Xhonas

Look, i'm not saying that the maneuver per se is unrealistic, it is possible to use this maneuver to defeat some missiles, like older SAMs, as it happened IRL with an F-16. However the results we are seeing in the game for the amraam certainly aren't realistic. Otherwise, why pilots would invest countless hours in learning BVR tactics, timelines and opt to stay as far away as possible from enemy aircraft? just do a barrel roll and defeat any missile. I remember another frustrating issue in DCS regarding missiles, not too long ago, the amraam would try to intercept enemy air to air missiles almost every time, even if you were targeting the aircraft launching them, not their missiles. Up to this day, if you are fighting an F14, the amraam will regularly stop tracking the tomcat and start tracking the Phoenix if the combat is in the 10-15nm range. Also, you could easily detect air to air missiles with the radar in the F/A-18 and deliberately target the enemy missiles, to the point that an enemy flanker could launch all of his 10 missiles and you could intercept them all and merge with it. Now, i don't doubt that radars can see air to air missiles in some situations, however, the way that it was implemented in DCS gave extremely unrealistic and arcadey-type results. So, just because some math is right, doesn't necessarily means that the final result of the simulation will be correct. The same thing is happening here, right now.

Ah come on, this is so frustrating. DCS is incredible but these small issues can really hinder the enjoyment of playing this game. Can't you adjust the proximity fuze then since you really aren't up to tweak the guidance? Ik you don't want to create a "wonder weapon", but come on, what we have right now and what we had in the previous update is not realistic at all. Your math may be right, but the practical results in the game are completely arcade-y.

Не могли бы вы использовать эту возможность, чтобы разработать еще одну версию того же самолета? Например, упрощенный F/A-18A, в то время как у нас есть кликабельный F/A-18C. То же самое можно сделать для F-16, упрощенного F-16A или F-16C Block 30, в то время как у нас есть кликабельный F-16C Block 50

This is definitely not fixed. Can you take a look at it again?

In these 5 years many people have reported to heatblur the issue with the flaps, everyone (except the people that loved to exploit that bug) have shown to you that your old flap model contradicts basic aerodynamic principles and you ignored, told that it was our (users) fault and made fun of people getting passionate over it. In your discord an aerospace engineer showed up with science, math, demonstrating what was wrong and you simply tried to ridicularize the dude instead of listening. But i'm glad that you decided to come down from the high heels and made the necessary changes (some stuff still incorrect but at least the major problem is fixed). Anyways, just pointing this out because seeems like a common behavior for you. People show up with a lot of data, with science, with math that you can't disproof then you come to gaslight the people, making them believe that whatever you have is correct, only because you can't do the necessary changes, for whatever reason. May be money, may be inability, may be ego..

What is the limiting factor in developing multiple variants of the same jet? This could be a good opportunity for DCS to give more versatility to players. For example: F-16C blk 30 and blk 50. They are basically the same jet, the difference being weight and systems. The same is going on with the F5 today, ED could have given us another variant with mavericks, 4x sidewinders, refueling probe.. In the case of the F-16, i wouldn't mind paying a little bit more to have another variant of the jet. Same for the F5. This could be done with the F/A-18 too, F/A-18C and F/A-18A.. What is stopping ED from doing this? We have some examples of multiple jet variants with 3rd party devs like heatblur (F14A/B), Aerges (Mirage F1 BE/CE/EE).

Hello there @BIGNEWY @NineLine @Lord Vader i'm pinging you guys to see if you could please bump this bug report to the dev team, its been half a decade for this one. It affects both the free aircraft carriers and the supercarrier module. Thanks.

I'm not saying that there would be be zero negative feedback, I'm saying that there would be way less. I mean, perhaps they do listen but can't do anything about it because, from my perspective, it feels like they don't nearly all the times.

If ED listened to their player base they would have way less negative feedback.

Hi there. I would love to see the Aim-120A added to the game to simulate 90s scenarios.

Since we are talking about adding more Aim-120 versions to the game, i would love to see the Aim120A to simulate 90s scenarios

If ED managed to keep the modules bug free it would be a huge win to them. To me they could take their time to release new features, but once released, keep them bug free. From this pov, i can't see why ED isn't developing more variants of the same aircraft. Like, why they didn't start with an earlier version of the F-16C and later offered a paid upgrade to the block 50 variant with all the cool features like DL, Sniper pod, HTS. An earlier version would be less complex to develop due to having less features.. then you could jutisfy selling a "naked" jet, and the paid upgrade to the more advanced variant could would serve as an incentive to keep working on the module, since they stated many times that they need a constant cashflow to develop something so complex. Sometimes it feels pointless to express what we feel here. This discussion exists for a very long time, "the players discontent with dcs". Feels pointless because either ED doesn't listen to the community or they simply can't do anything about it. "Because dcs is super complex" Sometimes i wish they would reduce the complexity. Like if the product is too complex that you can't deliver it without bugs, then reduce the complexity. But at the same time, you see third parties delivering maps like the Syria map, very complex and realistic radar simulations like the one in the F-15E Strike Eagle, Mirage 2000 -- both of those jets aren't being supported by the original developers right now and the radars are free of bugs --, study level simulation of FLIR and IR mechanics in other games of the genre... So the standard is there and it is impossible to not expect ED to meet them. Perhaps that is impossible to achieve? i hope not. But right now i would be less discontent if they just fixed what they currently have.

Hi, is there any plan to implement a more realistic RWR simulation in DCS? Specifically regarding the angular accuracy of these sensors. Right now the RWR's for most western jets are super accurate, within 1°. The only exception is the F-14 Tomcat, with an RWR developed by Heatblur.

The community decided to ban this maneuver not because it is a legit feature of the missile, but because when you do a high G barrel roll in multiplayer you start teleporting, making you invulnerable to everything. I want to report this bug (beta testers says that there is an internal report open for this, cause of this problem: netcode desync because of link16), but i need an empty server to generate a short trackfile.

Tested it and it is definitely fixed. So satisfactory to use it right now. Thanks!

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.

Why other missiles such as the Aim-54 or the R27 are not affected by it? Why only the Aim-120?" "Current level of filtering is already quite low and its further reducing require unrealistically low level of noises. I would like to avoid such changes" Wouldn't be more unrealistic to have a missile like the amraam fail to intercet the target in this scenario when older missiles have no trouble? I mean no disrespect but its hard to take it serious when you can have a high g barrel roll as part of your threat reaction. However i must say that it is good to hear that there will be some changes. Thanks for that!

Hi there @Маэстро @Chizh you're the missile guys, what can be done about this? should we expect a fix? Please check this section of the forums, there is also a bug with ECM trashing new api missiles.

Hello there, SAM Hawk is able to track through terrain without line of sight. hawk track through terrain.trk

Hi Bignewy, thanks for recognizing the issues however what we are asking here is a stable plataform to play. I really appreciate what you guys do and most of us understand how complex it is, but these bugs can be very frustrating at times. I can't wait to have the new features of the phase 3 of the radar, but can't you guys wait to fully implement it when it is complete or at least bug free? these issues right now are severely impacting the mission effectiveness of both F-16 and F/A-18, they are serious issues, to the point that they can get you killed in sweep / cap missions. Its so frustrating that sometimes i wish that i had a fc3 radar in both my F-16/F-18 than the current model, simply because at least the fc3 radar is stable and free of bugs. I understand that it is early access and may have issues, but what is the advantage of releasing just parts of an overhaul that is not complete and still have bugs? I hope you don't get me wrong.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Hello guys, this has been an issue in DCS for a very long time, are the devs aware of it? should we expect it to be fixed? thanks.

While i agree that the simulation take into consideration some important variables, it's still relying on a dice roll to give results and the trackfiles below prove this! Apparently the dice is rolled way before you drop your countermeasures and it will determine a higher or a lower probability of your flares defeating a missile. I separated the trackfiles in "T" for the ones that the missile hits me 100% of the times, and "F" for the ones the missile is trashed 100% of the times. Its exact the same scenario with the exact same amount of countermeasures being launched. Now the crazy thing, if you take control of any of the trackfiles in "seedF" for instance, you can restart the mission 100 times and approach the stinger by different headings and every time it will take exactly two pairs of f/a-18 flares to defeat a stinger. If you take control of any of the seedT trackfiles, two pairs of f/a-18 flares will get you killed every time, no matter how different you approach it. So, whenever you go in a mission, if the dice is not on your side you might have the perfect ircm tactic but you will get killed anyway. (seedT) Undefeated 100% of the times: rng f18 2 seedT.trkrng f18 3 seedT.trkrng f18 4 seedT.trkrng f18 5 seedT.trkrng f18 1 seedT.trk (seedF) Defeated 100% of the times: rng f18 5 seedF.trkrng f18 2 seedF.trkrng f18 3 seedF.trkrng f18 4 seedF.trk

This happens with all F/A-18 ACM modes. I thought i might add some trackfiles for comparison in this report since the F/A-18 ACM modes always worked different than other modules in DCS ever since i can remember. It always took a little bit longer to lock (but of course, not as long as it is right now, it is clearly a bug). So here are three trackfiles showing the behavior and time to lock of ACM modes across different modules. F-16C F16 ACM MODE TIME TO ACHIEVE LOCK.trk Notice how fast it acquires a lock with the helmet acquisition mode. I dont even need to hover the aiming circle over the target, a fast sweep over it is enough for the radar to pick it up and lock. F-15E F15E ACM MODE TIME TO ACHIEVE LOCK.trk See how fast it locks the targets using the boresight mode (small circle) and the super search mode (wider circle). Boresight is the F/A-18 equivalent of BACQ/HACQ. It is able to acquire a lock as fast as the F-16. Super search takes a little bit more time because it covers a larger volume. It still locks very fast. M2000C M2K ACM MODE TIME TO ACHIEVE LOCK.trk Is able to lock the target as fast as the F-15E and F-16C. @Lord Vader Hi, if you could please take a look in these trackfiles, this is the behavior we are expecting from ACM modes when the F/A-18 radar is fixed. Thanks.

Hi Nineline, i saw that the F/A-18 is going through another flight model rework, i presume that is due to the issues reported here on the forums recently, the F-16 seems to have similar issues. Will the F-16 also go through a flight model rework?

I have reported many issues with the radar this patch, judging by the last newsletter they are going to be fixed on the next update.