Csgo GE oh yeah

They are now , ironmike just posted this : "We already adjusted the values internally for the next patch." Good i hope they won't forget (again)

The chaff resistance for the A and B phoenix missiles is set to 0.06 . They are 70's , and analog seekerheads right ? Also, at first chaff resistance of the 54's was 0.5, but heatblur buffed that to 0.05 because: (the argument they used) the seekerhead of the phoenix c and aim 120c was 'the same performance'. So remember, argument for buff was "phoenix seekerhead same as aim 120". But now that the aim 120 chaff resistance is corrected (in effect, worsened 2x) , heatblur decides NOT to keep it the same as the aim 120, but instead keep the old (buffed) erronous values. This makes me wonder, why ? It appears as if the earlier used argument only applies in certain situations. (so buffs only, when it's nerf : ignore) Even the old analog A and B's have almost twice the chaff resistance of a modern aim 120 now. And they're not changing it apparently.

No need to try and wait because it's virtually impossible to get your hands on a 3080 or 3090 right now anyways. :mad: I bought the most ugly version from some Indian card maker for 1000 euro's , and it wasn't even from a scalper but from an opportunistic hardware shop :( Well at least i got one

Me neither. They don't have an answer as to why a 1970's analog seeker missile has almost double the chaff resistance as a modern aim 120

They're just deleting my posts

That "corrected" is old , look at the date :D It's when they BUFFED the chaff resistance for the phoenix missile to be the same as for the aim 120 . Dude, i mean, really ? You are not very up to date. Now that the aim 120 has it's chaff resistance lowered, so should the phoenix because heatblurs argument for buffing was "aim 120 seekerhead and phoenix seekerhead = same perfomance so we keep chaff resistance value THE SAME"

Right, but why isn't heatblur fixing their mistake ? They just keep the wrong value ?

Guys, you forgot to lower the phoenix C variant's chaff resistance. I remember the reason for BUFFING it was : "However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same" If true that should work both ways i guess ?? Oh and is it true that the chaff resistance for the old analog phoenix missiles is STILL set to 0.06 ??? Isn't it weird that a 1970's ANALOG seekerhead missile has almost 2x the chaff resistance than a modern aim 120c ?

Yeah, well isn't that weird when heatblur´s argument to buff it was : "However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same" The realism argument only works one way it seems ?

Hey i'm just quoting Heatblur man. Heatblur buffed the chaff resistance of the phoenix C missile because, and i quote heatblur AGAIN: "However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same" So, why not change it back again ? Heatblur forgot by accident or something ? I mean, they BUFFED it because of "same as aim 120" , but they don't revert it back when 120 gets changed ? Isn't that weird ?

The countermeasure value for the phoenix C variant is still the same as the 'pre-nerf' aim120 c . Their whole argument to get that buffed to aim 120 levels at the time was because "basically same seekerhead performance bla bla". So, isn't it weird that this argument is first used to 'buff' , but ignored completely when it would mean a 'nerf' ?

So i guess now with the chaff change of the aim 120, the phoenix will follow ? Have Heatblur forgot to add this change in their new update perhaps ?

"1. The phoenix has been guided like an amraam since release, because that is the only possible compromise until we can implement the new guidance with ED. However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same. " Quote from HB ^ Thread : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=281483&page=3 So, that was the argument to buff chaff resistance of the phoenix. But, it seems that now they uhm, i don't know, forgot ?

MSFS graphics are literally about 7x as good so yeah, it will stomp any graphics card into the ground. Not sure how CPU intensive MSFS is . Maybe less than DCS , but that also depends on the DCS mission i guess. Shit tons of A.I will hurt FPS no matter what i assume.

I had a 1080 ti, and now have a 3080 3080 is about twice as fast in VR DCS . But, you have to turn the settings up obviously. If you play with only 100% supersampling, and all settings low then yeah you might get cpu-bottleneck

So the phoenix missile will follow i assume ? Did heatblur accidently forget ? Wasn't their whole argument to 'buff' the phoenix's chaff resistance something like "same seekerhead as 120" or something ?

Narrow your beam

I don't know anything of what the actual numbers should be, but it FEELS as if the F16 has about 5x more drag once the speed goes below 400knts Once you fall below 400 , the only way to pick up speed is flying in an exact straight line it seems . The slightest pulling of the stick will make the speed plummet very rapidly even on full burners ? Like i said it may be realistic, but it does not feel realistic to me for such a small and streamlined fighter ?

I always just roll 90 degrees, or nose up/down to defeat all incoming missiles . :thumbup: /s

Server is full, and balanced in player numbers ! :)

I think they made changes to the missions. For the longest time blue was by far the most favorite team, always very lopsided. It didn't help that all the 104th guys never flew vs eachother. Being with 3 reds vs 15 blue's was pretty normal. Now it seems more fun, i might give it a try again.

Only the latest version © has the digital seeker , right ? The older versions have analog seekers. So why is chaff resistance improved for ALL the variants alike ?

Ok thx ! I thought it was F16 related :doh:

aaah thank you man! And it seems that i have posted this in the wrong section now

Ok here goes : "AIM-120 bug is fixed, but a similar issue still exists where AIM-120 midcourse updates stop if the L&S is stepped to a different trackfile (not the DT2)." What does this mean ?