DCS World Patch Notes Discussion Thread

[Furiz]

It doesn't matter if one radar is OP than the other as long as it is realistic. Radars can't be even in performance, some military manufacturers have one and others have other radar specs and techs.

In my opinion radar performance change shouldn't come across whole DCS, but per specific radar, we are not here for balance but realism.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Furiz

[GumidekCZ]

4 minutes ago, Furiz said:

It doesn't matter if one radar is OP than the other as long as it is realistic. Radars can't be even in performance, some military manufacturers have one and others have other radar specs and techs.

In my opinion radar performance change shouldn't come across whole DCS, but per specific radar, we are not here for balance but realism.

 

Realism? For radar performance? You are just kidding where you want to find realistic data, if the DCS radar core calculation (RCS, aspect, materials, weather,..) is not properly simulated... I'm aware that this can't be done by just thinking about hardware we have available. Show me one single radar in DCS which have published detection ranges for exact RCS at given PRF by its manufacturer.

Trying to keep performances close to what is publicly know is good thing. Also thinking of compare each radar and it's limits is good thing for wide base of multiplayer community, which is growing every day.

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, GumidekCZ said:

Also thinking of compare each radar and it's limits is good thing for wide base of multiplayer community, which is growing every day.

 

What do you mean by this? Balance them out so you can have PvP?

Balance is not what ED is going for.

 

5 minutes ago, GumidekCZ said:

Show me one single radar in DCS which have published detection ranges for exact RCS at given PRF by its manufacturer.

 

You are asking this because you know even if I had those I couldn't bring them up, but that doesn't make you right.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

It doesn't matter if one radar is OP than the other as long as it is realistic.

 

True, but I think what GumidekCZ was getting at is to adjust all RADARs at once (those that need correcting anyway) instead of doing them one at a time, which may lead to a mismatch. Though not sure now on second thoughts.

 

Though so long as they all end up being as realistic as possible, I'll be happy, though there's plenty of things DCS doesn't account for yet in its RADAR modelling.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Northstar98

[GumidekCZ]

What I was trying to say, that goal should be to achieve maximum realism, but keep in mind that this is just Holly grail, which never can be achieved fully. I never said a word about balancing. What I want to see is maximum radars and weapon systems throughout the DCS and all modules, where somebody(specialist) controls performances of such systems and compare available paper data with what could be physically achieved at RW. One example, already done, and controlled is SD-10 Chinese missile...I hope that someone will check more systems in near future.

[Northstar98]

12 minutes ago, DCSoping said:

They sure overdid it. 

What the hell i just tried again. 

 

So it just dumps bugs randomly up to 15nm . (To try and emulate "shitness" or something?) 

 

By that time, if you try to re-bug you get that weird thing where the cursor SKIPS OVER your target and you can't bug with TWS at all. 

 

The F16 is now basically reduced to a WVR (10nm) range aircraft only. I shit you not. 

 

Why always these knee-jerk reactions holy shit i'm actually a bit pissed off at this stupidity.

 

If it's more realistic, that's all that matters, though there does seem to be a few bugs that were introduced.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Northstar98

[Furiz]

39 minutes ago, DCSoping said:

They sure overdid it. 

What the hell i just tried again. 

 

So it just dumps bugs randomly up to 15nm . (To try and emulate "shitness" or something?) 

 

By that time, if you try to re-bug you get that weird thing where the cursor SKIPS OVER your target and you can't bug with TWS at all. 

 

The F16 is now basically reduced to a WVR (10nm) range aircraft only. I shit you not. 

 

Why always these knee-jerk reactions holy shit i'm actually a bit pissed off at this stupidity. 

 

 

Try Stabe Release, is you are playing in Open Beta expect bugs, that's why OB version is out so that they can run it through the community, it is the cheapest and fastest way of figuring out bugs.

And when you notice that something is bugged you can report it so they can fix it.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Furiz

[Svend_Dellepude]

17 hours ago, DCSoping said:

They sure overdid it. 

What the hell i just tried again. 

 

So it just dumps bugs randomly up to 15nm . (To try and emulate "shitness" or something?) 

 

By that time, if you try to re-bug you get that weird thing where the cursor SKIPS OVER your target and you can't bug with TWS at all. 

 

The F16 is now basically reduced to a WVR (10nm) range aircraft only. I shit you not. 

 

Why always these knee-jerk reactions holy shit i'm actually a bit pissed off at this stupidity. 

 

 

Maybe it's related to this?

 

 

[Furiz]

New patch planned for 22nd, probably gonna fix many of these issues.

[toutenglisse]

It might be trivial, but thanks for adding AP and mixed AP rounds for Hornet's M61 !

[Sr.]

Me...

 

Vulkan  

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Sr.

[Hoirtel]

Just noticed that since the last patch I now have the JF-17 available in the mission editor... (I don't own it nor have I tested it) I can only jump in when it's it client mode and it seems to be lacking a cockpit.... Unless it has one of those see through HMDs like an f35.... 

[Airhunter]

Our Viper still has HPRF which it shouldn't have in RWS and TWS as far as I'm aware. The radar is still a lot more believable and realistic now especially if you do some rough math with the radar range equation. It will also never be accurate to real life or precise in detection by 1-5nm increments. Even in real life these values are simulated and  calculated as you wont have or know the exact RCS value of a contact you are picking up during testing. No one is going to go up and fly against a precisely 1sqm, 2sqm, and so on up until 100sqm target to build an exact detection table for those conditions. It is now mostly good enough as far as DCS goes, maybe even still a bit too good. But it's mostly in line with estimates, physical attributes and what some SME's say.

[Hiob]

I made a training mission for myself yesterday to try the dual target track. I was not able to reliable detect a flight of two MiG 23 in an Range of 20nm with a 10degree azimuth 1 bar scan.

I have no knowledge of real radar capabilities whatsoever, but that seems pretty underperforming for me. Maybe it's only under certain conditions?

(since I designed the mission and used "cheats" like F2 view and F10 map, I knew exactly where to scan for the enemy, hence the very focused radar search)

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

11 minutes ago, Hiob said:

try the dual target track. I was not able to reliable detect a flight of two MiG 23

I have been using it just fine. There are a few bugs with it (contacts freezing on the HSD when dropped, for example) but they should be squashed after today's patch. 

[McVittees]

Oh lordy, I saw this update in the patch notes: 

• "Petrovich AI, Added ability to track air targets and guide ATGM for attacking them. (Mi-24 ATGM aiming device abilities against air targets is limited to certain speeds, do not expect good results against fast movers and even helicopters can evade this attack with evasive maneuvering). In the next update we are planning to tune it more and add customization options for mission editor to allow restriction of this ability."

I'm tappin' my Wizard of Oz red heals twice in the hope that this will get applied to AI Mi-24s who blast me out of the sky with the precision of a Navy Seal sniper!

[sirrah]

Quote

• Petrovich AI, Target list logic addition, Petrovich will put a aiming device moving mark on the target that is currently highlighted in the list for more convenient target choice logic.

 

This is great!!

Thanks ED!

 

 

[Northstar98]

Looks like there'll be a patch today, I guess probably a hotfix.

[QuiGon]

13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I guess probably a hotfix.

 

For what?

[Northstar98]

20 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

For what?

 

No idea, but apparently the big one is coming in October (13th/14th?) so presumably this will be something minor.

[QuiGon]

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

No idea, but apparently the big one is coming in October (13th/14th?) so presumably this will be something minor.

 

Yeah, it will definitely be a minor patch, but not necessarily a hotfix.

Edited September 27, 2021 by QuiGon

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, QuiGon said:

Yeah, it will definitely be a minor patch, but not necessarily a hotfix.

 

Ah, I see what you're getting at, I probably should've described it that way in the first place.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[QuiGon]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Ah, I see what you're getting at, I probably should've described it that way in the first place.

 

For me a hotfix is a rushed update to quickly fix a specific and urgent issue, that severely impacts the functionality of the software.

[Northstar98]

Just now, QuiGon said:

For me a hotfix is a rushed update to quickly fix a specific and urgent issue, that severely impacts the functionality of the software.

 

I understand, I guess we'll find out when it hits.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Well, in theory Vulkan should launch this week: it’s been announced for Q3, and there has been no official statement about a delay