for an EA title). Deadpool