Let me know if you guys also have any grievances on the current state of DCS air combat, and what your thoughts are on the RAZBAM F-15E Strike Eagle if you own it and have flown it. Also, new mic btw.
i think you really hit the nail on the head of all my frustrations with ED in this video, they have such an amazing community around their product but i think that they really dont care as much about the game as we and the 3rd party devs do, 3rd party devs like razbam, heatblur, and even mission makers like reflected simulations have added way more to DCS that ED have, and its going to reach a point soon where 3rd party devs will look at the lack of support for their modules and think "whats the point?". just think when was the last time theres was an update to DCS that added a new gamplay feature, like dedicated servers, a dynamic campain, updated radio system or awacs, maybe even an update to the UI and menus. the base product of DCS just dosent feel like a stable platform for all these incredible and detailed products like the F15E. if i had one job for ED it would be to focus on revamping the experience or DCS to be more user friendly and more fleshed out. or even just like you said modeling key systems of a lot of aircraft, ECM and Flairs. it shouldnt be that an arcade sim like war tunder has a better IRCM system than DCS. thats just not acceptable for a full fidelity sim like DCS.
@@_cyantist I disagree, ED is a business, like any other. They feel the pressure from competitors and see as computers get more powerful they need to keep up. Sounds easy enough but it is a moving target, how quickly things are changing is making it even more difficult to choose a strategy and implement it quickly. With all the technology improvements, it is still taking years for modules to come to market. It is no wonder some developers go to MSFS to put out a military aircraft first to gain financing in order to work towards getting it approved to work in DCS. ED themselves see the demand growing for more and more modules so they "allow" mods to be developed by enthusiastic simmers and let them in the sand box because, although they might not be "high fidelity" they get people into DCS where later they might be - "converted" to module afficionados, lol! As for updating DCS, it as always is a work in progress. Its a big sand box and they are doing what you are asking - improved - ATC support, they are nearly ready with a dynamic campaign, they are working to get more features of the Vulcan API into their system, improving their multi-threading (a key feature towards all other improvements), improving their weather systems, etc. As far as making DCS more user friendly - that's one thing I fully agree with, they've been woefully short on that end of things. Not sure if they are hoping the enthusiastic support from You Tubers who make a profit on that very shortcoming or not. But it wouldn't take all that much effort to bring people in and start a training course on DCS itself, how to operate inside, dealing with communications, standard operating procedures and the technical side of setting up missions that actually work as hoped.
Quick correction: DCS' engine is not predominantly LUA code, it's written in C++ like most industry standard engines. It does use LUA for stuff like configuration and some basic scripting (which LUA is fine for) but the actual core engine is mostly C++.
Personally, I’m really excited for more logistical modules like the C-130 to come out, some non-attack profile modules would be really fun and interesting to fly. I’m excited for the future of this game, but since it has no competition, the devs can kind of do whatever they want.
Yup. When I teach people BVR, I always teach them that the ultimate point of BVR combat is to avoid the merge. There's a reason we made the AMRAAM over just making better sparrows
@@thelouster5815 Eh. BFM is only good from the perspective of a solo player. When you actually have people to fly with then team-based BVR is away more fun IMO. There's just way more to do.
Thanks Growling Sidewinder for that, plus, this "obsession" toward Dogfighting is the legacy of what WW2 era & mass entertainment media had left us with, and I can really see why they did that. Depicting BVR in cinematic scene is difficult because it mostly just looking at Radar, Datalink & RWR
@@richarddo7881 maybe not every video he repeats this, but GS has been clear in past videos that avoiding the merge is the real goal. Does he need to put up for a few moments some clarity on "the full combat reality" before getting into his intentionally contrived scenarios? Just a few days ago he did Apache vs Su-57 -- gonna blame him for that? Not everyone flies every simulator scenario as realistically as possible. VFS and specifically organized events do that as necessary. Now, I will blame GS's server and OperatorDrewski popularizing some really bad tactics for air combat. Dudes screaming through valleys like Maverick close in with enemy jets to maximize their number of kills while preventing friendlies well outside from engaging due to risk of team killing. The Cokester does this and someone else...Razor(?) maybe and they're clearly showing off like "I got ACE in a single sortie!" It's like..."no dude, if you ever flew like that in a real sortie, they'd clip your wings immediately." DCS itself doesn't unteach these things, the reality of the accessibility of the DCS has enough people who are impatient and not taking it seriously. If I had a few buddies take it seriously and coordinate, it wouldn't be hard to do things in a better manner.
Well said, unfortunately due to the state of air to air ive lost complete interest in air to air combat and PvP in general. Had some fun going mach 1.8 at 40k in the strike eagle, but thats about it. Theres so much that can be done with DCS, but the community seems undecided if they want more depth models that take more time or lower fidelity and easier to learn ones. For me air to ground has been the most enjoyable aspect recently since anything that moves/jams can't be accounted for properly.
I tend to agree, but with the understanding that at the core - most Jammers, most RADARs are top secret. That means ED and developers need to come to a consensus about how accurate they can be and set some kind of standard to work from. As far as fidelity, that's a nice word. but again ED needs to set some standard, it seems even they tend to re-invent the wheel over and over, which saps the energy and the patience of everyone involved with a particular module both from the developers end and the customer end. Right now it looks or seems that each developer is trying to out fidelity each other in terms of detail, which - after a certain level, becomes so much hubris because no one (or rarely) has anyone ever flown one to call out any fails. This is true especially since sim pilots generally have no physical feedback from the module they are flying. Who really needs to have fuselage panels to actually open when we have no animated ground crews to simulate getting aircraft ready in the first place?
Regarding flare attractions of the IR missiles, it really depends on each models in DCS ( maybe not accurate). Aphid is hungry at flares, AIM-9Bs / Ps / R3S / R-55 / Magic1 as well . Others are more resistants in DCS. I don't know if DCS logic takes into account the flare pattern release, I hope so . What really pissed me off is the flares are , in DCS logic, part of the airframe that realeses them. I mean, if you are 2 planes is close formation, and you are flaring to cover your buddy , the incoming missile will not see your flares and continue to your buddy. I don't know if this issue has been fixed yet.
Hey bud, well formulated thoughts for being an unscripted one, you know I agree with the vast majority of what you said. At the end of the video you talk about the EW/EA/EP environment and the game as a greater whole having a lack of realism and state that even if the specifics cannot be simulated, they could at least fudge the numbers to make something believable; this concept is called "Versimilitude", and it is something that BMS has done extremely well in the places where its own simulation lacks realism, so there is precedent for developers being able to do this.
Would you care to explain thr part about BMS enriching their simulatiom by guessing a bit? I dont play it, however i know about it and watch BMS vids almost as much as DCS. So im quiet interested where and how they did it.
The most issue with DCS players is, that they want realistic simulation, and then they think, all jets are made for dogfight. They should know, which jet to use for their needs. If you want dogfight, you should not use F-15, because its not made for dog fight. I saw many negative comments about the new F-15, but most of them are simply dumb, in my opinion they should play some arcade games and not dcs. But eh this planet is full of idiots, so we have to go through this 😂😂😂 together.
Visual range air combat was a chief design consideration for the F-15, and this carries over to the F-15E, the USAF planned to, and trains to, fly the F-15E in an air to air configuration, with or without CFT's (depending on the specific mission profile). In fact, ever since the shift back towards training around peer-peer level conflicts and away from asymmetrical engagements, and with the specific conditions of the Indo-Pacific Theater, the F-15E is particularly relevant today in the air to air role, specifically because its exceptionably long fuel range, large armaments stores capacity, and large radar all are well optomized for the Indo-Pacific theater, which is where the US expects its next big fight, should there be one. Its unfortunate that the DCS module exists only with its CFT's installed, while this is in fact the configuration that an overwhelming majority of combat missions are flown in, this is due to the demand for strike and CAS missions in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not due to the intrinsic capabilities of the aircraft, and Strike Eagles at Red Flag train around air to air, often with CFT's removed, in that configuration the F-15E posses enhanced maneuverability over the F-15C due to its P&W-229 Engines and AESA Radar, it is only when its weighed down with CFT's that this is not the case.
@@teargass1849 That is my grievance with the razbam eagle. It's great, but the CFTs limit it. The F-15E is as good if not better than the F-15C in air to air without the CFT. Sustained turn rate is about the same thanks to the 229.
Lua is a great scripting language for games, the engine is not written in Lua, it is simply there to allow us to add scripts to DCS to make it a richer experience - basically modding support
IDK about anybody else, but I had a strange issue with the F15E in terms of the engines and all electrical systems in the jet just randomly shutting off. It happened to a buddy of mine who was flying the jet as well... It randomly decides to turn off mid flight. It's only happened to me once, and when it did, I was able to jump start it mid flight by doing the normal finger lift procedure that you would on the ground. Just wanted to see if anyone else on here has experienced the same issue. Besides the other minor bugs detailed in this video and some others I've seemed to have encountered while flying, I believe the jet overall is very solid. Just needs a little bit more work, but I'm sure it will be addressed with time.
I personally haven't experienced this problem. I know a couple people have mentioned it before, and just recently I was flying with a buddy and he had his F-15E shut off on him midflight, but that was only after zoom climbing to over 80kft just for fun. Perhaps it's an improper response to negative Gs. Idk, I haven't tested it, but I'm sure it'll get resolved soon.
I just wish there was a modern day equivalent to the old Janes USNF series...that was the perfect "sim" for me. Somewhere in between DCS and the arcade games like Ace Combat.
Surely the Aim-7 would have expended it's fuel by the time the Aim-9 caught up to it and so should not have been the greatest heat source in the Aim-9's seeker head view.
Every legitimate criticisms of DCS is brought up, the general response from (seemingly) most players is "lol go play War Thunder". Core gameplay is abysmal (pretty much why BMS is still around when DCS should have pounded it into the ground two decades ago). The game has become a button-clicking simulator and the player base is blinded by the latest, half-finished shiny that gets released. Unfortunately, if anything is killing the game, it's the player base. They practically praise the lack of gameplay elements that were standard decades ago because they can do a FLCS check, even though it has zero gameplay relevance.
What I understand from your sayings , you are talking only about noise jamming. I guess there is also the "gate stealers" simulated on the Razbam RDI Mirage radar. When locked "PIC" ( STT ) I can see sometimes the range closing in quickly , then the target echo passing behind me , with the actual aircraft still 20nm in front of me. I guess this is "gate stealers" . Regarding your problem to put an AIM7 on a jamming 2000 is maybe not correctly modelled but true. During Red Flag in the 90's , the F15 were reported having difficulties to lock on Mirage 2000N. I don't know what type of jamming was the cause of these inhabilities ( maybe the angle deception ) . After Gulf War I, during Southern Watch, Mirage-2000C ECM were reported damaging the F15C APG-65 radar, by forcing the guimbal to tilt violently to the max deflection ( during DACT ). So, the way it is simulated is maybe not correct, but the final result maybe is ? ( ELECTRONIC WARFARE FUNDAMENTALS )
All jamming in DCS is noise jamming. There is no other type of jamming. This is not an F-15 problem, this is a fundamental game problem. Trust me, the game is far from complex enough for any of what you said to be at all accurate to what happens in the game.
The server I flew on for the background footage was Tempest’s Blue Flash 1980s server. The mission is a bit difference from when I made the video, but it’s a pretty sweet server. Just wish more people played DCS PvP
Current state of A/A in DCS is abysmal at best. It really puts a sour taste in your mouth, especially when you fly competitive and come to find out, like you said a "dice roll" at times.
As I agree with the ECM modeling arguments of yours, the Aim-9L argument is actually flase. If you look at how Aim-9L is build you will easily find out it is mechanical rotating shutter based seeker. It is well known issue for such seekers to go after the biggest heat source as the thermal element itself is just single IR diode. The rotating shutter is purely for sake of finding vector of heat source and the only counter counter measure system ever implemented in pre Aim-9x era seekers is blinding circuit which cuts the power source to tracker after detection of IR signal spike (a flare). So your Aim-9L kill is pretty accurate if you think about constant heat source in front of the seaker. It would be exactly the same case with a sun if it lock to it due to being blinded by higher energy (simply put closer/bigger) heat source.
I understand and knew this of the AIM-9. But the motor of the AIM-7 had burnt out quite a while before the 9L finally intercepted it, and my opponent wasn't even dropping flares. The 9L just swapped over to it. I wouldn't make such a statement if this wasn't a common occurrence. The AIM-120 swaps to intercept other SRMs and MRMs all the time in close range fights which should never happen given the tiny RCS compared to that of a fighter jet. There's just a fundamental problem in seeker performance in this game.
@@PrezDCSWell actually this is additional piece of code which shows developers considered missiles should actually show real behavior of the seeker and not just blindly fly to locked game object as if the physics did not existed. But I agree. It is discussion if the probability of this is so high. Though Aim-120 works as guided by radio commands to vicinity of target. Than it scan the lock box and whatever it finds it become a target. Keep this in mind if you shot mostly in TWS. The STT is much different and actually illuminate and track the target all the way after launch.
@@radoslawbiernacki The AIM-120 doesn't behave any differently whether shot in TWS or STT. Once the missile enters it's seeker tracking range (~14km) it will ignore any and all information from the aircraft radar and rely solely on the on-board radar. That's how the game is coded. IRL, this is obviously different and is a point of criticism I hold.
IR A/A modelling in DCS is abysmal. I don't think there is a single module where you can uncage a heater and it will bite on flares while still on the rail. Uncage-Cage is actually an important procedure to check tone and confirm you are tracking the correct target and none of that is simulated. You can see that effect very well in this 1982 video at 04:30. The pilot uncages the Sidewinder and checks if it actually sticks to the radar target (which at first it doesn't). Recages and then uncages again to see if it tracks. th-cam.com/video/Fp3I4mXWh1Y/w-d-xo.html
The cage/uncage function is modeled in DCS, on all (I think) the aircraft able to launch IR missiles. I have used the function in the A-10, F/A-18, F-15C as well as others. Was there a particular part of the function that you were talking about?
@@muttleyjones2 Ability of the IR seeker to track a non-radar locked target while still on the rail. Typically this becomes evident when the bandit starts discharging flares and you will never see the IR diamond in the HUD bite off on the flares even when carrying older type Sidewinder missiles.
This is a perfect example of people really just sipping on ED haterade for whatever the reason, but being seeped in ignorance. I read this comment like "what...this is exactly what you can do in DCS and this fool is claiming the exact opposite?" How 3 people upvoted that is beyond me. At best, some of us are just confused "do you just not know how to do it for your module?" (likely truth) or did you fail to describe what you expected to be modeled? With AIM-9x's I find it doesn't seem to bite on flares when caged and it's a pretty reliable track onto a target. I know I've used other heat seeking missiles from the A-10C which very much wanted to bite on flares.
The missile a2a combat is another reason why i love ww2 combat in dcs it is purely skill based except when you fight a spitfire those things can eat dirt
Cold War DCS stuff is where it's at. Crappy radar and weaponry on the jets that puts pilot skill and awareness as the highest priorities over pure situational control? Hell yeah.
I'd prefer the late cold war stuff to be more fleshed out. I like Fox-1 fighting and early precision weaponry. The F-4's addition is probably one of the best compromises for what I want. I just wish there were more servers to play it on other than ECW. Anything else feels like I'm just handicapped in it b/c of how modern the other jets are in the other scenarios.
@@PrezDCS I seriously doubt you would be "blacklisted", ED is serious about the comments from their passionate customer base, so that type of criticism is justified and accepted. I would have to say, its difficult to criticize a module that just came out and is in "Early Release", because they ave a ton of work to do just to get the major other aspects of the aircraft in place, let alone get them perfectly set up. bottom line - patience, I am sure you aren't the first to complain about their RADAR and jammer integration.
@@rwhunt99 The blacklisting thing was just a joke at ED's expense because they have a history of not being very welcoming of criticism. I'm not actually expecting to be blacklisted. And again, the video isn't a criticism of RAZBAM's F-15E. I say as much in the title by calling it great. The criticisms are of DCS as a whole. I know I am probably not, but unless you peruse the forums as your day job, you aren't going to be seeing any content creators voice any "real" negative opinions of DCS.
@@PrezDCS I get that, I agree with you in many respects, I do believe ED has echoed the concerns of many about the RADAR and the jamming issue as complex and difficult to put out as real I think they are struggling to make it as real as they can, and I expect it to be many years before they can come up with a standard to apply to all the different RADARs out there and all the jammers. I know you wouldn't be B-listed, I knew you were joking (tone doesn't come through very well in text, lol)
Hey, man, could you recommend some books about radar? I'm learning Unreal Engine to try and make my own game, and I'm not quite at the point of radar modeling yet, but I would love to get pointed in the right direction.
Stimson's Introduction to Airborne Radar is probably one of the best resources for what I consider to be baseline knowledge on radar concepts and it's applications. Very good textbook. Outside of that, you would be getting into deeper physic concepts or radar applications.
This is why I like to call dcs a “cockpit and flying simulator” more than anything like a realistic simulation. I got pulled into dcs because I was told it was so insanely realistic and I thought that for quite a while. I still love dcs but it’s far from realistic in most areas. Great video btw!
Let me guess, you play now BMS, right, because BMS is the most realistic game ever made and it has Dynamic Campaign... if its true, i am dead because of laughing 😂😅
@@ShqipeInfo-bc3ss I play bms because it is a more accurate representation of the viper and all sorts of various systems and and weapons and different technologies. Don’t get me wrong I love and still play dcs quite a lot, I’m just shy of 700 hours on dcs. I once heard someone say this about bms and dcs, “if I want to feel like I’m flying my own personal F-16 (or other jet for that matter) I fly dcs, if I want to feel more like a fighter pilot, I fly bms” Or in simplified terms, I play bms for the modeling and dcs for more fun and most of all the multiplayer and dcs is prettier also I’m glad I made you laugh ;)
DCS is s great cockpit simulator, a pretty good flight simulator - but a terrible combat simulator. Most of the weapons, radar, ew, damage is terrible, hell the damage model for ground units is pretty much identical to Command and Conquer. People who insists it's a sim should stay in the cockpit and not try to fight. As soon as you try to fight in DCS - it's a game - 100%
Razbam and Heatblur have already added the effects of chaff on radar to their aircraft which the modeling of could be extended to ED's radar and missile code if they'd take it. As for IR, the IRL modeling of these seeker's is already based on contrast which is why pre-flaring works IRL to pull the seeker off before launch. Could model it in a similar way and make certain seekers more susceptible to the blooming out of their seekerheads to flares. Right now, it's just cut power and drop 10 flares with a macro and break off to defeat IR missiles. AIM-9X is a little harder, but the principles still apply.
@@PrezDCS if we’re talking computer code I don’t see how you implement that other than dice roll per flare. If you make it more like a pre flare then it might just become the first flare makes it ignore the plane and IRCCM becomes useless or IRCCM ignores flares all together and there’s no point in fighting because you’re gonna die anyway. Die roll to me seems like the appropriate middle ground that sure it needs work, maybe play around with the probability per missile.
@@loganvelasco1889 IRCCM wouldn't become useless or OP imo. Famously, the AIM-9M's IRCCM is just closing the seeker eye when a bloom is detected for a certain period of time, so pre-flaring and sequential flaring is less effective, but flare spamming would work against it. However, you would run out of flares very quickly. It's just something of a balance I think that is just non-existent in the current game. There's a lot of randomness that can be added when it comes to modeling missile performance that just isn't in the game. The current modeling just doesn't feel good when I can pop one flare and defeat a 9X and then another time I throw 25 flares and fail to defeat an R-73. Having a more predictable, but still somewhat random modeling would be best. It's predictable right now in that if I cut throttle and dump 10 flares as fast as possible then I defeat the missile like 95% of the time, but that's just not fun gameplay I think.
@@loganvelasco1889 It's what you do, but whether or not you defeat the missile is not assured because of the RNG. You can dump 30 flares after cutting throttle and the missile could still hit because you just failed the dice rolls. Same for being able to defeat a missile with a single flare. It's just not fun gameplay to have it be left to chance.
So much denial in this community. But hey ! Gotta buy the brand new 4th gen, bluefor addon ! HYPE ! Nobody cares about the rest of the sim being subpar :D
Actually most people have the understanding that this is not perfect, but it's improving every month, and ED and other developers are trying to overcome the issues and shortcomings of it. Too many people expect too many things I hate to say they are spoiled by the visuals and think its easy when its not. I sound like a fan boy, but I'm old enough to understand about reality and expectations. The people working for ED and the other developers all have the passion about what they are doing. No one realizes how long it takes to get something right. A prime example is the F-18c from ED. how long has that been in development and put out and its not finished after nearly a decade.
I am under impression (at least from my experiences on the FB DCS page) that the average user just doesn't care. Either they have the average attention span of a voter in your usual democracy, or they just don't bother to go into the finer details of tactical employment. And when they do, again unfortunately, it's usually solely based on their PvP/game balance perspective. That is, they want a fair play, not an authentic experience.
Having a "grievance" with DCS air combat is one thing, but being prescriptive about the desired fix and effort and hurdles involved is another. I'm a software engineer, who both used to have a high level US government clearance and did game development as a hobby and a lot of what you said screamed of lacks a combination of knowledge, the quiet parts, and thinking critically about the limits of how it all would need to come together. First, don't be silly and say "ED is bad at." The "textbooks on textbooks" that you've read are all probably sitting on the shelves of multiple ED devs or SMEs (subject matter experts). Wouldn't be surprised if any of them probably wrote the book you read. Understanding a real world physics model is far far shy of actually writing code to simulate that model in a real time game engine, and having it work in a multiplayer environment. And I mean very drastically shy of it. That isn't to say it is something ED cannot do -- but I suspect you don't even know what the contraints of "real time" but shortly stated, doing it without making CPU and possibly memory footprint of DCS go up by a lot is always a challenge of simulations. I'll end this section with this bit of truth: no game or real time system is ever a true simulation. The entire software design and implementation process is to be accurate for the components of the simulation that matter, and cheat by giving a sloppy estimated asnwer on the parts that don't really matter. ECM is a great choice to do this with and I absolutely am OK with it. The primary answer as to why ED doesn't offer at least a "better" game-approximation of ECM and ECCM is because you move into the classified space. And NO it is NOT an issue of "a lot of this information is publicly available." If you actually have a clearance, and some people at ED certainly do, you are not allowed to exercise that knowledge to confirm anything that is or isn't somehow known, reaveled, or visible to the public. Until specific information is specifically declassified, it doesn't matter if the New York Times is reporting it -- if someone asks YOU, you cannot reveal it. Take it another step further: it is strongly advised that you don't even opine on the subject matter at all. That is to say, don't bother discussing it at all even if you think you can stick to only referring to the truth of a matter based entirely on what has been publicly revealed. Pilots of course frequently have to walk this line because too many people like engaging them on what they do, and a lot of it they can talk about but generally speaking as soon as they even start talking about ranges for weapons, you're already in a classified space; and easily ECM and ECCM is almost entirely in the space of classified outside of the basic science. Repeating this for clarity: ED cannot seriously push towards making an "accurate" ECM because doing so with any sort of confirmation through the fact that they likely have employees with a clearance, is a problem. At least with something like Falcon BMS, there isn't a known active, or even former(?) cleared individual on the team. So whatever people think or consider accurate, even if confirmed by ex/pilot anecdotes is still safe because it's not a solid confirmation. They didn't write the game in Lua code. There's no way Lua would execute fast enough. Also, Lua is a perfectly fine programming language for what it's used for and isn't something "super hard to work with" as you mention. It's fine to desire something more in a product you enjoy, but suggesting that ED is being deliquent around ECM and ECCM is quite stupid. ECM and ECCM doesn't affect anything Cold War and before; and after that it creates a different set of conditions around acquiring a lock and launch a fox1 and fox3? That doesn't really change the basics of what needs to be understood for a BVR fight that is in practice today around missle energy. If/when ECM and ECCM is perhaps better modeled, it's a separate layer of learning for existing pilots not to forget the basics of outrunning a missile, and understanding MAR and PK etc. Suggesting that air combat sucks otherwise is immature. Your example flight where your AIM-9 hit the AIM-7 is hilarious. I really don't know if that can, or does happen in real life but personally your fight was ruined because you failed to observe what actually happened on the battlefield -- flat out. You know what I thought that explosion was on my tiny cell phone screen? I thought an incoming missile maybe lost lock and detonated early. From where I saw the launch, initial smoke trail, and timing I knew that explosion was not the enemy aircraft the first time watching, but you didn't. So even if your AIM-7 was hit by your follow on AIM-9, you still needed to be defensive, because you were basically dead at the same time at best, anyways. You really need to tacview, because throughout the video, I was frequently unconvinced of how you stated things "unfolded" in many cases. Tacview shows what happened in a way that replay tracks (especially before 2.9) would not show.
First of all, you say all this stuff like I'm somehow an idiot with zero experience. You really didn't lend yourself to having your opinion respected by doing that. Specifically the first and last paragraphs you have written. I have been an active member of the DCS community for at least 3 years at this point, and I can probably guarantee that I have had a lot more experience in that short period in combat and pushing the envelope in what is capable with this game than you have. Obviously, this video comes off sloppy. That was the point and I'm not going to excuse it. If I wanted a proper, deep breakdown on this stuff I would have done so. Nearly all my videos that aren't just POV gameplay are very delicately scripted. I will concede on the topic of coding. I'm not a programmer, but I have spoken with many people who are much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am. Furthermore, a lot of these people have direct connection to the ED developers and the behind the scenes, and they agree with me on a lot of my grievances as they have them as well. One of them even went out of their way to send this video directly to the devs. I may not know how to code, but I'm not here demanding ED fix the game in Two Weeks(tm). I understand development time is a thing. I would just like to see more effort put into this over non-essential graphical improvements like grass being blown over from rotor-wash from a helicopter. Lastly, even actual SMEs agree with me on certain topics such as ECM. Notso, one of the most well known SMEs for Razbam's F-15E, I know for a fact does actually agree with my stance on ECM. I'm not a former EWO or something of the like, but I'm a far cry from unlearned in the topic. P.S. Tacview is not enabled on the server I got the background footage of for this video so there's no way for me to check stuff like that.
@@PrezDCS I didn't say you have zero DCS experience. But you clearly don't have a government clearance, and are fully ignorant of the implications of involved ED devs having them. And you clearly have zero software engineering experience, not to even talk about game development. I lend myself extremely well responding to the stuff you said in the video. Drop your weak attempt at reframing the basis of your commentary otherwise. Your claims presume what ED can easily do, or should do if they were "competent" -- both areas you shouldn't be able to comment on. And zero experience or not, it's fully possible you incorrectly observed something as it happened while playing DCS. I do it all the time, but those of us who are mature don't complain when we die that ED didn't fully model something because we made a basic tactical error. Whether or not an AIM-9 was supposed to able to track an AIM-7 and hit it is beside the point that said explosion was clearly not a splash, and your mistake was not seeing that. Further, your bigger mistake dying was not being evasive enough because you were likely still dead even if you did splash that bandit. It's not a development time thing -- some things simply cannot be done in real time until computing hardware gets 10x-100x faster. If John Carmack had 10 more years to code Quake 1, he would not have been able to produce Quake 3 graphics on the same computing hardware Quake 1 ran on. That was the nature of what I was saying -- not that ED needs more time, but that it simply is too expensive to throw into DCS World without drastically raising system requirements and dropping performance for everyone. You could compute every game that runs today on a computing hardware from the early 90s, the only difference is that it would take seconds or minutes to process and render a single frame. Talent and extra development time cannot close that gap. And your point on the "even the devs and SMEs have this greivance" about the ECM/ECCM implementation makes it clear you don't understand the clearance issue I articulated. One more time: It doesn't matter if every single engineer does not have a clearance at ED -- thus said engineers have no privileged knowledge of the real systems they can accidentally confirm or even deny. If ONE person employed by ED (likely at least Matt Wagner) has a clearance there is a problem. ED is open about the fact that they have "public sector" customers -- they directly serve governments so it's obvious thier consumer product if it has distinct behavior, it was a choice. If it was a choice with access to the real thing, it's probably the behavior of the real thing. ED cannot pretend like "ok, this behavior is that way because "some random Google-able doc confirms it" rather than "our government customer gave us access and we know this jammer works exactly this way." ED is absolutely aware and intentional about their ECM/ECCM simplification choices and still have to do it. The US Government can easily shut them down and prevent them from having commercial customers in thier biggest market: Northern America. Stop replying to me until you understand this main issue. Though development time may not be an issue, I do think it's silly that ECM is the tipping point, when DCS World has so much other stuff done quite well, and it's actually quite impressive how many separately developed, and radically different behaving modules can come together in the same interactive world. I literally cannot think of any other software written that comes close in terms of scale and complexity and I'm a 15 year professional, 9 years at a FAANG company.
@@EbonySeraphim Look, you're just some random dude on the internet the same as I am. I'm not particularly inclined to believe your credentials, as real and impressive as they may be, through a YT comment section especially with the way you present the tone of your arguments. If you can't see why that's the case then I suggest taking a communications class. Regardless-- Sure, I can say that I misinterpreted what happened in the AIM-7/9 altercation. It wasn't an entirely clear cut situation in the moment or after the fact imo. Again, I concede on the coding argument. I don't have experience further than learning C for some engineering courses. The ED netcode is pretty trash tho. That I can say with confidence, but I know most players don't care b/c singleplayer is by far the most played aspect in this game. Idk how, in the current year, it's more fun to play with ED's bad AI over other people that you can LARP with, but to each their own. Frankly, my opinion on EW in DCS is that it should be entirely removed, or, at the very least, give mission makers the option to disable it entirely through the ME menus. I understand the clearance issue from talking with lots of SMEs on DCS and listening to interviews. I know that even accidentally modeling something "correctly" would cause problems. I'm not asking for exact modeling. I just want consistency and authenticity. It can be unrealistic and inaccurate as long as it is those two qualities I stated. Lastly, I want to double back on why I think DCS combat air combat sucks. It really isn't just the ECM. It's one part, certainly, but ED has really done a poor job at modeling even something as simple as SARH. It's "authentic" in feel, but it's not realistic or accurate for something dubbed a "simulator". This is especially true for the ARH gameplay. I mentioned the IR model being game-y and purely based on RNG. War Thunder has better IR modeling than this game, and people will do Ted Talks about how that's practically Galaga by comparison to DCS. ED has a single guy working on their missile code for ALL the missiles in the game. I would think for a game with "combat" in the name that they would put at least one more dude on the topic. If not, just outsource it to some of the very proven devs like HB and RB. If you want to keep this conversation going then I suggest contacting me in some other manner such as discord, or keeping it brief. I don't particularly want to keep up a dissertation length conversation in this comments section lol. Thank you for your insights tho. I will remember them for future conversations on the matter.
@@PrezDCS "The ED netcode is pretty trash tho. That I can say with confidence, but I know most players don't care b/c singleplayer" -- if you say their netcode is trash as a player opinion, go right ahead and lay another very terribly supported, and overgeneralized opinion. What sim has better netcode and exactly how so? Are there tradeoffs? You keep dipping into pretending you know *something* about code, and other topics, and you look absolutely silly. You can't verify my credentials either but I've proactively offered uncommon information that wouldn't arrive at the first thing you Google, or if you just talked to people who "are." I stand to gain nothing by joining a shared scratchpad session and answering coding interview questions -- you couldn't even grade them. I could tell you I was writing Java and it was really C# and you'd hardly know the difference. Even if you establish what I am, all you'll say is "I can still have my opinion." Yes, uninformed people can have opinion on matters they know nothing about -- THAT is the internet of content creators (and wannabes). Useful opinion as information includes supporting words of what you mean. This whole time you just keep saying "I am" and "I know" about classified information handling and software engineering -- never once offering anything one might think to share understanding of to establish what they've done or teaching what they know. You're barely speaking anything that matters even about ECM and ECCM in air combat -- for someone who's read substantial textbook information, there is not a single part of it you thought of to explain in the original content? I believe you read or skimmed over a page or two at most in a textbook and took off running as if you had enough information to speak on it so grandly. "DCS is trash lol; wHaT dO tHoSe eNgiNeeRs eVeN kNoW?" Someone like you would really get embarassed if you ever tried it in front of me in real life; and it would happen even when I'm trying to be polite about your ignorance. You don't seem super young, but maybe you barely socialize -- my advice to you, do NOT do what you're doing here in a real conversation. The average person knows more than you and will know you're full of it.
Honestly, that is a very broad topic and something I could probably go on about for several paragraphs, so instead I will give you two examples. 1. ED modeled look-down penalty in their two flagship modules (F-16 and F-18) as being a percentage modifier of range detection reduction based on the look angle in reference to the horizon. I forgot the exact numbers, but it was something like 5% range reduction for every degree for the F-16 at one point in 2023. 2. ED's most recent radar changes to the F-16 and F-18 which happened well after this video are a great example of ED having the correct idea and executing it very, very badly. Specifically, I am referring to how they added "Probability of Detection" to their radars, but forgot to model the most important part of being able to calculate a probability of detection and that is the false alarm rate. So, as of right now, instead of actually having a truly variable detection rate based on range to target, you instead have perfect radar detection out to the now some 50% increased range than before the update came out.
Once you learn a module, you finally can see everything thats broken, and suddenly Simps telling you that you just dont know what you're talking about stand out like a sore thumb, and DCS starts looking more and more like an old dumpster fire with disgusting human beings picking through its remains adamant that its still good.
the real problems are they don't hire more devs and because they develop for sims for real service pilots a guess could be seen as more then a guess. but i share you anger but for a longer time period
its funny that yesterday 22sept2023 i just asked for a refund in the f15E because of these details that keep going on, and i actually ended up in a rant on a steam review, i was going just to say the plane wasnt worth at all the price that ED is asking due to many bugs and core problems with DCS itself, but i ended up doing a full love-hate dcs review. Yeah ED by now , after 15 years, should have done so much more with the Sim Core code itself but keeps numb and just pushing new aircrafts and many silly campaigns. The real fan base like me or you have spent between 500 or 1200 bucks like me and it is unacceptable the lack of direction and philosophy they ended up taking . ED by now should have done so much more around this sim, so many systems and physics repaired , doing daily weakly missions and challenges, rewards, yeahhh like in F real life, some kind of incentives where you feel rewarded for something and more attracted to , but no.. everything that has been done is by the community and that's it, everything else is hype-pay hype -pay how come they never throw us a bone like missions well scripted for free and if you sucede these challenges(they should be hard challenges) you would have a special livery or something......the F-16 still broken as well and i feel it isnt something so hard to fix, they just dont give 2 shi&%s , we can say ED is rich now right? isnt a niche anymore, God dam it try to recruit good coders with a outsider perspective, Even Matt recognized that in a interview, these guys are cows "milkers" all the passion is gone is just business, lets be real here, paying 70-80 dollars for a single aircraft that isnt finished is just crazy, it is the price of the full MSFS with all the world modeled plus many great aircrafts. I find myself wanting to fly but after a few minutes 30-60 max im bored to death, i bought all the missions or campaigns they have in the store plus all maps 8 modules and after 2000h i find myself with the mouse over the dcs "do i click ?" ...this "sim" is broken is many aspects including the aspect of keeping the community engaged, the visuals are mehh because obviously i like visuals too and the mechanics of many aircrafts are not there, i even think the f15c for 12 bucks fly better than this one, Prez sorry my English and the long msg...i did it again, and im very happy to find wasnt just me about this Module, cheers from Portugal-Lisbon
It's true that competition breeds innovation. However, I honestly believe that this niche is not one that thrives with competition as the fanbases are simply too dedicated when it requires a lot of time and effort to be competent at these titles. I think the only way to improve the game is a legitimate effort set forth by the community to get ED to improve their game.
@@PrezDCS I really don't see how that will happen without outside pressure. Most just wouldn't pressure them, but if something better came along that would change everything.
meh.. i don't think DCS will have any real competition any time soon. Long gone are the days of Jane's and other flight sims during that time. Just check how many separate flight sims were made in the last 15/20 years.
DCS is NOT a good game. Its an old platform for expensive modules being released in "early access" for average 60 bucks. People say "its great" because there is no competition. In 90s nobody would bother with this game. Nowadays? Its like an old rule: "if you dont have what you would like to have then you have to like what you have"...
The aim 9 tracking the aim 7 is a fallacy. The aim 9 detonates when it gets close to any object. Both the aim 7 and aim 9 share a common target. The two missiles killing eachother is a probability
Not sure, but are you complaining that jamming works, or is it that it works inconsistently? I do know ED has said, it is very difficult to model, especially when this is one of those areas where secrets prevent accuracy. So, I don't really know how to overcome that issue. Maybe Falcon BMS has done it better. ED does it's best to be "the one" sim that is most accurate and I can't see how they can be with the gaps in classified systems that are present.
Electronic Warfare is not a secret thing. It's all just signals and math. There are numerous public textbooks that discuss and teach how EW works and how to create those environments. There are even textbooks that document the US of EW by militaries especially the US. The only part of EW that is actually "Top Secret" are how specific jammers, for example the ALQ-184 on the F-16, actually jam different systems. I.e. what jamming programs it does and how it calculates them, etc., etc. But we know what kind of antenna are in the ALQ-184 Long Pod: A short, medium, and long wavelength antenna meaning we know it can jam pretty much all combat radar types. While the short pod only has a short and medium antenna so it can't jam long wavelength like a search radar. This is known and can be accurately modeled using the completely public math models and educated guesses for the sake of gameplay.
@@PrezDCS I like it when you simplify a very complex issue, lol! As stated, the Governments around the world do their best to keep their algorithm and intel secret for a reason. A flight sim is not enough reason for them to leak real world details as most of it is encrypted.
Sure. I'm not asking ED to perfectly model how something like an ALQ-184 works. That would get them in trouble and probably be more complex than the game itself lol. I'm just saying that authentic EW behavior and environments are completely possible through fully public information. It's hard to articulate exactly how I believe this would work without writing several paragraphs lol. I just believe it can be done and be enjoyable for the end user.
@@rwhunt99 Idk, maybe they have, maybe they haven't. I'm not a developer, but from watching the development track for the last 3 years I wouldn't hold your opinion on this specific topic.
Dcs' business model does not incentivize development on the core engine. Potentially a fix for this could be that ED bites the bullet and makes a sequel that is paid for/kickstarted so they can devote proper resources to the engine, dynamic campaign, built from scratch engine, what feels like a real world battlefield etc
That's absolutely not what they need to do. They already are working on a lower fidelity title that is taking way longer than it should to come out. Rebuilding a game with a larger scope than what we already have would take who knows how long. Plus, I think DCS is in a good spot money wise where they have tons of third party modules available and more on their way so the passive income is very much an enabling factor to just work on the core game so that the third parties have a better environment to develop more modules for the game and therefore bringing more people to play making ED more money to further develop the game.
Biggest downfall of DCS is its business model. They continuously have to pump out new modules to make profit. So modules stay unfinished (or Early Access as ED likes to call it) for years and then announce another new module. As time goes on, there are tons of modules that aren't finished and list of bugs grow with number of modules. Size of their programmers doesn't grow at same rate so eventually, it will reach breaking point. Or is already breaking. They need to offer some sort of subscription model. Like Xbox or EA. Maybe $2-$5 per module. To have steady income so they can complete the modules and fix the bugs.
You have to think about how big are the developers who do this, as some of them are just a handful and have second day jobs to help them survive. Most of the time when you have a subscription model, it generates incredible amounts of profits - at the expense of its own customers. MSFS is a prime example they get you to buy their game and promise it is extendable, and now they are introducing a new one which is the same but because they want more profits and if they just continue to improve it without charging, they won't generate the profits their investors want, so what do they do - they create a supposedly "new Version" you have to pay for. In a few years they will go to a subscription model because that is where the money is and takes off the pressure to continually innovate.
@@rwhunt99 Whenever "Subscription" is suggested, people automatically assume that is the ONLY option. It is not. You CAN still purchase full version of MSFS. It can be same in DCS. You don't HAVE TO use the subscription. It is an OPTION. I have 7 permanent modules for example. And I will not purchase any more "Early Access" modules. But if ED offered per module subscription, I may pay $5 a month to try different modules each month. That is extra steady profit for ED so they don't have to be pressured to make new module. And you make it sound like you're doomed with Xbox subscription but you can cancel it anytime.
Software as a service is something I do not agree with. Subscription gaming has become more of the norm as things become ever more digitized and I think that’s a bad thing for us as customers and would put an extra wall to this game that’s going to hurt the already relatively small community.
@@PrezDCS Again, does it matter if current full purchasing option isn't changed? How does someone having Xbox subscription affect the ones who fully purchase MSFS? Also, I think both of you missed the point of the subscription. It is not for convenience of the customers. It is for ED to focus more on completing modules and fixing bugs than focusing on making new modules with more bugs.
@@BrianHSC Looking at the subscription as not being strictly for the convenience of the customer is the whole problem with your point. Giving ED more money when they fail to produce a product with zero competition is not going to help anyone but ED. I could understand if you looked at the subscription service as a way to get more people to play the game as 5 or 10 bucks a month is a far shallower barrier to entry than $80 for single product, but that's not how you phrased it.
I don't even bother w ATA anymore. Thats ok, I enjoy the ground game. But, it would be nice for them to figure out why so many ATA issues and correct them.
There already is a mod for the EX. This video isn't talking down about the F-15E's capability to perform air combat. I think it honestly exceeds the F-15C in game in every way but raw dogfighting ability. This is about DCS air combat as a whole
You said "It's great at simulating certain aspects like shining a laser through a cloud to guide GBU-12s onto an MT-LB just like real life" and this is one thing completely unrealistic...
Sure, but this wasn't in reference to specifically the AIM-9L if you listen to the argument. It was an introductory statement to the broader argument of poor counter-countermeasure modeling
F-15E is not a dogfighter 2 turns and its out of energy in real life as well as in DCS. BVR Great but dogfighting its a fat turkey. F-15C different animal altogether. Also one issue i have with many DCS pilots buying modules in DCS is the addition of "Early Access!" in the Title of the module and DCS pilots scream, this doesn't work that doesn't work. This is DCS there have never been any Early access modules that were any good at all at launch. NONE look at the disasterous MB-339 it's a complete waste of money to buy it at the moment. The F-15E is just out it is going to take at least another year before it gets near to being copmplete, but right now the fact it flies and has what it does broken or not is good for an Early Access DCS module.
Pov wt gets irccm down better smh xD Also, from what I have heard is jamming defeats the detection fuse of a missile, so an incoming threat does not prox on the plane xd Thus If a missile comes within 1 inch of you, it *shouldn't* explode, but if it does physically get a hit, then it would pop? Lol
Fair... and simulator are mutually exclusive concepts. I will say Electronic warefare needs to be addressed however a lot of this is classified sooo... good luck...
No, fair is fair in a simulator when things are actually modeled correctly. I am not saying it's unfair because I don't like it. I'm saying it's unfair because it is unrealistic and game-breaking. Also, the biggest cope about EW is people saying stuff is "classified". Yes, how exactly a specific jammer functions is classified. How jamming works and how radars deal with jamming is not classified information in the slightest. It's all literally just math.
The AIM 120 has literally only been used to destroy another plane in air to air combat 16 timees. So how would anyone know what would be realisitc or not. two super powers never been to full on war with same gen planes. Especially no where near the number of engagments that DCS world simulates. WHich i would like to imagine woiuld be some what similar to Growling sidewinders server if two super powers fought in the air. it would be complete chaos and only last a few minutes because are ability to shoot down planes is way too good atm then our ability to evade them. I think a real massive engament between 4th gen planes with 120s would be over so fast and no one could really claim the winner. Massive losses on both sides i would imagine. Like in DCS GS server
The GS server is not realistic at all. It's mostly solo guys flying in random ways against each other. Real air combat is very organized in the modern day, and in incredibly large formations if we're talking about legitimate peer2peer fighting
You don't think it would quickly fall into chaos as missiles start going out and each fighter has to evade their own missiles if let's say 50 on 50 or 100 on 100. That many long-range missiles going out and everyone having to evade them would, in my opinion, become super chaotic everyman for themselves. I mean how could your buddies help you when they have their own super-efficient long-range A/A missiles coming at them? @@PrezDCS
@@TheDegenerateLord Like I said, modern air wars are fully controlled by dozens if not hundreds of controllers at a time on top of having datalink especially on the scale you are talking about and every one is following a rehearsed plan. Sure, it would be chaotic, but it would not simply be 200 jets flying at each other in a small area spamming missiles at each other. That's just horrifically unrealistic and kind of an insult to just how much real military pilots train and rehearse for combat.
@@TheDegenerateLord Because I do actually read and listen to accounts by real pilots as well as the public documents related to air combat. I’ve looked into this a lot. You would know, too, if you read the liturature.
So much complaining and moaning over a game that delivers so many things in it and still people will complain about things that are ‘so obvious and stupid why can’t they fix x, y and z today in 1 hour?’. Just stop flying in DCS if this is such a big issue…
@@shaneduc not really, it’s just a bunch of lifeless ground targets that you attack. They don’t preform correctly it’s just bland for example with sead they don’t try to mask themselves or move they’re always active the damage models are ass for air to ground. You could drop a 2000 pound bomb and it does almost nothing. Tanks are just props again no reaction when under fire. A2g is basically target practice in dcs.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense with a lot of the classified stuff being in the game. Like the F22, I downloaded it because it was free, but it's like flying a placeholder, to be filled at a later date? The amraam speeds to Mach 4, the sidewinder to Mach 2.5. There is no way that Aim9 could have caught that first missile. I've don't this myself just firing missiles off before landing, I noticed the sidewinders locking onto and killing my amraam's too. That was a sucky time for it to happen too lol.
@@noobliterally2145 That's true, so many people are confused but have the ultimate expectation that a free module will be the best thing since sliced bread.
I'm a creative director for a small software company, and while I have yet to work on any flight sims, I think you seriously underestimate the complexity of accurately modelling systems, at least in a multiplayer environment. The sim has to be able to run on a wide variety of end-user's PCs all with their own specs, connect to a server, with each end-user having a different value for their own latency, with potentially dozens of players and AI able to launch at basically the same time, and then attempt to synchronize and reconcile the transmitted data between all those computers (while never actually fully accomplishing the task because all those individual computers can be as much as a half-second out of sync) all while providing the illusion that players are flying around in the same environment in real-time. Everything about real-time multiplayer gaming is an illusion, hell, I'd even go as far as to say that it's all a big lie, really... and asking for deterministic systems-level modelling for an expendable whose workings likely appears probabilistic even to real pilots is a lot to ask. Yes, Razbam does it for their radar, but that particularly likely does all the real work on the client side, and if you look in the menu, there's clearly an option to assign a certain number of cores/threads to the process, as it's very CPU intensive. Add in the "classified information" issue for the newer equipment and the whole endeavor systems modelling on glorified projectiles starts to look pointless.
Also, it's quite unfair to Eagle Dynamics to imply they're not interested, or don't care about increasing the fidelity of their sims when they've spent the last several years converting the engine over to operate with multi-threading. You might think of the change as something like replacing a tire on a car, but as a programmer myself, I look at it more as entirely replacing the foundation on a house without knocking it down. It's an absolute miracle that they accomplished this while simultaneously allowing a half dozen or so other developers to implement changes and additions to their simulation, and they hardly get any credit for it. Most developers would lock down the feature list before they even thought to undergo such a massive change to the simulation. And once the multi-threading and Vulkan enhancements to their engine are complete (which I would not consider to have happened until those changes reach the stable branch), I would be awfully surprised if they didn't provide a lot of enhancements to the game-play (though in the case of air to air missiles, I still would imagine they would have to use a statistical approach for performance reasons, though it might be a significantly more convincing one). Every non-programmer seems to think that ED doesn't give a shit, but they don't seem to realize what a tremendous undertaking and investment for the future changing the game to a modern engine was (or how time consuming such a change can be... especially when you haven't lock-down all the features and functionality).
Yeah, I know game development is hard, but this is frankly just cope. I am not telling them that it's something that can be done overnight. I would prefer they take a full year to focus on modelling and development in the base game over updating their modules. Here's the deal, whether you like it or not, the complexity of the systems I am talking about (radar, countermeasures, etc.) is all publicly available knowledge with very clear and concrete mathematical models to follow. And for a game that claims to be a simulator, one that many, many people continue to spout about it being "the best simulator", it should be unacceptable for the actual level of simulation to be so poor especially for how long this game has existed. There are people who have been playing this for over a decade and the simulation level of the base product has barely changed. I care about this game a lot because it's the only outlet for what I want: high-level simulated air combat. My criticisms are absolutely warranted and are the same ones held by many other people in the community, even those that have played this game far longer than I have.
@@will9357 Again, DCS and it's predecessor LockOn have existed for literally more than a decade. For the simulation not to have noticeably improved in all that time for something that markets itself as a simulator and not just a game should be unacceptable, not just to the consumers, but to ED themselves. I'm sure they've put a lot of work in, but what can be seen by the consumer with any amount of critical thinking and objective examination of the product as a simulator is that they do not care enough about the simulation and would prefer to make the game look pretty which they heavily focused on because that's what sold people on it for the past few years. Myself and many others could not care less about the graphic quality as long as the simulation is high quality. This is why games like Falcon BMS still have a large, extremely dedicated following despite still graphically being from the late-90s. That sim actually has good simulation far beyond what DCS is able to achieve. I would gladly help ED if they gave me the opportunity, and many others feel the same, but that is not what ED wants. The third parties have gone out of their way several times to complain about the lack of actual simulation in the game holding back their products.
@@PrezDCS "DCS and it's predecessor LockOn have existed for literally more than a decade." That's almost certainly because DCS was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved with a single core... in other words, it didn't improve precisely because it was such an old engine. You can only do so much with a single core, especially when single core processing speeds have hardly improved over the last 10 years. No offense, but you seem amazingly ignorant into what goes into any of this.
@@will9357 No, I am plenty well versed into what it takes to create and develop a game. I would feel more lenient if this gamer were significantly younger. I don’t believe you are looking at this issue objectively in the slightest as you insert your own anecdotal experience into this, which is fine, but it clearly deludes you into thinking it’s okay for ED to have a consistently flawed product for so many years. I do not expect things to be changed overnight as I said. This is a “simulator”. Furthermore, it’s a “combat simulator”. You should expect it to accurately simulate combat. I think you are ignorant of that fact.
1-st: You use a lot of words like "I believe" "I feel ", "I think". You don't know, you're just guessing. Razbam worked over modern radar quite a lot. Programmers, research etc. many months of work. And you say "I read lately about radars" - you think that makes it equal? Are you now an expert? Razbam gives precise explanation on everything he made with F-15E radar , but you "feel" that ist's wrong. It's childish. A bit modesty ... maybe? I don't like adjusting game to people wishes. I don't like whiners. Most of you say makes no sense. Example? Here you go: F-15E DCS It's 2004-2005 version right? Already during "desert storm" AiM-7 were evaluated as useless against modern airplanes. Only about ~13% of AiM-7 reached it's target. None of fired Phoenixes reached it's targets. modern electronic warfare made many of combat systems obsolete. Already in 1991. There's more about it. Reports (declassified), books, and analyses. Surely having knowledge about optics, wave mechanic, quantum mechanic, and anatomy of electromagnetic wave is necessary to understand the real nature of a problem. With "I believe" - go to church. With "I feel" go to a girl, and before you say "I think" - think actually for some time, instead of just jabber without any facts at hand. 2nd: If you make a movie about BVR and write "air combat in DCS sucks" than it's clear to me, that you experienced only small amount of air combat in DCS. It's only BVR you show here. The title is misleading. It should say "BVR in DCS sucks". And it's also wrong statement. It's not like the one in War thunder? I have to disappoint you. It shouldn't. BVR in allround sucks. Better electronic wins. Pilot is not that important, but DCS is much more than just that. Gen 4+ fighters are boring, that's why there's many guys who never touched them. If you like air combat you need to learn MiG-19, MiG-21, Viggen, F-5E, MiG-15bis, F-86F... Sending medium range missiles against each other makes IMO little fun, but it's like being 60 yo fisherman who discovered, that fish smells and water is wet. It's hardly a revolutionary discovery. DCS evolves. There was no electronic warfare in it. Now it comes to life. Instead of whining be graceful, and admire - unique opportunity to experience something real. There's no competition for that in whole world. 11:19 - 2 rockets incoming, no sign of splash (sorry, but after splash there's somebody's going down with black smoke behind. "Puff" means - AiM-7 went dead 12:25 - You were locked couple seconds before, maybe even all the time. No RWR is reliable if you're maneuvering like crazy. RWR was silent because enemy plane found himself in RWR blind zone. Even if it's short period, it need it's time to reacquire. It's rather basic knowledge. It's not war thunder. Learn the systems you use. Next time show us tacview - there we'll see everything. 12:56 - hardly a discovery. Spamming rockets like crazy won't bring you success in DCS. AiM-7 quickly loses energy if it's forced to maneuver. AiM-9L acquired on it - it's also not that rare. Shockwave of AiM-7 and still hot engine remainings, were probably a big heat source for AiM-9. Bigger than MiG-29 sawn from the front. It's all perfectly well made. I admit one thing - "It's unacceptable that something like that happens". Sure - you have a lot to learn. You shall watch some films instead of making ones. Starting from the one which explains how heatseeker may acquire on wrong target. There are a tons of things in DCS air combat that you're unaware of. And it's clear in these movie. You make a lot of noise without much sense. AiM-9L is missile of '80s. It was not as strong in front aspect, it was still sensible in presence of countermeasures (it's AiM-9M you're talking about in 13:35 not AiM-9L. AiM-9L has little counter-countermeasure protection, and even if, it won't work here- in these situation). Heatseeker can always acquire on wrong target. Surely in case of 9L. It's also basic knowledge. 16:35 - "I don't know anything about it, but I have my opinion anyway, and I'm so sure about it, that I'm ready to announce it to the world on YT". How old are you? 17:50 - learn some program language. Python or C++ or something basic. Like Delphi :-) come again and say "I don't see why it's so hard". You produce one nonsense after another. Also... most bugs you pointed out are actually long developed features of DCS. You're Ignorant on many levels. You're like neanderthal who found a Colt and soap and complains: "These hammer is really rubbish, and these cheese is awful"...
You are very retarded and have coddled yourself with complacency for things you don’t understand instead of actually performing research. It’s clear you have less experience and understand of DCS than I do if you are going to sit there and defend them without a hint of irony. Please educate yourself before wasting your time with nothing typing out more drivel.
As for experience I fly various flight sims for about 20 years. Secondly - my squadron does not encounter such humiliation airborne-made disasters like the one you show. Either we have more luck , or we know something you don't@@PrezDCS
@@krzysztofgawe1089 A noticeable trend in people like you that have been simming for decades is the complete inability to appropriately criticize newer products like DCS because you are so blinded by how comparatively fancy this is to something like Jane's from the 90s. It's complacency spurred on by rose tinted glasses. I suggest trying to look at DCS more objectively in the future. Also, I assume you play strictly PvE or some light PvP on a public server with your squadron. I wouldn't expect more than that from how you've laid out your argument. It echoes the same as many other people with primitive PvP experience.
@@PrezDCS Criticism doesn't have a value of it's own. Arguments have. You presented pitiful ones. For 20 years I observe how whiners like yourself destroy one sim after another. People make research, create algorithms and then "YT experts" like yourself produce one nonsens after another, and whine. "I don't like these, I don't like that". Grow up. Gather some knowledge - about systems you use, and about fighter combat. For a start I can recommend R.L. Shaw "Air Combat". It's fighter pilot bible. True- tere's a little about BVR there. Basics about BVR you can find on Grimm Reapers here on YT, and Growling Sidewinder. It's very basic, but very well explained. Tutorials there can help you understand why your dogfight went how it went. I can assure you. There's no "bug" in anything you encounter in these movie.
This is a very funny video. The history of the DCS Simulator has been going on for almost three decades, and its developers know their stuff well. The author of this video does not even know the simple procedures for using weapons, but at the same time he tries to reproach the developers of the DCS. You repeat many times that missiles don't work that way, but you haven't even presented a single argument about how you think they should work. Nothing is known about ECM systems. It is assumed that these systems do not allow you to determine the actual distance to the target. If so, then try to calculate the trajectory of the missile to the target if you do not know the distance to it. It's very easy to say that the missile should be home on JAM, but you forget that any missile flies on a ballistic trajectory. Missile cannot simply fly to some point in the sky in a straight line.
This is the funniest nonsense anyone has yet to write in my comments section. You have no idea what you are talking about lmao. I want to make a legitimate response, but it would go over your head. I'll be making legitimate scripted videos on this stuff later, but this was just me rambling.
I think most the people hating in the comments are just having skill issue.... like really ive never had any of these so called "flaws" avail me .... jammers have never done anything to me than get the initial lock a little longer once locked never a problem
The F15 is still a very early release. You don't get to complain about things that haven't been implemented in a ALPHA release, lol. Millennials needed far fewer time-outs and far fewer participation trophies and far more reality. The worst generation in human History never fails to impress. For all the wrong reasons.
Bro, I am not even complaining about the F-15E. I say in the video that I think it's great and there are just some early bugs that should (and have at this time) get fixed and it should be much better. Did you even watch the video or did you make this comment 30 seconds into the video? Average millennial being a midwit moron for the sake of feeling correct about something.
It's not unfair because I don't like it. It's unfair because it's broken and incorrect modelling. The Mirage 2000 as it is currently modeled, is physically impossible to kill with SARH missiles which is ruining the gameplay experience.
@counterair173 open beta, I’m not sure you can even use the strike Eagle on stable. And nobody I know flies stable. It’s just as buggy as OB but with way slower updates
@counterair173 This video isn't about how bad of a developer Razbam is unless you completely misunderstood the video. I did clearly state that the problems I have with the F-15E are just bugs in the initial release and I expect them to get fixed. This whole video's criticism are directed entirely towards ED.
@@PrezDCS Of course the ECM is incorrectly modeled. It has to be. Because this stuff is still heavily classified and nobody who actually knows, will risk jail time to let a gaming community know... Well, mostly nobody. With that out of the way, we need to accept, that we have no idea how effective a modern jammer is against an old SARH missile. It may be accurate, it may be totally bonkers, but there isn't a "Jane's technical guide to modern ECM capabilities" to check. So in the end it is unfair, because you can't get a kill... and that is not the "gameplay experience" you expect. In my opinion it would be a great move to either remove the ECM from all modules, or have the same ECM for every module. Balanced and fair, but this will pretty much guarantee a shit storm from the realism addicts... I guess that's why we get step-by-step improvements to missile FM, missile guidance, radar modeling, radar track calculation etc. with the little public available data.
Regarding your AIM-9 killing AIM-7 , your AIM-9 was probably a LIMA version. I am not sure if the LIMA was so good at discrimination between heat sources. Newer missiles have different NIR wavelengths , with some imaging capabilities ( IIR ) .
I know it was a 9L. I said as much in the video. And trust me, the game is not coded to have that level of complexity for the seekers. IR seekers can see perfectly through clouds in this game after all
@@PrezDCS I feel like alot of the points made in the video are very good, and the real thing youre adressing with the IR missile example is the RNG mechanics present in way too many areas. The missile itself locking onto the Aim-7 is definitly possible however, very unlucky yes, but especially the 9L did not yet have advanced IRCCM and could end up tracking your own missile in a head-on shot, both from the motor exhaust and heat generated by air friction thats greater than the target planes friction heat. Personally my biggest grudge is especially with the radar and jamming mechanics, as they are often still very simplified or botched even in comparison to much smaller dev teams like VTOL VR. I have also read that missile drag is increased in comparison to irl though dont quote me on that
@@ill3260 Yeah, the AIM-9L target swapping is a bit of a weak argument for me to hold, but the RNG mechanics for IR spoofing certainly are on point. Also, the last bit about missile drag. I feel like the missile drag is pretty accurate, but that there is an artificial cap on missile speeds like they hit a wall. This is very noticeable with the AIM-120. I have yet to successfully get an AIM-120C to exceed Mach 5 even when launched with parameters of >M2.0 and 50kft. There seems to be something artificially hampering peak energy for missiles and I'm unsure what or why. Besides that tho, the atmospheric modeling does just suck in DCS. The air density just disappears above 40kft. It's very noticeable when you're like me and my team where our average cruising altitude is >40kft.
Let me know if you guys also have any grievances on the current state of DCS air combat, and what your thoughts are on the RAZBAM F-15E Strike Eagle if you own it and have flown it. Also, new mic btw.
like videos like this that i can just put on my second monitor and occasionally look over to, helps fill in the time between flights
i think you really hit the nail on the head of all my frustrations with ED in this video, they have such an amazing community around their product but i think that they really dont care as much about the game as we and the 3rd party devs do, 3rd party devs like razbam, heatblur, and even mission makers like reflected simulations have added way more to DCS that ED have, and its going to reach a point soon where 3rd party devs will look at the lack of support for their modules and think "whats the point?".
just think when was the last time theres was an update to DCS that added a new gamplay feature, like dedicated servers, a dynamic campain, updated radio system or awacs, maybe even an update to the UI and menus. the base product of DCS just dosent feel like a stable platform for all these incredible and detailed products like the F15E.
if i had one job for ED it would be to focus on revamping the experience or DCS to be more user friendly and more fleshed out. or even just like you said modeling key systems of a lot of aircraft, ECM and Flairs. it shouldnt be that an arcade sim like war tunder has a better IRCM system than DCS. thats just not acceptable for a full fidelity sim like DCS.
@@_cyantist I disagree, ED is a business, like any other. They feel the pressure from competitors and see as computers get more powerful they need to keep up. Sounds easy enough but it is a moving target, how quickly things are changing is making it even more difficult to choose a strategy and implement it quickly.
With all the technology improvements, it is still taking years for modules to come to market. It is no wonder some developers go to MSFS to put out a military aircraft first to gain financing in order to work towards getting it approved to work in DCS. ED themselves see the demand growing for more and more modules so they "allow" mods to be developed by enthusiastic simmers and let them in the sand box because, although they might not be "high fidelity" they get people into DCS where later they might be - "converted" to module afficionados, lol!
As for updating DCS, it as always is a work in progress. Its a big sand box and they are doing what you are asking - improved - ATC support, they are nearly ready with a dynamic campaign, they are working to get more features of the Vulcan API into their system, improving their multi-threading (a key feature towards all other improvements), improving their weather systems, etc.
As far as making DCS more user friendly - that's one thing I fully agree with, they've been woefully short on that end of things. Not sure if they are hoping the enthusiastic support from You Tubers who make a profit on that very shortcoming or not. But it wouldn't take all that much effort to bring people in and start a training course on DCS itself, how to operate inside, dealing with communications, standard operating procedures and the technical side of setting up missions that actually work as hoped.
The only thing I have to say bad about F15E is that cannon sounds like I made it with my mouth. And I want the JHMCS. Now.
Have you tried reaching out to Wags or anyone from ED?
Quick correction: DCS' engine is not predominantly LUA code, it's written in C++ like most industry standard engines. It does use LUA for stuff like configuration and some basic scripting (which LUA is fine for) but the actual core engine is mostly C++.
Thank you, this is good info
Indeed, I have the pleasure of watching my friend coding systems in C++ for our C-130 on occasion! :) So many, many lines....
Personally, I’m really excited for more logistical modules like the C-130 to come out, some non-attack profile modules would be really fun and interesting to fly. I’m excited for the future of this game, but since it has no competition, the devs can kind of do whatever they want.
That would be fun-IF there was a dynamic campaign…
@@Wheelman_PCASdynamic campaign included with every plane they sell for average 60 bucks...
now THAT would be a steal of a deal@@RaptorCOTS
I find the focus on dogfighting by the player base in DCS laughable. In modern combat situations you have failed of you get into a merged situation!
Yup. When I teach people BVR, I always teach them that the ultimate point of BVR combat is to avoid the merge. There's a reason we made the AMRAAM over just making better sparrows
True, but dogfighting is simply way more fun than BVR combat.
@@thelouster5815 Eh. BFM is only good from the perspective of a solo player. When you actually have people to fly with then team-based BVR is away more fun IMO. There's just way more to do.
Thanks Growling Sidewinder for that, plus, this "obsession" toward Dogfighting is the legacy of what WW2 era & mass entertainment media had left us with, and I can really see why they did that. Depicting BVR in cinematic scene is difficult because it mostly just looking at Radar, Datalink & RWR
@@richarddo7881 maybe not every video he repeats this, but GS has been clear in past videos that avoiding the merge is the real goal. Does he need to put up for a few moments some clarity on "the full combat reality" before getting into his intentionally contrived scenarios? Just a few days ago he did Apache vs Su-57 -- gonna blame him for that? Not everyone flies every simulator scenario as realistically as possible. VFS and specifically organized events do that as necessary.
Now, I will blame GS's server and OperatorDrewski popularizing some really bad tactics for air combat. Dudes screaming through valleys like Maverick close in with enemy jets to maximize their number of kills while preventing friendlies well outside from engaging due to risk of team killing. The Cokester does this and someone else...Razor(?) maybe and they're clearly showing off like "I got ACE in a single sortie!" It's like..."no dude, if you ever flew like that in a real sortie, they'd clip your wings immediately." DCS itself doesn't unteach these things, the reality of the accessibility of the DCS has enough people who are impatient and not taking it seriously. If I had a few buddies take it seriously and coordinate, it wouldn't be hard to do things in a better manner.
Well said, unfortunately due to the state of air to air ive lost complete interest in air to air combat and PvP in general. Had some fun going mach 1.8 at 40k in the strike eagle, but thats about it. Theres so much that can be done with DCS, but the community seems undecided if they want more depth models that take more time or lower fidelity and easier to learn ones. For me air to ground has been the most enjoyable aspect recently since anything that moves/jams can't be accounted for properly.
I tend to agree, but with the understanding that at the core - most Jammers, most RADARs are top secret. That means ED and developers need to come to a consensus about how accurate they can be and set some kind of standard to work from.
As far as fidelity, that's a nice word. but again ED needs to set some standard, it seems even they tend to re-invent the wheel over and over, which saps the energy and the patience of everyone involved with a particular module both from the developers end and the customer end. Right now it looks or seems that each developer is trying to out fidelity each other in terms of detail, which - after a certain level, becomes so much hubris because no one (or rarely) has anyone ever flown one to call out any fails. This is true especially since sim pilots generally have no physical feedback from the module they are flying.
Who really needs to have fuselage panels to actually open when we have no animated ground crews to simulate getting aircraft ready in the first place?
Play Falcon bms muliplayer instead…
I know why youre not enjoying A2A. Its because youre not winning. Try competitive BVR. Join a group and fly PvPvE.
Sounds like a skill issue.
loool
not gonna lie. i laughed my ass off with the aim 9 killing the sparrow
Sparrow is a big missile why not ?
Regarding flare attractions of the IR missiles, it really depends on each models in DCS ( maybe not accurate). Aphid is hungry at flares, AIM-9Bs / Ps / R3S / R-55 / Magic1 as well . Others are more resistants in DCS. I don't know if DCS logic takes into account the flare pattern release, I hope so . What really pissed me off is the flares are , in DCS logic, part of the airframe that realeses them. I mean, if you are 2 planes is close formation, and you are flaring to cover your buddy , the incoming missile will not see your flares and continue to your buddy. I don't know if this issue has been fixed yet.
All CCM logic in the game is a complete dice roll based on an arbitrary value in the lua file. There’s no legitimate logic behind it other than RNG.
Hey bud, well formulated thoughts for being an unscripted one, you know I agree with the vast majority of what you said.
At the end of the video you talk about the EW/EA/EP environment and the game as a greater whole having a lack of realism and state that even if the specifics cannot be simulated, they could at least fudge the numbers to make something believable; this concept is called "Versimilitude", and it is something that BMS has done extremely well in the places where its own simulation lacks realism, so there is precedent for developers being able to do this.
Would you care to explain thr part about BMS enriching their simulatiom by guessing a bit?
I dont play it, however i know about it and watch BMS vids almost as much as DCS.
So im quiet interested where and how they did it.
The most issue with DCS players is, that they want realistic simulation, and then they think, all jets are made for dogfight. They should know, which jet to use for their needs. If you want dogfight, you should not use F-15, because its not made for dog fight. I saw many negative comments about the new F-15, but most of them are simply dumb, in my opinion they should play some arcade games and not dcs. But eh this planet is full of idiots, so we have to go through this 😂😂😂 together.
Visual range air combat was a chief design consideration for the F-15, and this carries over to the F-15E, the USAF planned to, and trains to, fly the F-15E in an air to air configuration, with or without CFT's (depending on the specific mission profile). In fact, ever since the shift back towards training around peer-peer level conflicts and away from asymmetrical engagements, and with the specific conditions of the Indo-Pacific Theater, the F-15E is particularly relevant today in the air to air role, specifically because its exceptionably long fuel range, large armaments stores capacity, and large radar all are well optomized for the Indo-Pacific theater, which is where the US expects its next big fight, should there be one.
Its unfortunate that the DCS module exists only with its CFT's installed, while this is in fact the configuration that an overwhelming majority of combat missions are flown in, this is due to the demand for strike and CAS missions in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not due to the intrinsic capabilities of the aircraft, and Strike Eagles at Red Flag train around air to air, often with CFT's removed, in that configuration the F-15E posses enhanced maneuverability over the F-15C due to its P&W-229 Engines and AESA Radar, it is only when its weighed down with CFT's that this is not the case.
@@teargass1849 That is my grievance with the razbam eagle. It's great, but the CFTs limit it. The F-15E is as good if not better than the F-15C in air to air without the CFT. Sustained turn rate is about the same thanks to the 229.
LOL what are you talking about??? F-15 is an air superiority fighter that can beat an f-16 in a one circle my god are you on crack
The F-15 was not made for dog fight? You must be 10 years old. The primary design priority for the airframe was sustained maneuverability.
Lua is a great scripting language for games, the engine is not written in Lua, it is simply there to allow us to add scripts to DCS to make it a richer experience - basically modding support
Thank you, I’ve only ever heard people mention lua when talking about the game’s language. I know lua is used a lot for games
You are right, compared to what the game aspires to be, the countermeasure, radar, and ECM modelling is completely unacceptable.
Clearly the cause of that aim9 hitting the aim7 is skill issue 🤔
IDK about anybody else, but I had a strange issue with the F15E in terms of the engines and all electrical systems in the jet just randomly shutting off. It happened to a buddy of mine who was flying the jet as well... It randomly decides to turn off mid flight. It's only happened to me once, and when it did, I was able to jump start it mid flight by doing the normal finger lift procedure that you would on the ground. Just wanted to see if anyone else on here has experienced the same issue. Besides the other minor bugs detailed in this video and some others I've seemed to have encountered while flying, I believe the jet overall is very solid. Just needs a little bit more work, but I'm sure it will be addressed with time.
I personally haven't experienced this problem. I know a couple people have mentioned it before, and just recently I was flying with a buddy and he had his F-15E shut off on him midflight, but that was only after zoom climbing to over 80kft just for fun. Perhaps it's an improper response to negative Gs. Idk, I haven't tested it, but I'm sure it'll get resolved soon.
I just wish there was a modern day equivalent to the old Janes USNF series...that was the perfect "sim" for me. Somewhere in between DCS and the arcade games like Ace Combat.
Surely the Aim-7 would have expended it's fuel by the time the Aim-9 caught up to it and so should not have been the greatest heat source in the Aim-9's seeker head view.
It did just have a solid motor burn for several seconds, aswell as moving through thick air for even longer. Those solid motors are HOT
Every legitimate criticisms of DCS is brought up, the general response from (seemingly) most players is "lol go play War Thunder". Core gameplay is abysmal (pretty much why BMS is still around when DCS should have pounded it into the ground two decades ago). The game has become a button-clicking simulator and the player base is blinded by the latest, half-finished shiny that gets released. Unfortunately, if anything is killing the game, it's the player base. They practically praise the lack of gameplay elements that were standard decades ago because they can do a FLCS check, even though it has zero gameplay relevance.
What I understand from your sayings , you are talking only about noise jamming. I guess there is also the "gate stealers" simulated on the Razbam RDI Mirage radar. When locked "PIC" ( STT ) I can see sometimes the range closing in quickly , then the target echo passing behind me , with the actual aircraft still 20nm in front of me. I guess this is "gate stealers" . Regarding your problem to put an AIM7 on a jamming 2000 is maybe not correctly modelled but true. During Red Flag in the 90's , the F15 were reported having difficulties to lock on Mirage 2000N. I don't know what type of jamming was the cause of these inhabilities ( maybe the angle deception ) . After Gulf War I, during Southern Watch, Mirage-2000C ECM were reported damaging the F15C APG-65 radar, by forcing the guimbal to tilt violently to the max deflection ( during DACT ). So, the way it is simulated is maybe not correct, but the final result maybe is ? ( ELECTRONIC WARFARE
FUNDAMENTALS )
All jamming in DCS is noise jamming. There is no other type of jamming. This is not an F-15 problem, this is a fundamental game problem. Trust me, the game is far from complex enough for any of what you said to be at all accurate to what happens in the game.
what multyplayer server are u on??, it looks great and i have to agree dcs needs to improve
The server I flew on for the background footage was Tempest’s Blue Flash 1980s server. The mission is a bit difference from when I made the video, but it’s a pretty sweet server. Just wish more people played DCS PvP
Current state of A/A in DCS is abysmal at best. It really puts a sour taste in your mouth, especially when you fly competitive and come to find out, like you said a "dice roll" at times.
Damn shame Eagle Dynamics not gonna update core anytime soon. I just wanna fly DCS jets (except F-16) and helos in FalconBMS dynamic campaign so bad!
As I agree with the ECM modeling arguments of yours, the Aim-9L argument is actually flase. If you look at how Aim-9L is build you will easily find out it is mechanical rotating shutter based seeker. It is well known issue for such seekers to go after the biggest heat source as the thermal element itself is just single IR diode. The rotating shutter is purely for sake of finding vector of heat source and the only counter counter measure system ever implemented in pre Aim-9x era seekers is blinding circuit which cuts the power source to tracker after detection of IR signal spike (a flare).
So your Aim-9L kill is pretty accurate if you think about constant heat source in front of the seaker. It would be exactly the same case with a sun if it lock to it due to being blinded by higher energy (simply put closer/bigger) heat source.
I understand and knew this of the AIM-9. But the motor of the AIM-7 had burnt out quite a while before the 9L finally intercepted it, and my opponent wasn't even dropping flares. The 9L just swapped over to it. I wouldn't make such a statement if this wasn't a common occurrence. The AIM-120 swaps to intercept other SRMs and MRMs all the time in close range fights which should never happen given the tiny RCS compared to that of a fighter jet. There's just a fundamental problem in seeker performance in this game.
@@PrezDCSWell actually this is additional piece of code which shows developers considered missiles should actually show real behavior of the seeker and not just blindly fly to locked game object as if the physics did not existed. But I agree. It is discussion if the probability of this is so high. Though Aim-120 works as guided by radio commands to vicinity of target. Than it scan the lock box and whatever it finds it become a target. Keep this in mind if you shot mostly in TWS. The STT is much different and actually illuminate and track the target all the way after launch.
@@radoslawbiernacki The AIM-120 doesn't behave any differently whether shot in TWS or STT. Once the missile enters it's seeker tracking range (~14km) it will ignore any and all information from the aircraft radar and rely solely on the on-board radar. That's how the game is coded. IRL, this is obviously different and is a point of criticism I hold.
IR A/A modelling in DCS is abysmal. I don't think there is a single module where you can uncage a heater and it will bite on flares while still on the rail. Uncage-Cage is actually an important procedure to check tone and confirm you are tracking the correct target and none of that is simulated.
You can see that effect very well in this 1982 video at 04:30. The pilot uncages the Sidewinder and checks if it actually sticks to the radar target (which at first it doesn't). Recages and then uncages again to see if it tracks.
th-cam.com/video/Fp3I4mXWh1Y/w-d-xo.html
The cage/uncage function is modeled in DCS, on all (I think) the aircraft able to launch IR missiles. I have used the function in the A-10, F/A-18, F-15C as well as others. Was there a particular part of the function that you were talking about?
@@muttleyjones2 Ability of the IR seeker to track a non-radar locked target while still on the rail. Typically this becomes evident when the bandit starts discharging flares and you will never see the IR diamond in the HUD bite off on the flares even when carrying older type Sidewinder missiles.
@@enyakkThey do, idk about flares but if the seeker gets near the sun you can get tone.
@@Praetoras That's a good point. So it is partially modelled at least, but I don't think it also includes flares.
This is a perfect example of people really just sipping on ED haterade for whatever the reason, but being seeped in ignorance. I read this comment like "what...this is exactly what you can do in DCS and this fool is claiming the exact opposite?" How 3 people upvoted that is beyond me. At best, some of us are just confused "do you just not know how to do it for your module?" (likely truth) or did you fail to describe what you expected to be modeled?
With AIM-9x's I find it doesn't seem to bite on flares when caged and it's a pretty reliable track onto a target. I know I've used other heat seeking missiles from the A-10C which very much wanted to bite on flares.
The missile a2a combat is another reason why i love ww2 combat in dcs it is purely skill based except when you fight a spitfire those things can eat dirt
Cold War DCS stuff is where it's at. Crappy radar and weaponry on the jets that puts pilot skill and awareness as the highest priorities over pure situational control? Hell yeah.
I'd prefer the late cold war stuff to be more fleshed out. I like Fox-1 fighting and early precision weaponry. The F-4's addition is probably one of the best compromises for what I want. I just wish there were more servers to play it on other than ECW. Anything else feels like I'm just handicapped in it b/c of how modern the other jets are in the other scenarios.
Thanks for this video, hope ED sees it and addresses these issues 🔜
Fortunately, I know they have (real). Unfortunately, I am now blacklisted lmao (not real)
@@PrezDCS I seriously doubt you would be "blacklisted", ED is serious about the comments from their passionate customer base, so that type of criticism is justified and accepted. I would have to say, its difficult to criticize a module that just came out and is in "Early Release", because they ave a ton of work to do just to get the major other aspects of the aircraft in place, let alone get them perfectly set up. bottom line - patience, I am sure you aren't the first to complain about their RADAR and jammer integration.
@@rwhunt99 The blacklisting thing was just a joke at ED's expense because they have a history of not being very welcoming of criticism. I'm not actually expecting to be blacklisted. And again, the video isn't a criticism of RAZBAM's F-15E. I say as much in the title by calling it great. The criticisms are of DCS as a whole. I know I am probably not, but unless you peruse the forums as your day job, you aren't going to be seeing any content creators voice any "real" negative opinions of DCS.
@@PrezDCS I get that, I agree with you in many respects, I do believe ED has echoed the concerns of many about the RADAR and the jamming issue as complex and difficult to put out as real I think they are struggling to make it as real as they can, and I expect it to be many years before they can come up with a standard to apply to all the different RADARs out there and all the jammers.
I know you wouldn't be B-listed, I knew you were joking (tone doesn't come through very well in text, lol)
Hey, man, could you recommend some books about radar? I'm learning Unreal Engine to try and make my own game, and I'm not quite at the point of radar modeling yet, but I would love to get pointed in the right direction.
Stimson's Introduction to Airborne Radar is probably one of the best resources for what I consider to be baseline knowledge on radar concepts and it's applications. Very good textbook. Outside of that, you would be getting into deeper physic concepts or radar applications.
This is why I like to call dcs a “cockpit and flying simulator” more than anything like a realistic simulation.
I got pulled into dcs because I was told it was so insanely realistic and I thought that for quite a while.
I still love dcs but it’s far from realistic in most areas.
Great video btw!
Let me guess, you play now BMS, right, because BMS is the most realistic game ever made and it has Dynamic Campaign... if its true, i am dead because of laughing 😂😅
@@ShqipeInfo-bc3ss not before I made this comment no, I just knew about all this stuff beforehand
There are a lot of things dcs gets right but a lot of important stuff that is so easily found online just is brushed off almost
@@Notbigbird i am dead now, thank you 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@ShqipeInfo-bc3ss I play bms because it is a more accurate representation of the viper and all sorts of various systems and and weapons and different technologies.
Don’t get me wrong I love and still play dcs quite a lot, I’m just shy of 700 hours on dcs.
I once heard someone say this about bms and dcs, “if I want to feel like I’m flying my own personal F-16 (or other jet for that matter) I fly dcs, if I want to feel more like a fighter pilot, I fly bms”
Or in simplified terms, I play bms for the modeling and dcs for more fun and most of all the multiplayer and dcs is prettier also I’m glad I made you laugh ;)
DCS is s great cockpit simulator, a pretty good flight simulator - but a terrible combat simulator. Most of the weapons, radar, ew, damage is terrible, hell the damage model for ground units is pretty much identical to Command and Conquer. People who insists it's a sim should stay in the cockpit and not try to fight. As soon as you try to fight in DCS - it's a game - 100%
I don’t want to run defense for ED, just curious how you’d implement CCM other than a dice roll?
Razbam and Heatblur have already added the effects of chaff on radar to their aircraft which the modeling of could be extended to ED's radar and missile code if they'd take it. As for IR, the IRL modeling of these seeker's is already based on contrast which is why pre-flaring works IRL to pull the seeker off before launch. Could model it in a similar way and make certain seekers more susceptible to the blooming out of their seekerheads to flares. Right now, it's just cut power and drop 10 flares with a macro and break off to defeat IR missiles. AIM-9X is a little harder, but the principles still apply.
@@PrezDCS if we’re talking computer code I don’t see how you implement that other than dice roll per flare. If you make it more like a pre flare then it might just become the first flare makes it ignore the plane and IRCCM becomes useless or IRCCM ignores flares all together and there’s no point in fighting because you’re gonna die anyway. Die roll to me seems like the appropriate middle ground that sure it needs work, maybe play around with the probability per missile.
@@loganvelasco1889 IRCCM wouldn't become useless or OP imo. Famously, the AIM-9M's IRCCM is just closing the seeker eye when a bloom is detected for a certain period of time, so pre-flaring and sequential flaring is less effective, but flare spamming would work against it. However, you would run out of flares very quickly. It's just something of a balance I think that is just non-existent in the current game. There's a lot of randomness that can be added when it comes to modeling missile performance that just isn't in the game. The current modeling just doesn't feel good when I can pop one flare and defeat a 9X and then another time I throw 25 flares and fail to defeat an R-73. Having a more predictable, but still somewhat random modeling would be best. It's predictable right now in that if I cut throttle and dump 10 flares as fast as possible then I defeat the missile like 95% of the time, but that's just not fun gameplay I think.
@@PrezDCS is cutting the throttle, dumping flares, and defeating the missile not the expected outcome?
@@loganvelasco1889 It's what you do, but whether or not you defeat the missile is not assured because of the RNG. You can dump 30 flares after cutting throttle and the missile could still hit because you just failed the dice rolls. Same for being able to defeat a missile with a single flare. It's just not fun gameplay to have it be left to chance.
How sad is it that I started playing War Thunder because it's got more realistic sensor and missile modeling for 3rd generation fighters than DCS?
lol me 2
So much denial in this community.
But hey ! Gotta buy the brand new 4th gen, bluefor addon ! HYPE !
Nobody cares about the rest of the sim being subpar :D
Actually most people have the understanding that this is not perfect, but it's improving every month, and ED and other developers are trying to overcome the issues and shortcomings of it. Too many people expect too many things I hate to say they are spoiled by the visuals and think its easy when its not. I sound like a fan boy, but I'm old enough to understand about reality and expectations. The people working for ED and the other developers all have the passion about what they are doing. No one realizes how long it takes to get something right. A prime example is the F-18c from ED. how long has that been in development and put out and its not finished after nearly a decade.
I am under impression (at least from my experiences on the FB DCS page) that the average user just doesn't care. Either they have the average attention span of a voter in your usual democracy, or they just don't bother to go into the finer details of tactical employment. And when they do, again unfortunately, it's usually solely based on their PvP/game balance perspective. That is, they want a fair play, not an authentic experience.
Having a "grievance" with DCS air combat is one thing, but being prescriptive about the desired fix and effort and hurdles involved is another. I'm a software engineer, who both used to have a high level US government clearance and did game development as a hobby and a lot of what you said screamed of lacks a combination of knowledge, the quiet parts, and thinking critically about the limits of how it all would need to come together.
First, don't be silly and say "ED is bad at." The "textbooks on textbooks" that you've read are all probably sitting on the shelves of multiple ED devs or SMEs (subject matter experts). Wouldn't be surprised if any of them probably wrote the book you read. Understanding a real world physics model is far far shy of actually writing code to simulate that model in a real time game engine, and having it work in a multiplayer environment. And I mean very drastically shy of it. That isn't to say it is something ED cannot do -- but I suspect you don't even know what the contraints of "real time" but shortly stated, doing it without making CPU and possibly memory footprint of DCS go up by a lot is always a challenge of simulations. I'll end this section with this bit of truth: no game or real time system is ever a true simulation. The entire software design and implementation process is to be accurate for the components of the simulation that matter, and cheat by giving a sloppy estimated asnwer on the parts that don't really matter. ECM is a great choice to do this with and I absolutely am OK with it.
The primary answer as to why ED doesn't offer at least a "better" game-approximation of ECM and ECCM is because you move into the classified space. And NO it is NOT an issue of "a lot of this information is publicly available." If you actually have a clearance, and some people at ED certainly do, you are not allowed to exercise that knowledge to confirm anything that is or isn't somehow known, reaveled, or visible to the public. Until specific information is specifically declassified, it doesn't matter if the New York Times is reporting it -- if someone asks YOU, you cannot reveal it. Take it another step further: it is strongly advised that you don't even opine on the subject matter at all. That is to say, don't bother discussing it at all even if you think you can stick to only referring to the truth of a matter based entirely on what has been publicly revealed. Pilots of course frequently have to walk this line because too many people like engaging them on what they do, and a lot of it they can talk about but generally speaking as soon as they even start talking about ranges for weapons, you're already in a classified space; and easily ECM and ECCM is almost entirely in the space of classified outside of the basic science. Repeating this for clarity: ED cannot seriously push towards making an "accurate" ECM because doing so with any sort of confirmation through the fact that they likely have employees with a clearance, is a problem. At least with something like Falcon BMS, there isn't a known active, or even former(?) cleared individual on the team. So whatever people think or consider accurate, even if confirmed by ex/pilot anecdotes is still safe because it's not a solid confirmation.
They didn't write the game in Lua code. There's no way Lua would execute fast enough. Also, Lua is a perfectly fine programming language for what it's used for and isn't something "super hard to work with" as you mention. It's fine to desire something more in a product you enjoy, but suggesting that ED is being deliquent around ECM and ECCM is quite stupid. ECM and ECCM doesn't affect anything Cold War and before; and after that it creates a different set of conditions around acquiring a lock and launch a fox1 and fox3? That doesn't really change the basics of what needs to be understood for a BVR fight that is in practice today around missle energy. If/when ECM and ECCM is perhaps better modeled, it's a separate layer of learning for existing pilots not to forget the basics of outrunning a missile, and understanding MAR and PK etc. Suggesting that air combat sucks otherwise is immature.
Your example flight where your AIM-9 hit the AIM-7 is hilarious. I really don't know if that can, or does happen in real life but personally your fight was ruined because you failed to observe what actually happened on the battlefield -- flat out. You know what I thought that explosion was on my tiny cell phone screen? I thought an incoming missile maybe lost lock and detonated early. From where I saw the launch, initial smoke trail, and timing I knew that explosion was not the enemy aircraft the first time watching, but you didn't. So even if your AIM-7 was hit by your follow on AIM-9, you still needed to be defensive, because you were basically dead at the same time at best, anyways. You really need to tacview, because throughout the video, I was frequently unconvinced of how you stated things "unfolded" in many cases. Tacview shows what happened in a way that replay tracks (especially before 2.9) would not show.
First of all, you say all this stuff like I'm somehow an idiot with zero experience. You really didn't lend yourself to having your opinion respected by doing that. Specifically the first and last paragraphs you have written. I have been an active member of the DCS community for at least 3 years at this point, and I can probably guarantee that I have had a lot more experience in that short period in combat and pushing the envelope in what is capable with this game than you have. Obviously, this video comes off sloppy. That was the point and I'm not going to excuse it. If I wanted a proper, deep breakdown on this stuff I would have done so. Nearly all my videos that aren't just POV gameplay are very delicately scripted.
I will concede on the topic of coding. I'm not a programmer, but I have spoken with many people who are much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am. Furthermore, a lot of these people have direct connection to the ED developers and the behind the scenes, and they agree with me on a lot of my grievances as they have them as well. One of them even went out of their way to send this video directly to the devs. I may not know how to code, but I'm not here demanding ED fix the game in Two Weeks(tm). I understand development time is a thing. I would just like to see more effort put into this over non-essential graphical improvements like grass being blown over from rotor-wash from a helicopter.
Lastly, even actual SMEs agree with me on certain topics such as ECM. Notso, one of the most well known SMEs for Razbam's F-15E, I know for a fact does actually agree with my stance on ECM. I'm not a former EWO or something of the like, but I'm a far cry from unlearned in the topic.
P.S. Tacview is not enabled on the server I got the background footage of for this video so there's no way for me to check stuff like that.
@@PrezDCS I didn't say you have zero DCS experience. But you clearly don't have a government clearance, and are fully ignorant of the implications of involved ED devs having them. And you clearly have zero software engineering experience, not to even talk about game development. I lend myself extremely well responding to the stuff you said in the video. Drop your weak attempt at reframing the basis of your commentary otherwise. Your claims presume what ED can easily do, or should do if they were "competent" -- both areas you shouldn't be able to comment on.
And zero experience or not, it's fully possible you incorrectly observed something as it happened while playing DCS. I do it all the time, but those of us who are mature don't complain when we die that ED didn't fully model something because we made a basic tactical error. Whether or not an AIM-9 was supposed to able to track an AIM-7 and hit it is beside the point that said explosion was clearly not a splash, and your mistake was not seeing that. Further, your bigger mistake dying was not being evasive enough because you were likely still dead even if you did splash that bandit.
It's not a development time thing -- some things simply cannot be done in real time until computing hardware gets 10x-100x faster. If John Carmack had 10 more years to code Quake 1, he would not have been able to produce Quake 3 graphics on the same computing hardware Quake 1 ran on. That was the nature of what I was saying -- not that ED needs more time, but that it simply is too expensive to throw into DCS World without drastically raising system requirements and dropping performance for everyone. You could compute every game that runs today on a computing hardware from the early 90s, the only difference is that it would take seconds or minutes to process and render a single frame. Talent and extra development time cannot close that gap.
And your point on the "even the devs and SMEs have this greivance" about the ECM/ECCM implementation makes it clear you don't understand the clearance issue I articulated. One more time: It doesn't matter if every single engineer does not have a clearance at ED -- thus said engineers have no privileged knowledge of the real systems they can accidentally confirm or even deny. If ONE person employed by ED (likely at least Matt Wagner) has a clearance there is a problem. ED is open about the fact that they have "public sector" customers -- they directly serve governments so it's obvious thier consumer product if it has distinct behavior, it was a choice. If it was a choice with access to the real thing, it's probably the behavior of the real thing. ED cannot pretend like "ok, this behavior is that way because "some random Google-able doc confirms it" rather than "our government customer gave us access and we know this jammer works exactly this way." ED is absolutely aware and intentional about their ECM/ECCM simplification choices and still have to do it. The US Government can easily shut them down and prevent them from having commercial customers in thier biggest market: Northern America. Stop replying to me until you understand this main issue.
Though development time may not be an issue, I do think it's silly that ECM is the tipping point, when DCS World has so much other stuff done quite well, and it's actually quite impressive how many separately developed, and radically different behaving modules can come together in the same interactive world. I literally cannot think of any other software written that comes close in terms of scale and complexity and I'm a 15 year professional, 9 years at a FAANG company.
@@EbonySeraphim Look, you're just some random dude on the internet the same as I am. I'm not particularly inclined to believe your credentials, as real and impressive as they may be, through a YT comment section especially with the way you present the tone of your arguments. If you can't see why that's the case then I suggest taking a communications class. Regardless--
Sure, I can say that I misinterpreted what happened in the AIM-7/9 altercation. It wasn't an entirely clear cut situation in the moment or after the fact imo.
Again, I concede on the coding argument. I don't have experience further than learning C for some engineering courses. The ED netcode is pretty trash tho. That I can say with confidence, but I know most players don't care b/c singleplayer is by far the most played aspect in this game. Idk how, in the current year, it's more fun to play with ED's bad AI over other people that you can LARP with, but to each their own.
Frankly, my opinion on EW in DCS is that it should be entirely removed, or, at the very least, give mission makers the option to disable it entirely through the ME menus. I understand the clearance issue from talking with lots of SMEs on DCS and listening to interviews. I know that even accidentally modeling something "correctly" would cause problems. I'm not asking for exact modeling. I just want consistency and authenticity. It can be unrealistic and inaccurate as long as it is those two qualities I stated.
Lastly, I want to double back on why I think DCS combat air combat sucks. It really isn't just the ECM. It's one part, certainly, but ED has really done a poor job at modeling even something as simple as SARH. It's "authentic" in feel, but it's not realistic or accurate for something dubbed a "simulator". This is especially true for the ARH gameplay. I mentioned the IR model being game-y and purely based on RNG. War Thunder has better IR modeling than this game, and people will do Ted Talks about how that's practically Galaga by comparison to DCS. ED has a single guy working on their missile code for ALL the missiles in the game. I would think for a game with "combat" in the name that they would put at least one more dude on the topic. If not, just outsource it to some of the very proven devs like HB and RB.
If you want to keep this conversation going then I suggest contacting me in some other manner such as discord, or keeping it brief. I don't particularly want to keep up a dissertation length conversation in this comments section lol. Thank you for your insights tho. I will remember them for future conversations on the matter.
@@PrezDCS "The ED netcode is pretty trash tho. That I can say with confidence, but I know most players don't care b/c singleplayer" -- if you say their netcode is trash as a player opinion, go right ahead and lay another very terribly supported, and overgeneralized opinion. What sim has better netcode and exactly how so? Are there tradeoffs?
You keep dipping into pretending you know *something* about code, and other topics, and you look absolutely silly. You can't verify my credentials either but I've proactively offered uncommon information that wouldn't arrive at the first thing you Google, or if you just talked to people who "are." I stand to gain nothing by joining a shared scratchpad session and answering coding interview questions -- you couldn't even grade them. I could tell you I was writing Java and it was really C# and you'd hardly know the difference. Even if you establish what I am, all you'll say is "I can still have my opinion."
Yes, uninformed people can have opinion on matters they know nothing about -- THAT is the internet of content creators (and wannabes). Useful opinion as information includes supporting words of what you mean. This whole time you just keep saying "I am" and "I know" about classified information handling and software engineering -- never once offering anything one might think to share understanding of to establish what they've done or teaching what they know. You're barely speaking anything that matters even about ECM and ECCM in air combat -- for someone who's read substantial textbook information, there is not a single part of it you thought of to explain in the original content? I believe you read or skimmed over a page or two at most in a textbook and took off running as if you had enough information to speak on it so grandly. "DCS is trash lol; wHaT dO tHoSe eNgiNeeRs eVeN kNoW?"
Someone like you would really get embarassed if you ever tried it in front of me in real life; and it would happen even when I'm trying to be polite about your ignorance. You don't seem super young, but maybe you barely socialize -- my advice to you, do NOT do what you're doing here in a real conversation. The average person knows more than you and will know you're full of it.
Same for everything in DCS.. so dessapointed..
The good thing there are options, like go to a competitor.
Could you break down a bit more in detail what regarding the radar for example you find unrealistic?
Honestly, that is a very broad topic and something I could probably go on about for several paragraphs, so instead I will give you two examples.
1. ED modeled look-down penalty in their two flagship modules (F-16 and F-18) as being a percentage modifier of range detection reduction based on the look angle in reference to the horizon. I forgot the exact numbers, but it was something like 5% range reduction for every degree for the F-16 at one point in 2023.
2. ED's most recent radar changes to the F-16 and F-18 which happened well after this video are a great example of ED having the correct idea and executing it very, very badly. Specifically, I am referring to how they added "Probability of Detection" to their radars, but forgot to model the most important part of being able to calculate a probability of detection and that is the false alarm rate. So, as of right now, instead of actually having a truly variable detection rate based on range to target, you instead have perfect radar detection out to the now some 50% increased range than before the update came out.
Once you learn a module, you finally can see everything thats broken, and suddenly Simps telling you that you just dont know what you're talking about stand out like a sore thumb, and DCS starts looking more and more like an old dumpster fire with disgusting human beings picking through its remains adamant that its still good.
Air combat is fun in WW2 and people say cold war too. Dynamic campaigns are missing so much.
It seems to me that ED only cares about making their release module's the best and trying to keep them as the meta
How to use flares and chaffs separately in F15E?
Theirs a bind to hit the switch in the back from the front seat that I have bound
the real problems are they don't hire more devs and because they develop for sims for real service pilots a guess could be seen as more then a guess. but i share you anger but for a longer time period
its funny that yesterday 22sept2023 i just asked for a refund in the f15E because of these details that keep going on, and i actually ended up in a rant on a steam review, i was going just to say the plane wasnt worth at all the price that ED is asking due to many bugs and core problems with DCS itself, but i ended up doing a full love-hate dcs review. Yeah ED by now , after 15 years, should have done so much more with the Sim Core code itself but keeps numb and just pushing new aircrafts and many silly campaigns. The real fan base like me or you have spent between 500 or 1200 bucks like me and it is unacceptable the lack of direction and philosophy they ended up taking . ED by now should have done so much more around this sim, so many systems and physics repaired , doing daily weakly missions and challenges, rewards, yeahhh like in F real life, some kind of incentives where you feel rewarded for something and more attracted to , but no.. everything that has been done is by the community and that's it, everything else is hype-pay hype -pay how come they never throw us a bone like missions well scripted for free and if you sucede these challenges(they should be hard challenges) you would have a special livery or something......the F-16 still broken as well and i feel it isnt something so hard to fix, they just dont give 2 shi&%s , we can say ED is rich now right? isnt a niche anymore, God dam it try to recruit good coders with a outsider perspective, Even Matt recognized that in a interview, these guys are cows "milkers" all the passion is gone is just business, lets be real here, paying 70-80 dollars for a single aircraft that isnt finished is just crazy, it is the price of the full MSFS with all the world modeled plus many great aircrafts. I find myself wanting to fly but after a few minutes 30-60 max im bored to death, i bought all the missions or campaigns they have in the store plus all maps 8 modules and after 2000h i find myself with the mouse over the dcs "do i click ?" ...this "sim" is broken is many aspects including the aspect of keeping the community engaged, the visuals are mehh because obviously i like visuals too and the mechanics of many aircrafts are not there, i even think the f15c for 12 bucks fly better than this one, Prez sorry my English and the long msg...i did it again, and im very happy to find wasnt just me about this Module, cheers from Portugal-Lisbon
I am long of the opinion that the very best thing that could happen to DCS World is for it to get competition.
It's true that competition breeds innovation. However, I honestly believe that this niche is not one that thrives with competition as the fanbases are simply too dedicated when it requires a lot of time and effort to be competent at these titles. I think the only way to improve the game is a legitimate effort set forth by the community to get ED to improve their game.
@@PrezDCS I really don't see how that will happen without outside pressure. Most just wouldn't pressure them, but if something better came along that would change everything.
It is surrounded by competition.
@@rwhunt99 from what?
meh.. i don't think DCS will have any real competition any time soon. Long gone are the days of Jane's and other flight sims during that time. Just check how many separate flight sims were made in the last 15/20 years.
DCS is NOT a good game. Its an old platform for expensive modules being released in "early access" for average 60 bucks.
People say "its great" because there is no competition. In 90s nobody would bother with this game. Nowadays? Its like an old rule: "if you dont have what you would like to have then you have to like what you have"...
The aim 9 tracking the aim 7 is a fallacy.
The aim 9 detonates when it gets close to any object. Both the aim 7 and aim 9 share a common target. The two missiles killing eachother is a probability
How dare you say Streagle.... You were the chosen one....
Infinitely better than saying Panther or mudhen lol
@@PrezDCS nobody says panther or streagle 🤣
@@final_revenge I know, streagle is funny. Also, you shower with your socks on if you say mudhen btw. Known fact
@@PrezDCS wait yall take your socks off for the shower?
Not sure, but are you complaining that jamming works, or is it that it works inconsistently? I do know ED has said, it is very difficult to model, especially when this is one of those areas where secrets prevent accuracy. So, I don't really know how to overcome that issue. Maybe Falcon BMS has done it better. ED does it's best to be "the one" sim that is most accurate and I can't see how they can be with the gaps in classified systems that are present.
Electronic Warfare is not a secret thing. It's all just signals and math. There are numerous public textbooks that discuss and teach how EW works and how to create those environments. There are even textbooks that document the US of EW by militaries especially the US. The only part of EW that is actually "Top Secret" are how specific jammers, for example the ALQ-184 on the F-16, actually jam different systems. I.e. what jamming programs it does and how it calculates them, etc., etc. But we know what kind of antenna are in the ALQ-184 Long Pod: A short, medium, and long wavelength antenna meaning we know it can jam pretty much all combat radar types. While the short pod only has a short and medium antenna so it can't jam long wavelength like a search radar. This is known and can be accurately modeled using the completely public math models and educated guesses for the sake of gameplay.
@@PrezDCS I like it when you simplify a very complex issue, lol! As stated, the Governments around the world do their best to keep their algorithm and intel secret for a reason. A flight sim is not enough reason for them to leak real world details as most of it is encrypted.
Sure. I'm not asking ED to perfectly model how something like an ALQ-184 works. That would get them in trouble and probably be more complex than the game itself lol. I'm just saying that authentic EW behavior and environments are completely possible through fully public information. It's hard to articulate exactly how I believe this would work without writing several paragraphs lol. I just believe it can be done and be enjoyable for the end user.
@@PrezDCS So you think ED never thought about this? I'm pretty sure the programmers are just as enthusiastic about this as we are.
@@rwhunt99 Idk, maybe they have, maybe they haven't. I'm not a developer, but from watching the development track for the last 3 years I wouldn't hold your opinion on this specific topic.
Missile hitting missile is really dumb. Agree.
Dcs' business model does not incentivize development on the core engine. Potentially a fix for this could be that ED bites the bullet and makes a sequel that is paid for/kickstarted so they can devote proper resources to the engine, dynamic campaign, built from scratch engine, what feels like a real world battlefield etc
That's absolutely not what they need to do. They already are working on a lower fidelity title that is taking way longer than it should to come out. Rebuilding a game with a larger scope than what we already have would take who knows how long. Plus, I think DCS is in a good spot money wise where they have tons of third party modules available and more on their way so the passive income is very much an enabling factor to just work on the core game so that the third parties have a better environment to develop more modules for the game and therefore bringing more people to play making ED more money to further develop the game.
Its early access so a lot of things don't work as advertised. Hard to criticise a plane that is still in development.
I’m not even criticizing the F-15E in this video.
Biggest downfall of DCS is its business model. They continuously have to pump out new modules to make profit. So modules stay unfinished (or Early Access as ED likes to call it) for years and then announce another new module. As time goes on, there are tons of modules that aren't finished and list of bugs grow with number of modules. Size of their programmers doesn't grow at same rate so eventually, it will reach breaking point. Or is already breaking. They need to offer some sort of subscription model. Like Xbox or EA. Maybe $2-$5 per module. To have steady income so they can complete the modules and fix the bugs.
You have to think about how big are the developers who do this, as some of them are just a handful and have second day jobs to help them survive.
Most of the time when you have a subscription model, it generates incredible amounts of profits - at the expense of its own customers. MSFS is a prime example they get you to buy their game and promise it is extendable, and now they are introducing a new one which is the same but because they want more profits and if they just continue to improve it without charging, they won't generate the profits their investors want, so what do they do - they create a supposedly "new Version" you have to pay for. In a few years they will go to a subscription model because that is where the money is and takes off the pressure to continually innovate.
@@rwhunt99 Whenever "Subscription" is suggested, people automatically assume that is the ONLY option. It is not. You CAN still purchase full version of MSFS. It can be same in DCS. You don't HAVE TO use the subscription. It is an OPTION. I have 7 permanent modules for example. And I will not purchase any more "Early Access" modules. But if ED offered per module subscription, I may pay $5 a month to try different modules each month. That is extra steady profit for ED so they don't have to be pressured to make new module.
And you make it sound like you're doomed with Xbox subscription but you can cancel it anytime.
Software as a service is something I do not agree with. Subscription gaming has become more of the norm as things become ever more digitized and I think that’s a bad thing for us as customers and would put an extra wall to this game that’s going to hurt the already relatively small community.
@@PrezDCS Again, does it matter if current full purchasing option isn't changed? How does someone having Xbox subscription affect the ones who fully purchase MSFS? Also, I think both of you missed the point of the subscription. It is not for convenience of the customers. It is for ED to focus more on completing modules and fixing bugs than focusing on making new modules with more bugs.
@@BrianHSC Looking at the subscription as not being strictly for the convenience of the customer is the whole problem with your point. Giving ED more money when they fail to produce a product with zero competition is not going to help anyone but ED. I could understand if you looked at the subscription service as a way to get more people to play the game as 5 or 10 bucks a month is a far shallower barrier to entry than $80 for single product, but that's not how you phrased it.
I don't even bother w ATA anymore. Thats ok, I enjoy the ground game. But, it would be nice for them to figure out why so many ATA issues and correct them.
Janes 15E years ago was the same way. The F15E is a Bomber.....The F15X is the Fighter Jet, maybe they make a Mod.
There already is a mod for the EX. This video isn't talking down about the F-15E's capability to perform air combat. I think it honestly exceeds the F-15C in game in every way but raw dogfighting ability. This is about DCS air combat as a whole
You said "It's great at simulating certain aspects like shining a laser through a cloud to guide GBU-12s onto an MT-LB just like real life" and this is one thing completely unrealistic...
Pain.
13:32 9L does not have IRCCM, 9M was the first to feature that
Sure, but this wasn't in reference to specifically the AIM-9L if you listen to the argument. It was an introductory statement to the broader argument of poor counter-countermeasure modeling
F-15E is not a dogfighter 2 turns and its out of energy in real life as well as in DCS. BVR Great but dogfighting its a fat turkey. F-15C different animal altogether.
Also one issue i have with many DCS pilots buying modules in DCS is the addition of "Early Access!" in the Title of the module and DCS pilots scream, this doesn't work that doesn't work.
This is DCS there have never been any Early access modules that were any good at all at launch. NONE look at the disasterous MB-339 it's a complete waste of money to buy it at the moment. The F-15E is just out it is going to take at least another year before it gets near to being copmplete, but right now the fact it flies and has what it does broken or not is good for an Early Access DCS module.
Pov wt gets irccm down better smh xD
Also, from what I have heard is jamming defeats the detection fuse of a missile, so an incoming threat does not prox on the plane xd
Thus
If a missile comes within 1 inch of you, it *shouldn't* explode, but if it does physically get a hit, then it would pop? Lol
Missiles don't proxy fuze in multiplayer anyways. All kills are always direct hits with the target.
Fair... and simulator are mutually exclusive concepts. I will say Electronic warefare needs to be addressed however a lot of this is classified sooo... good luck...
No, fair is fair in a simulator when things are actually modeled correctly. I am not saying it's unfair because I don't like it. I'm saying it's unfair because it is unrealistic and game-breaking. Also, the biggest cope about EW is people saying stuff is "classified". Yes, how exactly a specific jammer functions is classified. How jamming works and how radars deal with jamming is not classified information in the slightest. It's all literally just math.
DCS is a horror game.
The AIM 120 has literally only been used to destroy another plane in air to air combat 16 timees. So how would anyone know what would be realisitc or not. two super powers never been to full on war with same gen planes. Especially no where near the number of engagments that DCS world simulates. WHich i would like to imagine woiuld be some what similar to Growling sidewinders server if two super powers fought in the air. it would be complete chaos and only last a few minutes because are ability to shoot down planes is way too good atm then our ability to evade them. I think a real massive engament between 4th gen planes with 120s would be over so fast and no one could really claim the winner. Massive losses on both sides i would imagine. Like in DCS GS server
The GS server is not realistic at all. It's mostly solo guys flying in random ways against each other. Real air combat is very organized in the modern day, and in incredibly large formations if we're talking about legitimate peer2peer fighting
You don't think it would quickly fall into chaos as missiles start going out and each fighter has to evade their own missiles if let's say 50 on 50 or 100 on 100. That many long-range missiles going out and everyone having to evade them would, in my opinion, become super chaotic everyman for themselves. I mean how could your buddies help you when they have their own super-efficient long-range A/A missiles coming at them? @@PrezDCS
@@TheDegenerateLord Like I said, modern air wars are fully controlled by dozens if not hundreds of controllers at a time on top of having datalink especially on the scale you are talking about and every one is following a rehearsed plan. Sure, it would be chaotic, but it would not simply be 200 jets flying at each other in a small area spamming missiles at each other. That's just horrifically unrealistic and kind of an insult to just how much real military pilots train and rehearse for combat.
@@PrezDCS how would you know? How would anyone know?
@@TheDegenerateLord Because I do actually read and listen to accounts by real pilots as well as the public documents related to air combat. I’ve looked into this a lot. You would know, too, if you read the liturature.
the air combat is exactly why is stopped playing years ago..... ed just fails at modeling it....
So much complaining and moaning over a game that delivers so many things in it and still people will complain about things that are ‘so obvious and stupid why can’t they fix x, y and z today in 1 hour?’. Just stop flying in DCS if this is such a big issue…
lol
I AGREE 1000%
This is why I rather do A/G...
It’s unrealistic and lacking just as much as air to air dcs has a huge problem
@@RW-zn8vy there is more there than not.
@@shaneduc not really, it’s just a bunch of lifeless ground targets that you attack. They don’t preform correctly it’s just bland for example with sead they don’t try to mask themselves or move they’re always active the damage models are ass for air to ground. You could drop a 2000 pound bomb and it does almost nothing. Tanks are just props again no reaction when under fire. A2g is basically target practice in dcs.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense with a lot of the classified stuff being in the game. Like the F22, I downloaded it because it was free, but it's like flying a placeholder, to be filled at a later date?
The amraam speeds to Mach 4, the sidewinder to Mach 2.5. There is no way that Aim9 could have caught that first missile.
I've don't this myself just firing missiles off before landing, I noticed the sidewinders locking onto and killing my amraam's too.
That was a sucky time for it to happen too lol.
F-22 is a mod so I wouldn't expect a lot from it
@@noobliterally2145 Yeah actually that's true, it is a mod, my bad lol.
@@noobliterally2145 That's true, so many people are confused but have the ultimate expectation that a free module will be the best thing since sliced bread.
I'm a creative director for a small software company, and while I have yet to work on any flight sims, I think you seriously underestimate the complexity of accurately modelling systems, at least in a multiplayer environment. The sim has to be able to run on a wide variety of end-user's PCs all with their own specs, connect to a server, with each end-user having a different value for their own latency, with potentially dozens of players and AI able to launch at basically the same time, and then attempt to synchronize and reconcile the transmitted data between all those computers (while never actually fully accomplishing the task because all those individual computers can be as much as a half-second out of sync) all while providing the illusion that players are flying around in the same environment in real-time. Everything about real-time multiplayer gaming is an illusion, hell, I'd even go as far as to say that it's all a big lie, really... and asking for deterministic systems-level modelling for an expendable whose workings likely appears probabilistic even to real pilots is a lot to ask. Yes, Razbam does it for their radar, but that particularly likely does all the real work on the client side, and if you look in the menu, there's clearly an option to assign a certain number of cores/threads to the process, as it's very CPU intensive. Add in the "classified information" issue for the newer equipment and the whole endeavor systems modelling on glorified projectiles starts to look pointless.
Also, it's quite unfair to Eagle Dynamics to imply they're not interested, or don't care about increasing the fidelity of their sims when they've spent the last several years converting the engine over to operate with multi-threading. You might think of the change as something like replacing a tire on a car, but as a programmer myself, I look at it more as entirely replacing the foundation on a house without knocking it down. It's an absolute miracle that they accomplished this while simultaneously allowing a half dozen or so other developers to implement changes and additions to their simulation, and they hardly get any credit for it. Most developers would lock down the feature list before they even thought to undergo such a massive change to the simulation. And once the multi-threading and Vulkan enhancements to their engine are complete (which I would not consider to have happened until those changes reach the stable branch), I would be awfully surprised if they didn't provide a lot of enhancements to the game-play (though in the case of air to air missiles, I still would imagine they would have to use a statistical approach for performance reasons, though it might be a significantly more convincing one).
Every non-programmer seems to think that ED doesn't give a shit, but they don't seem to realize what a tremendous undertaking and investment for the future changing the game to a modern engine was (or how time consuming such a change can be... especially when you haven't lock-down all the features and functionality).
Yeah, I know game development is hard, but this is frankly just cope. I am not telling them that it's something that can be done overnight. I would prefer they take a full year to focus on modelling and development in the base game over updating their modules. Here's the deal, whether you like it or not, the complexity of the systems I am talking about (radar, countermeasures, etc.) is all publicly available knowledge with very clear and concrete mathematical models to follow. And for a game that claims to be a simulator, one that many, many people continue to spout about it being "the best simulator", it should be unacceptable for the actual level of simulation to be so poor especially for how long this game has existed. There are people who have been playing this for over a decade and the simulation level of the base product has barely changed. I care about this game a lot because it's the only outlet for what I want: high-level simulated air combat. My criticisms are absolutely warranted and are the same ones held by many other people in the community, even those that have played this game far longer than I have.
@@will9357 Again, DCS and it's predecessor LockOn have existed for literally more than a decade. For the simulation not to have noticeably improved in all that time for something that markets itself as a simulator and not just a game should be unacceptable, not just to the consumers, but to ED themselves. I'm sure they've put a lot of work in, but what can be seen by the consumer with any amount of critical thinking and objective examination of the product as a simulator is that they do not care enough about the simulation and would prefer to make the game look pretty which they heavily focused on because that's what sold people on it for the past few years. Myself and many others could not care less about the graphic quality as long as the simulation is high quality. This is why games like Falcon BMS still have a large, extremely dedicated following despite still graphically being from the late-90s. That sim actually has good simulation far beyond what DCS is able to achieve. I would gladly help ED if they gave me the opportunity, and many others feel the same, but that is not what ED wants. The third parties have gone out of their way several times to complain about the lack of actual simulation in the game holding back their products.
@@PrezDCS "DCS and it's predecessor LockOn have existed for literally more than a decade."
That's almost certainly because DCS was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved with a single core... in other words, it didn't improve precisely because it was such an old engine. You can only do so much with a single core, especially when single core processing speeds have hardly improved over the last 10 years. No offense, but you seem amazingly ignorant into what goes into any of this.
@@will9357 No, I am plenty well versed into what it takes to create and develop a game. I would feel more lenient if this gamer were significantly younger. I don’t believe you are looking at this issue objectively in the slightest as you insert your own anecdotal experience into this, which is fine, but it clearly deludes you into thinking it’s okay for ED to have a consistently flawed product for so many years. I do not expect things to be changed overnight as I said. This is a “simulator”. Furthermore, it’s a “combat simulator”. You should expect it to accurately simulate combat. I think you are ignorant of that fact.
I don't have these issues
No one does. I made it all up for dramatic, over-the-top dramatic effect.
@@PrezDCS oh. Maybe I should watch the entire video lol
AIM-54 Phoenix...in real life it was garbage, in DCS its better than the aim 120C
Absolutely untrue lol. Maybe two years ago before it got nerfed into the ground I would agree.
@@PrezDCS well, then it WAS true
1-st: You use a lot of words like "I believe" "I feel ", "I think". You don't know, you're just guessing. Razbam worked over modern radar quite a lot. Programmers, research etc. many months of work. And you say "I read lately about radars" - you think that makes it equal? Are you now an expert? Razbam gives precise explanation on everything he made with F-15E radar , but you "feel" that ist's wrong. It's childish. A bit modesty ... maybe? I don't like adjusting game to people wishes. I don't like whiners. Most of you say makes no sense. Example? Here you go: F-15E DCS It's 2004-2005 version right? Already during "desert storm" AiM-7 were evaluated as useless against modern airplanes. Only about ~13% of AiM-7 reached it's target. None of fired Phoenixes reached it's targets. modern electronic warfare made many of combat systems obsolete. Already in 1991. There's more about it. Reports (declassified), books, and analyses. Surely having knowledge about optics, wave mechanic, quantum mechanic, and anatomy of electromagnetic wave is necessary to understand the real nature of a problem.
With "I believe" - go to church. With "I feel" go to a girl, and before you say "I think" - think actually for some time, instead of just jabber without any facts at hand.
2nd: If you make a movie about BVR and write "air combat in DCS sucks" than it's clear to me, that you experienced only small amount of air combat in DCS. It's only BVR you show here. The title is misleading. It should say "BVR in DCS sucks". And it's also wrong statement. It's not like the one in War thunder? I have to disappoint you. It shouldn't. BVR in allround sucks. Better electronic wins. Pilot is not that important, but DCS is much more than just that. Gen 4+ fighters are boring, that's why there's many guys who never touched them. If you like air combat you need to learn MiG-19, MiG-21, Viggen, F-5E, MiG-15bis, F-86F... Sending medium range missiles against each other makes IMO little fun, but it's like being 60 yo fisherman who discovered, that fish smells and water is wet. It's hardly a revolutionary discovery.
DCS evolves. There was no electronic warfare in it. Now it comes to life. Instead of whining be graceful, and admire - unique opportunity to experience something real. There's no competition for that in whole world.
11:19 - 2 rockets incoming, no sign of splash (sorry, but after splash there's somebody's going down with black smoke behind. "Puff" means - AiM-7 went dead
12:25 - You were locked couple seconds before, maybe even all the time. No RWR is reliable if you're maneuvering like crazy. RWR was silent because enemy plane found himself in RWR blind zone. Even if it's short period, it need it's time to reacquire. It's rather basic knowledge. It's not war thunder. Learn the systems you use. Next time show us tacview - there we'll see everything.
12:56 - hardly a discovery. Spamming rockets like crazy won't bring you success in DCS. AiM-7 quickly loses energy if it's forced to maneuver. AiM-9L acquired on it - it's also not that rare. Shockwave of AiM-7 and still hot engine remainings, were probably a big heat source for AiM-9. Bigger than MiG-29 sawn from the front. It's all perfectly well made. I admit one thing - "It's unacceptable that something like that happens". Sure - you have a lot to learn. You shall watch some films instead of making ones. Starting from the one which explains how heatseeker may acquire on wrong target. There are a tons of things in DCS air combat that you're unaware of. And it's clear in these movie. You make a lot of noise without much sense.
AiM-9L is missile of '80s. It was not as strong in front aspect, it was still sensible in presence of countermeasures (it's AiM-9M you're talking about in 13:35 not AiM-9L. AiM-9L has little counter-countermeasure protection, and even if, it won't work here- in these situation). Heatseeker can always acquire on wrong target. Surely in case of 9L. It's also basic knowledge.
16:35 - "I don't know anything about it, but I have my opinion anyway, and I'm so sure about it, that I'm ready to announce it to the world on YT". How old are you?
17:50 - learn some program language. Python or C++ or something basic. Like Delphi :-) come again and say "I don't see why it's so hard". You produce one nonsense after another.
Also... most bugs you pointed out are actually long developed features of DCS. You're Ignorant on many levels.
You're like neanderthal who found a Colt and soap and complains: "These hammer is really rubbish, and these cheese is awful"...
You are very retarded and have coddled yourself with complacency for things you don’t understand instead of actually performing research. It’s clear you have less experience and understand of DCS than I do if you are going to sit there and defend them without a hint of irony. Please educate yourself before wasting your time with nothing typing out more drivel.
As for experience I fly various flight sims for about 20 years. Secondly - my squadron does not encounter such humiliation airborne-made disasters like the one you show. Either we have more luck , or we know something you don't@@PrezDCS
@@krzysztofgawe1089 A noticeable trend in people like you that have been simming for decades is the complete inability to appropriately criticize newer products like DCS because you are so blinded by how comparatively fancy this is to something like Jane's from the 90s. It's complacency spurred on by rose tinted glasses. I suggest trying to look at DCS more objectively in the future. Also, I assume you play strictly PvE or some light PvP on a public server with your squadron. I wouldn't expect more than that from how you've laid out your argument. It echoes the same as many other people with primitive PvP experience.
@@PrezDCS Criticism doesn't have a value of it's own. Arguments have. You presented pitiful ones. For 20 years I observe how whiners like yourself destroy one sim after another. People make research, create algorithms and then "YT experts" like yourself produce one nonsens after another, and whine. "I don't like these, I don't like that". Grow up. Gather some knowledge - about systems you use, and about fighter combat. For a start I can recommend R.L. Shaw "Air Combat". It's fighter pilot bible. True- tere's a little about BVR there. Basics about BVR you can find on Grimm Reapers here on YT, and Growling Sidewinder. It's very basic, but very well explained. Tutorials there can help you understand why your dogfight went how it went. I can assure you. There's no "bug" in anything you encounter in these movie.
@@krzysztofgawe1089 LMAO! You did not just seriously recommend Grim Reapers and GrowlingSidewinder as resources. You are a clown.
This is a very funny video. The history of the DCS Simulator has been going on for almost three decades, and its developers know their stuff well. The author of this video does not even know the simple procedures for using weapons, but at the same time he tries to reproach the developers of the DCS. You repeat many times that missiles don't work that way, but you haven't even presented a single argument about how you think they should work. Nothing is known about ECM systems. It is assumed that these systems do not allow you to determine the actual distance to the target. If so, then try to calculate the trajectory of the missile to the target if you do not know the distance to it.
It's very easy to say that the missile should be home on JAM, but you forget that any missile flies on a ballistic trajectory. Missile cannot simply fly to some point in the sky in a straight line.
This is the funniest nonsense anyone has yet to write in my comments section. You have no idea what you are talking about lmao. I want to make a legitimate response, but it would go over your head. I'll be making legitimate scripted videos on this stuff later, but this was just me rambling.
@@PrezDCS Well then, we will discuss this topic in more detail after you present your new videos.
@@PrezDCS Still waiting on the new videos.
@@EbonySeraphim Lazy, busy, and dispassionate
how many russki it could kill?
Billions…
I think most the people hating in the comments are just having skill issue.... like really ive never had any of these so called "flaws" avail me .... jammers have never done anything to me than get the initial lock a little longer once locked never a problem
Experience issue lol
The F15 is still a very early release. You don't get to complain about things that haven't been implemented in a ALPHA release, lol.
Millennials needed far fewer time-outs and far fewer participation trophies and far more reality. The worst generation in human History never fails to impress. For all the wrong reasons.
Bro, I am not even complaining about the F-15E. I say in the video that I think it's great and there are just some early bugs that should (and have at this time) get fixed and it should be much better. Did you even watch the video or did you make this comment 30 seconds into the video? Average millennial being a midwit moron for the sake of feeling correct about something.
Sorry, but whenever I hear the "unfair" argument, with modeling stuff in DCS I am out... 😂
It's not unfair because I don't like it. It's unfair because it's broken and incorrect modelling. The Mirage 2000 as it is currently modeled, is physically impossible to kill with SARH missiles which is ruining the gameplay experience.
@counterair173 open beta, I’m not sure you can even use the strike Eagle on stable. And nobody I know flies stable. It’s just as buggy as OB but with way slower updates
@counterair173 This video isn't about how bad of a developer Razbam is unless you completely misunderstood the video. I did clearly state that the problems I have with the F-15E are just bugs in the initial release and I expect them to get fixed. This whole video's criticism are directed entirely towards ED.
@counterair173 I see, think I just misunderstood the tone of your message. Thank you.
@@PrezDCS Of course the ECM is incorrectly modeled. It has to be. Because this stuff is still heavily classified and nobody who actually knows, will risk jail time to let a gaming community know... Well, mostly nobody.
With that out of the way, we need to accept, that we have no idea how effective a modern jammer is against an old SARH missile. It may be accurate, it may be totally bonkers, but there isn't a "Jane's technical guide to modern ECM capabilities" to check.
So in the end it is unfair, because you can't get a kill... and that is not the "gameplay experience" you expect. In my opinion it would be a great move to either remove the ECM from all modules, or have the same ECM for every module. Balanced and fair, but this will pretty much guarantee a shit storm from the realism addicts... I guess that's why we get step-by-step improvements to missile FM, missile guidance, radar modeling, radar track calculation etc. with the little public available data.
lmao
Regarding your AIM-9 killing AIM-7 , your AIM-9 was probably a LIMA version. I am not sure if the LIMA was so good at discrimination between heat sources. Newer missiles have different NIR wavelengths , with some imaging capabilities ( IIR ) .
I know it was a 9L. I said as much in the video. And trust me, the game is not coded to have that level of complexity for the seekers. IR seekers can see perfectly through clouds in this game after all
@@PrezDCS I feel like alot of the points made in the video are very good, and the real thing youre adressing with the IR missile example is the RNG mechanics present in way too many areas. The missile itself locking onto the Aim-7 is definitly possible however, very unlucky yes, but especially the 9L did not yet have advanced IRCCM and could end up tracking your own missile in a head-on shot, both from the motor exhaust and heat generated by air friction thats greater than the target planes friction heat.
Personally my biggest grudge is especially with the radar and jamming mechanics, as they are often still very simplified or botched even in comparison to much smaller dev teams like VTOL VR. I have also read that missile drag is increased in comparison to irl though dont quote me on that
@@ill3260 Yeah, the AIM-9L target swapping is a bit of a weak argument for me to hold, but the RNG mechanics for IR spoofing certainly are on point. Also, the last bit about missile drag. I feel like the missile drag is pretty accurate, but that there is an artificial cap on missile speeds like they hit a wall. This is very noticeable with the AIM-120. I have yet to successfully get an AIM-120C to exceed Mach 5 even when launched with parameters of >M2.0 and 50kft. There seems to be something artificially hampering peak energy for missiles and I'm unsure what or why.
Besides that tho, the atmospheric modeling does just suck in DCS. The air density just disappears above 40kft. It's very noticeable when you're like me and my team where our average cruising altitude is >40kft.
The most entitled gaming community: dcfeckins
There is a reason there is nothing like it in the market. We are so lucky to even have this...
You ever hear of Falcon BMS? It's literally a better combat simulator in almost every way except for graphics.