All Activity

Any chance this bad girl is still being worked on? Been several years now.

How did this work out for you? Set: SnapViews["FA-18C_hornet"] = { [1] = {-- player slot 1 ... [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 41.000000,--FOV 44.180000(60°), 41.000000(56°), OEM 63.000000 "FA-18C_hornet" viewAngleVertical= 0.000000,--VFOV hAngle = 0.000000,-- (View Center)/(Cam View Dn-Slow)(-30°) vAngle = -30.000000,-- Cockpit View Angle 0.000000, OEM -15.700000 (Note: reset from '0.000000,' for this exercise. x_trans = 0.015000,-- Cockpit View In_Trans 0.015000(60/56°), OEM 0.130000 y_trans = -0.017000,-- Cockpit View Up_Trans -0.017000, OEM -0.008300 z_trans = 0.000000,-- Cockpit View Rt_Trans 0.000000, OEM 0.000000 rollAngle = 0.000000, cockpit_version = 0, This will convert the default 'center view' - to a 30° down angle view from the proper eyeball location. Adjust 'viewAngle', (higher numbers = increased FoV) until you match this: Then reset 'vAngle = -30.000000,' back to 'vAngle = 0.000000,'. Bowie

I play mostly PvP servers, against a real human pilot they are really hard to hit, idk the exact percentage of hits/launches, but they certainly are pretty low...

C-130J Development Progress Testing Phase Airplane Simulation Company, the developers of the DCS: C-130J are making excellent progress. The module has been added to our internal version, and integration testing is underway to ensure compatibility with current DCS systems. FARP System Development We are currently developing a new system that will allow for cargo aircraft to operate as a mobile FARP. This means that in multiplayer environments you will be able to resupply friendly aircraft at any location on the map, using resources carried inside of your aircraft. The cargo and FARP deployment systems represent new gameplay mechanics that will enhance the logistics, support aspects of DCS missions. GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast The MOAB implementation is particularly important as it's the signature weapon deployed from the C-130. At 9 tons, it's one of the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal. We are working on its drop animations whilst tuning its explosive yield and explosion effect size. Release Timeline The C-130 launch will be based on testing results given the complexity of the module. We look forward to sharing more details. Bye Phant

Track attached. Whenever I fly with friendly AI, they consistently do the dumbest things in a BVR fight - fly in straight towards an incoming missile, make extremely inadequate defense maneuvers and consistently shoot off two missiles and immediately gets shot down. In this track, friendly AI is handicapped with less missiles and lower speed - normal that they all get shot down, but in flights where friendly AI aren't handicapped, they also never survive. Meanwhile, enemy AI flies in, reacts so aggressively and perform some bat<profanity> insane manuevers, dodge a hail of missiles coming in all after completely massacring my friendlies. While it's not absolute, this is more often than not the case. The absolute absurdity of JF-17s in the initial engagement of this track combined with the utter stupidity of my friendlies is astounding. Keep in mind that in this mission the JF-17s were at the "trained" level and the F-16s were turned up to "ace". During their evasive maneuvers, the JF-17s regularly pull 7Gs with fuel tanks strapped on. Cool - fighter planes can and do pull 7Gs in a fight, but what about the friendly AI? Then there's the exchange between the AI F-15 and J-11. The most evasive maneuver friendlies ever do is hit the notch. Then when the missile comes for them, the consistency of the evasive actions they take aren't in any way comparable with the enemy AI. It's not so much a problem of whether or not friendly AI do high G maneuvers to escape missiles nor is it limited to one or two over or under performing aircarft. Blue AI does evade and can sometimes do equally break neck maneuvering. But the rate and consistency at which they do it feels noticeably lower than enemy aircraft - so much so that it's essentially an RNG toss up for how well your wingman will perform today on a given mission. It could also be a problem of blue aircraft vs red aircraft too. You could fly the exact mission and the first time your team gets wiped while trading with the enemy and you barely scratch by a win, but the second time your entire team gets wiped while the enemy team's much higher evasion consistency means they escape all the missiles your friendlies lob at them. This also necessarily means that you are either limited to small engagements that are more or less completely incapable of utilizing tactics, large engagements with zero expectation for consistency, or turning enemy air into dumb targets just so you can replicate the effect of having consistent engagements to predicate further mission events upon. Tacview-20251024-172951-DCS.txt.acmi

FONTE https://forum.dcs.world/topic/380810-dc ... nt=5712683 Bye Phant

What's your agenda here?[''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' And that last nonsense of quotes at the end? It quite literally is my cat typing, becasue my cat puts his hands on the keyboard, like a RWR system for people who are trolling.

Bye Phant

Wing Pylons Optional: - 1A As w/ other modules, wing pylons are removable in the Armaments/Loadout screen. You have provided the centerline fuel tank and bomb carriage, a-la '-1A'. Please, for the Solomon Islands loonies, make the wing pylons removable. Thanks for the great U-bird. Bowie

We have no plans to start a new DCS thread for the Cold War Vessels mod. Meantime some bugs were fixed and a first Release Candidate for Vietnam War Vessels 2.2.0 has been handed over to our testers. New assets are the EC-121 Warning Star and CH-46D Sea Knight, as well as a few static structures, shown in the screens above. Depending on feedback and the detection of critical errors, the development will continue for a few more weeks most likely. I hope we can push 2.2.0 out before US Thanksgiving. Cheers, TeTeT

My 5c, the grid is an absolute life save in anything more complex then a one on one scramble. I usually tell Jester to set it over the Bullseye, and then align it a way that the vector that bogies/bandits are most likely expected takes the dominant place in the visible quadrant. But I also use the center on plane feature, to orient myself where I am in relation to the Bullseye. This make Bullseye calls a breeze to quickly understand and visualize.

I guess we aren't supposed to lineup 0.75. At least that's the way I always saw it. P.S. I know I being stubborn, but any chance of adding the F-14A variants to the trainer?

F4U DevGru - Directional Gyro Course (+/-), and Cage Am sure that the issue is being addressed, as the Course adjustment function is inop. While in there, could you put a key-bind so that the Cage function is on a toggle? It's already a button, and the extra key can be re-tasked. Thanks. Great U-bird. Bowie

"originar poster"... Thank you for your insight and contribution to this topic. OP - Opening Post. So many hurt feelings - over a human view from the cockpit of DCS A/C. Bowie

In OPT mode (Air-2-Ground) with guns the pipper is obscured by the vertical element of the aircraft datum on the HUD. In fact the only time the A-G pipper becomes fully visible is during a Stuka-like 4G pull-up(!) which doesn't seem right. This video is a comparison showing how the FF Mig-29 is apparently 'shooting high' compared to the FC version. As you can see the FC Mig's guns are zeroed on the centreline, while the FF's are zeroed on the top of the aircraft datum. Might this explain why the FF's A-G pipper is in such a weird position? Realistic? ...or needs some tuning?

For point 1: if you go to your profile on the forum, you can delete previous uploads which may get you enough space to upload a track file (you have a limited uploads storage) in future For point 2: it actually makes sense that you can change the codes in the UFC "even though it does nothing". It let's you change them so if you were say buddy lasing, you don't get the "CODE" error on your HUD (seen in one of the pics above) from having a mismatch between your targeting pod and the bomb's you have on. Or it would allow you to correct (for the same reason) if your bomb codes got changed and didn't automatically update in the plane. Originally you could change the codes in plane and that effected the bomb. That was incorrect to IRL as you would need to physically change the code on the bomb with, for example, a screwdriver, which you obviously couldn't do IRL flying through the air. It got updated in game. And the current behaviour of being able to change it in the stores page is apparently correct to IRL too.

It's been a little bit, but estimating the angles here based on your videos, Your antenna should be pointing about 2.2 degrees up. The coverage of the beam with Jester's usual settings is 3.7. So part of your radar beam is still going below horizon. That's just the mainlobe we care about of course, sidelobes are probably responsible for all the clutter near the target. Combined with Jester having to turn up the Gain a lot because of the intercept geometry against a tiny Mig-21. False locks happen all the time in the Phantom, doesn't matter that STT is a "narrow beam." (It actually isn't, it's subject to sidelobes just like it is in search.) The radar still needs to figure out which radar echo you are trying to go for and fails frequently in cluttered conditions with such a weak return. (I can't even really see it myself in the video.) Worth noting in the Tomcat, the Main Lobe Clutter Filter doesn't shut off on it's own until the antenna angle is above 3 degrees. That's what I generally consider a look-up situation.

My gaming pc duplicates the problem.

Yes. There is no GUI for this, but one method I've used is to place targets for the ship to shoot at and then despawn once the weapons I want expended are expended. It's not ideal but if you absolutely need to reduce weapon count, this is one way.

Hi, per the original post the track file was too large to upload because of site restrictions. Yes, after looking it up it was procedures error. It's odd that you can change the codes in the UFC in flight even though it does nothing... Cheers