All Activity

I just stepped away. I will try when i'm turned and let you know my findings. Appreciate your help.

After Russian motors, now again a little bit about American ones. I’ve already worked something about AMRAAM motors and maybe it’s time to complete it and to make it in more decent way From top to bottom WPU-6/B, WPU-16/B and just for scale size comparison RDTT-542U. AMRAAM motors are actually very similar in concept (which I don’t like at all, by the way), propellant weights are known (in previous works I missed it and gave too much for both motors). Information about exact properties of propellants are of course not known but both are from same group of HTBP reduced smoke type. What I did is that I used now exactly same propellant properties for both motors, exact same nozzle geometry and erosion rate of it and just extracted outputs following grain geometry which is slightly different in these two motors. What is kind of strange is that first motor is classified as boost-sustain and second as all boost. While first one indeed has dual thrust curve, although with not so significant pressure (thrust) drop, second one is also with output which is actually not what would be normally called all boost motor. Why they classified it as all boost I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be first case. In what I’m pretty sure, is that geometry of grain as it is must give higher starting values then when motor is finishing its work. I like much more pressure data outputs than forces but people usually are interested in forces only. Although internet write all kind of numbers for these motors and some ridiculous values of specific impulse (probably because it is HTPB and not only that, it is American and recently new HTPB) these outputs of mine I find as quite fair and realistic. It is 12400kgs and 11100kgs of total impulses or average 240s sea level specific impulse which looks fair and square.

Your DCS isn't crashing. That is most likely Windows closing your process because of unresponsiveness. I would remove ALL your mods, run a slow repair with check extra files to be sure and try again. This is most likely cause by either mods or driver issues. If your Windows still closes your DCS, run a Windows tool named "dxdiag", press save everything at the bottom and provide the dxdiag.txt

Well a kind person on Redditt posted a workaround, which means you have to remove the black visor thing that blocks out the light, then on the Quest 3 and Bobovr halo head strap it allows the lenses to be rotated down a small amount to bring the hMD centre back into alignment. Takes a little bit of gtting used to, flying without the visor, but at least I have a VR HMD that can be used.

Is it not possible to add a movable RSBM to the cartridge?

Работа закрылков, предкрылков напрямую завязана на СОС-3 кроме варианта с выпущенным шасси. Вот описание работы СОС и на втором их гидросистемы.

If you fly the 29 in a realistic manner you can get a decent range out of it. Problem is that people that fly DCS judge an aircraft by how long it can fly on full burner, 'cause this is what they do in game. They keep forgeting that real fighter pilots have missions, mission objectives and commanders. And sure Fulcrum might have short legs on a quake server, but this is not what it was designed for. Reminds me of that saying: this cat is a horrible dog, it simply won't bark.

игровое или какое? игровые находятся в директории самого DCS в папках для каждого модуля отдельно. В сети ничего искать не надо.

Ну плохо знает матчать Мэт, уж простите человека.

Okay I got this figured out. I did not know you had to purchase this separate with each module. Got it now and it works. Thanks anyways

I think it's awesome in VR, I love the physical visor. I'm currently messing around with making the tint less dark and tweaking the normal map to make it less "glare-y".

Trackfile LastMissionTrack.trk

That 30 km shot is way too optimistic. I’d say that’s more for the "old 27ER" , but even then, you’ll see the enemy notch your radar. I’ve practiced this in PvP, and the only way I’ve found is to fire an ER (which is kind of dumb) when you see the Sparrow lofting—cranking at that moment makes your missile arrive much earlier. We’re talking about something like 15 km. In the video, you’re cranking as if you were in an F-18. That doesn’t work here. You need to get closer. This is basically a "phone booth fight".

I keep overshooting as well, never get it perfectly trimmed out unless I let the autopilot do it.

Понятно, просто без VR, как ни настраивай, этой планочки не видно с нормального ракурса, и более менее видна она становится, когда уже совсем под козырек залазишь, и это прискорбно конечно( Вот тут еще сравнил, все равно в реальности не так этот бортик мешает.

Just went in and tested, and I can complete the AFCS test and get the Damper warning light to go off if I unassign my Sidewinder FFB2 from the pitch and roll axis, so definitely being caused by the Sidewinder. Wouldn't this test fail with any controller that was getting a tiny bit of almost imperceptable axis jitter as well? Yeah, need an option to disable controller inputs during BIT.

Would be sweet if they added the modernized variants of the polish air force. The NS 430 is 50 percent of the way there for the early 2000's just missing the NATO/modern radios. Unlikely ED ever does this though.

it seems to happen either 1. When I got to launch a mission to test it 2. When I load a new mission on a different terrain

Hi, can you please attach a track replay, you can save a track when you exit the mission during the debrief window. We need to check if you have the correct points setup for the airfield and are selecting that point in the nav panel thank you

I've made a post about this before, but with the MIG 29 a new variation has shown up Now this is quite niche. But also can't see this aa being hard to implement For those of us that make vidoes. A nice feature is the ability to expand how far the F1 camera can move. To give high quality cockpit views of the pilot and also details like throttle. This is something ED uses themselves for vidoes and trailers. However even within ED made modules there is no commonality when it comes to the pilot head. In the F16 and F18 they seem to work the same. You can move the camera about and the head mostly stays on. In the upgraded F5 there is no head in the F1 view. So this trick simply can't be used. Now with the MiG29 a new variable has shown up. In the 29 if you move the camera forward and turn it back on the pilot it works fine. High resolution cockpit and pilot. However if you move the camera back to get a over the shoulder view. The head mostly disappear. Untill you move the camera out past the canopy then the head reappear. I assume this is all simply some limits ED has set. And those limits are set differently in different aircraft. So I'm requesting all aircraft (at least those made by ED) will have the same limits (like in the F16/18 as those work well)

Beautiful! Is this still being developed?

People seem to think that AWACS and GCI in the real world work like in DCS: an all seing eye that gives you an F10 view of the battlefield. In '99 NATO agressiom against FR Yugoslavia, USAF pilots found the (British) AWACS next to useless, as it was giving them erroneous reports and, in their words, was making the entire situation more difficult. Same story on Serbian side with GCI, that was giving reports like: "Blue is comming from the west." No further instructions, no number and type of threat, no height and no speed. Just a one-liner that left the pilots use their imagination and wonder what to do with this information.

SRS has been updated to include the new Fulcrum

Up