Jump to content

Bozon

Members
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bozon

  • Birthday 01/01/1975

Personal Information

  • Location
    Northern hemisphere, the Mediterranean, go all the way to the east and ask there

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Rick50 Interceptors don’t loiter - this is why they “intercept”, are fast, and use long range weapons. Thus a single interceptors element can provide defensive cover to a very large air space. If instead you rely on a very slow platform (a heli is as good as stationary w.r.t an incoming enemy jet) armed with short range missiles then you need a lot of them in order to provide cover along the front. You may as well put the missiles on ground vehicles and they will be a-lot more effective - 100% loiter time and can fire upwards. Attack helicopters are not like tanks. Modern tanks in (some) western armies are now equipped with active defenses that are capable of shooting down incoming missiles. With tanks it was always a back and forth game between their defensive capabilities and new anti-tank weapons. Until recently the pendulum shifted towards anti-tank, now it shifts back. Russian tanks in the Ukraine are bad examples to learn from. Attack helis started out in Vietnam as fire support platform for the slick Hueys and ground troops around the LZ, then evolved into anti-armor platforms, anti-insurgency, etc. The threats to them only increase, and there is very little improvement to their defense. They rely more and more on staying back at a distance and/or hiding behind cover. A stand-off style requires a man in the cockpit less and less as technology advances. These days most of their missions can be done by other platforms, and sometimes even better. The change is slow, because they are still useful in specific situations, and generally army/airforce branches that are run by pilots do not like to make themselves redundant by going “un-manned”. Big organizations are slow to change and there is a lot of intrigue involved. It is not like attack helis are useless - they are already available, thus they will not be suddenly grounded, but instead fade out slowly.
  2. The age of attack helicopters is over. Drones & loiter munitions will replace it for 90% of their current tasks. There are only a few very specialized missions where attack helicopters have an advantage and maybe a few will be kept for those purposes. Other then that, they are just too vulnerable and too expensive. Equipping them with AA missiles will just make them even worse at their primary mission. They can’t loiter 24h to protect the ground forces, and too slow to intercept fighters, thus their ability to engage with heat seekers will be based on random chance. Unlike ground units, helicopters can’t shoot missiles straight up, thus they can’t engage fighters flying above them. Equipping scouts with 1-2 manpad sized AA missiles may make a bit more sense, but this will be to engage other helicopters or large drones, or low flying jets if very very lucky. However scout helis are also on their way out of modern armies.
  3. Modern combat is about the weapon systems and much less the platform - unless the platform brings stealth into the game. An F-4 with F-18’s radar and AMRAAMs will probably do fine vs. the other modern modules we have. Heck, if you can make a Sopwith Camel carry pulse doppler radar, AMRAAMS, and link16 it will be get kills on gen-4 fighters. Having said that, I am usually against the latest and greatest variants that represent obsolete platforms past their prime, kept as 2nd or 3rd rate fighters. Even the F-4G can be considered as such. I much rather have older models that represent the type at its contemporary prime, especially if we have its historical arch-rivals to pair with it. If after the naval phantoms HB will be scratching their heads and can’t find what to do next, then sure, why not a modernized variant.
  4. In the Israeli air force Mirage IIIc R530 were considered pretty useless. They flew with it for a short period, and as far as I know only got a one kill on an unsuspecting Mig-19 from dead 6 chase position. It was rarely carried in operations, if at all.
  5. Wow the details are amazing. In the last image there is even the stitch in the cloth that covers the ears. The facial hair looks very real even on close up. Two thumbs up
  6. I quite enjoy the N.20 server, though it has very low population during my hours. My preferred server. Unlike 4YA, the N.20 server has Mosquitoes on the continent, and that saves me 20 minutes of flying across the channel - while that is immersive, it is a very high toll on my limited time. The channel map is great and there the channel is narrower, so south England fields are more relevant. I hope more servers will use this map.
  7. I finally installed Reshade yesterday and fooled around with its settings. At least regarding ground details at distance the achievable effects are very significant. I have not yet tested this on the spotting of distant planes though, so I can’t asses if this helps regarding the topics of our discussion - the initial tests are promising though.
  8. I don’t think it is “wrong” in the sense of physics - the end result is “wrong” after it is rendered and displayed on a pixelated screen. Let me explain the way I understand this effect - it is not the absolute truth! Just my educated guess, so grab a fistful of salt. First, there is the LOD of the 3D model - this is the number of polygons that it is made of. For each polygon a surface brightness is calculated, this may include directed light sources (e.g., Sun) and ambient light. Directed light can produce bright surfaces usually the top side of the plane, while surfaces not in direct sunlight (belly, underwing) can be much darker. There are absorption, reflection and scattering effects that are properties of the surface, but lets not get into this right now. Now these surfaces are projected onto the screen pixels. If the pixels can resolve the LOD of the 3D model you will get a collection of dark and bright pixels, something that will tend to stand out to the eye. However, if the angular size means that multiple surfaces are projected onto the same screen pixel, the end result will be some weighted average of color and brightness (the exact result depends on methods used) - if you mix bright surfaces with dark ones, they will tend to cancel out and you will end with something similar to the brightness due to just ambient light. In addition, if the 3D shape fills only a fraction of a screen pixel, this pixel’s brightness will include some weighing with the background - if this contrast is not enhanced by various methods, this effectively chips away pieces of the final visible pixel size of the target. The case of targets at tiny angular size on the scale of a single pixel is a bit different. To save resources, the LOD of the 3D model is taken down to some minimum. Even with the smaller number of larger surfaces they are still projected onto a single pixel. The end brightness of this pixel will depend mostly on the various methods in use that mix the multiple projections. It seem this often results in a pixel darker than the background. I don’t know why, maybe “sharpen” effects create dark edges and the pixel is full of edges projected onto it? The end result is that you spot a “dot” size plane, maybe a couple of pixels. If you zoom-in or get closer, object surfaces start to get resolved by the pixels, but just barely so - the mixing yields an average surface brightness that is near the ambient light brightness and the target “fades” - zoom in more and more surfaces are resolved by the pixels and this effect disappears. Zoom out and the target goes back to “dot” stage and is visible again. So my take on the “disappearing” planes is that it is not due to wrong physics - it is due to rendering effects that are also not wrong. These are just the limits of pixelated screen images, and as such solutions will also be arbitrary in order to achieve a desired user experience rather than some simulated (non existing) physics. I apologize for the length.
  9. You come off really pompous and trying to show that you are better than everyone else. This is not how real life works, even if you have above average vision - spotting planes has more to do with the ability to focus your eyes to infinity with no object to focus them on, and the ability to spot a tiny movement - these are two abilities that are different between different people and not directly related to eye sight acuteness. I don’t want a sim to simulate MY vision ability, as much as I don’t want it to simulate MY tolerance to G - there is a reason I am not a fighter pilot. I expect a sim to simulate these abilities of a good pilot and allow me to experience it. The specific issue with DCS is not the dot spotting, but what happens when the target size is slightly more than a single pixel. The rendering calculates a surface brightness than is very near the background and the target blends into the background- if at this point you zoom OUT a bit to reduce the target back to a pixel, it becomes visible again. The magnitude of this effect depends on your graphic settings, which will be different depending on personal preference and what you card is capable of running. In addition many people seem to use Reshade or other enhancer programs, and these too have infinite options. This is why different people report different experiences. I understand why ED do not want to go down this dirty rabbit hole. Just for the record, I have some experience in light aircraft, helicopters, and up to F-16D backseat, plus some years as GCI. I know how distant planes look like in the air, and the typical distances at which fighter pilots with far better eyes than mine report visual contact with other fighters.
  10. There is an issue with LOD. I use zoom OUT to spot better opposite of what I’d expect. Distant planes that appear as dots disappear when I zoom in on them when they transition from a single pixel to a minimal shape of a few pixels. Most times it turns into a blurry transparent shape that is extremely difficult to separate from the background. When I get close enough or zoom way in, the target size gets bigger and it “reappears” as a solid shape. Some say that image “enhancers” such as reshade that remove the blurry haze invthe DCS sky makes this mid-range spotting easier. Perhaps it prevents from planes being rendered as transparent at very low LODs.
  11. DCS WWII will benefit a lot more from focusing on a given historical time slot than releasing random variants of famous warbirds from different theaters of operations. Since now we have a “late 1944” roster more or less (Spit & Mosquito are from 1943, but were still serving in large numbers), and the coming F4U Corsair will also fit this time slot - it is best to focus on that.
  12. The reason that trim indication matters IRL and why I was worried about the constant indicated nose-down trim was that this may be an indication that the center of gravity is too far back. The documents presented above suggest that in the case of the Mosquito FB.VI this is by design, for some reason. Otherwise, it's true that once trimmed, the indicated trim does not matter and trim changes are relative to the current trim state - whatever it happens to be.
  13. @grafspee, the overall practical behavior of the elevator trim is pretty good. The issue is that all the trim adjustments range is happening within a band that is quite deep in the “nose down” range, while we never reach the “nose up” side of the trim range. The elevators of planes are usually designed to be “neutral” trim around some typical configuration/condition. The incident angle at which the horizontal tail is installed is part of this design. It is not a big issue since as I said, the trim does its job effectively - it is just odd, and takes a few more seconds to set up the plane for takeoff when starting cold, and we were wondering if this is how it is/was in the real plane.
  14. I find it odd that I need so much forward trim in the Mosquito. Planes are usually designed to cruise with the elevator trim at near neutral position. This is of course dependent on the current weight distribution and in the Mosquito the bay bombs shift the center of gravity backwards which requires nose down trim to compensate. During takeoff you want the tail to rise by itself, so trim is nose down. However, I can’t find any situation where I trim past the “neutral” center position into the “nose up” side. Maybe during landing when I am too busy to notice? The practical state of Mosquito trimmers is pretty good right now and I can trim her well enough to hop over and play navigator without going off course or lawndarting. So kudos ED
  15. The Lynx video was sick! I’d buy a Lynx if it is ever available in DCS.
×
×
  • Create New...