What's with the crazy lofting of the 120's ?

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Sometimes, not always, it's like my missile goes full idiot.

 

Target is 10 miles away, below me, i fire while i already point my nose below him, and the missile goes off the rail like it wants to hit the moon .

 

Then halfway up there, it realizes it should go DOWN , but by then it has already overshot completely, and if it hasn't yet, it has depleted all it's energy doing this dumb manouvre.

 

Why ?

[IASGATG]

Terrible, terrible guidance.

[GGTharos]

Sometimes, not always, it's like my missile goes full idiot.

 

Target is 10 miles away, below me, i fire while i already point my nose below him, and the missile goes off the rail like it wants to hit the moon .

 

Then halfway up there, it realizes it should go DOWN , but by then it has already overshot completely, and if it hasn't yet, it has depleted all it's energy doing this dumb manouvre.

 

Why ?

 

Are you playing a mission created before 128?

[Maximus_Lazarus]

No , multiplayer.

[Beagle One]

No , multiplayer.

Terrible netcode combined with lag and a server going nuts...MP currently is not eally a good measurement of weapons performance and behavior or killrate.

[GGTharos]

No , multiplayer.

 

The question applies. Was the mission made before 128?

[Maximus_Lazarus]

You know what, i don't think so but am not sure.

 

It's the new "bison" mission on the 104th

[104th_Maverick]

It's the new "bison" mission on the 104th

 

Bison was made in 1.2.8 and is hosted on 1.2.8 Beta which is what Max is flying on.

 

The guidance is off on a few shots but as you pointed out Max its not every shot.

 

Provided your double tapping people inside of 10 miles you shouldn't really have a problem... If your not already double tapping then you should be, it increases your chances of success and more importantly ... staying alive!

 

Just firing one missile is to much of a gamble with the missile's still being under development. Even if they worked perfectly I would still double tap!

 

Have done since FC2 and its been working out for me pretty well ;)

[GGTharos]

Where do you see better netcode? I challenge you to show netcode that isn't 'terrible'.

 

Terrible netcode combined with lag and a server going nuts...MP currently is not eally a good measurement of weapons performance and behavior or killrate.

[GGTharos]

Thanks Mav, that helps me track down what's going on.

 

Pre-128 missions are missing a component in the mission file that can cause some pretty strange behaviors in missiles coming off the rail in 128.

 

 

;2092773']Bison was made in 1.2.8 and is hosted on 1.2.8 Beta which is what Max is flying on.

[Beagle One]

Where do you see better netcode? I challenge you to show netcode that isn't 'terrible'.

It's a problem of most multiplayer games that simulate more complex stuff. The problem is well known for a lot of games. Even in simpler games like ArmA seroes you can get away from guided missiles by moving rerratically and having high ping. I see units jump around a lot in DCS often switching positions +- 1000meters and more.

 

No wonder that missiles can't match that. Currently we only have to choice beetween rubberbanding or a netcode thats smooths out the rubberbanding by aproximation which lead to just smoother warping when the pro computed patch and the user input finaly are matchs after up to three seconds.

 

Moving at 900km/h thats makes a discrepancy of 750 meters and thats well enough to spoof off even the best guidance simulation. The probem is les noticable in calssical shotter gams du to the much slower speeds...but in DCS we often go supersonic to evade misils and that's not making it easier for the netcode.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Beagle One

[karambiatos]

Thanks Mav, that helps me track down what's going on.

so any way to fix that, or do mission makers have to remake the mission?

[GGTharos]

It's pretty noticeable in 'slow moving FPS'.

 

Moving at 900km/h thats makes a discrepancy of 750 meters and thats well enough to spoof off even the best guidance simulation. The probem is les noticable in calssical shotter gams du to the much slower speeds...but in DCS we often go supersonic to evade misils and that's not making it easier for the netcode.

[GGTharos]

If you want to do surgery on the mission yourself, yes, you can fix it. There might be a simpler way but I have not found it yet.

 

so any way to fix that, or do mission makers have to remake the mission?

[karambiatos]

Do you perhaps know what needs changing?

[GGTharos]

I use notepad++ :

 

Search for: (The \ are there because you must escape the [])

 

\["type"\] = "F-15C",

 

And replace with

 

["type"] = "F-15C",\n ["hardpoint_racks"] = true,

 

Include the commas, spaces, slashes, etc. as they are in the lines I posted here. The check that you didn't cause something like a double coma or pasted the new info into a static object - might cause the mission not to load.

 

 

Do you perhaps know what needs changing?

Edited June 16, 2014 by GGTharos

[karambiatos]

Thank you, but do i need to do that for every plane or is the f-15 the only fighter that's affected?

[GGTharos]

It's just the F-15.

[karambiatos]

Thank you again, but it seems if I make a new mission and leave the F-15 with no weapons on it (never even touch the loadouts), the ["hardpoint_racks"]=true line doesnt get added at all, but if i add a loudout save and then switch to the empty loadout the line is there.

Edited June 16, 2014 by karambiatos

[GGTharos]

You're welcome.

 

So empty F-15 fly without racks I guess :D

 

What you said up there gave me an idea, and I realized that to repair the missions you can basically open the mission in the editor, click on the plane, choose a DIFFERENT payload, then the payload you want, and then save the mission.

 

The correct line will be added and the strangeness that results from it will not happen any more.

 

I just tested that too.