falcon_120

So Microsoft discontinue its OS and DCS should provide endless support? Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I know what it is and i already said i like it is there and simulated. But you missed my point, sometimes i dont have the time, It is not 20 seconds for sure, at least not if you dont train which most of us cant, and its does not mind cause its not only about this procedure, but about all realistic procedures, for example coupled with a cold start and full ins alingment. If i had to do that everytime my 20 min daily session would consist on 3 minutes of flying, 17 of setting everything correctly. Luckily for that we have options like a hot start jet. This is the same, it would be nice to have as an option in the option menu (at least for SP). Again, its not that i want a game, i like dcs modules for its complexity and simulation, its just that RL gets in the way and some compromises for people with less time should always be considerd AS AN OPTION THAT DOES NOT TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM PLAYERS WHO WANT THE FULL EXPERIENCE ALL THE TIME.

Well yeah, I see your point, but in any case it would be nice to have some kind of not excesively complex over-g simulation, for example a jammed bomb rack, or a bomb directly falling off the wing if you made a sustained 9g missile evasion (if that is even possible, dont want to invent something is not real). Jammed rack would be easy to implement I guess.

As I've said in many ocassions: 1-I love that it is there, because sometimes I have the mood, energy and time to make the whole package (true simulation, cold start, ins alignment.... ) 2-I hate that I don't have the option to turn it off because I have a Real life and sometimes I simply don't have the mood or time to do it, I simply don't have enough time in a day to fly more than 20/25 min. 3-What bothers me more than point 2, is those of the realism, so afraid that introducing certain options allowing for different playstyles would turn DCS into Ace combat 7, screaming that out loud like we are all sinners by suggesting "gamey mechanics" , which is simply not true and also not a factor to DCS search of realism for many many reasons that ED have always shown. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

So are we calling illogical putting the radar on the left DDI as most other fighters? o_o o_o

And it is normal it's like this, cause electronic attacks systems can turn an expensive fighter useless making it effectively blind. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yeah, I cant think of other reason why it behaves ok in the right DDI but not so on the left.

It does not work for me in the store page on the left DDI. For example, A2G mode, flir on the right MDI, store page on the left. If I understand it right, SCS left should call the A2G radar because the store page cannot accept priority, it does not. It however works on the right DDi if i put the store page on that side (SCS right) Maybe a bug? Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Are all of them already in game? I do not recall being able to open the RDR ATTK Page from the SCS, only the AZ/EL page.

So does now have range gate? So if you select 20 nm it will automatically pick the first detected bandit inside 20 miles? Before the major problem always was that it had a huge tendency to pick the longest target 80 miles out while never acquiring the bandit hot on you at 10 nm coming really fast.

I wonder if they dynamic we see in the video against SAM, will be also effective against airbone radars tracking you, as well as active missiles (amraams, phoenix,r77...)

I'm very curious of the implications the new dynamic will bring to the game (making your radar not usable for some moments), and specially how that will work against other systems, like missiles or other aircrafts.

Omg.... [emoji52][emoji52][emoji1787] Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Of course +1. First the team is focused on Clouds but this could be an interesting next step.

This is quite quite wrong, or my calculus subjects during my engineering degree were incorrect

Have you tried increasing gamma a bit, in the option menu?

I think the current system is not bad, just need some more polishing to account for other variables, more subtle as you go past 5 miles, and even more in the case of ground units with camouflage. Having the experienced the worst of both worlds (Remember when it was close to impossible to keep track of a wwii fighter past 1 mile even if you were looking for it) I prefer this for the time being. The 20 nm spotting should be easy to tune down in an iterative process and until a more complex system is introduced. In the end I think most of us agree about what distance are "real" for spotting fighter size targets 5-8nm ish with rare exceptions that decrease or increase this distance. It is just not easy to get this right. Wouldn't like to be the person that needs to accomplish it.

Old Rift s User here, got my G2 some weeks ago. I'd totally recomend it. The visual clarity is on another league, it will let you enjoy DCS at a different level, and get much more efficient in combat, spotting is incredibly easy now, and and loving again dogfights because of that. Things to consider, I'm a i7 8700k, 1080ti, 32gb 2133 corsair RAM user, so no high end user, this meant that i had to fight some days to get everything smooth, but i can say i'm at a point now that i'm incredibly satisfied. You will need to go through all the topics here to gain some FPS here and there (Disable HPET, disable nvidia overlay, XBOX gaming, reduce some DCS setting, disable W10 virtual monitor preallocation, making sure motion vector is on, etc, etc...) but eventually the end result is fantastic. Regarding tracking, I'm not surte that applies to DCS since you dont use the controllers, at least no problem so far here.

It shouldn't be necessarily so, or that is my impression. First big disclaimer, no idea on how the real system works. Having said that, what you indicate @Fri13 would be correct if what you are seeing on the MFD is the analogue signal, instead of a digital track. The target track generated by the computer after the processing is done, could perfectly be updated based on the aircraft movement, so the bricks are getting closer cause you are flying towards them, and the sweep animation is just to let you know where your radar is looking now. I doubt the movement you are observing is the real target movement since the speed is too low. But let see if what i just described make sense or if someone with deeper knowledge could clarify. EDIT: Looking at the footage again, it might also be that we are seeing the delay of the Radar computer between the sweep and the time it take to update the track, because otherwise it would be instantaneous more kinda an analogue display showing true non processed returns.

Same here, never happened with any oculus device (cv1 and rift s) Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yep, fair enough.

Not that I don't see your point, but the OP has presented a valid request, unless I'm missing something that does not advise taking that route I don't understand the opposition. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yeah but I guess the question of the OP is rather about which is the unit on blue designated to provide the same capabilities as the TOR does on red? If that is the question, the answer is none. I can't think of a blue unit able to provide the same type of features the TOR provides. On the second point though, there are some servers who use scripting to make IADs more intelligent, or they are directly managed by humans. Other than that a revisit of the IADS capabilities and AI has been in the wish list of ED for a long time (as better ATC, better clouds -coming soon!-, Dynamic campaign...) It is a long process but sometime along the road i'm sure they will do it.

That is like that for all modules, how is that a bug? Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

But just a question from my ignorance of the topic... even though there is not true antirunway ordinance, currently mk84 bombs and the like do make runway damage right? I mean they cause players to crash under certain conditions when going over a impact point or not?