Leaderboard

Razbam MiG-23MLA R-23R and R-23T R-13M

Some new development screenshots: IAI Kfir: New AI B-1B Lancer:

We all are allowed to have our own interpretation/opinion of what is considered broken or not, to me it's very broken (I never said "completely broken" by the way) and to you it's mostly accurate, but what I said though is not a "false statement" that you have proof is incorrect, the proof of my claims is in the module, the many sources, the SMEs, the bug reports, the provided evidence, etc. There is a long list of bugs or incorrect implementations in the forum, many of which are supported with evidence and many are considered accepted/reported by ED, whether it's specifically F-18 radar, general radar, or otherwise, and the Google Doc you've seen that lists a lot of missing (and very important) features that are needed for proper F18 radar operation that all have sources. Making claims that it is "mostly accurate" is hurtful to the community because any informed members (and there are many, they are often just quiet observers in these public spaces) start to lose hope that the module will be fully (as far as usable evidence can support of course) completed one day. I've seen many diamonds of the community start to fade away because they've lost hope. My words are probably too harsh, but your words are too "fantastic". ED has created something absolutely wonderful in this sim and everyone in the community I'm sure are extremely happy that DCS exists and they (I assume, can't speak for everyone of course) just want to see it come full circle. The DCS: F-18 is so close, but needs that extra love to finish it off, but pushing it under the rug saying it's basically done isn't the right move, but I also shouldn't be so harsh, maybe I am just jaded for waiting so long and seeing so many steps forward combined with many steps backwards.

The Kola map will get the Aurora Borealis and Sea Ice - both will be firsts in DCS. See the last image posted here.

That's not the issue discussed here, no one is asking for a full simulation. All we care about is that it looks and feels correct according to available information. In the list of examples that @toilet2000mentioned, all of them have nothing to do with actual radar wave and E/M interaction simulation. They merely require the correct logic to be implemented, and with the exception of MSI, all others exist in some form in other modules, which proves they can be done within the context of DCS (I'll also add a correct TWS AUTO myself). None of this is about the simulation of a real, physics-based radar (although I'd personally love it if some aspects were actually simulated). The combination of the Hornet's radar and MSI (both indispensable to A/A and extremely integrated into each other, alongside other MSI sources), is something that would be a first in DCS - true sensor fusion. It is an amazing capability and the Hornet is tailored to fight using it (a lot of the HOTAS logic and various options in different pages only make sense with MSI correctly implemented - notice the lack of Radar Slave on the ATFLIR, it's because the ATFLIR generates its own trackfiles, you don't need to slave the radar, you can just designate them). We just want to see this already nice module reach its full potential - or come close to it.

Haha, thanks. There's no need to compare mods. I'm just happy there are many creators that has put hundreds of hours into stuff we can all enjoy, and learn from.

While I wouldn't say that it is "completely broken", there are a lot of areas where it is not accurate. Unfortunately, the available documentation is often refused by ED. I can understand that if you have "insider knowledge" of ED's simulation of the APG-73 radar, you might have a good idea of if it is accurate or not according to the developpers, but we don't have access to that information and unfortunately we never got (so far) the radar whitepaper that was discussed some months ago. As such, we have to assume from what we have as users: the available real documentation and the end product we currently use in DCS. Comparing one with the other highlights some significant discrepancies. Some examples: - Jammer/Radar Priority - Waveform selection (should be able to make an STT track appear as if it is guiding an AIM-7 even if it is not) - PVU - Velocity Search - Terrain Avoidance - RWS horizontal slewing - Integration of sources with MSI and the radar, including having a L&S track without radar, getting range source from MSI on an AOT radar track, etc. - Proper trackfile death model that does not rely on the display-only brick age-out setting. Again, I do not condone hyperbolas such as "completely broken", but I personally believe that more than "a few areas to tune" is left to be done on the APG-73 to be "mostly accurate". Hopefully these will be covered and implemented at some point.

Это есть в хотелках, как задача на будущее.

I've been reading Ed Macy's book "Hellfire" that details his time learning the Apache as well as flying it on ops (Highly recommended!) and he details practising in "the bag", including steady pick ups and hovering on IHADSS symbology alone. No PNVS, it's cheating. It was useful practice for landing in brown out conditions caused by dust etc. The first time he picked up to a hover and tried to hold it still, he managed 7 feet or so, IIRC. He thought he'd gone many times that distance. I'm impressed he wasn't upside down. Well I've been trying it. It's so difficult!! You need this skin pack (Japanese flying school): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3324665/ And remember: No PNVS, it's cheating.

From rusian forum: Planeed loading / unloading troops animations on helos to a future.

It could be ONE simple animation played every time there's an event S_EVENT_REFUELING_STOP - it should be simple enough.

You 100% are supposed to use the PNVS. The purpose of the bag is to teach forced dependence and reliance on using the PNVS and symbology prior to moving onto nights. We don’t fly the helicopter with out the PNVS in the bag…you practice brown out landings by landing in actual brown out conditions both day and night (with the PNVS).

I think it's probably a fair bet to say most aren't using the radar correctly, but the radar is also definitely very broken, so it's both. Understandably though, it is hard for people to learn how to use it correctly when the way it works in DCS is pretty "strange" to put it nicely, in addition to some misconceptions in the community that also muddy learning (e.g. "soft" lock) that make it harder. It becomes a circular game of learning how to do it correctly, then learning what is bugged, or incorrectly implemented in DCS, then learning how to get around the bugs or wrong implementations, and then the people who teach others the above have to go through the whole cycle constantly. e.g. The LOST cue in DCS still indicates LOST incorrectly which makes people believe their missile should no longer be supported (this is the right idea for them to have!).

if you watch lots of ariel refueling videos when the boom is disconnected or the probe detaches from the basket you can always see a little cloud of fuel that sprays out and I think it would be a easy but realistic implementation to the already amazing sim. little clip if your unsure what I'm on about

Discord is a terrible place for developers to post announcements and I wish they would stop doing it.

The drogue chute release button is hard to spot because it’s low in the front left corner. It’s the red button to the left inside the red circle: There isn’t a single switch. I haven’t spent much time in this part of the manual because, this being an FC3 aircraft, knowing where this stuff is didn’t make much difference. However, in the following image (rear right panel), the battery, converter, and generator blue tipped switches run left to right respectively inside the red enclosure. Some blue tipped system power switches are located toward the rear of the left panel:

I've got good news, @MAESTR0 has messaged me to say that the kneeboard will be added and available in the next update! Yeah!

05 августа 2022 года Дорогие друзья, На этой неделе мы поговорим ещё об одном модуле, который пополнит линейку реактивной авиации DCS World - истребителе Kfir от нашего партнёра, компании Aviron. Расскажем о работах над анимацией пехотных юнитов, которая позволит получить более реалистичные сцены как визуально, так и в тактическом плане при ведении боёв в населённых пунктах и на пересечённой местности изобилующей естественными препятствиями. Эта работа будет вестись параллельно с новым алгоритмом поиска пути пехотными юнитами. И напоследок, покажем последние наработки по бомбардировщику B-1B Lancer для ИИ. Оцените наши скриншоты разработки, это ещё не окончательные текстуры. Благодарим Вас за энтузиазм и поддержку. Искренне ваши, Команда Игл Дайнемикс DCS: Kfir от AVIRON Представляем Kfir – это израильский одномоторный сверхзвуковой тактический истребитель, созданный на базе истребителя Mirage 5, оснащённый американским двигателем GE-J79E. Самолет имеет несколько измененные обводы фюзеляжа, крыла и киля по сравнению с прототипом. Он получил собственное имя KFIR - львёнок на иврите. За время эксплуатации неоднократно модернизировался. Kfir был принят на вооружение ВВС Израиля в середине 70-х и активно эксплуатировался до конца 90-х годов. Он принимал участие в операции "Мир для Галилеи" в 1982 году, где часто выполнял ударные миссии без сопровождения. На его счету один МиГ-21 уничтоженный в связке с F-15A. Ранний вариант Kfir с крылом первой модификации и без ПГО (Kfir-C1) был передан в долгосрочную аренду ВМС и Корпусу морской пехоты США, где получил обозначение F-21A. Он использовался на стороне подразделений «Агрессоров» в различных учениях и тренировках. Kfir находится на вооружении ВВС Эквадора, Колумбии и Шри-Ланки, а также активно используется частной американской компанией ATAC, специализирующейся на подготовке военных лётчиков. Создатель DCS: Kfir, компания Aviron стремится представить модуль в максимально реалистичном виде. DCS: Kfir будет иметь внешние и внутренние системы, иметь правдоподобную лётную модель, основанную на аэродинамических расчётах, CFD моделировании и имеющихся данных по результатам продувок в аэродинамической трубе. Анимация пехоты Отчёт о разработке Новая системы анимации и управления пехотой потребует от юнита более сложного и осмысленного поведения, чем прямолинейное движение по маршруту. При этом потребуется решение целого ряда прикладных задач, таких как преодоление препятствий, например. Некоторые из них юнит сможет преодолеть относительно простым способом - просто прыжком. Это разного рода уступы и перепады высот около 1м. Такие препятствия можно преодолеть сходу. Второй вариант анимации будет использоваться для высоких преград 1.5 - 2 м высотой. В этом случае юнит должен будет подпрыгнуть, и вскарабкаться на стену, а после этого спрыгнуть с обратной стороны. B-1B Lancer Текущий прогресс Eagle Dynamics ведет постоянную работу по улучшению старых моделей самолетов и техники. Американский бомбардировщик B-1B не является исключением. Уже отрисована почти вся расшивка, заклепки и элементы планера. Самолёт получил стандартную окраску принятую в USAF и уже закончено базовое текстурирование. Следующим шагом будет создание текстур стоек и ниш шасси, бомбовых отсеков и внутренних поверхностей кабины. В конце работы будет нанесена маркировка с опознавательными и техническими знаками, а также создан слой для имитации следов эксплуатации и естественного износа - пыли, царапин и т.п. Благодарим за поддержку, Всегда с Вами

long bugs are a problem but we still have to reproduce to report them, how do you expect a dev to fix an issue that can not be reproduced or for a potential fix to be tested. Testing and reporting is time consuming, it always will be but we have many here in the forums, our volunteers, and our testing team who go out of their way to do it. We certainly recognize that there are bugs and missing items in the Hornet radar. In fact, this is the case for all radars in the game and even professional simulators. We continue to strive to improve and add as many features as feasible. What we object to is nonsensical statements like the radar is "completely broken". Such uninformed and overly dramatic statements do not help or accurately represent the state of the product. thanks

Well, I for one am glad they aren't rushing things!

Yes, please, everybody - ED is very helpful with the issues that cross over between us - but they, too, need to follow their own priority list - you can imagine they have to deal with many more issues than we have to. In principle, it is our responsibility to finish the FM polish, which steps need to be taken in the background is not really relevant. The remaining/ open issues with the F-14 are not lost on us, and the effort to resolve them all is continuing. Thank you for your very kind patience with us.

He's right. In order to give any meaningful assistance we need to know what "does not work properly" means. Is it crashing, producing artifacts, running hot, produces low fps? ..... you get the idea. Also a reference would be helpful. What was the condition when it worked properly? Btw. what kind of GPU would be a helpful information as well. General Advise: If you messed up your GPU drivers, search and install DDU (Display Driver Uninstall), follow the instructions and do a fresh reinstall of the latest driver for you gpu. From the hardware side - make sure your GPU is clean from dust and has sufficiant airflow/cooling (consider the high ambient temperatures lately). Other than that - we need more input.

Hi, I think more detail regarding the symptoms and the issue is going to be required before anyone can offer anything useful in the way of help.

There was also some modest embellishment in the book as well. Innocent, but a little cringey from points-of-view of others that are familiar with the subject matter. Not to diminish the service of him, or any of his colleagues he flew and fought with. But there were a few instances during my own read of the book I had an eye-roll and a chuckle.

Well... spoilers do increase drag ! https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.9297&rep=rep1&type=pdf Ailerons tend to create adverse Yaw due to increased drag on the lifting wing Spoilerons tend to create proverse Yaw due to increasead drag on the dropping wing Two different system that need to work in pair with the aerodynamic design of the airplane to work. This becomes even more complex as the airplane evolves through different mach numbers. I do think at the moment the adverse Yaw is near acceptable on roll entry. This appears to be one of the caracteristics of the mirage F1, especially at very low speeds. However on roll exit, the yaw rate is unaceptable high. In general my feeling is that there are still some things around the flight model to be looked at (Yaw, tad high speeds, engine overly sensitive...). But considering the quality of the work that the team is known for and the early access status of the plane, I am sure these things are going to be improved, some of which are already being looked at !

Just something to remember, even a stationary helicopter isn't stationary to a radar.. Those blades while small do have a massive doplar return, they are never not moving, modern filters since the 70's actually look in part for the doplar effect of rotors for that reason. Same goes for things like turbine blades, Props etc.. they all are actually very distinct radar return items.. despite being what you might think of as 'small' you can get the math fairly easy it's all public.

Hello Virpils, Just want to share some useful things about F-14, which are not obvious after reading manual / guides, and could reduce learning time for new players: * Disable Jester auto switch from PD-STT to P-STT (this switch could produce STT lock lost!) * TWS targets filtering - RIO can assign MAND ATTK & NOT ATTK for selected track on TID using CAP also with Data Link enabled you can see 2 HAFU symbols on TID (upper for your own radar and lower for DL) but unfortunately WCS doesn't recognize Friendly targets from DL, so unless Jester or RIO marks a target track as Friendly, even if DL shows it as Friendly, TWS can add this target to priority list for shooting with AIM-54, so with small cluttered TID repeater display in pilot cockpit and in a harry to launch your missiles, you could overlook that a Friendly DL target is still marked as upper Unknown and shoot it! * ACM cover up - AIM-54 is launched active, thus NO tracking TWS & STT targets at long range!!! * TCS slaved to Radar - when TCS is in any AUTO mode, TCS lock will stay on the last locked target, until lock is lost due target leaving TCS gimbal limits or unlocked by RIO using HCU half action in TCS HCU mode, so in order for TCS to always point to the STT locked target - use TCS MANUAL mode (in this mode TCS won't lock a target, but always will point to STT locked target or ADL if no STT lock) * CMS Jester Flare Mode - PILOT: DLC button releases flare, NORMAL: DLC button releases chaff * Climb profile MIL power: just keep 5 units AOA * Climb profile AFB: climb with 0.9 IMN until 30kft, then level and accelerate to 1.4 IMN at 30kft, then climb with 1.4 IMN * Cruise: keep 8.5 units AOA * Radar/Visual FIX on ST (surface target) point will just update its coordinates without any changes to INS * Radar in Pulse Search mode can be used for ground mapping and looking for ships

Simple manual depress for real men Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

@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

How did I get over the funk? Gave up. Haven’t even signed in in months. Continue to monitor this site in hopes of an announcement of big improvements Your mileage may vary

Bcz I always usinng Voice attack to control the Jester in AA mode,so can I request a feature to disable the BVR pages automatic switching to ACM "Dropping Tanks Page"?I don't know how the AI pages automatic switching working,but the "Dropping Tanks Pages" always stucks when I am in BVR(Tanks already dropped),I hope I can manully control the AI pages,and I do what I wannna do, not the AI select to me.

Hello there, Thanks for the latest updates, much appreciated. Just in case it raises some interest, a few remarks regarding a few remaining issues: - when you put battery "on" before start up, you should see T7 and CALC lights flashing (self tests). If throttle is not off at that time, CALC light will stay "on". - the "engine fire" lights are push buttons that can be tested. - the "emergency landing gear down" is a "pull" command, not a "turn" command". It has a square shape that prevents it from turning around. - In my opinion fuel dump makes way too much "smoke". IRL fuel dump is more a faint "fog". - NWS seems to be put "on" by default (or keep its last state) on landing. I should always be "off" and require a pilot input to be turned "on". - start-up engine temperature is quite "hot". A rule of thumb is temperature = 20*RPM during start up (e.g.: 600°C at 30%). But fuel flow is far better than on earlier versions! - initial sec. carb. RPM without input at 42% is far too low. From 65% you should see a decrease to around 50% RPM, not that far below in the 40-ish% RPM. Engine might shut off at such a low RPM.

В связи с детальной проработкой пехоты, в т.ч. её анимаций. Не планируется ли анимация погрузки пехоты в вертолёты и их наличие в качестве пассажиров? Я имею виду наличие моделек десанта

He just got back to me - he said that in ideal conditions the best engagement envelope was 3000 - 16,500 ft in altitude. 16,500 ft being the maximum limit. Lower altitudes than 3000 ft are more subject to radar clutter (though there are back up modes using SACLOS with optical missile tracking (though radar missile tracking can also be used) and MCLOS), higher altitudes are weather dependent (I guess the limit is how well the director can track the missile). He said that in his experience 10-12,000 ft is probably the most you could get out of it, at 3 km distance.

Тут нужно смотреть чуть дальше собственного носа. Для любого разумного человека совершенно очевидно что НОРМАЛЬНО работающая наземка добавит массу интересного геймплея, и неожиданных решений, что в целом увеличит объём продаж всех ла. У меня ряд знакомых не играет в дкс лишь потому что наземка годится разве что как мишени в тире весело расставленные кучками на полянах. А любая попытка заставить эту наземку делать нечто осмысленное обращается в крах. Потому как часть застрянет часть потеряется. Да что я рассказываю, все кто пытался плотно работать с наземкой и так всё знают. И модуль СА тут как бы и не причём. Просто в СА проблема оголяется и становится видна тотально со всех сторон. Для любого самолёта работа с/по наземке это четверть, а то и половина геймплея. А о каком фане и качестве этого самого геймплея может идти речь если всё что может наземка это стоять кучей на поляне или в лучшем случае (если нигде не застрянет) ползти по дороге. Когда то у разрабов была речь про некую динамическую компанию. В которой ЛА могли бы осмысленно работать с наземной техникой. С тех пор много воды утекло. Как я понимаю проект так и не тронулся с места?

When making a module one should choose the version of the plane that is the most typical and most used. For F-16's that is the C version. For the P-51 it is the D version. For the F-14 it is the A model and for the F-4 it is the E phantom that is the most phantom. All other variants are mere bonuses. One have to remember that the G and TX versions of the F-4 is simply an attempt to extend the service years by a few more years on what is at that time antiquated airframes. That is why the F-4G had a short service span until it was replaced by F-16's that did the job better and cheaper. And I also think the E model fits perfectly with DCS as we have more aircrafts from the 1950 - 1990 era then any other period. The huey, mi-8, mig-15,19 & 21, F-5E, F-14A, mirage F-1 etc and lets not forget coming modules like the mig-23 and SU-22.

Hot Take: Since in DCS the smoke cannot change depending on state of the vessel (anchoring, accelerating, cruising, full speed), it may be best to make it more like the other ships in DCS (can't remember if the diesel and gas turbine powered ships don't smoke at all or only smoke very faintly) and leave the dark smoke for the Kuznetzov... Holy Cow!

The castle class boats produce a large amount of smoke. For me it seems excessive for two relatively small diesel engines from the 80s. In fact, i would have expected them to have no visible smoke at all when cruising. I think the Leander-class were oil-fired, so smoke seems reasonable. In DCS the castle-class however produces thicker smoke than the leander-class, which just seems wrong. Is this the right place to report problems with the assets, or should these go in the main dcs bug section to object bugs?

Agreed, though to be honest it goes for pretty much all of them: Here's an image of Leeds Castle underway, I can't see any smoke at all: Here a small amount of smoke is visible: While the Leanders are indeed oil fired, they don't seem to produce visible smoke either (here is Ariadne): Here's Achilles: The Invincible-class is COGAG, again very little smoke: Though depending on weather conditions/throttle settings, it can appear more smoky (but not the thick black stuff we see in DCS, EDIT: This might be running diesel generators as the ship appears stopped): Here are images showing it underway, though again, you can find images where the smoke is either far less visible or not visible at all.

I wonder if the last windows 11 update casued the issues? Since posting the event viewer stuff I've done a sfc scan and it found errors and fixed them I'm a bit confused as to what's happened to cause the issues, seems all very strange Hoping someone here can shed some light on it

I thought it was that way because of former DCS limtations, but now the game would support the more realistic "missile survives after player dies" once HB puts in the effort to implement it. Did you read differently?

You want all this data only to reduce it to a global average that loses an incredible amount of data and its significance... you can average a higher FPS with constant stuttering (because the average literally acts as a low-pass filter). You can average a higher FPS with low dips that make the experience unplayable for several seconds. You can average a higher FPS because the game decided to spawn less entities (non-deterministic AI and game logic). Higher average FPS does not mean better. This is exactly what I mean with comparing apples to oranges and why I personally won't make the effort to put this data in everyone's hands. If I do that, I'm going to start receiving "bug" reports here and there because of people misusing the data. I already get those every time I release new software. Version A was higher FPS than version B... and 95% of the time this is again because of user error, people not able to compare apple to apple or using the relevant input data correctly. I've literally had people tell me how there is a huge performance issue between OpenXR Toolkit 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 on their HP Reverb... yet the only change between the two is 1 line of code that is only used with Pimax headset... These destroy the productivity of us developers, and I have no intention to shoot myself in the foot by offering this data (a loaded gun in the hands of every user)

And this is exactly why I started wondering about the F1's adverse yaw, furthermore when comparing with the Tomcat's spoilerons. Lace is correct on the DLC, however that is only ~2 panels of the entire spoileron on each wing, activated symmetrically. One thing I didn't consider is the wing. The F1 has a high wing as opposed to all the mid-wing and low-wing analog jets we have in DCS. I'm disregarding the Harrier here since it has a stick-rudder interconnect system to deal with adverse yaw. On that note, our Tomcat in DCS has an AFCS system that does not have a stick-rudder interconnect system. Anyway, my next question is how does a high wing interact--if at all--with adverse yaw tendencies vs. a mid-wing or low-wing design?

Little check up since a friend of mine pointed out to me that a value of 0.0068 being in square meters would make sense for a sidewinder. Considering the diameter of a AIM-9L is 5 inches. Shaving a bit off that number for material including casing, insulation, etc. could leave with a number around 3-4 inches (~0.09 meters) for a nozzle diameter that would allow for the 0.0068 sq meter value to make sense.

It really isn't. Taurus was a Hornet throttle, and Orion drew on that, sharing its grip and many features. But it's not, by design, an F-18 throttle. Notice Master Arm is a 3-pos switch, the sliders don't correspond to anything in the Hornet, and the parking brake is more Viper than Hornet. It was meant to be universal from the start. Layout is also nothing like the Hornet, unlike Taurus.

Comparisons are kind of unfair .. I have enjoyed similar content created by a lot of Developers, like the Frenchpack, Airport Services Vehicles, Civilian Assets Pack, and SAM Sites Assets Pack, all of them enhance DCS on significant ways.

В смысле, чтобы бесплатный Ку стал похож на платный Ку из комплекта суперкариера. Как со Стеннисом сделали.

When you say 'nobody' you mean 'yourself' right? Because other people (ED included) have the documents that detail all this stuff.

What do you mean by Tt7 rule of thumb? RPM increases to approximately 60% for the anti surge procedure, and this rule would lead to 1200°C Tt7. Tt7 may not be 100% accurate, but this is a simulated parameter (from full thermodynamic modelling of the engine) and is not "scripted", so we can't apply an average rule here. What I know is, it nearly touches the red zone at each startup and decreases. Same for Sec CARB RPM, it's in no way scripted and a pure simulation result. The default fuel flow is the parameter here. Maybe it's too low. Besides this, alarm panel is not accurate, and will be updated later on together with better failure modelling. Emergency LG handle too, this is an old thing that requires remodelling how the handle animates so fixing it is postponed, but will happen.