DoorMouse

Chizh, the missiles have been on different models for a long while. Is there any expectation when everything will be on consistent model?

Yeah... It's because the modeling is poor In real life a hot flare moving away from the aircraft would pull the seeker head away from the target. (Let's presume a less modern missile without fancy ccm or multi spectrum sensors like an Aim9x) However in DCS, the ir missiles aren't locked on an IR signal, they are locked to a game entity and don't even bother to look at flares unless they dice roll comes up. There is likely some sort of additional math done if the seeker is in the FOV, in front of the aircraft, or is closer to the missile than the aircraft... Who knows. Net-net what it means is that flares that should be effective, if they do not get a positive dice roll, do not do anything. This is also why IR missiles cannot jump targets and are completely safe to shoot into merges (IN DCS) if you have a positive lock. It is impossible for them to pick up a second target once launched. Whatever the underlying code, the behavior is definitely strange and unrealistic. When you're doing that inverted maneuver it's exploiting some limitation or implementation of the game code, who knows what.

It's still very much just a dice roll, but it takes into account distance. The inverted flaring is.... Interesting. But hilarious, and unrealistic. It's very interesting it's so consistently defeating missiles. I'd venture the consistent ability to push negative G is some poor guidance implementation. Missiles used to have strange issues when going through zero degree axis values, so everything is on the table. Otherwise, it's likely a very crude implementation of the FOV of the seeker. Test it with the mig 21 who launches flares off the top. Or pull different directions. The whole missile implementation is just, bad across the board. But in this case it seems they just messed something up, because it wasn't in the change notes. Maybe something they edited for the new fog messed with the core IR code.

Flare cooling? DCS doesn't model any systems near sophisticated enough for that to be relevant Countermeasures are a dice roll. There is also a CCM dice roll to reject countermeasures. That's it. People have pulled the exact coefficients from the files previously. This is likely just they put the wrong values on the wrong weapons somehow.

I can confirm the Tomcat's animation for the GLOC is broken. I thought it was just the way the new DCS GLOC effect worked but then I tried it in the F16. The Viper still has tunnel vision and a much more gradual visual indicator that its happening. The Tomcat goes grey slowly and then instantly blacks out no tunnel vision. Its definitely not consistent with the way other aircraft experience it anymore.

That it categorically false. 'The human eye's resolution is estimated to be around 576 megapixels.' The zoom function in the game, even if you had 8k resolution VR per eye, would still pale in comparison to the eyes ability to see.

The human eye has better than 1080, 4k vision. The zoom is if anything the closest to your eyes actual ability to see, the default view would be like 20/200. The DCS pilot would be medically barred from flight status.

It's all going to be unrealistic, and it will be as close as possible to realism if you can mimic the actual capabilities. That unfortunately means things like, making aircraft spotable at realistic distances. If ED wanted to go a step further you would need to deal with geometry, lighting, and contrast. You can't accomplish realism with straight rendering the model, you need an aid.

Its hard to replicate the resolution capabilities of a 20/20 mk1 Eyeball. They could put aircraft models in, but scale them up slightly, or they need to make black dots which are visible at 2-3 miles. Maybe they could greyscale the color of the aircraft depending on angle, lighting, etc.... but thats a whole bit of code to develop.

I had an aim120 last week make a 16g turn at mach 3 to correct 40 degrees to a target that I was tracking for 40 miles in TWS the entire way to Pitbull. Working as intended thread closed.

Fixing the Phoenix would require ED finishing their work on the aim-120 and new API that has been in development for.... Checks notes.... Four years? So. Nearly almost not finished

@Gareth Barry @Katsu The test configuration was significantly lightened - Yes they never fired it... and their data is about as good as anyone here can ask for. As much as I personally would love the AIM-54 in game to be better. I think the Kinematics are probably pretty close... The Guidance is a major culprit of the poor performance, id wager. hey have a couple charts for performance. One is 45kft Mach 1.2 45 degree launch. The other is 45,000ft Mach 2 launch. Fire up the mission editor and test it, post tacviews. I'll give that a shot later. null 171793main_fs-093-dfrc.pdf

The NASA model is significantly modified and lighter. The paper they published details some of the changes they made

How can this possibly be the case.... there must be something lost in translation. It is not working at all for a large number of VR users. On the spectrum of happy, where is "feature doesn't exist"?

I can't hear the afterburner sounds while in the cockpit- i'll have to try that. It was really noticeable. I thought my throttles weren't working and had to check my instruments/ask someone else to see if the burners were on.