Leaderboard

F1 feels like it lacks lift, especially on the low speed ranges near300Knts, I decided to run a landing test to see if the performance lined up with the manual. Conditions: Clean, 20% fuel, 8700kg at the start of final approach, no wind. Manual details regarding approach: Cockpit readings on landing approach: Tacview true AoA: Track file attached below. As we can see the F1 (even under 8700kg) is requiring too much AoA to land at the speeds it is designed to land at. AoA gauge in the cockpit is reading about 7(!) units higher than what the manual states is required to be held. This lack of lift really makes takeoff and landing distance more than it should be as well as more dangerous if we are trying to fly the conditions the manual recommends. This lack of lift also reflects on the energy retention and turn rate in a dogfight, making it worse than it probably was in reality. Mirage_F1_Landing_Showcase_at_20_Fuel.trk

I also updated the soldier firing the RBS 58.

@AG-51_RazorYou never fail to make me cackle! I don't have much for you at the moment unfortunately guys, it's been a bit of a slow month+ thanks to Covid, and I've been working on the less exciting parts (optimization, animating, fixing inaccuracies and missing parts). Once the animations are done, I can unwrap the UVs, bake the high poly to the low poly, then texture the cockpit. That being said, here is a pretty render to keep you guys going a little longer

Hi guys, Sorry for that, but, as I re-re-re... play the whole campaign I had a very small issue in mission 5. The mission 5 works, but not as it should. So I fixe it. And now, it works fine. I take profit to update a bit the 1st mission, where "player" takes to long to answer to the control... So if you want you may download the campaign again. Cheers

Kneeboard cheat sheet from Raptor9

How about lightnings? I think those are way more important than rainbows.

WASHINGTON, July 28, 2022 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Germany of F-35 Aircraft, Munitions, and related equipment for an estimated cost of $8.4 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today. The Government of Germany has requested to buy -thirty-five (35) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft; -thirty-seven (37) Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 engines (35 installed, 2 spares); -one hundred five (105) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); -four (4) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM Guidance Sections; -seventy-five (75) AGM-158B/B2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER); -two (2) AGM-158 Inert JASSMs with Test Instrumentation Kits (TIK); -two (2) AGM-158 JASSM Separation Test Vehicles (STV); -three hundred fortyfour (344) GBU-53 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB-II); -three (3) GBU-53 SDB-II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); -eight (8) GBU-53 SDB-II Captive Carry Reliability Trainers (CCRT); -one hundred sixty-two (162) BLU-109 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs for GBU-31; -two hundred sixty four (264) MK-82 500LB General Purpose (GP) Bombs for GBU-54; -six (6) MK-82 Inert Filled GP Bombs; -thirty (30) BLU-109 Inert 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs; -one hundred eighty (180) KMU-557 Joint Direct-Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits for GBU-31; -two hundred forty-six (246) KMU-572 JDAM Tail Kits for GBU-54; -seventy-five (75) AIM-9X Block II+ Tactical Sidewinder Missiles; -thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); -fifteen (15) Tactical AIM-9X Block II+ Sidewinder Guidance Control Units; and -five (5) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units. Also included are AIM-120 control sections, propulsion sections, telemetry systems, warheads, and containers; AIM-120 CATMs; AIM-9 Active Optical Target Detectors and containers; FMU-139 joint programmable fuzes; DSU-38 Laser-Illuminated Target Detectors for GBU-54; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) and ADU-891/E Adapter Group Computer Test Sets; KGV-135A embedded secure communications devices; Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD); impulse cartridges, chaff, and flares; Full Mission Simulators and system trainers; training missiles and components; electronic warfare systems and Reprogramming Lab support; logistics management and support systems; threat detection, tracking, and targeting systems; Contractor Logistics Support (CLS); classified software and software development, delivery and integration support; transportation, ferry, and refueling support; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; integration and test support and equipment; aircraft engine component improvement program (CIP) support; secure communications, precision navigation, and cryptographic systems and equipment; Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment; spare and repair parts, consumables, and accessories, and repair and return support; minor modifications, maintenance, and maintenance support; personnel training and training equipment; classified and unclassified publications and technical documents; warranties; and U.S. Government and engineering, technical, and logistics support services, studies and surveys, as well as other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $8.4 billion. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving thesecurity of a NATO ally that is an important force for political and economic stability in Europe. The proposed sale will improve Germany’s capability to meet current and future threats by providing a suitable replacement for Germany’s retiring Tornado aircraft fleet in support of NATO’s nuclear sharing mission, the centerpiece for deterrence in Europe. Germany will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, TX; Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, CT; The Boeing Company, St. Charles, MO; and Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Germany. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded. Source: https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/germany-f-35-aircraft-and-munitions

Was sind das denn bitte für Vorschläge ? "Und vergiss die Grafikeinstellungen von DCS erst mal. Die hat nix mit dem VR zu tun" Dann mach mal MSAA auf 4x, SSA etc alles auf hoch. Läuft bestimmt viel besser danach. Mal Spaß beiseite, natürlich haben die Einstellungen einen Einfluss auf die Performance.

They still in. The Matra Durandal has a few versions. The USAF version can do 630 KCAS but the old one was limited 550 (600?) KCAS. Also the older (original) fired at a ~30° angle while the later USAF version fired at a steeper angle. The original had a lower 200 foot height minimum. There are two warheads a primary and secondary at 100kg and 15kg respectively. The -109 sequence is: arming wire extraction, R1500 delay element, R350 delay, R2200 delay, rocket motor, impact, warhead detonation. Since the delay element time is about 77~86% of the "R" number I'm guessing the R1500 is about 1222ms. Arming is enabled after two of the delays so about 2000ms which is then followed by the extra swing down delay of 1700ms. I assume the Mirage F1 uses a non-BLU-109 design so they might be slightly different but the difference might just be the higher speed parachute and final swing delay to achieve the steeper angle. Serial production 1977, 1983 initial USAF order, 1986 programmable secondary fuze offering (hours delay), 2005 production halted. Anyway a grazing penetration produces the best runway-destroying effects as it heaves a larger area of runway surface. They aren't designed to make easily-filled circular bomb crater holes. They are designed to screw up a lot of pavement and make repair difficult. As long as they are rocket firing and hitting the ground at 30 degree from the horizontal down to 200ish feet that should be considered good.

Не знаю, я как гражданин РФ всегда рад любой возможности полетать над территорией своего государства. Леса , березки... в поле каждый колосок.. Чужбина, какая бы она не была, все равно Чужбина.

0-15 in the Tomcat? The disadvantage is between your ears. Not the pylons. edit: having read the rest of the thread, i’m now 100% convinced of my statement.

As we know ED plans to make the whole world (even it’s still not around the corner) and with orbx we have professional theater builder joining DCS. I am really excited what next we can expect from orbx. Maybe they start with the Scandinavian map and will then continous with the southern or eastern part of Europe and they will begin to merge the different maps slowly to the whole world. The future really looks bright!

Sorry all just noticed this entire topic was hidden, restored now. That said, everyone in this thread needs to relax. Getting a little tense in here.

Hi, Petrovich voice is still planned, but is taking longer than expected, I can not give any ETA at the moment, but I have raised this thread with the team project manager. thank you

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/304804-official-news-2022/?do=findComment&comment=5017686

Hello @Admiral189, with the announcement of the Kola Peninsula map I was wondering if you will enhance the already nice northern fleet to a few ships? When I read that Kola will be coming I was happy to be able to play a "cold war gone hot" scenario! While I was thinking about possible scenarios in that direction, I will definitely do some missions with the superb recently released submarine packs. Especially the "Typhoon" subs have my attention, as you might know the Russians build a support vessel for them. The Alexandr Brykin was able to reload the R-39 SLBM missile on sea, or better in the fjord where the fleet of the Typhoons were based. So with that in mind I can really dream of making missions where to prevent the Alexandr Brykin support vessel to reach a Typhoon. I hope that you or some experienced person in this thread will take a look at this ship. It would be absolutely great to have this one being made for DCS.

Don't set QFE in the A-10C, doing so is not realistic (setting QNH is required in reality to calibrate the IFFCC on takeoff). As pointed out above, it's also not physically possible to set QFE at high airfield elevations. Setting QFE can also cause issues with weapon delivery in areas with terrain elevations significantly above MSL, especially where there are major elevation changes such as mountains. QFE can work well when flying VFR in very localised areas and with terrain elevations close to MSL (such as much of north/western Europe) it doesn't work well in other situations.

Читаю я адовое предложение HD Pilot,а и не могу не ответить вопросом... вот допустим, в сферическом вакууме, Иглы действительно потратили бы кучу сил (остановив работу над DCS само собой) и всей командой кинулись бы адаптировать флайт модели своих моделей под никакую (я бы даже сказал "в минусовой степени") физику мелкомягкого сима и? дальше то что? Свой продукт перестанет развиваться, мелкомяг на полгодика чуть увеличит продажи, а потом радостно выпустит какой нибудь MSFS 2030, на другом двигле (или измененном до безобразия) и? Нам это надо как и разрабам? Если у огромной компании-монополиста такие кривые ручонки, что они **цать лет не могут научиться делать ФМ, то и флаг им в руки, пусть дальше лепят рельсовые симы авиалайнеров. Не надо мешать шедевр не имеющий аналогов (вот блин да) и очередную часть симулятора сиделия в кресле под автопилотом от мелкомяга.

I don't think 'worth' is what people who voted in the poll or who favor classic 1970's jet otherwise are into. People going for 'worth' always tend to flock to the latest and most capable variants possible. And want as many and as latest features available. People that are fans of the 70's jets are IMO more into the history and nostalgia factor. To me at least, first cruise Tomcats or AIM/ACEVAL Tomcats are much more dearer and contextually significant. They also look fancier with their high viz paint schemes. Modern HUDs? Data buses for GPS guided ammunition? Digital avionics? Nah.... that's for the sunset guys. I'm there for the dawn and maybe early noon.

This is the part of the flight model I question, and I asked in another thread but got no response. Rudder at high AoA is common among all jets pre-FBW, however rudder at low AoA shouldn't be necessary due to differential ailerons, yaw dampers, etc. Yet, in the F1 it is. I'm confused why the F1's low-AoA flight characteristics are so wildly different than the low-AoA characteristics of the F-86, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, F-5, L-39, and F-14. It's as if the F1's yaw damper switch isn't functioning.

Let's hope Orbx is just as good at DCS map making as they are in other flight sims. I just hope it's a new standard in DCS map quality and not going back 10y in visual fidelity like a recent map we've had with some mountains on it.

Honestly, Its great to see a company like OrbX come along there work in other simulations have always been top notch. Welcome aboard can't wait for this product to arrive.

I'm updating the RBS 58 (Akeron LP).

Here's the airfields listed from the official announcement without the 'and more' stretch goal airports that might be added Excellent pick for a map imo. Low population density and two seasons make sense for double High on scenery and elevation appearance Can be reused for most time periods and active in WW2 Nice straight forward East-West geography with clear borders and uncomplicated land mass for ground unit travel Great Norweigan coastline for funflights The area has a very dense serving of DCS modules that would be at home Looking forward to it.

SAMP-240 (540 lbs) and SAMP-400 (794 lbs) do roughly twice the amount of damage compared to Mk-82 (503 lbs) and M117 (919 lbs) respectively. Unless SAMP-250/400 are special in a certain way, I would expect that bombs of roughly the same size should do equal amount of damage. This report is regarding consistency between bombs of the same class, not whether bombs should do less or more damage in general. SAMP-250_400_damage.trk

I have reorganized - see this thread for information:

Per most sources: ( i can provide, but I'm not gonna 1.16 myself) but a quick wiki search will confirm this anyway. 530IR has an early generation InSb seeker, and therefore should be "limited" all aspect. I.e. it could engage supersonic targets frontally (its way more complex IRL but hey its DCS and the IR modeling is what it is). 550 Magic1 is listed everywhere as being rear aspect only and having a PbS seeker (like most early sidewinders). In game, the 550 will get front aspect locks. And the 530IR will not. I frankly think someone just copied the wrong parameters for these missiles, and swapping the seekers should fix the problem.

I was running DCS at 4k resolution in multiplayer at a solid 60fps on high settings. Thats flying high and down low, it makes a difference. Running a 5600x and a 3090. When you increase the resolution or go VR. You need an Nvidia 3080 or better to get a solid framerate on high settings. The CPU, does not matter so much as long as the memory controller is good enough to handle 64gb. Which almost all can nowadays. A 12600k on a DDR4 motherboard would be fine, then pump your funds into a GPU and power supply that can support it. If I was building a PC for DCS tomorrow it would be 12600k or AMD 5800x, 64gb DDR4 and a 3080 or better.

Yea, when you gi from HA to TL, it mostly works for me, then if you go from TL to BZ, it might "work" but not as BZ as it still works as TL i think. Going bac to TL most likely breaks the thing and you have to repeat HA->TL->BZ

That is why he clearly said, along with others. That if you're going to create a NEW game in the future. It would likely be ideal to find an current engine such as UE5. People keep using the fact that DCS isn't about "visual fidelity" yet they are playing DCS and not BMS... which by a lot of accounts does things better than DCS in those realms but completely falls short in terms of content, graphics, accessibility for new users, etc. Graphics ARE important. Especially for VR users. That doesn't mean they have to be the MOST important thing in terms of developing their game. That might not even be the most important thing now. Not everything has to be compared to NOW because we aren't talking about now. This is a prime example of what I mean.. A MR/VR cockpit experience that right now may seem unfeasible as a standard but in 15 years this might be at the standard that VR is right now in flight sims... so, being that many features everyone is claiming we will get.. like multicore support and vulkan (wasn't that promised last year?) It's almost q32022... Never the less, MCS was a basic feature in BF3... or any other game around that time.. It's 2022 man. Now I'm really looking forward to when it's released because I enjoy the game and it's content. Be that as it may, that doesn't shield them from criticism, or discussions on future implementations. So it's not far fetched to think about what is happening now.. and throw 15 years of even bigger, more complex tech, at them and expect anything different without massive amounts of people. So most people would come to the conclusion that if you start a new game, on an engine that supports most of these features via plugin (yes all the coding, physics, etc need to be done from scratch, we know this) but it would be a NEW game. Not a port. Don't take this as a cheap jab at ED or their developers. It's hard enough for AAA titles and their engineers to put out a quality product with the resources and money they have at their disposal. DCS does do a fantastic job, but they aren't perfect, nor would they claim to be. This is just the reality of the speed of technological evolution. Can they keep up? Do they have the resources to keep up? I would like to think so, but I would also like to think they would have to go out of house to get some help in a lot of aspects of it because of the shear size of making a modern title let's say in 2030... Games will likely be 500gb's with 12k real time 3D textures with "world scale" technology to import and manipulate. lol look at Falcon 4.0 when it came out. It was what? You needed a 1.8ghz CPU, 512mb or ram, 700mb of storage, and a dx7 graphics card.. DCS pushes over 20GB of VRAM in todays world in some cases... so you do the math.. I don't think DCS will be able to just continue on forever as the same title on the same engine. So don't berate the guy for wanting to have a logical conversation about the future of the game.

Aurora modeling is mandatory! edit: It's confirmed here! https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/wgibx5/images_from_the_kola_peninsula_from_the_orbxs/

It was worked on by Belsimtek for like a year or two, then binned when ED gobbled Belsimtek up and decided to go "nah fam... we'll go full low hanging fruit and do F-16". Then, in early 2021 Heatblur started doing theirs, from scratch, and they did say it a few times, that theirs is from scratch. Heatblur is probably my favorite 3rd party, but Aerges has a decent chance of ousting them from the spot, we'll see. Regardless though, they are notorious for their modules taking a looong time to arrive, and missing at least 2 release estimations, or 5 I'm ok with that so long as we get a- aircraft I subjectively consider cool (which they always do make), b- result is of a high quality already from arrival (which they also do). But Viggen, Tomcat, and if we extend the lineage to MiG-21 all seen multiple long delays, sometimes even multiple calendar years. Is that proof that everythnig will? No. But I'll err on the side of caution for F-4s arrival, I don't think it will be around within this year. I'd love to be proven wrong, and F-4E is what I want the most in DCS right now among the upcoming modules, and I'm glad it is Heatblur making it.

I checked what happens during a roll with time slowed down to 1/4, there are certainly rudder movements commanded by the yaw damper, so it is trying to do it's thing, but seems to have limited authority. For me, at low AoA, as long as I use less than half aileron (already 90deg/sec+ I think), slideslip is not a big issue. It really is quite different to the others, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just because of that. Switched off the damper, and there is a difference for sure, so the system is doing it's thing.

So, I messaged @MAESTR0on this, and he sent me a very helpful reply. Said he would look into it today! Looks hopeful.

Everybody noticed? I fly it with a simple joystick, no extensions, no curves, no problem... Don't come up with claims like that, it is not uncontrollable in any way. I don't have a real rudder as well, only a twist axis on the stick. That is a real control axis though. If you are using some non-standard workarounds to control rudder axis, then you should not blame the module for being difficult to control. It's a basic aircraft control, it needs a proper control axis.

Thanks for the answers. I suppose this question just occurred to me simply because I'm used to very mild changes in runway altitudes, and the Syria map forced me to notice this offset. So basically, you always need to check the runway elevation for where you are landing, and add your pattern altitude to that the runway's altitude, correct? Apologies if this was a stupid question, I just don't do that much general aviation.

Можно ещё нанять людей варить грибы и курить траву, с тем же результатом в общем-то. Не обсуждайте это, просто не обсуждайте. )

I think, this topic has all your answers:

Diese Schaltflächen machen nichts anderes, als die Einstellungen auf festgelegte Werte zu setzten - das ist nichts anderes als wenn Du die Einstellungen von Hand veränderst.

Very Interesting. I checked the date again, the video was posted on YouTube in April 2019, which was even before the release of DCS Viper. So basically ED has no proof. Just a side note, it took us years to convince ED the FLCS and FM were wrong. And they moved this thread to Controller Questions and Bugs section so people can't see this...

So, in fact, the thread is pointless, like 95% of us already knew. ED aren't going to jump engines to something out of house, and they're definitely not going to do so because of a selection of random forumites waving brochures. So... we are full circle back where we started! Over.... there, I guess.

I would give so much to be able to add my own map marks in-mission.

AH-64D

Maybe this is because I'm pretty used to flying the Mig-21, but the Mirage F1 feels extremely stable & easy to fly in comparison. I have a VKB Gunfighter Mk.III (placed on my desk, no extensions) & have my pitch/roll axes curves set to '20' The Mirage, just like the Mig-21 does seem to have a tendency to just drop out of the sky if you bleed too much speed ; worth noting, both of those plane will need proper rudder input to guarantee coordinated flight, or you will get a fair bit of adverse yaw.

В английской ветке многие в целом считают карту интересной.

It wasn't an oversight that we modeled the fuselage with the pylons or because we are too stupid to have foresight, lol. It was more practical, looked better and there was no necessity due to the fact that outside of the rare occasion it simply wasn't a thing IRL. The drag penalty is utterly negligable, and if you think you are losing dogfights because of fuel pylons, let me break it to you: you are not. As a matter of fact, IRL Tomcats did not even drop their tanks, because you would fly pretty much without tanks for the rest of your cruise, as there were little to no replacements. And if you think that what you call high performance BFM beats what real pilots do irl, you need a reality check of the other kind, sorry to put it that bluntly. Particularly I suggest to look up Dunning Kruger in that case. And if you want to pretend that you are even remotely close to them, at the very least fight your high performance BFM with tanks on, and no flaps or other mumbojumbo shenanigans. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, we should have made them removable and made it solely to accommodate the IRIAF version, which at the time of modeling the Tomcat was not planned at all, not even an afterthought. It was the community who asked for it, and we obliged happily, with the caveat that the fuel pylons are not removable. Until we are willing to re-do a massive part or almost the entire fuselage, so that a handful of guys can be happy vs the majority that simply does not care, with months of manhours going into it, you will, pardon my English, simply have to deal with it. Forgive me if I sound abit harsh, but usually I would not respond to stuff like "wanting to kill yourself" at all. We're really happy to talk on eye level with everyone, but you gotta come down a notch for it please.

ec 1/12 Cambrésis fighters

Hello everyone here is a quick preview in regards the EFM and VTOL Engines. More will be posted as this project advances.