All Activity

I'm going to assume that this is not exclusively on my end and I intend for this to be a general repository of reports in English on this topic. OpenBeta F-18C INS is non-functional in the sense that I cannot get the alignment to remain consistent or stay aligned in IFA mode across the same mission with the same procedure and same settings two times in a row. HUD drifts over time by inconsistent margins, HUD symbology fails to appear at times or go away at times, especially with CCIP symbology. Without any weather effects and without much effort, the INS will lose true alignment very easily.

Auch sehr cool! Wobei ich die kurze Anleitung eine sehr gute Idee finde, so kann sich das jeder selbst bauen und ein bisschen damit beschäftigen, wie man DCS hacken kann (im positiven Sinn) und einen Blick hinter die Kulissen bekommt. Vermutlich sind Leute, die sich beacons.lua aus den Userfiles runterladen und sie per Diff mit der Datei aus dem Spiel vergleichen nicht die Zielgruppe von Flo's Post.

First and foremost, thanks for the amazing and pro-bono work you do, Currenthill! To talk about the attention to detail, or overall fidelity of the units doesn't even begin to cover it. This is by all means, art! The pedant in me can claim that you have much to be proud of, don't take that lightly either! I'm not sure what plans you have in store for the future, obviously the units you present on your www. are a fine work, and implementing more of them into DCS natively, would be a dream. However, I do also look at this from the perspective of a mission designer (when not in the air). It would of course be awesome to have the Ka-52 AI implemented, as well as simply more of the units that you bring. Even more civilian, with different color palettes on each unit. It allows for creating more vivid and realistic scenarios. A place where I see an immediate deficit in unit choice, asumming it could be of interest to you, is the department of soldiers/civilians. We currently have very few models of soldiers, and even fewer if you consider the new high-quality ones, that are properly animated. I am wondering if you would be interested in widening this aspect of the simulation. Have more soldiers, from different countries, with variations of weapons/apparel/camo patterns/colors/ranks? As an example, even adding a basic model of a recognizable officer (prestige uniform), would already open the doors to creating missions where a pilot might need to verify/engage or verify/protect a high-ranking persona. With the addition of more transport modules (Huey, Mi-8, Mi-24, CH-47F, C-130J (soon), +++), this would not only bring more authentic feel to the transport mission, but also allow to create more varied combat environments. I hope this could be of interest to you, appreciate your work again, and do keep the models coming. Uploading some WIP missions that show just how a creative mission designer can untilize such units! You give us the tools, and this is the effect (not complete)

To hell with realism, just for a photo...

I've had this happen without mods.

The I-beam is not a CCIP indicator, it is a steering cursor based on the currently selected sight source to point the nose of the helicopter to where the sight source is looking. Rocket employment is described in the manual starting on page 500.

Just remove ALL mods and retest. That's what ED will tell you to do. Helpful or not, it rules out a major cause of DCS "issues". If you replicate in a clean environment it points more towards a base issue vs a mod conflict (which happens all the time).

That's not really helpful.

Please no, HIP has mixed shots of Arma 3/Reforger, no DCS.... He has using them to get more views / dramatic content.... "facepalm". And no, ED has none confirm a FPS mode.... only a "experimental" testing on the mig-29A video. Remember, the C-130 has none "legs".

Possibly...

Are there known mods that are known to break it? I should mention that the deck taxi routes are clear of obstructions as well. This track file is smaller as the one from the multiplayer folder wouldn't upload.

In the aviation world, the magnetic heading is different from the True heading depending on where you are in the world. The HSI would show, or be set, to True North and that's how navigation is done. Where I live the difference is -10 degrees between them.

We're getting the F-35 that not many people seem to have asked for, but 8 pages of wishlist just on NV alone, makes it seem that they aren't listening much. Makes me sad. Just the area already included in this map have so many airfield left out, and the textures, man, baked in shadows, it's not aging well. Is it just too much to ask for them to develop a little for this area? Edwards AFB? China Lake? For crying out loud, we have an F18 texture for China Lake, but it's homeless. Having this area at all with what was missed or ignored seems like such a tease. Is this the remnant of the Harrier flight Sim someone was developing back in 2017 or so? Did DCS buy these out from the developer with an agreement to abandon it?

humidity isnt modeled in DCS afaik. it "should" be though, and no idea why it hasnt been yet. it effects everything and anything aircraft related.

I suppose the quality that the DCS team will feel they need to maintain for Edward's and China Lake would be too far to go? Those both are in the map area, as well as Palmdale, and a few others. It seems they've forgotten about this map, or feel it's got enough to it already, I suppose. Too bad. There's a lot of history in this area, and could become a target-rich environment. There's a lot of bases that could be added, and scenery improved. The shadows are baked in, even. It's not bad, but it's already not at their current level of quality with the other areas they have now. Afghanistan is at a higher level than this, and has very low demand/use online. They could have done so much with this area. It seems rather disappointing to include it at all with how barren it is.

Just to clarify my initial post if it wasn't obvious (I guess that's why this topic was moved from DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum to the DCS Core Wish List section and not to the DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum->Wish List section it was supposed to be) I meant effects for MiG-29 9.12A FF Fulcrum module specifically, not for other modules. Unless there are similar issues for other modules and it moved here for a reason, I think it worth moving this topic to the DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum->Wish List section to avoid possible duplicate posts there in a future.

Luckily, Russian aircraft more than make up for the lack of Yugo aircraft. That is even more true, when considering the latest AI units/structures added by CN and ED. We have enough variety to simulate this area. What speaks even more in our favour, is the sheer fact that any testimony from the wars in Balkans, will confirm that due to extremely similar uniforms, language and culture among the local populous, the theatre was a nightmare in terms of ROE and IFF. It would be refreshing to make IFFing and SA a major consideration again. You know, make you think twice before pulling the trigger. The mix of the terrain type, and close proximity to both Italy (NATO) as well as Adriatic and Ionian seas... Yes please! It would be important though, to have the map be from around 80s-90s for optical coherency and authenticity. Much of this aspect lies in real estate models, cars, and otherwise all the detailed objects. That's what e.g. makes the atmosphere to splendid on the other maps, and that's what would do here.

Yes, release in 2 weeks (TM)

Thankfully animation in the cockpit is something that has gotten attention over the years. The head movements now and salute are impressive in some modules. Hopefully this is something that will continue to be updated slowly over time to include other hand gestures. Who knows... we may even one day see Pale's "signature move"... no big deal.

Hi All, Not sure if I missed a discussion about this, but on the latest HIP (How I play) video, I saw numerous video shots of first person animations of walking in and getting into aircraft. One of the ones that really stood out to me was the UH-1H. Just wondering if anyone knows where this came from? Is this WIP, or was this someone making animation in something like blender, etc? If nothing else - it looked darn impressive.

Uploaded both the .trk and .miz. It's a simple and short setup placed on Caucasus. The Grad (first of three units to test-fire at the C-RAMs) starts firing just after 02:00 minutes into the mission. I also purposefully didn't put the C-RAMs into one single group (rather all four individual) in order to give them different setups (one is set to not fire below 100m AGL, etc...). Some observations made by me based on this quick setup, and more complex missions: - It can be observed that the unit doesn't even engage the 120mm mortars (third and last group to fire at the C-RAMs). This is contradictory to public information on the unit, where it got created for the reason to " ... counter indirect fire from mortars on US bases...". The S-8 rockets are detected and intercepted just fine. *1 - The range at which the C-RAMs engage might seem a little short, but I have no conclusive data on this. This is purely based on IRL videos showing the system in action. - It can further be observed, that all of the C-RAMs fire, and well into the ground, even the one specified not to engage below 100m AGL. If these units were placed in a base (natural habitat), there would be blue-blue collateral. - It can also be observed that as the C-RAMs get overwhelmed by the GRAD, their turrets at some point keep pointing at the ground and aim for targets that shouldn't be there. There is a target priority issue here. - In more complex missions, even maintaining above 45 fps, I notice that the C-RAMs might not perform well at all (won't spot incoming fire from S-8 units, nor engage). This might point to a greater AI issue, as I've noticed that with 1500 units +, there are certain "artifacts" in the AIs behavior, not only related to C-RAMs, but e.g. artillery units. This warrants more investigation, as I've even had them C-RAMs in a group of units, and they all end up targeting and firing on the same incoming threats. Overall, there is no target distribution per se, the logic is very poor/non-existent, priority system non-existent (simply target the next in incoming queue), no smart algorithms, +++. This results in the unit being rather flashy, more so than useful. *1 C-RAM Centurion Phalanx LPWS C-RAM CAUCASUS TEST.trk LPWS C-RAM TEST.miz

I'm not a big Microsoft fan either. I just noticed it by chance. But it's good to know I'm not alone. Greetings, Markus

Подскажите, с чем может быть связано исчезновение определенных самолетов из редактора миссий? Нет возможности выбрать за Синих (США) F14, F4, F5, F15E и еще наверняка какие то, но при том есть выбор A10, F15C, F16, F18 Модули само собой куплены, в настройках игры подключены, в быстрых миссиях они есть, на серверах есть, проблема только в редакторе. Я не могу точно сказать когда началось, так как редактором не часто пользуюсь. Пробовал использовать встроенные инструменты "repair", но не помогло. Шо за магия-магия? )