+1

🙌🏼🟧🟧🟧🟧🙌🏼

The DCS equivalent of activating a 900% booster 😅

Will it be like those 50points payout to fly it tho? :(

@@hugoferrari6468 Nah, Enigma’s said it won’t be a credit spawn - eventually at least. He said for release week they might add a 1 point spawn just to force some occasional variety. He also said they might temporarily open a second server.

@@Bullet4MyEnemy that’s actually such good news thank you man!!

Noted 👍🏼

A BVR connoisseur right here.

Did they change it to that at some point? Because I heard “before 900” and seemingly try everything between 3 and 9 with mixed results. Probably a skill issue.

Same

@@Bullet4MyEnemy I'm not sure if it was changed at some point. I picked the module up in February and that was the value I read in the Chuck's Guide.

You were fiddling with the ignition switch trying to start in the "vent" setting. You can just go idle above 300 on first cold start.

always been 300rpm for me. never failed on me.

Maybe I should start trusting it more then…

Yeah, the radar modelling isn’t really letting it down at the moment, which is ironic because when they make it better it will make the jet less capable so they really should’ve made it a priority before now so people aren’t turned off it once they update it.

@@Bullet4MyEnemy Yeah, but i'm all for realistic modelling. Dealing with the limitations and having to find ways around them to perform well with a jet is something that i really enjoy.

The plan is to generally not die, so in my head, it's an optional extra step 😭

@@Bullet4MyEnemy I'm too shit at the game so ejection is 2nd nature at this point 🤣

@@J4rr3_ Too real 😅

It has a weird name that doesn’t sound like it would do what it does, in the cockpit next to the throttle there’s a switch with a sort of hazard style backing - hover the mouse over it for the keybind name. Next time I’m at the PC I’ll try to remember to check my binds and update this comment.

Graphic settings? Just have everything maxed and run DLSS

@@Bullet4MyEnemy Thanks!

There's a bind for it, I can't remember what it's called - but the switch that controls it is right of the throttle with a hazard backing, hover over that to find the bind name, I'll try to refind this comment and update next time I'm at the PC to check

I can’t remember off the top of my head, it’s from the KZfaq creator studio, I’ll have to check next time I’m at the PC

It's called Orient by SefChol

@@Bullet4MyEnemy Cheers

I think it might be modelled wrongly then, because it definitely adjusts based on their movements relative to mine, not just mine.

@Bullet4MyEnemy it adjusts but not like exact ranging and accuracy. Its a really approximate one and isnt smart enough for sharp maneuvers or Gs pulled. Think of it like a steady sight. When youre level maybe you can trust it.

@@marklittrell3202 I dunno I’ve had some pretty extreme high deflection kills with it, it’s not as good as the Viper or Hornet but it works a lot better than the F-5 or Mirage 2000’s sights

The gunsight has two modes you can set, ANT or GYRO. In Gyro mode it's a simple inertial gyro gunsight, with estimated target range of 600 meters iirc. However in the ANT mode it's a predicting radar gunsight, it has a computer that uses the target radar track to predict where the target will be after the time of flight for the rounds to get there. The lead angle calculation takes into account the own plane's pulled G, true angle of attack, gravity drop of the rounds, muzzle velocity and parallax from the cannons to the gunsight line of sight and it displays in the reticle where the rounds will land after all of those parameters are calculated, then you line up the reticle with the orange box and it should be a hit as long as the target doesnt change it's course during the bullets time of flight. It even has an automatic firing mode, you should be able to just put the reticle on the target and the plane would fire bursts automatically when they overlap. This last feature isnt modelled in DCS yet I think. Mirage F1 manuals are publicly available on Avialogs, there you can find the block diagram of the gunsight showing all the input data for the lead calculation.

@@Lemard77 hrm... I need to dig into this. interesting...

It’s a good module but the radar modelling is a bit basic, that’s the only thing I can say bad about it though. It’s great value given you’ll eventually get 4 variants for the price, with 3 already available.

@@Bullet4MyEnemy It also has issues with high frametimes that had been reported and still haven't been acknowledged either by Aerges or ED nor fixed.

What do you mean? It runs worse on higher end systems? Biggest issue I’m having with it atm is that I can’t seem to jettison wing mounted fuel tanks.

@@Bullet4MyEnemy it's a lot more pronounced in lower end PC's than newer/high end. As an example, I have a steady 30fps on the Syria map in single player missions with every single one of the planes I own including the SE, F-14 and Apache, the only exception to this is the Mirage F1 which just eats frametime alive with a max 8fps. (PC is an i7 3770, 16gigs of RAM and GTX970, med to low settings). It's noticably worse on Caucasus but playable. I have reported the issue, said if any more info is needed I'm helping and all I got was silence. I saw others reporting it too.

WarThunder unironically models the radar and the missile seeker logic better than DCS, at least with regard to the F1, but I think WarThunder might have given it IFF for gameplay reasons, I don’t think it actually had it irl. Though I might be wrong.

@@Bullet4MyEnemy possibly but LOTS of other radars IRL at this time had the same limitations, as far as I'm aware anyway, I could very well be wrong as well, but from what I've heard, it did have IFF in the regular "Pulse" mode, but not MTI (or PD for other radars) why, I honestly don't know, it's always confused me why it wouldn't, for some radars, work in other modes. But yeah, it's actually really hilarious to me how WT models radar and missiles so much better (missile flight models too, the R-73 in DCS is just, well, lmfao).

@@evangalinsky2499 I generally think of DCS as more of an emulation of outcomes based on input data, some of which the access to is questionable - like how AI can track you through mountains and clouds; what’s to say missile logic isn’t given the power of sight in a similar capacity? DCS missile aim for the pilot’s head rather than the heat source or radar cross section, just as one loose example. Whereas WarThunder does actually simulate things, hilariously. Certain sensors are fed tangible data and it’s only what they read of it that dictates the interaction. DCS sort of cheats to get similar RNG based outcomes and they get away with it because DCS players all hate WarThunder so ED doesn’t have to consider it serious competition. It’s a sad cycle of stubbornness.

@@Bullet4MyEnemy that's some good insight I actually didn't quite know before, and that's a good way of putting it, thank you for taking the time to type all of that. I also did just watch your Javelin WT video as well actually (that thing used to be one of my favorites, especially to meme on people, I'm an RB player tho). I forgot that you played WT tbh, been a while since I've watched your channel but this vid popped up and have been a fan of the F1 since there was a mod made for it back in the LOMAC days, so figured I'd watch. I agree tho, it's always surprised me how well WT models missiles and radar, well at least as of the last like 3 years. Especially going into the games files and looking at all of the missile stats, it's actually kinda crazy. There used to be some things that weren't so good, like when the AIM-54 was introduced, it actually used to, no matter what the range was, go active directly off the rail. This was to combat the fact that TWS also wasn't quite working right at the time, so it just "simulated" holding a TWS lock by going active right away. Now that way more FOX-3's are coming next WT update, and now that those problems have been fixed, it'll be interesting to see how things progress, and to see what the differences are there too between DCS and WT. I do wish the flight models of the planes in WT were more accurate tho, but in their defence they do have probably over 1,000 unique fixed and rotary wing aircraft flight models at this point, AND everything else. Sorry, I know that kinda turned into a WT rant lmao, it's just always interesting to compare the two to me, even if they're not directly comperable.

@@evangalinsky2499 If WarThunder wasn’t reliant on a free to play business model with micro transactions, put more into the sim side of things and added a little nuance to the flight modelling it would be a pretty serious contender in the sim sphere. But so many people only ever see arcade mode that they refuse to take it seriously. Gaijin are a weird company because they put so much effort into systems simulation but so little into the actual vehicle control dynamics. The people that care about that stuff aren’t playing WarThunder, so a lot of it is just wasted. If Gaijin’s weapon interactions, damage modelling, missile seeker and radar simulation were put behind DCS’s flight modelling and visuals? Goddamn. It would be immaculate.

What do you mean?

@@Bullet4MyEnemy i yearn for mig 21 content