LowRider88

I am all for having every single variant of the F-5/T-38 in DCS, and would make good use of them, all old variant or new.. From what you say the newer variants would be easy. But I am still convinced the F-5E-1 would be easy work to do. Just need to clean up the polygons and disable and move some shapes, scripts. I already tried to replace my F-5E-3 with the 3D for the F-5E-1, and disabled the RWR and reduced countermeasure counts. Just certain things are locked to me. Having the chaff/flare, RWR is definately cool. But I am just not into what if scenarios. And all the combat has been done with the F-5E11 as I understand it. I use the RWR for the DACT scenarios, but this scenario gets played out after a while. I like the F-5E-1 because when it fought, it had no countermeasures. It fought MiG-21MFs in some occasions, where the MiG-21MF may have had the RWR but the R-3S, while the F-5E-1 had the Aim-9J. So in this scenario, the F-5E-1 had the disadvantage of no RWR, but had a far better dogfighting missile. It didn't have chaff/flare, but didn't need it against the R-3S as much if the pilot was good at manuevering. It is so much more fun when planes are balanced but not because every single variable is the same between opponents. But because they have their own qualities that are so drastically different, but some how balance the playing field. This is something I want to experience on top of existing DACT scenarios.

I have different versions. I have the OCRed one which someone posted on this site, which is such a time saver for finding details. I have 1978, 1980, 1984, the weapons manual, can't remember which year. Too bad the weapons manual is not OCRed. So much harder to search. Did you pay for yours? If not, maybe you can share? I can share what I have. We can do a swap lol.

You're awesome Fri13 :thumbup: Very cool example research. Do you have a link to an original PDF? I will definitely be using these details to tweak my personal AI detection values, since that is the only thing that seems to be adjustable at the moment.

Great details and research. Makes it all the more interesting if you could steer in some cases and not in others.

I have found a way to force the AI to only see the F-5 within 3 nm, and am happy with the results. Too bad I cannot do the same for other planes because the MiG-21 is all locked up because apparently they got everything right the first time. So for the F-5, I am half way there to what I have read to be reality. Now I feel I am cheating when I play in the F-5 because I see the other F-5 way too early. Hope someone who actually knows something and has control to do something about this can help. Then I can get off this forum. Starting to remember why I avoided joining it for so long. Only a few cool people who are open minded and provide research and new ideas or solutions. And a horde of close minded, nit picky, others who don't provide solutions, and are hear only for the debate, to talk down to strangers, and super sensitive about change. Yeesh. If my company was like this, we would never get anything done.

Please excuse me if this suggestion has already been raised, or if it already possible to do. Is there a way the user can steer his parachute drop as they do in real life by pulling on strings? It would also be great if trackir worked during a parachute drop so users can look around as part of the steering.

+1!

No argument there. I completely agree. These variables do not apply to me. Who's crying? Seems a lot of other people on this forum are much more sensitive. I am not referring to 30 nm. The video poster is. Also don't have large screen. What does it matter? Why can't a fix cross cover different resolutions? Seen a post where someone did a great mod to provide consistency across resolutions with the imposters, only to have it made incompatible later.

Okay I am willing to listen to you again when you no longer talk down to me. So the quick fix does not fit everyone's needs. But if it works for some people, it seems it would be a good candidate for a option. If someone can tell me how to do this, then I don't care if they build it in as an official option or not. So long as I have access to it for my own non multiplayer, personal usage.

Are you a DCS developer? If not, don't care what you think anymore.

That is why I am suggesting it be an option to turn on and off. So users who want realism need to suffer for your multipler squad? Why do you even call it a sim?

Yes, I said please correct me if I am wrong. I did not say try to pin some stupid strawman concept on me so my request gets belittled and overlooked. Your usefulness in providing the background to me is starting wane with your holier than thou responses. I never raised any concern ab0ut the complex core scenario. For me if I can use the imposters.lua (for my own use, not multiplayer) to make objects less visible at distance, I don't give a rat's bung hole if things go from dot to popping wings in an instance. That's your global concern, not mine. So no, you are making it a global core issue. I just want a quick fix.

It seems to me you are trying ever so hard to pin some strawman concept on me. Things are 4 time larger than they should be from my experience, from my tests. You say people aren't asking to arbitrarily make objects bigger, but then say they are, using SharpeXB as an example. Which one is it? If other users are concerned about other visual scenarios, those are not scenarios I raised. So it seems you are strawmaning me by bringing them up. I have already stated my test, and the articles and books I am referencing. That is my area of concern. Thank you for all the extra details about the different circumstances. But so far you are just giving me historical debate rather than providing a solution to my concern.

Thanks Draconus for your feedback. I would just like to tweak for myself the visibility of the small fighters. I was expecting the F-5 head on to be visible in clear daylight conditions in 2 nm, but it appears in 10. Is the Imposters.lua still working? I tried to make changes here but saw no difference. Is it really a bad option? From what I read the imposters didn't work well with certain resolutions. Can the file not be updated to have different settings for different resolutions?

Thanks again for posting this diagram Fri13. I was curious what that red dotted line was and whether the "visible", "invisible" labels were with respect to it or the curved line. Had to find the online PDF and download it. Looks like it will be a great piece to read. http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

You are not correcting vocabulary but grammar. Anyway, you were the one who spoke of using the parallax effect for spotting. The 'complaint' is a wishlist suggestion for reducing object visibility from all angles for more realism in a product titled digital combat simulator. Head on and planform, as mentioned in the article I linked.

I did not say parallax does not exist. I am saying some people don't want to use parallax and instead ask for oversized objects at distance. It's not low kill ratio, but kill rate. So what is the reason for the low kill rate in Vietnam? Please read the book Clashes: https://www.amazon.ca/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-1972/dp/1591145198 It is as Fri13 mentioned. Hard to see MiG-21 head or tail on. MiG-21 totally reliant on GCI.

Thank you very much pmiceli for providing these details.

Then why have I seen posts of people complaining about not being able to see anything WVR? They asked to make things more visible. Yes, there are ways for people to see jets in different ways. It's been covered in this forum already. I in fact want to utilize these other ways rather than oversized targets. So this somehow makes it okay to render the plane 4 times larger at distance? I don't think you are fully comprehending my irrelevant anachronistic comparisons.

It still seems unrealistic to me. Unless I am flying an inter war biplane with telescope, I won't use it. I would rather be constrained by technology of my monitor and have a harder time than real life pilots, than simulate putting on binoculars in combat. I got trackir, so I just lean in to see the dash. I should not be able to lean in to the airspace.

Ahhhhhhh, Thank You for your research and open mindedness.

I don't think I understood half of your cool guy slang. Anyway, isn't there some forum policy about treating each other with respect? Who are you calling a noob? Because I am new to the forum? I've probably been playing DCS as long as you have, and sims much longer. You sound a bit touchy like the sensitive multiplayers I read about. Don't worry, if you don't want realism, I am asking for turn on/turn off options.

I would if I was concerned about that scenario, but I am not. I am concerned about the measurements in the light fighter article, which as I mentioned I tested. The dude also says they got radar help.

This is just a guy reading a subjective novel with conjecture about distances. When they talk about spotting the enemy planes, are they talking about an individual plane or the whole gaggle of them? A swarm would be much easier to spot. This doesn't help much for my concern about jet spotting or the details in the light fighter article with actual measurements.

Yes, that is my point about jet combat. Things move out in and out of visual range all the time, But the band-aid solution should not be to make things 4 times easier to spot, and unrealistically keep targets in visual range all the time like bi-plane fighting. What expectations do I have which are unrealistic? I am quoting an article that gives the visual ranges I am expecting. And not all jets left trails. F-4 and MiG-29 yes. F-5E and MiG-21 no.