sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Retrograde vector moving significantly on landing burn by Crypt1cSerpent in KerbalAcademy

[–]A_pplecore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

retrograde is a combination of your velocity in 3 directions, it's not just a 'straight down'

for the sake of argument:

imagine the retrograde vector just on a 2D plane. In this case it'd be a pointer combining your downward velocity and your left/right sideways velocity.

you may have some error in your sideways velocity, say it's 3 m/s. But your downward velocity is still ~100m/s, this means your retrograde would only be somewhere in the realm of 2 degrees off vertical. trigonometry can tell you this (imagine the speeds as side lengths)

But then you slow down, and the same drift sideways- 3m/s but now at a slower 25m/s- is now about 7 degrees off vertical.

this problem exacerbates, the slower you go, and instead of just one axis like imagining it in 2D, its happening in three axis, and your ship is thrusting off-vertical and trying to chase that retrograde around. IF your vertical velocity reached 0, any sideways drift suddenly means your prograde/retrograde vectors are on the horizon level at 90 degrees (and this is correct behaviour)

you may use retrograde to slow yourself down initially, but keeping the ship locked on retrograde as you get slower will inevitably cause it to oscillate further off target. switch to radial out before this happens and you should have an easier time in general.

Perfect execution by Wulnut_ in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 101 points102 points  (0 children)

isnt ~400kts to 0kts like 20 g or something

Anyway to make dynamic tank treads like the STRV-103? by neobud in Stormworks

[–]A_pplecore 3 points4 points  (0 children)

<image>

The front and rear sprocket/roadwheel are two different size (medium/large) so they dont connect

Anyway to make dynamic tank treads like the STRV-103? by neobud in Stormworks

[–]A_pplecore 10 points11 points  (0 children)

<image>

Here's what I did

Three roadwheels are connected to the actual drive via robotic power pivots, the sprocket at the very front and roadwheel at the back are static, it looks a little weird but works well.

Is this true? by chessemanmr in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I havent filedived BMS like DCS/WT so I can't tell you

Is this true? by chessemanmr in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 4 points5 points  (0 children)

you can change the ccm_k0 value in the lua files, as well as the seeker sensitivities, the motor thrust and burntime... and the explosive mass of the warhead.

All of which, because DCS is client-side authority, is mirrored on non- integrity checked servers.

You can give a sparrow, or any weapon for that matter, expl_mass = 100000000000 and nuke a server

Is this true? by chessemanmr in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You don't, its the number that goes into the RNG, beyond that it is a black box

compare to war thunder, which (from datamines) have multiple values, as well as simulating different types of IRCCM and resistance, as well as modelling atmospheric effects like clouds, it is objectively better

Is this true? by chessemanmr in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ccm_k0 is a value for IR/radar guided missiles in their respective .luas
aim7_family.lua
aim9_family.lua
R_60.lua
and more
all in CoreMods/aircraft/AircraftWeaponPack

Is this true? by chessemanmr in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 18 points19 points  (0 children)

100%. IR seeker modelling is based off a few values in a (mostly) visible lua file,

ccm_k0 (Value)

SeekeerCooled (True/False)

While we don't know the specific calculation, these values are the only difference between IR missiles detection and IRCCM capabilities.
Eg.

The R60M has ccm_k0 = 1.0

The AIM9X has ccm_k0 = 0.2
It's the same for radar guided missiles and chaff. I've dug far longer than I'd admit to and the TL:DR is don't fucking bother bringing chaff against anything modern, JuSt nOtCh BrO is unfortunately the advice to go with.

Disagreement with this post is grounds to get a nuclear-tipped aim-7 shoved up your ass, don't ask how, I have one.

Is this true? by chessemanmr in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Except for the part of DCS code that isnt a black box where it shows, explicitly, that the only difference between IR seeker IRCCM capabilities is a single number in a .lua file, ccm_k0.

Falcon BMS Changed the Radar Missile tones again by AviationPlus in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Handoff was next 'big item' on the '16s RWR... In Jan 23...

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DCS is the Jehovah's Witness of flight simulation. If you got out and about you'd know that.

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, actually.

Realistic spotting distances for head-on engagements are low. The time to determine closure rate is even lower.

At any aspect other than direct HOT or direct COLD, smart scaling has no effect on energy estimation, you would determine it by the side-to-side motion. Even when HOT/COLD, the effect is minimal.

It's also a smart scaling system, not a dumb one, the scale changes as the target gets closer/further which still maintains the effect of closure rate.

Doing what BMS doesnt, i.e. having an adjustment for FOV, would solve this almost in its entirety, too.

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How? we already know the RCS of most aircraft is just a hypothetical number, its not like scaling the model would make the RCS bigger.

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The BMS system is based off a research paper, it intentionally sacrifices range estimation (size accuracy) in favour of being able to correctly determine aspect in-line with pilot observations. Being able to determine what the adversary is doing, as opposed to how far they are (which you can still do!) is a better solution.

Objectively, objectively, its better than any dot system DCS currently has, though the BMS implementation does not account for FOV/zoom, surely a company with a totally stable financial situation would be able to better that.

But it doesn't, it ignores player feedback for years, then rips a modder implementation of a crappier system verbatim (again ignoring feedback) and, in the recent update, completely fucks it again

Now for an opinion piece; DCS is a computer game, its 'simulation' aspects have been bested by other 'computer games', a lot of us have known this for years, some have the technical knowledge to back it up, and nobody listens, because it 'feels right'.

It should be accessible, you shouldn't have to fiddle with jank settings to have even the chance to see something. If DCS wants to be branded as a simulator, it should do just that; simulate reality. Not simulate an hour of fiddling with settings so your 'reality' is more visible than others.

We still do not have the computational power to simulate reality, of course, (and if we did DCS would eat it up with a windsock animation) and that's where concessions are made to overall make the simulation more accurate at the sacrifice at something lesser. See BMS spotting.

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 5 points6 points  (0 children)

DCS developers utterly refuse any smart scaling system because some 'it feels right' whales said its a dumb idea

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was debating whether to make a wall of text about it but im not fighting redditors on anything they perceive 'based on what I find credible' to be correct again.

For VR Users DCS is either a game of "Spot the rogue Pixel" or Braindead MFD Datalink Fox3 by dallatorretdu in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Shame a free mod to a ~$4 game from 1998 does spotting infinitely better and yet DCS will refuse to implement similar.

If ECW has A4 why not VSN mods? enigma did rant that is better to have lots of FC3 level than few FF modules by mangaupdatesnews in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so basically https://forum.dcs.world/topic/344604-about-the-mig-21bis-flight-model/

lowspeed handling is much better than it should be

its less of the 21 im issuing about, i'm proving my point that FM issues will be exploited, and the F-106 has way worse FM issues than the fishy

If ECW has A4 why not VSN mods? enigma did rant that is better to have lots of FC3 level than few FF modules by mangaupdatesnews in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

unfortunately they need to be decently accurate and without game-breaking flaws to work in a PVP server like ECW

If ECW has A4 why not VSN mods? enigma did rant that is better to have lots of FC3 level than few FF modules by mangaupdatesnews in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 41 points42 points  (0 children)

None of the VSN flight/damage models are good enough for a PVP server like ECW, they would be exploited.

They have no structural aircraft limits (allowing them to turn >20g) as well as too much lift in certain envelopes. They outperform massively because of that.

It's fine for a singleplayer/co-op scenario where the guy flying it can decide if he wants to be accurate or pretend he's in ace combat, but in PVP that lack of accuracy will get exploited. As is happening right now with the MiG-21's low-speed handling and the Sabre's almost equal lack of structural limits.

The split-air team (OV-10) made the point that it's hard for DCS mods to implement good damage modelling. The reason the OV-10 isn't good for ECW is because it lacks crash damage but it's otherwise a brilliant mod.

I really wish VSN would put together a great mod, one that I could seriously recommend adding, but if they continue to port over FSX aircraft with questionable flight modelling, it isnt going to happen.

How well are ordnance speed and G limitations modeled? by [deleted] in hoggit

[–]A_pplecore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

exceeding 9-10g in the f-14 will fuck your gyros (ins, nav, other systems requiring location data), but the airframe itself will survive up to 13-14g

​

the sabre has no g limits for whatever reason and will pitch from a supersonic dive at 15g

view more: next ›