Jump to content

Radar functions


YoYo

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, MYSE1234 said:

I'm pretty sure the Viggen's radar overperform a lot when it comes to mapping the ground, and ground vehicles. To me the video released yesterday of the F1's ground radar in DCS looks closer to what is seen in real videos of the Viggen's radar.

There are two more bits showing the radar later in the video, other than the first one that is time stamped.
(First part is showing the island of Gotland from the north, and part of northern Öland, flying south. The later two parts is of the Gdańsk Bay from two slightly different views from the north(east).)

 

Ok, so if we talk about Cyrano IV, what is his the main functions in A2G mode? Only anti-collision warning-avoidance radar (so ground mapping only)?

Webmaster of http://www.yoyosims.pl

Yoyosimsbanner.gif

Win 10 64, i9-13900 KF, RTX  4090 24Gb OC, RAM 64Gb Corsair Vengeance LED OC@3600MHz,, 3xSSD+3xSSD M.2 NVMe, Predator XB271HU res.2560x1440 27'' G-sync, Sound Blaster Z + 5.1, TiR5, [MSFS, P3Dv5, DCS, RoF, Condor2, IL-2 CoD/BoX] VR fly only: Meta Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, YoYo said:

Ok, so if we talk about Cyrano IV, what is his the main functions in A2G mode? Only anti-collision warning-avoidance radar (so ground mapping only)?

yup, thats it for the CE

12 hours ago, Vatikus said:

I hope there will be better CRT display simulation as currently looking at the video and screenshots, lack of it makes it feel too cartoonish ...

It's a very good representation of the actual screen.  Thats all I'm going to say about that.

  • Like 1

VF-2 Bounty Hunters

 

https://www.csg-1.com/

DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord:

https://discord.gg/6bbthxk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, turkeydriver said:

yup, thats it for the CE

It's a very good representation of the actual screen.  Thats all I'm going to say about that.

Not trying to contradict you and I am not sure if it is due to video encoding or other youtube wizardry/messing up.... but compering to this:


The clutter looks quite digital, Streight cut and same strength lacking any bloom/glow or fall off...  

Again, this could be due to WIP status of the radar or Videos encoding issues.
image.pngimage.pngnull

About the nature of the simulation itself I will refrain from commenting till I get my hands on it 🙂


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Not trying to contradict you and I am not sure if it is due to video encoding or other youtube wizardry/messing up.... but compering to this:


The clutter looks quite digital, Streight cut and same strength lacking any bloom/glow or fall off...  

Again, this could be due to WIP status of the radar or Videos encoding issues.
image.pngimage.pngnull

About the nature of the simulation itself I will refrain from commenting till I get my hands on it 🙂

 

I think so too. The Mig-21s radar, as it is implemented in DCS, seems closer to the real deal color- and grading-wise, judging from the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we've seen is probably just a first implementation, we're commenting here like it were already a fully finished module and it's not even released yet.

A friend of mine, who used to be Mirage F1 mechanic in the Air Force, told me he knows the radar (from the simulator, you cannot switch it on while on the ground unless you want to deep fry ground crews 😁) and the RedKite's video looked mostly quite spot on to him.

  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 7:08 AM, FoxAlfa said:

Not trying to contradict you and I am not sure if it is due to video encoding or other youtube wizardry/messing up.... but compering to this:


The clutter looks quite digital, Streight cut and same strength lacking any bloom/glow or fall off...  

Again, this could be due to WIP status of the radar or Videos encoding issues.
image.pngimage.pngnull

About the nature of the simulation itself I will refrain from commenting till I get my hands on it 🙂

 

What we need to acknowledge is the old video has an overall yellowish tint that tarnishes the fidelity of the image.  Aerges is making the Spanish F1CE and F1M.  THe M has a green screen and the older C models have a lighter CRT more akin to 70s fighters that is susceptible to burn in and a bit more "blur" from the CRT drawing the scan.  I will say the F1C should be a bit more yellow instead of modern MFD greenscreens that are NVG compatible.  Clutter needs some polish, but I like the mode and scan representation. 


Edited by turkeydriver
  • Like 4

VF-2 Bounty Hunters

 

https://www.csg-1.com/

DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord:

https://discord.gg/6bbthxk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 12:35 PM, turkeydriver said:

What we need to acknowledge is the old video has an overall yellowish tint that tarnishes the fidelity of the image.  Aerges is making the Spanish F1CE and F1M.  THe M has a green screen and the older C models have a lighter CRT more akin to 70s fighters that is susceptible to burn in and a bit more "blur" from the CRT drawing the scan.  I will say the F1C should be a bit more yellow instead of modern MFD greenscreens that are NVG compatible.  Clutter needs some polish, but I like the mode and scan representation. 

 

The real question is how the actual clutter is modeled. Is it dynamic like the m2k radar? Or is it basically a texture applied to the screen, cuz actual clutter depends alot on things like altitude and terrain. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

Looks good to me, and certainly good considering the plane isnt even in Early Access yet. This clutter effect will do nicely until/if they get around to remodeling it.

IMO if its just an effect, thats pretty well below the bar for an FF module, I mean if thats the case it will likely be more effective than the RDI which was certainly not the case IRL. But who knows at this point, I guess we will find out on release.

 

Also someone tested the R550 in game on different platform and apparently its limited all aspect which it never was IRL, so thats also troubling.

 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean if thats the case it will likely be more effective than the RDI which was certainly not the case IRL. But who knows at this point, I guess we will find out on release.

I have notrouble with fine-tuning those effects during early acces.

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Also someone tested the R550 in game on different platform and apparently its limited all aspect which it never was IRL, so thats also troubling.

Magic 2 is all aspect, Magic 1 shouldn't be.

  • Like 2

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I have notrouble with fine-tuning those effects during early acces.

Magic 2 is all aspect, Magic 1 shouldn't be.

So far in testing it patched onto a mig21 it works like the R60M with more range/maneuverability, which it shouldn't (seeker wise)


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

So far in testing it patched onto a mig21 it works like the R60M with more range/maneuverability, which it shouldn't (seeker wise)

 

yeah I tested it too, its seeker is getting frontal locks at about 1.5-1nm
But this is a minor tweak done with 1 line of code, considering the plane isnt out yet I dont think its too high on the priority list.
and as for the radar I wont come to any conclusions on the 30 seconds of video we've seen. its a first iteration and even so we are definitely not seeing the full picture. The RDI Simulation is miles above everything else in this game and it would be a bit unfair to compare an unreleased module's radar to the longest running FF gen4 jet that has had years and numerous iterations of its radar all compiling into the simulation of the RDI that we have today.
and as for the other radars in the game they're all pretty bad if you look at them. especially contemporary radars like the MiG-21's, F-5's, and viggens which are hilariously overperforming.


Edited by Get_Lo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

So far in testing it patched onto a mig21 it works like the R60M with more range/maneuverability, which it shouldn't (seeker wise)

 

5 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

yeah I tested it too, its seeker is getting frontal locks at about 1.5-1nm
But this is a minor tweak done with 1 line of code, considering the plane isnt out yet I dont think its too high on the priority list.
and as for the radar I wont come to any conclusions on the 30 seconds of video we've seen. its a first iteration and even so we are definitely not seeing the full picture. The RDI Simulation is miles above everything else in this game and it would be a bit unfair to compare an unreleased module's radar to the longest running FF gen4 jet that has had years and numerous iterations of its radar all compiling into the simulation of the RDI that we have today.
and as for the other radars in the game they're all pretty bad if you look at them. especially contemporary radars like the MiG-21's, F-5's, and viggens which are hilariously overperforming.

No idea what the missile thing is about, as @Bremspropeller statet, R550 (Magic 2 is all aspect). Or I am missing the point.

Every radar in DCS will always either under-perform or over-perform.
Just a small example why that is the case:

TOR radar is made for ground mapping, hence the name GMR. Nevertheless it could be used for air to air STT, with different bar and azimuth settings.
In Holloman on a good day you could see some targets almost up to 60 miles, in german air that was a lot less, up to 30 max if I recall it.
DCS is not taking any condition of the air into account afaik.

Other story: you even have massive differences between AC that are the same, say a squadron of F-15C in the same software suite.
Some radars are not working at all, some always have false tracks, some work very good. So in RL you also have over- and under-performing radars. 
In DCS it is just uniform and in perfect conditions. That might change in some 10 years or more, but for now I think it is as good as can be made with performance impact etc.

I also think the Viggen radar is over performing getting ground returns of units vs. static objects vs. terrain features of the map, but I also think that is currently a limitation of what is doable and that might change in future. I wouldn't use the word hilariously though. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

 

No idea what the missile thing is about, as @Bremspropeller statet, R550 (Magic 2 is all aspect). Or I am missing the point.

Every radar in DCS will always either under-perform or over-perform.
Just a small example why that is the case:

TOR radar is made for ground mapping, hence the name GMR. Nevertheless it could be used for air to air STT, with different bar and azimuth settings.
In Holloman on a good day you could see some targets almost up to 60 miles, in german air that was a lot less, up to 30 max if I recall it.
DCS is not taking any condition of the air into account afaik.

Other story: you even have massive differences between AC that are the same, say a squadron of F-15C in the same software suite.
Some radars are not working at all, some always have false tracks, some work very good. So in RL you also have over- and under-performing radars. 
In DCS it is just uniform and in perfect conditions. That might change in some 10 years or more, but for now I think it is as good as can be made with performance impact etc.

I also think the Viggen radar is over performing getting ground returns of units vs. static objects vs. terrain features of the map, but I also think that is currently a limitation of what is doable and that might change in future. I wouldn't use the word hilariously though. 

yeah the viggen ground unit finding is what I had in mind, but when I put a tank inside a hangar and then detect the tank in my viggen from 100km away I do find that "hilarious"
as for the 21 and F5 they just have poor pulse radar simulation that allows for target detection at far too low of altitudes and ranges. not quite as broken as the Viggen's heart beat sensor radar though.
And as for your example on the variance of performance between radars of the same type, I always think that our radars in DCS should be working to the maximum of their design criteria. but without sacrificing realism such as ground clutter or weather interference.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bananabrai said:


Other story: you even have massive differences between AC that are the same, say a squadron of F-15C in the same software suite.
 

The book Harrier 809 describes the massive variation in radar returns from different Sea Harrier airframes…. Apparently the airframes that had liberal / recent applications of WD40 anti-corrosion spray lit radar screens up like a Christmas tree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

 

No idea what the missile thing is about, as @Bremspropeller statet, R550 (Magic 2 is all aspect). Or I am missing the point.


Every radar in DCS will always either under-perform or over-perform.
Just a small example why that is the case:

TOR radar is made for ground mapping, hence the name GMR. Nevertheless it could be used for air to air STT, with different bar and azimuth settings.
In Holloman on a good day you could see some targets almost up to 60 miles, in german air that was a lot less, up to 30 max if I recall it.
DCS is not taking any condition of the air into account afaik.

Other story: you even have massive differences between AC that are the same, say a squadron of F-15C in the same software suite.
Some radars are not working at all, some always have false tracks, some work very good. So in RL you also have over- and under-performing radars. 
In DCS it is just uniform and in perfect conditions. That might change in some 10 years or more, but for now I think it is as good as can be made with performance impact etc.

I also think the Viggen radar is over performing getting ground returns of units vs. static objects vs. terrain features of the map, but I also think that is currently a limitation of what is doable and that might change in future. I wouldn't use the word hilariously though. 

So the 550 (magic 1) is currently in the game (Recently added along with the 530). Some guys modded em onto a mig21 to test em.  And it turns out the 550 Magic1 is all aspect when it shouldn't be. And yeah it may be one line of code, but at that point you gotta ask yourself who is writing those 10 lines of lua code at this point that doesn't know its a rear aspect missile?

As for radar performance. IDK to me the M2k RDI basically set a new standard in DCS whether ED wants to admit it or not. It raised the bar, significantly and showed what could be done in terms of radar simulation. ED is playing catch up in terms of radar modeling by "alot" at this point. Thats gonna be doubly true when the 15E drops. And really the RDI is actually a radar "sim" like it or not, it actually in real time models a variety of things like various clutter and filters(very simply tho). But thats like 100% more than any other radar model in DCS aside from maybe the F14.

Its not simply some snark about "performance". Neither the APG73/68 really work like actual radars. I mean neither really should be notchable for one thing under 90% of circumstances (and I know the Jeff got a ton of crap at release for having a basically unnotchable radar, but it was more correct than what it has now, cuz the community is unfortunately too used to DCS "radar memes") And the lookdown penalty stuff for the APG68 is an absolute travesty IMO in how its modeled. Yes, it should have less range in lookdown, but not how ED models it.

Frankly the Cyrano should be pretty terrible in lookdown for a variety of reasons, clutter/MTI etc. And yes, we haven't actually seen it aside from a few seconds of vid, but I really hope they do it more right than wrong. And the radar manual is floating around out there too, so its not like people aren't gonna fact check it. And I hope Aerges actually takes the time to make it better than the "standard" radars in DCS. 

 

17 hours ago, rkk01 said:

The book Harrier 809 describes the massive variation in radar returns from different Sea Harrier airframes…. Apparently the airframes that had liberal / recent applications of WD40 anti-corrosion spray lit radar screens up like a Christmas tree

Thats not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about radars working like actual radars in game, and currently the only one that vaguely does is the M2k RDI. And no, not all radars will work like that, and tons of radars are broken in DCS. The Mig21's spectacularly so. Like how can you notch a NON-PD radar in lookup even... Oh wait..

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

As for radar performance. IDK to me the M2k RDI basically set a new standard in DCS whether ED wants to admit it or not. It raised the bar, significantly and showed what could be done in terms of radar simulation. ED is playing catch up in terms of radar modeling by "alot" at this point. Thats gonna be doubly true when the 15E drops. And really the RDI is actually a radar "sim" like it or not, it actually in real time models a variety of things like various clutter and filters(very simply tho). But thats like 100% more than any other radar model in DCS aside from maybe the F14.

Its not simply some snark about "performance". Neither the APG73/68 really work like actual radars. I mean neither really should be notchable for one thing under 90% of circumstances (and I know the Jeff got a ton of crap at release for having a basically unnotchable radar, but it was more correct than what it has now, cuz the community is unfortunately too used to DCS "radar memes") And the lookdown penalty stuff for the APG68 is an absolute travesty IMO in how its modeled. Yes, it should have less range in lookdown, but not how ED models it.

Frankly the Cyrano should be pretty terrible in lookdown for a variety of reasons, clutter/MTI etc. And yes, we haven't actually seen it aside from a few seconds of vid, but I really hope they do it more right than wrong. And the radar manual is floating around out there too, so its not like people aren't gonna fact check it. And I hope Aerges actually takes the time to make it better than the "standard" radars in DCS. 

 

 

I mean, if ED is still catching up, don't you think its a bit unfair to be asking a company who has never even modelled a radar before to be matching the gold standard of the RDI while in pre-EA mind you? This is an Early Access release we are talking about, if all the radars modes even work ill be pleasantly surprised, nonetheless work on a comparable level to the RDI, which again is MILES better than everything else in the game, including companies that have had years of radar modeling experience. We need to remember that early access is for feedback and tweaking into the final iterations of the module or in this case its radar. lets give it a chance and see how it performs in various modes, on various settings, at various ranges, in various weather, on various targets, at various altitudes before we start to talk about it compares to other DCS radars that we have had years or months to fiddle around with.
Of course I want the radar simulation to be as accurate as possible and be as good or even better than the RDI simulation, but this is a plane that isnt even out yet. Aerges has proved dozens of time that they rework and revisit assets they've shown us before, like the cockpit textures, radar hood, landing gear animations, stall performance, flight performance, and probably 100x that I havent even noticed in my hyper-analysis of the previews. I am certain that we will be satisfied in the result after seeing all the hard work and studying put into the C-101 with the excruciating attention to detail. delivering to us one of the best simulations of an aircraft and its systems that we have currently in DCS. and if we have some placeholder clutter in the EA period as an expense to pay for that, then I am more than happy.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

I mean, if ED is still catching up, don't you think its a bit unfair to be asking a company who has never even modelled a radar before to be matching the gold standard of the RDI while in pre-EA mind you? This is an Early Access release we are talking about, if all the radars modes even work ill be pleasantly surprised, nonetheless work on a comparable level to the RDI, which again is MILES better than everything else in the game, including companies that have had years of radar modeling experience. We need to remember that early access is for feedback and tweaking into the final iterations of the module or in this case its radar. lets give it a chance and see how it performs in various modes, on various settings, at various ranges, in various weather, on various targets, at various altitudes before we start to talk about it compares to other DCS radars that we have had years or months to fiddle around with.
Of course I want the radar simulation to be as accurate as possible and be as good or even better than the RDI simulation, but this is a plane that isnt even out yet. Aerges has proved dozens of time that they rework and revisit assets they've shown us before, like the cockpit textures, radar hood, landing gear animations, stall performance, flight performance, and probably 100x that I havent even noticed in my hyper-analysis of the previews. I am certain that we will be satisfied in the result after seeing all the hard work and studying put into the C-101 with the excruciating attention to detail. delivering to us one of the best simulations of an aircraft and its systems that we have currently in DCS. and if we have some placeholder clutter in the EA period as an expense to pay for that, then I am more than happy.

Honestly I'm not gonna theorize on "why" ED hasn't done a better radar model than Raz was able to put out in frankly fairly short order. I hope they rise to the occasion though I very much doubt they will anytime soon for either APG68/73. The docs are there, basic radar physics is there, and still we don't even have the basics of how radars should work aside from the RDI.

As for Aerges, Raz has posted the basics of how they did various stuff and Galinnete is pretty decent dude, so IDK, maybe he'd be willing to help em out. Though it seems like they have bunch of actual "airplane stuff" SME's. So hopefully they can implement something similar since they have white papers on how it was done at a high level. And I'll be honest, for more modern AC if you don't have a team that can do modern systems, stick to older jets. I'd personally have a older jet done "right" than a more modern one done "half-right".

 

  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harlikwin said:

Honestly I'm not gonna theorize on "why" ED hasn't done a better radar model than Raz was able to put out in frankly fairly short order. I hope they rise to the occasion though I very much doubt they will anytime soon for either APG68/73. The docs are there, basic radar physics is there, and still we don't even have the basics of how radars should work aside from the RDI.

As for Aerges, Raz has posted the basics of how they did various stuff and Galinnete is pretty decent dude, so IDK, maybe he'd be willing to help em out. Though it seems like they have bunch of actual "airplane stuff" SME's. So hopefully they can implement something similar since they have white papers on how it was done at a high level. And I'll be honest, for more modern AC if you don't have a team that can do modern systems, stick to older jets. I'd personally have a older jet done "right" than a more modern one done "half-right".

 

I have faith they will deliver an excellent product, and yes Razbam is very friendly with helping and im confident they will help Aerges if Aerges asks. 
And I see where you're coming from on the "capability of the team" in regards to radar, but I dont completely agree, I think products like the F5 and MiG-21 are excellent even given how their radars perform either exceedingly well or exceedingly poorly, based on the circumstance. I wouldnt want an alternate reality where we didnt have these modules because the developers were told off. of course I wouldn't want anything modelled as poorly as those radars again, but I think as long as the dev is able to take feedback and data and apply the changes I think they should be able to make whatever module they want. MTI radar simulation will be a first in DCS I believe so it also has the added challenge of not having a "path" to follow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

I have faith they will deliver an excellent product, and yes Razbam is very friendly with helping and im confident they will help Aerges if Aerges asks. 
And I see where you're coming from on the "capability of the team" in regards to radar, but I dont completely agree, I think products like the F5 and MiG-21 are excellent even given how their radars perform either exceedingly well or exceedingly poorly, based on the circumstance. I wouldnt want an alternate reality where we didnt have these modules because the developers were told off. of course I wouldn't want anything modelled as poorly as those radars again, but I think as long as the dev is able to take feedback and data and apply the changes I think they should be able to make whatever module they want. MTI radar simulation will be a first in DCS I believe so it also has the added challenge of not having a "path" to follow.

I mean I hope so. A proper MTI implementation with those limitations would be good for DCS, and frankly its gonna come anyway from Raz with the Mig23 Sapfir radar soon enough, so it should be interesting to compare between the Cyrano and the Sapfir.

As for the F5/21 comment, I think a big part of that is that both are really old modules at this point and expectations were far different even a few years ago, but older modules need to be maintained up to current-ish standards IMO. Moreover I'd say the community understanding of Radars and how they worked then were far far lower than what you have now in the broader community, and hence the desire for higher standards/fidelity when it comes to modeling radars and trying to get away from "meme" level radar mechanics such as notching. 

 

I do know M3 is committed to fixing up the 21 to include all the things wrong with the ASP and I hope they dump some of the more unrealistic weapons it has at some point, and I've heard some "confirmed/unconfirmed" rumbling about ED doing a BS3 like upgrade to the F5, though I really wish they would do an actual "down-grade" of the existing F5 to 70's standards (i.e. older/no RWR) as its the far more relevant one but at a guess it will unfortunately likely be some sort of Mav slinging upgrade or some such thing, i mainly hope it doesn't end up with AAMRAMs.

  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I do know M3 is committed to fixing up the 21 to include all the things wrong with the ASP and I hope they dump some of the more unrealistic weapons it has at some point, and I've heard some "confirmed/unconfirmed" rumbling about ED doing a BS3 like upgrade to the F5, though I really wish they would do an actual "down-grade" of the existing F5 to 70's standards (i.e. older/no RWR) as its the far more relevant one but at a guess it will unfortunately likely be some sort of Mav slinging upgrade or some such thing, i mainly hope it doesn't end up with AAMRAMs.

I mean, not to divert too far from the topic but I really dont hope Mag3 dumps any weapons. ED already gave us the option to limit what we choose to put on our planes and mission makers to limit what the users can use. As for the F5 I wouldnt be opposed to any attention it gets as long as they improved the out dated elements. if they want to give it AMRAAMs while theyre at it I dont care, I wont use them and the servers I play on dont use them. wont be affecting me at all. Makes no sense to me to be policing the loadouts of what other people are using in their game that they paid just as much money as you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Get_Lo said:

I mean, not to divert too far from the topic but I really dont hope Mag3 dumps any weapons. ED already gave us the option to limit what we choose to put on our planes and mission makers to limit what the users can use. As for the F5 I wouldnt be opposed to any attention it gets as long as they improved the out dated elements. if they want to give it AMRAAMs while theyre at it I dont care, I wont use them and the servers I play on dont use them. wont be affecting me at all. Makes no sense to me to be policing the loadouts of what other people are using in their game that they paid just as much money as you did.

Eww 🤮 


Edited by turkeydriver
  • Like 4

VF-2 Bounty Hunters

 

https://www.csg-1.com/

DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord:

https://discord.gg/6bbthxk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Get_Lo said:

I mean, not to divert too far from the topic but I really dont hope Mag3 dumps any weapons. ED already gave us the option to limit what we choose to put on our planes and mission makers to limit what the users can use. As for the F5 I wouldnt be opposed to any attention it gets as long as they improved the out dated elements. if they want to give it AMRAAMs while theyre at it I dont care, I wont use them and the servers I play on dont use them. wont be affecting me at all. Makes no sense to me to be policing the loadouts of what other people are using in their game that they paid just as much money as you did.

Honestly what ED SHOULD do. it to do whatever "F5 wunderwaffle" as the upgrade, and then give us a 70s era F5. You know the era it was actually relevant in, no magic RWR or at least some crappy one, crap radar etc. Cuz the 70's....

null

image.png

  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...