Bushmanni

In MP you occasionally have some 0.5-3 second freezes that the simulation engine extrapolates over and somehow it reads the stick inputs during the freeze. So you can unintentionally pull the stick past the G limit while the game is frozen and when the freeze is over you suddenly have a wingless plane.

Congratulations for 104th for the victory! Thanks for all participants for good fights and 51st and other organizers for their hard work to make this event happen. Besides being excellent learning opportunity it has been tremendous fun at the same time. I hope we get to see the acmis from the last matches sometime soon.

Congrats to team China, good fight. Well disciplined flying.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2862169&postcount=6 One-circle flow is the same as nose-to-nose flow and two circle flow is same as nose-to-tail flow. One-circle and two-circle can be a bit misleading names for these flows although people like to use them more despite that.

I can see everything else except match 16 folder is empty.

This desync is problematic from missile evasion standpoint as you can't reliably tell if the missile is spoofed or not. Sometimes you think the missile is spoofed but it still miraculously hits you and sometimes you think you are dead for sure but it just collides with you harmlessly.

SF vs. China match will be on Thursday 1500z. I think it would be best if 51st host the match.

Thanks for TAW and 51st for great matches yesterday. We had a tough fight with 51st pushing us close to our limit but fortunately we got our act together. Regardless of the outcome we would have enjoyed the match a lot, the win was a cherry on the top.

I think so, when using Edge. Firefox shows match 11 as the latest.

Don't have Chrome but Edge did show the lates ACMIs.

Latest ACMIs I can see are from match 11.

Maybe you could add "room number" to intercom. Zero would be your your own aircraft (default) and the rest would be rooms where each attendee would hear each other. So you could have room 1 for AWACS and room two for ATC etc.

With rigid schedule we would need to take lot more time than we would prefer as one round can last 45min and hence one match 2.5h at worst and you would have to build your schedule with that in mind (essentially one match per day). On the other hand one match is unlikely to take that much time and can be over in as soon as little over 1h in which case one more match is possible. What we could do is schedule to take advantage of the quickly finished matches ie. schedule a possible match which is flown if the previous is a quick one (under 1.5h) or flown at a later time if the previous one takes too long to finish. It's kind of a hassle but would use the time available in a more efficient manner overall even if some teams might end up waiting for nothing.

If SF and 104th fly the match on Saturday, the loser of that match would need to fly possibly three (if the team manages to get to final) matches in a day on Saturday or Sunday for the tournament to be finished on Sunday. In any case you need three tiered schedule for that day as the matches can't be flown simultaneously. I don't see that as a realistic option. I think we need to fly the SF vs 104th on a weekday (doesn't seem possible) or plan for finishing the tournament after next Sunday.

BFM is pretty well known and explored area at least in theory, there's essentially no real secrets to it. It is after all 100 years old art already. The only real secrets regarding BFM are the real performance capabilities of fighters and weapons doing it. The theory of how to fight against a particular kind of fighter is well know, the trick is to not let the other guy know exactly what kind of fighter he's going to be facing. Although in modern times you can probably get a pretty good estimate with simulation.

104th vs 373vFS folder seems empty to me.

Can TAW2 fly against us today? If it's possible and if we can also fly 5 matches on some of the flying days (or one match on weekday) we can finish this tournament in two weekends which would be nice. edit: Just realized speeding up the schedule wont be that simple, but we'd still like to fly today if possible.

You can also use partial pre-rendering in real time rendering to speed up things. The more dynamic your scenario, the less pre-rendering tricks you can use. For example if the lights you have in the scenario are static, you can pre-render the shadows and lightfields and add them as texture layers (used already in Quake). Same applies to the particle effects, ie. static lighting allows preshading of the particles so the effect looks more realistic with essentially zero additional computation (just compare Call of Duty explosions vs. DCS explosions). DCS uses pre-rendered ambient occlusion which means the shadows generated by blue sky light are pre-rendered and baked into the textures. As the sky lights up objects pretty much evenly from every direction, it looks pretty realistic even if the object rotates to different orientation. This looks the best in overcast weather as the lighting is most even in this weather. Although DCS uses whatever tricks there are to improve graphics, the dynamic nature of the environment in DCS prevents the use of pretty much all the optimization tricks you see used in most other games.

Most modern radars use slotted array antenna, not parabolic dish. Here's a F-16 radar antenna for example. There's single transceiver module powering the antenna and the radar energy is routed to each individual hole through wave guide tubes. In essence slotted array uses interference patterns like AESA or PESA to shape the beam but there's no phase control for each slot so the beam shape and direction is fixed. In PESA each slot has phase controller that can alter the phase of the signal emitted or received from that individual slot to direct the beam but the antenna is still powered by single transceiver. In AESA each slot has it's own transceiver module that can alter both phase and amplitude of the single slot. AESA transceiver module can alter the phase much faster and hence can steer the beam faster and this is simply due to the physical properties of the materials used in AESA modules and PESA phase controllers. Individual slot amplitude control also allows more sophisticated methods for beam shaping that have lower sidelobes and hence less clutter and thus better detection sensitivity. Look down/Shoot down capability is tied to Doppler processing. Without it you can't distinguish static ground clutter from moving targets.

It's also in English and several other European languages. You just need to find the language selection button.

Giving commands to AI units causes random server crashes, on average about once in a hour. If this would not happen, CA would be actually usable in this way livening up missions quite a bit. But now it can be only used for missions that are restarted soon after start (training) so that those crashes don't matter much. This is the main problem in CA. I have Steel Beasts for offline tank simming but the tip could provide some fun in MP coop though. Thanks.

I don't consider payware campaigns incredible stuff knowing the state of the engine and constant problems appearing in it. I might be wrong but that's the impression I have got playing DCS since 2009 and I'm not paying money to see what they offer until ED does something visible to it's habit of not paying attention to mission creators and keeping bugs from breaking old missions. I'm pretty sure payware missions are more polished and maintained than the free stuff but I doubt they can be somehow immune to bugs and broken features in the sim engine. So in the meantime I'm sticking with PvP. And I really hope CA would be made functional in PvP so A2G planes would have more meaningful work to do. Reputation is worth money even if only indirectly. My main problem isn't just the bugs itself but that new bugs keep constantly appearing and if the bug is not immediately obvious to casual user it could be ignored for years despite core users periodically making noise of it. Now I don't think the actual reason behind it is "DCS being under development" as it is just a lame excuse (or ED needs better project management). I don't care reasons for this anyways but actual solutions. Why do we have a lofting algo in AIM-120 that only causes reduction in its range? It's obviously unfinished but left in the game despite that causing more unrealistic reduction in the capabilities than not having working lofting at all. Or the recent network data extrapolation algo that shows negative AoA in turn for planes causing serious gameplay issues. Why put something like that in the game in the first place until it's working? And even worst leaving some of the problems like these in the sim for years just because something else needs to be done in the meantime. Something is wrong with how ED develops DCS. It's not like every software suffers from the same problems, even more complicated ones than DCS. Bugs occur in every software but they usually get fixed in a reasonable time instead of being neglected. DCS gets it's bugs fixed but some of them linger on as ED doesn't consider them as issues like the users do. Renovation is a bad example for software development. We can easily use the old working version until the new one is finished and working instead of having to suffer through things being taken apart and being non-functional. Some squadrons do this internally but for me who plays with the general online community deciding for a common version for everybody isn't a realistic option but something that ED needs to do. And if you want to use some new module you need to update anyway despite some broken features coming with it.

Keeping things in working order could also be called finishing the features that are being developed before starting new ones. Granted it would take more time to do new stuff but at least people can enjoy the sim in the mean time. Unintentionally frustrating your clients is still frustrating your clients, they might just be less angry about it if it's accident but knowledge of that still doesn't help them not get frustrated. If the fixes are intentionally not made might then again make them more angry. Besides I'm not demanding every little bug to be fixed before doing something new. But fixing bugs with major impact as they are found would be good. Keeping missions and existing features working should be a priority for ED simply from a reputation stand point as it has big impact on how people experience DCS in the long run.

While I impatiently wait for 2.5, Hornet etc. I'm still worried that I'm not going to enjoy them to their full potential as scripting engine and other gameplay affecting bugs are still in the game ruining the fun. Nice graphics and other "chrome" is important for luring in new people but if the gameplay is shallow and self repeating (ie. AI and missions) or even bugged you will quickly get bored or frustrated. Not fixing gameplay killing bugs for over a year because something is under development isn't explanation as something is always being developed. Having bugs in DCS due to new developments is understandable but having it broken most of the time isn't. What's the point of developing new stuff if it's going to work only for a short time anyway if at all. CA is one of the biggest blunders of ED so far. You can't use it in single player as AI will shoot you through trees but in MP it will cause server crashes and massive lag making it mostly unplayable in any form. Waste of development resources and selling empty promises if I may say. Screwing up mission designers is bad move for everyone as people who essentially work for free to make DCS more appealing get their hard work destroyed because of some new feature who knows when it's coming leaving everyone wondering what to make of the situation.

This is probably the final version of the SATAC mission. We tested the scripts by flying one round like a competition and everything worked as supposed to. I baked all the necessary options into the mission and re-saved it so you should be able to automatically get all the correct settings from the mission file when you have that option enabled. ("Use these options for all missions" is unselected.) All the host should need to do is set the server settings (export, event messages, etc.). SATAC 2016 mission.miz