howie87

The main factor here is that as the air gets thinner, thrust decreases with altitude. An engine with 17,000lbs of thrust at sea level might only produce 5,500lbs at 30,000ft.

Looking forward to seeing reduced load times!

I think this old behaviour is incorrect, as the EXP/DBS1/DBS2 are basically cropped/enhanced views of the current GM radar image (which covers 10,20 or 40nm etc). In this old video, the radar range is set to 40nm and then Wags zooms to DBS2 over a target point 25nm away. If you then changed the radar range to 10nm you wouldn't see anything, as the target is beyond that range. The example in your video illustrates this. The radar cannot resolve a target 25nm away at the 20nm/10nm scale, so it reverts to norm and does a sweep at the requested scale. Whether this is the correct behaviour, or if you should just see a blank image instead of the radar resetting, I do not know. As for the mark points/freeze issues. These do look like bugs. Can't see any reason the freeze image should disappear when the target is outside of the radar gimbal limits, or when creating mark points.

With the UK now purchasing 74 F-35B's and the RAF working on Tempest, I can't see converting one carrier to F-35C's being financially or operationally viable. The QEC carriers will get cats and traps, but only for drones.

I feel like the F-15E is going to require a lot of study time and an enormous amount of button mapping. The F-14B is certainly simpler to get to grips with. At the moment I'm trying to decide which of the 'teen series' I want to be my primary aircraft and I'm sorry to say that I'm leaning towards the F-16C simply because I don't have the time (no fox 1's, anti-ship or cruise missiles, or carrier landings to learn). I'm sure I'll play with the F-15E again when the TFR is implemented though (unless we get a block 40 viper!)

The maximum range of the tin shield radar is 150km (~80nm) as reported here. Looks like the "Tin Shield" is stand in until the P-14 "Tall King" is implemented. You can get around this to some extent by placing the radar closer to the target. The P-19 has a much lower max range from what I recall.

Found this combat radius comparison between the F-16C block 50 and F-15E rather interesting if anyone else likes this sort of thing. https://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB102.html

You're low speed, nose high, idle throttle, roll inverted, then apply max negative stick deflection followed by a max positive deflection and afterburner... Pretty much outside the realm of any normal flying. The only way to tell if a real F-16 acts anything like this would probably be to repeat that procedure in one. Too many variables.

It's not that they shouldn't be able to reach an instantaneous 12G in an emergency situation. It's just not normal procedure to fly like that for obvious reasons. We can bend/break as many aircraft as we like because it is a 'game' and people fly like that online to get a competitive advantage. It would be more 'unrealistic' to limit the hornet to 7.5G and have it spontaneously explode it if exceeded the limit, or just not model the system override functions for the sake of 'balance'.

Just tried tried this in the Hornet (lightly loaded) and managed 12.1G instantaneous without ripping the wings. Apologies for the terrible quality, first gen VR capture.

Yeah, we're in agreement here. The issue is people are saying the viper is underperforming, but they're measuring it against aircraft that are being used in an unrealistic way. Does the viper beat the hornet in sustained turns above 420 knots, without using the paddle switch? Absolutely.

I think it's probably more a case of people abusing the paddle switch in DCS. Real life DACT, an F/A-18C is probably carrying at least one drop tank and only pulling 6G's. No tanks and 9 G's with the paddle switch and suddenly it's a very different fight.

At the moment I think DCS is more bottlenecked by the engine than anything else. I've heard that the 3D cache chips such as the 5800X3D and 7800X3D are good though. I'm running on a 5700X which seems to be CPU bottlenecked at times. I'm hoping that further optimization of the multicore engine/scheduler will improve things down the line. If an 11700K is a drop in upgrade for you, it might be worth it, but I wouldn't bother upgrading to a whole new platform yet.

Sounds like they're going to be getting 32x Mk41 VLS cells now. That's a lot of sea ceptors!

Awesome mod! Any chance of a Type 31 now to complete the set?

Just done a quick flight around and Alexandra Palace is missing. Would be nice to see this iconic building overlooking London.

My main problem with this bug is that data-linked targets show as being within the radar's FOV when they aren't... Which makes the AZ/EL mode useless for locking targets. What's the point in having an FOV box that doesn't show the radar's actual FOV? Could you please review this and remove the 'correct as is'? @BIGNEWY

Gimme a block 40 with the AN/AAQ-13 Nav pod + TFR and I will be happy

Ryzen 5700X here, same issue. I'm getting the impression that MT works better with Intel CPU's at the moment. Don't see why I should still be CPU bound on single player missions with no other units.

I'm running a 5700X and also CPU bound in VR apparently (Frames dropping into the 20's) I've done a clean/repair and removed all mods, FXO and metashaders folders. No improvement

When the RTX 3070 first dropped at £469 I thought it was pricey but was going to treat myself and upgrade from an RX480 8GB that I paid £180 for. That never happened as I couldn't ever find one close to MSRP and now they drop the RTX 4070Ti for £900... I just can't bring myself to pay those sort of prices for what is basically an upper mid tier card.

I imagine it came down to having access to the airframe and systems. The cockpit does look very nice though, with it being a 2014 and onwards model.

Looks like an Italian ICH-47F

I believe the '2' would be the Fan Song radar. I think the search radar would just show as 'S' as this can also be the search radar for an SA3 site. All of the numbered threats on the RWR are for tracking radars.

Yeah, I set up a quick test mission tonight with a target at 5k ft. AZ/EL mode shows the AWACS datalink track within the radar FOV but with the TDC over the target my scan volume was like 12-30k ft. Definitely not working correctly.