Leaderboard

Wenn man das echte Leben mit DCS vergleicht und Bedenken wegen der Kriegssimulation bekommt, sollte man keine Bomben mehr auf Panzer mit Besatzung werfen. Ich verstehe die Linien nicht, die in einer Kriegssimulation von manchen gezogen werden. Ne Bf-109 in einer historisch korrekten Kampagne zu steuern ist moralisch völlig okay aber ne Kampagne auf der Seite des Westens im aktuellen Kontext ist böse? Überprüf mal deinen moralischen Kompass. Jeder Tag an dem irgendjemand im echten Leben Krieg führen muss, ist ein schlechter Tag. Egal, ob das Supermächte oder Dirtteweltländer sind. Unter der Bedingung, wäre ich einig. Ich find's unglaublich verwirrend, die historischen Schlachten im zweiten Weltkrieg da so auszuklammern und als weniger bedenklich hier hinzustellen. Als könne man das Leid damals und jetzt in der aktuellen Lage gegeneinander aufwiegen. Objektiv lässt sich das nicht begründen. Nur Subjektiv, weil durch den zeitlichen Abstand mehr Distanz geschaffen wird. Das ist aber für die moralische Betrachtung für unser Hobby völlig unerheblich. Entweder ist es moralisch verwerflich Pixel und Polygone in andere Pixel und Polygone zu verwandeln oder nicht. Nach meiner Meinung ist so eine Diskussion in Spielen wie DCS, CMO und den ganzen anderen Kriegssimulationen (egal welches Subgenre) völlig überflüssig. Wenn man da jetzt einen Konflikt als "untragbar" oder "bedenklich" oder sonst wie bewertet, ist das schon irgendwo ein bisschen Doppelmoral. Ich finde es nicht gerade schön, jetzt so eine moralische Ansprache rauszuhauen, dass man DCS nicht mehr spielen kann, dass aber während des ganzen Irakkriegs, den Konflikten in Afghanistan, Nordafrika, Lybien oder insbesondere Syrien nicht solche Bedenken hier zu lesen waren. Das klingt alles nach "ist weit weg, interessiert mich nicht". Wie genau soll man das verstehen?

I struggled to set up virtual axes for VKB T-Rudder Pedals exactly how I wanted, so I made this short guide. As you know, VKB T-Rudder pedals are rather unique since they only have one physical axis (and with pedals moving up/down) and there are no toe brakes. Obviously we can use the physical axis to control rudder and nose wheel steering but we have to create virtual axes if we want to control wheel brakes too. The best way (imho) to set it up is a software called Joystick Gremlin (combined with vJoy driver). With it you will be able to create virtual axes for wheel brakes and use them without interfering with the main axis assigned as a rudder. Here is an overview of what we are trying to get: Below is a step-by-step guide how to set it up: First you need the vJoy driver that will emulate a virtual device. You can download vJoy here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/vjoystick/ After the installation you need to configure your vJoy profile with (surprise, surprise!) “Configure vJoy” app: For the above setup to work you need 5 vJoy axes. In my case, I have selected RotationX, RotationY, RotationZ, Slider1, Slider2: Verify if vJoy is working correctly in Windows’ Game Controllers (Run command: joy.cpl). It should be visible on your device list: Now you need to download Joystick Gremlin. You can find it here: https://whitemagic.github.io/JoystickGremlin/download/ After the installation, the first thing you need to do is to set up “modes”. In Joystick Gremlin you can use multiple profiles and each profile can have multiple modes. That’s exactly what gives us the possibility to use physical axis only as a specified virtual axis. You need to have (at least) 3 modes in total. Create the additional ones in Tools>Manage Modes: In my case I have named them “Mode_1” and “Mode_2”: Now, the actual Joystick Gremlin configuration. We’ll start with the default mode that will use as a regular rudder / NWS input. Check in Windows Game Controllers what is the name of your working axis in VKB T-Rudder. In my case it’s Rotation X axis. Select VKB T-Rudder device tab and remap the physical axis to one of 5 vJoy’s axes (in my case: vJoy Rotation X axis). As a result VKB T-Rudder axis will be duplicated 1:1 as a vJoy input. Next step is to assign two (different) modifier buttons that we will be using to switch Joystick Gremlin modes. The best option is to use buttons on the throttle, since we want to be able to control thrust at the same time. Select button that will act as the modifier (in my case I have selected the slew push button on Warthog throttle), add function “Temporary Mode Switch” and select the first additional mode (in my case: Mode_1). With help of this function, as long as you hold the designated modifier button, Joystick Gremlin will generate input only in accordance to the assigned mode (other modes will be inactive as long as you hold the modifier button). Repeat the above step for your second additional mode, with use of a different modifier button. In my case I have binded Warthog Throttle Button 15 as a Temporary Mode Switch for Mode_2: Now switch Joystick Gremlin to your first additional mode (upper right corner). We will use this mode to create virtual axes that will act for dual wheel brakes (meaning pressing left or right pedal will act as pressing both wheel brakes in game). In VKB T-Rudder tab select your working axis and create “Split Axis” function to 2 virtual axes from vJoy (different from vJoy axis used in the default mode). In this case I have split VKB’s Rotation X axis into vJoy’s Rotation Y and Rotation Z axes: Switch to your second additional mode and repeat the above step (use different vJoy axes than in previous modes). We will use this mode to create virtual axes that will act as left/right independent brakes (meaning pressing the left pedal will act as left wheel brake in game and pressing the right pedal will act as right wheel brake in game) – useful for taxiing in WW2 planes. In this case I have split VKB’s Rotation X axis into vJoy’s Slider 1 (“Slider”) and Slider 2 (“Dial”): That’s the minimum configuration. You can also create additional setting for each vJoy axis (edit curvature, invert it) if you wish. I use DCS in game settings for that. Finally save your profile and activate it. Joystick Gremlin must be running in background so you can use vJoy axes like above. You can also set additional options: So, now all there is left to do is to assign axes in DCS. Clear your VKB T-Rudder bindings and map your newly configured vJoy axes: That’s how it looks like in my case: Side note - in DCS we can assign vJoy axis from the drop down list, which is very convenient. In sims that have no such option, you may need to use a software that will hide VKB input so you can bind vJoy axes correctly (Joystick Gremlin can do this with help of additional plugins). Tune your virtual axes. If you haven’t configure it in Joystick Gremin, you need to check the boxes “invert” and “slider” for all 4 virtual axes used for wheel brakes: For the main vJoy rudder axis, no changes are required (apart from adding some curvature and deadzone). To be able to quickly assign vJoy axes like above in different DCS modules, save profile of your created vJoy mapping and load it in axis assign window for other DCS aircraft (while vJoy column is selected). Don’t forget to clear VKB T-Rudder bindings. Now, all you need is to get used to how the virtual axes work. You press and hold the modifier button à use VKB pedal à release VKB pedal à release the modifier button. If you release the modifier button with depressed pedal, the virtual axis input will stay at this level. You can use it as virtual parking brake, but otherwise it’s more problematic than useful. Also, don’t forget that if you use the same buttons as modifiers in Joystick Gremlin and in DCS control settings, you will be disabling your main rudder axis control every time you use it. Here is a short video demonstrating how the virtual axes work in Windows and DCS: I hope it helps.

The Mirage F1 Fighter Weapons School This mission consists of 16 seperate tasks (each connected to a client slot). The FWS will teach you everything you need to deliver weapons in the F1. The tasks include 1 navigation task, 10 air to ground tasks and 5 air to air tasks. You will practise navigation using TACAN offsets, air intercepts, correct usage of the radar guided R530, low level bombing, toss bombing, pop up attacks - to name a few. Each task is described in the accompanying 26 page PDF manual. You will receive all necessary attack parameters, gunsight depressions, sight pictures, waypoints and target QFE to quickly be successful in your new Mirage. In addition, the manual includes pictorial guides about cold start, radio usage and how to create and use waypoints using TACAN offsets. Enjoy! https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325430/ +++ change log +++ V 1.0 11.08.2022 - initial release V.1.0.1 13.08.2022 - corrected magnetic declination in manual, fixed no gun ammo for air to air slots

Razbam F-15E Afterburner test WIP

acceleration looks good to me, at least for di0 22000lbs at 15kft. blue is sep for edf16, orange for haf block 50. Where the orange line indicates 0sep (m0.85-1.0, 1.15-1.3), no correct sep-value can be read from the chart and I do not want to speculate here. keep in mind that there is some tolerance in measuring sep in game and also in interpreting charts. Overall it is very close.

Version 2.4.1 – beta release Added DCS Mirage F1 added - thanks to the supporter! Please provide feedback regarding the F1 support Changed G-Effect max/min thresholds are now -5g to 10g Fixed DCS: Gazelle payload calculation for L and M model fixed

Well, the Viper is slow in only one thing: Slowing down. I´m curious: "Our variant [...] shouldn´t have such performance" is this just a feeling or actually based on information ?

Ich habe MSFS nie genutzt, aber von ORBX schon viel Gutes gehört. Auf die Map freue ich mich definitiv, und das Video von Reflected ist ja mal der Hammer! Zwei der besten Kampagnenersteller bauen gemeinsam 2 Kampagnen, die sich ergänzen, zur gleichen Zeit im gleichen Gebiet spielen und sich gegenseitig beeinflussen. Klar, das sind immer noch die statischen Kampagnen, die in DCS im Moment der Stand der Dinge sind, will sagen nichts davon wird wirklich dynamisch sein. Trotzdem finde ich die Idee absolut großartig und denke, das wird richtig, richtig guter Content, zumal sich in BD's Discord schon die ersten Finnen melden, um dann Sprecherrollen zu übernehmen. Die Kampagnen dürften einfach super werden und die Map definitiv sehr interessant. Und klar, die 80er Jahre lassen sich dort dann bestimmt auch sehr gut nachbilden, dafür gibt es ja inzwischen so einiges an Fluggerät in DCS, auch wenn das einfach nicht so die Ära ist, die mich am meisten interessiert. Aber eine schöne fiktive Tomcat-Kampagne da oben, die könnte mir wohl auch gefallen. Und/oder irgendwas "Jagd auf Roter Oktober"-artiges, die Story nahm ja dort ihren Ursprung, auch wenn sie sich später mehr in den Atlantik verlagerte ("Sie haben noch ein U-Boot verloren...?" ). Dass manche DCS-Spieler modernen Content in dieser Umgebung zu nah an der traurigen Realität der Ukraine finden, kann ich einerseits absolut nachvollziehen. Und ich finde, jeder von uns hat das Recht auf so eine Meinung und dass man sich von anderen keine Vorwürfe machen lassen muss. Für mich kann ich andererseits nur sagen, dass ich DCS als Spiel sehe und im Spiel und einem fiktiven Szenario keine Probleme damit habe, auf Pixel zu schießen. Sonst wäre DCS für mich allgemein ein eher schlecht gewähltes Hobby. Wenn Missionen eine politische Komponente bekommen und anfangen, uns zu indoktrinieren, die Gegenseite zu entmenschlichen, Lügen oder Propaganda oder Hass zu verbreiten (ziemlich egal, für welche Seite), ist das was anderes, aber da mache ich mir bei BD und Reflected keine Sorgen.

I'm cross posting this interesting update regarding the A-10C's current upgrade path to maintain relevancy post-Iraq/Afghanistan: A-10 Warthog’s Tusks Are Being Sharpened For A High-End Fight https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-10-warthogs-tusks-are-being-sharpened-for-a-high-end-fight

It's going to be incredibly difficult to locate publicly available technical documents that specifically refer to the APG-73's ability to detect helicopters or anything else, for that matter. It's a far better approach to use radar technical data for deterministic calculations and use any IRL data points to fine tune each radar's model. It's the path of least resistance, only requires access to the radar specs and it ensures a decent approach throughout the sim. More to the question at hand, what can be done is use well established radar equations in order to calculate detection ranges, using the APG-73's specs (which are publicly available and have been shared before) and use publications such as the ones posted above, to calculate an "effective RCS" for rotorcraft.

If you have evidence I can always show the team, however we are very happy with where the viper sits performance wise based on the data and information we have. thank you

You mean in voltage? What are you aiming for? Efficiency or Performance? Either way, stay below 1000mV. A good point to start is 925-950 mV. Find the highest frequency you can run with this voltage and reduce one step (or don’t if you don’t mind occasional crashes). But its not as easy as dialing in a negative offset. You need to modify the curve. I would recommend one of the countless youtube videos on that matter. But in short: Open the curve editor in afterburner (little bar graph symbol next to the core clock offset). Use the offset to lower the highest point of the curve below the clock you are aiming for. Then click and drag the dot at your target voltage and raise it to your target frequency. When you click apply, the curve should be flat from this point on. It can be a bit fiddly to hit the right numbers and the freq can only be adjusted in steps of 15 Hz. Some Notes: For my card and cooling I usually go with 975mV for Performance and 925mV for efficiency approach (you can go lower than that, e.g. 875mV but then you will noticeably sacrifice performance). The increments for voltage are smaller than 25mV. You could go 987mV for example. I'm just biased towards "round" numbers. Even if you found your setup and locked your clock at 2010 MHz e.g., the actual frequency may go up or down a step depending on the temperature conditions. E.g. I set my card to 2040MHz@925mV but when I start from a completely cold system it would usually clock 2055 MHz. When it gets really heat saturated on a hot day it may drop to 2025MHz. The whole thing is a matter of trial and error. You can apply the changes to afterburner in real time, while you run Heaven Benchmark in a window. Note though, that something that is stable in Heaven isn't necessarily in DCS... and when it is stable in DCS it may crash in heavier workloads like Cyberpunk2077 e.g. Every application loads the GPU differently. Heaven is a good approximation for DCS though. If you don't care for efficiency that much, you can stabilize a given clock by raising the voltage a step or two. DISCLAIMER: Some may have noticed, that I happen to repeat myself over this matter in this thread and a couple of others. The thing is, that I firmly believe, that there are only gains and no losses in looking into this stuff. Therefore I'm advocating for it. When I first became aware of GPU-overclocking and Afterburner, I thought it was a complicated matter for enthusiasts and went totally above my head. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is dead easy. Worst thing that can happen, the gains are minuscule or you introduce instabilities when you overdo it. In this case, you can always convert back to default with the press of a button. But usually you will gain something. Be it higher clocks, cooler temps or less energy consumption (or a mix). So there you go. Try it!

https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1557533848631656451

Ideas don’t go un noticed but you need to provide evidence, facts and figures build accurate simulations not guess work and approximation. Grab the evidence and track files from DCS and show where you think the performance needs adjusting.

Danke für den Beitrag, ich hätte es nicht besser schreiben können!! Diese lächerliche Deutsche Doppelmoral immer…

Do they have any data to back it up or just saying stuff ? Where are the test result ?

Please fix this issue ED :c

I get that "easy to pick up" is unquantifiable, but this is a pretty simple assertion and it's strange that you'd dismiss it, in its entirety, so quickly. It's also hard to source something proving that the radar "works" or "doesn't work". DCS isn't an EM simulator and no one needs it to be one. I understand the desire to create accurate organic outcomes and I do think conceptually this is a good ideal. However... It has to work well. Simulated outcomes are great since you can't script an outcome for every situation conceivable. But if the system in place doesn't even generate reliable outcomes for situations that are common enough to be scripted, then you really haven't made any improvement at all. In fact, maybe the ecosystem has become so convoluted at this point with its myriad of coefs and formulated relationships that it can't even be adjusted easily anymore. When I use the radar in the F-18 or the F-16, I find it to be an absolute unmitigated nightmare of inconsistent and unreliable results, capabilities, and behaviors. In fact, the topic of detection ability only scratches the surface of the enormity of all the problems with processing logic, the general avionics presentation, workflow and just about every other area one must tediously slog through and overcome in order to use the radar as a radar. So when someone asserts something should be "easy to detect", it's hard to know where to even begin when the entire sum of environmental and systems modeling is working against them in nonsensical and illogical ways. Generally speaking, and almost certainly for our purposes, Fire control radars work. Modern weapons track. If they didn't, we'd develop ones that did. In fact, that's exactly what occurred over the last 60 or so years. If the deep simulation approach is to be continued, then you can't cut corners. Abstracting relationships at any level is ultimately abstraction, and any of that begs the question "after all this, aren't we still just scripting the outcome with so many extra steps?" Here's some citations for some research regarding helicopters and signal processing. The amount of existing material on the subject and related subjects is quite extensive, so there's plenty to read. I trust, given the scope of the project, that you have access to an academic DB that will have these journals: Thank you,

ORBX ist ein Gewinn. Das könnte auch optisch einen neuen Level einleuten.

No, you can perform the ILS by using the glideslop indicator located on the ADI Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk We will try to do it Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

The post is still being tagged as correct as is. So any plan for ED to look into it?

11 03 page 11 paragraph 88 This response will contain directions to paragraphs, but no extracts from said paragraphs, from a document that cannot be posted under the forums rules. I shall PM the extracts in accompaniment. Please refer to: A1-F18AC-742-100 011 03 page 3 paragraph 18 - For description of what an MSI trackfile is A1-F18AC-742-100 011 03 page 11 paragraph 88 - For description of what happens when you use the cursor on one of these MSI trackfiles. The handling of MSI trackfiles as Harker describes is explicitly laid out in these paragraphs, thankfully leaving no room for confusion on this matter. It can be said confidently that all trackfiles can be designated as L&S, DT2 or be the target of an STT command, using all normally available means (acquisition cursor, undesignate, etc).

Vielleicht sollten hier einige den Digital Glücksbärchi Simulator installieren. Es kommen jeden Tag gewaltsam Menschen zu Tode. Sei es durch Krieg, "Kriegsähnliche Zustände" oder Verbrechen. Seit Jahrtausenden. Daran ändert das "schlechte Gefühl" (TM) beim Wegknipsen irgendwelcher Pixel rein gar nichts.

I don't know the answer to your question, but in the F-117, there is and APU that runs the entire flight and the same EPU that is used in and F-16 ( except it does not have fuel/oil cooler and does not use hydrazine). So and APU would not preclude an EPU. F-15A to C does not even have a battery, no APU nor an EPU...not related, just thought is interesting.

1. Fly level or slightly climbing. Any attempt to drop these things while in a dive of any kind will have unfortunate consequences. 2. Try to be above 400 ft AGL. Any lower than that might have unexpected results. 3. Practice. Practice some more. Than practice again. I like using them on SAM sites. Takes most of it out in one pass. Zuni is probably more realistic, but man, those clusters taking out a SAM site are fun. Sidekick has a great video on using them:

Today I got my stick serviced back from Virpil and I will trying tesing my beloved F-1!!!

I have brought this thread to the attention of the team, that is all I can do at the moment. thanks

Really??? FFS, will you for once listen to any advice given to you and RTFM?

Reproduced and reported. Flying the F1 at such a low speed makes me want the Mirage III V module.

Testing with custom "chocks"...

Ich hab mich tierisch über diese Ankündigung gefreut. Wenn die Karte und der Eurofighter da sind haben wir eine Art EF2000 3.0 in DCS. Das weckt doch mal alte Erinnerungen

Sorry, updated first post with link to the latest version (1.5.11)

@BIGNEWY any help on this issue? Tracks and replays were provided in the above threads. Thanks

So yeah the A/G functionality of this is not actually implemented in DCS AFAIK. IRL its basically a fuse setting to turn off the prox fuse and just use the impact fuse since the missile is hitting something, or the ground next to something. As the story goes the soviets tried to use R60 or R60M. In Afghanistan against the Mujahedeen. The use case for something like this is pretty limited but plausible. Basically at night you aren't gonna have a lot of ground signal in that part of the spectrum that these seekers are sensitive to since alot of that is basically reflected in that part of the spectrum. The big thing being that engines or more likely the hot parts of "engine exhaust" will be detectable due to sufficient "contrast" since the ground is now "cold" (so you gotta wait till like right before sunrise for ideal results as this is when the ground will be coolest. So as the story goes the soviets used the seekers to find "trucks" running "dark" and then shot the missiles at em. Or as someone else mentioned they probably dropped flares so they could actually see something first, or maybe both. Similar stories also exist for US missiles in VN as well as other conflicts. Angola comes to mind as well. Also just take anything subs says with Mt. Everest grain of salt... The R60/60M seekers while quite advanced and beating the west to the punch for limited all aspect capability, succeeding where china lake failed. The R60/60M were advanced for the day but in no way do they "image" anything they just detect a "hot" signal and they use a conventional photocell/seeker layout pretty similar to say mid gen sidewinder missiles.

@SkateZilla - As part of the "non-vocal majority" here, I LOVE what you've done. Use it multiple times a day. Consider it a must have application to sit alongside DCS. I suspect Rudel's comment was tongue in cheek. Please know there's a contingent (...and I hope its a majority, but have no way of knowing) of us that would run this as-is for the next 10 years and don't expect/demand anything from you whatsoever. Thanks for sharing your passion with us!

It is not abandoned, simply I forgot to post it also here :) I am sorry Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

I'm fairly certain it is just cosmetic, like the travel pod, in that you can load it for realism purposes, but it doesn't perform any real function in the sim aside from that. I could be wrong though.

What kind of propaganda? If anything NATO always gave significant benefit of doubd to all kind of Soviet equipement, even the types which later porven to be really unsuccessfull. There is multitude of examples where NATO was overestimating Soviet weapon systems and not many, if any, where NATO underestimated them. I like Yak-38 not because of some "propaganda" of one side, but because it was distinct and unique and it had its role in Soviet naval aviation which suffered from insufficient sea/air component. But i know it was very much compromised all around due to its VTOL design. Many guys want even transport aircraft or non-armed helicopter, or acrobatic civilian aircraft. Yak-38 was armed, serially produced, challenging to fly.

Just the fact that the mprf apg68 has the same tws range as the apg73 in hprf (~43nm) shows how the hornet radar is misrepresented

No it was not upgraded. F-1CG was acquired by HAF in 1975. Concerning my aforementioned post for autopilot, I have just called a colleague that you had been in 334 for 11 years and he confirmed what I said. The manual due to the fact that it was translated in english by french people had several mistakes. It should be one of those. We have to ask other pilots to hear their opinion. We are sure that depressing the stick disengage pallet was not needed. It was very simple. Just pushing the button.

The only example of like a super clean F-14 would be images from the book The Cutting Edge by CJ Heatley which were taken during the beginning of the F-14 deployments iirc.

For many years the Mi-8 forum had an Mi-24 thread... I think it is time we continue that tradition, but extending it to the Mi-2. Why the Mil Mi-2: 1) It is the next most produced Soviet helicopter at ~5500 examples (after the Mi-8 with ~17,000 built and the Mi-24 with ~2650). 2) It pioneered the twin turbine roof arrangement of the Mi-8 and Mi-24 (and other later Soviet helicopters). It is also cute. 3) It is the closest Soviet equivalent to the light NATO helicopters (e.g. OH-58, Sa-342, Bo-105). Although it is slower at 210 km/h, with a lower disk loading, its payload and role put it in the lighter utility helicopter category (good for spotting, medivac gameplay etc.) 4) The Polish variants (particularly the Mil Mi-2URP) have a remarkable armament including: Fixed forward firing 23mm cannon Flexibly mounted door guns Air-to-Air missiles (Strela) Rockets (up to 32 rockets) MCLOS anti-tank missiles (4xMalyutka-M ready to fire, four reloads in the cargo compartment). Furthermore these weapons could be carried asymmetrically in the URP version - allowing up to three types of weapons to be carried at once (giving it a more varied armament than the Western light helicopters we are likely to get).

Very strange indeed. Never had any problems like this on my system while testing. MovingMap does not look for keypresses and does not send any. Anybody else experiencing this? Thanks for everybody's replies! Yes, the Mariannas and the South Atlantic maps are planned for future updates. So is a release for iOS. It might take some time though, as I am very busy with my 'real job' currently. I hope there will be more time for development in the future.

It is about trigger delay not rate of fire, just like we have in mosquito right now, cannons are probably pneumatic so the response time is low, but rate of fire is very dependent on cannons it self. To sync cannons you would need electric trigger which would lower rate of fire so the slower cannons could keep up with faster ones, for example 600 rof cannons would fire at 500 rof so even the slowest one would made full cycle before electric trigger would fire all again. Or you would need bunch of sensors which would detect when each cannon is ready to fire again, very complex system too many things can fail. Any way most of the shooting was rather short burst, so all cannons should open up at the same time, if you hold trigger some desynchronization will appear but after couple rounds we can say that all cannons should fire at the same time, so no argent need to develop synchronization system which would complicate things. I must say that cannon fire delay make me go crazy, because of this i have very hard time to hit something with cannons in mosquito, maybe some day we will get electro-pneumatic firing system w/o delay.

You're asking for evidence of what exactly? The team needs confirmation that rotorcraft have unique radar signature characteristics compared to fixed wing aircraft? We can definitely find such validation, but we could probably just show them a picture of each type of aircraft and have the same effect. If we do go and confirm that yes, there are unique attributes to Helicopter RCS in the real world, then what? It isn't relevant at all within DCS. That data doesn't exist to drive any simulated outcomes. The functions that would conceivably carry and use this data don't exist either. Just like the RCS characteristics attributable to pylons and stores in the real world, they don't factor in. This has.. some effect on accuracy across all the results it generates. Here's two works proposing methods for modeling helicopter radar signatures accurately, validated against real world measurements. Radar signature characteristics, unique to helicopters, are briefly covered in both: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350770098_Modelling_the_radar_signature_of_rotorcraft https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336073108_Parametric_modelling_of_the_radar_signature_of_helicopters This aren't usable methods here, I don't think. But it is the requested evidence showing that helicopters are not airplanes. I suppose that's something.

This seems to be fixed, tested in open beta, please PM me if you still have issues. thank you

Ich habe den Thementitel mal temporär geändert. Der letzte Absatz von @The_Dan trifft es nämlich exakt. Und bitte kein "...aber das war ja ganz anders Zeug" dazu packen und sachlich beim Thema DCS bleiben, danke!