Leaderboard

Can you make this a pinned and locked post in your forum section where only you can write? It is somewhat burried here and hard to find. If you create a separate locked post with a list on what you are working currently we are able to check before posting bugs or something. Thank you!

And here's what's coming up next, the Swedish Granatkastarpansarbandvagn 90.

Наличие Марианских островов прямо просит F6F и Зеро. Но вы представьте себе, какой это кайф - авианосный бой времён Второй Мирой. Первое дело - взлететь и долететь. Никакого GPS у вас нет, а внизу море - ориентиров тоже нет. Разведчики передали какие-то координаты (не факт, что правильные), но пока вы летите, противник передвинулся. Лететь надо большой группой, нападать скоординированно, а не кто когда и куда захотел. Далее следует адская свалка десятков или сотен самолётов, десятки или сотни стреляющих зениток. В какой-то момент командир говорит, что сваливаем, и все дружно сваливают. Опять перелёт без ориентиров и GPS, и, возможно, без радиомаяка. А своя авианосная группа передвинулась. Мало найти группу - надо найти и свой авианосец. В группе может быть несколько однотипных авианосцев, а сесть надо обязательно на свой. Отстояв очередь, со всё сокращающимся количеством топлива, и, возможно, в сумерках. И даже для опытного лётчика посадка на авианосец - очень опасное занятие, а обучение было - вообще ад. В ту пору авианосцы постоянно и рутинно теряли кучу самолётов и людей без всякой войны, просто при посадке.

I totally forgot to answer you, giullep, my bad! The F-16 will definitely have an update with the recently added features. It's in my to-do list, don't worry. However, please take into account that the Apache guide is taking all my free time right now and that the Mirage F1 guide is also planned. Bunny hopping between updates isn't too bad as long as the workload is manageable. I will have to see how much energy I have left after the first iteration of the AH-64 project.

It is stalling at this point, so its AOA is going to be pegged, as to the turn rate, is the missile rotating, or is its flight path actually moving, these are two different things, in a stalled state of flight the missile isn't actually changing its flight path its just rotating as it falls. This is also why it accelerates, it's falling. Essentially you are saying that an aircraft spinning with a 50 degree per second or faster spin rate is unrealistic because of how much G they are pulling. They are still pulling 1 G, but tacview doesn't show lateral G (yaw) at all, and that can be very disconnected from flight performance. Like just to be clear, based on the airspeeds you have presented this is a missile that has missed its target and is falling at terminal velocity (360Km/hr), completely stalled (max AOA 25 degrees pegged) and apparently autorotating at some rate. This doesn't appear to be remotely affecting guided performance or its ability to hit the target. like look at the turn radius vs the turn rate. This looks much more like an autorotating stalled ballistically falling missile than anything else. IE it's not a factor to anything. Do you have the entire tacview of this missiles flight, because based on the parameters shown this is my conclusion, not anything untoward in the missile dynamics or flight model. If you had the entire tacview of the missile and its flyout instead of just the snippets that would help illuminate what is actually going on.

In DCS it's possible to rearm and refuel a jet/helicopter in only a few minutes, or even less. Repairing a heavily damaged aircraft in a few minutes only is also possible. Now, I understand this is for gameplay reasons, and no one wants to sit for 1 hour waiting for rearming. However, hear me out: - refueling a jet/helicopter only takes between 5 and 10 minutes (sources: https://www.ang.af.mil/Media/Article-Display/Article/862807/f-16s-fast-track-through-flight-line-fueling/#:~:text=Keeping the F-16's engines,to less than 45 minutes. and a discussion with a Tiger helicopter pilot) - fast rearming (integrated combat turn) can take less than 15 minutes for jets (sources: this comment from ex ground crew "FYI... An actual "ICT" involving F-16 Loading: 6 MK82's , 2 AIM 9's, 510rnds ammo and chaff/flare, as well as refueling takes Approximately 14 min. The fastest I witnessed was 12min 34 sec from chock placement to chock removal. ( Homestead AFB July 1985 to Jan 1988)", https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-c-series stating a 10 minutes combat turnaround for the Gripen) - having to wait 5 to 15 minutes for a complete rearming/refueling procedure would force players who wish for more realism to deal with real life limitations. No more "2 minutes on the ground and I"m back in the fight!". Now, fuel management matters more, weapon usage has to be more careful. Like in real life... Eventually, it will be especially useful for the upcoming dynamic campaign, for players who want to deal with realistic limitations. Questions like fuel management, how to manage weapon usage, do I have enough time to land and rearm now? are part or combat operations, and an option for realistic rearming/refueling times, and no magic repairs, would require little effort and be a nice addition.

It can be very easy to make : A model that has different animations. Currently, when loading the game, the models "orient themselves" in the direction of the wind. What's missing? An adaptive animation of the model according to the strength of the wind (related to its altitude)

So the altitude thing... AIM-120s are like darts at the local pub. If you drop one they accelerate down very quickly with gravity accelerating them. The drag of the atmosphere doesn't do much to slow them. AIM-54s are more like badminton shuttlecocks. When they come down into thicker air, (and I mean anything in the 25,000 feet zone and below), they start experiencing massive drag and slow down a lot. So if your targets are at medium altitude, or lower down near the deck, it doesn't matter if you're at angels-45 doing Mach 1.6, they will be somewhat protected by the thicker air, and you will have to play the game on their terms to some extent. AIM-120 PK% table: Best: High to low. Good: High to high. Medium: Low to low. Bad: Low to high. AIM-54 PK% table: Best: High to high. Good: Low to high. Medium: High to low. Bad: Low to low. If you see a target at 35000 or higher, an AIM-54A 60 can be launched from almost any range allotted by TWS, (as long as the targets are hot of course). You can fire from 70+ miles and your missiles will have about Mach-3ish at pitbull and probably still carry Mach 2 at impact. This is the case even if you are at a medium altitude. If you see anything up high, it's blood in the water. At around 25000 feet and below I start to apply the 1.5 rule. I translate their altitude into a range and add about 50%. So if they're at angels 20, I shoot at around 30, if they're at 10 or below I shoot at about 15, etc. These are huge generalizations, but it's a decent guideline to follow. (I haven't used AIM-54Cs in probably over a year, so I can't speak much on those missiles). If you're getting the little x in the middle of the contact, (not to be confused with the ever so slightly larger x that represents the center of the scan volume and is often right on top of a track file anyway, insert "hey dog, I heard you like confusing symbology, so we added some confusing symbology to make your symbology confusing" meme, then the target probably entered the extremely huge main lobe clutter notch filter. It is a massive 266 knot zone +/- 133 from your own ground speed. Basically your targets can notch the AWG-9 without even trying. Sometimes routine maneuvering puts them in the notch. If you're over water it's safe to set the MLC to out. Unfortunately Jester can't be ordered to do that for some stupid reason, so you'll have to jump into the back seat yourself. If you are over land, or if it's near-ish in the distance, you'll want to dive immediately after shooting instead of using the MLC out function. If your targets are up at 25-30, dive down to 15 or so. If you keep them above 3-degrees the notch filters won't apply, and the AWG will hold good tracks even if they start turning.

Has anyone actually requested declassification of any version of the JA 37 flight manual? Part 4 (flight performance charts) was declassified all the way back in 2012. Things don't get automatically released as declassified in Sweden, someone has to request it and then it gets reviewed, and the review process can involve redacting parts of the requested material. I've gone through this process many times myself. The declassification process is much easier if the documents in question are older than 40 years (to simplify a lot, younger than 40 years = may declassify, older than 40 years = shall declassify, with some exceptions), and the first publication of the JA 37 flight manual should have passed that limit only last year or maybe even this year (probably a 1980 or 1981 publish date). I wouldn't be surprised if most if not all of it would be pretty easy to get declassified today. Later updates to the manual are almost certainly a lot more problematic, especially when you start getting to really late versions like the JA 37D and Di which could carry AIM-120, but early editions I wouldn't expect to contain much if any sensitive information today. Either way though, as was mentioned above, the JA 37 avionics actually have very significant differences from the AJ 37, and the flight performance is quite different too (different engine, longer fuselage, different FCS) so for most intents and purposes it'd be like implementing a completely new module.

Uploaded... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/user-is-Neo47/apply/

I would like a fighter variant JA-37. But original Cold War one, with Skyflash missiles, stronger engine, internal extremely powerfull gun firing GAU-8 Avenger cardridge in times when gun was still usefull etc. Perfect for Red Storm Rising scenarios against the Soviets over Kola Peninsula map. Not modern AMRAAM truck, with classified avionics JA-35D Viggen.

That is why, after the VEAO debacle, parties are required to submit source code to ED, so they always have the ability to maintain something. Otherwise, it is irrelevant if the Kiowa sees the light of day as they have not collected preorder funds for it, ergo we're owed nothing. Projects start and fail all across the industry every day, that's life. That said, I doubt Polychop is 'dead'. *eyeroll* Some of you just thrive on drama.

I really just want an early light weight F-16A Blk15, or F-16A ADF. The future of DCS is 1970s-1980s, with the planes we have and the plane we have coming, thats going to be the most interest era to play. Please just give me an F-16 that fits that era. Just rip out the screens and throw in a few more steam gauges and lighten it up.

Hi Guys, So, per my understanding any inaccuracies before the missile "leaves" the aircraft are handled by your team not ED. My understanding of the F1 manual, the 530IR and the 550 magic 1, can and do have an "automatic uncage" behavior. I.e. when they get a tone for a target they unlock the seeker so it can track the target thats over some minimum signature. So good job there. However. US missiles used on the mirage this is generally not the case. Bug 1: Aim-9B cannot be uncaged on the aircraft until fired at all. I.e. you have to keep the missile within the sidewinder IFOV of 4 degrees until launch, where it uncages. (Current bug, seeker acts as if auto uncaged once you get tone, it is impossible to do this with this missile). I.e. lock target and then move the missile centerline off the target. It should loose lock outside of the 4 degree IFOV cone. (source F8 tacman Pg 1-149, as well as F4 tacmans pre-1980) Bug2: Aim9J. Again does not automatically "uncage/lock", basically you have to maneuver the target into the seeker FOV (2.5 degrees in this case) centered on the flight path. THEN you either manually must depress (and sometimes hold down) the "uncage switch" or you can hit fire and shoot it caged like a 9B (will uncage when fire is pressed). Source (most USAF -34s have this info f4/5/15/16). With the uncage switch pressed the seeker will track the target through the 40 degree seeker gimbal. Presumably the 300/600/gun lock switch does this Bug3: Aim9 Juli, basically similar issue to the Aim9J i.e. "auto lock" but more complex since its basically a 9L seeker which does have the ability to be pointed by either the radar or "seam" but in each case you basically have to "lock" the target by using the uncage switch. most USAF -34s have this info f4/5/15/16. Presumably the 300/600/gun lock switch does this. Also there is likely a way to switch between SEAM/radar modes.

Hello! Will the Supercarrier ever see Selectable Spawnpoints? So that we dont have to block SP with statics. Thanks

Я именно так летал в старичке Ил-2 проходя дин кампанию на тихом океане. Никаких маркеров на карте... ничего. Просто перед вылетом, мерил расстояние, брал крейсерскую скорость полета и определял сколько времени это займет. так и летал с секундомером, замеряя время прохождения ППМ и новый курс. При этом как это не странно, такая схема работала . Всегда находил цель и возвращался обратно. И какого же было счастье, когда уже весь израненный , на парах керосина , выходишь на авианосную группу. Плюхаешься на палубу и в эту же секунду останавливается двигатель....

I would really compare the turn rate to the assessed turn radius, because those are tied to the speed. 13 degrees per second turn rate vs a 2km turn radius at 360 km/hr don’t match up for an actually turning object. The turn radius if it was actually turning 13 degrees per second at that speed should be something in the vicinity of 4-500 meters, not 2000. A 2km turn radius at that speed matches a 2.8 degree turn rate. I feel like you are looking at a transient rotation of the missile here. The same btw applies to all three of the snippets you presented. The Turn radius matches a 2-3 degree turn rate for that airspeed. The turn rate seems to match nothing. the turn radius is a much better representation of The actual flight path of the object than the turn rate. As to the airspeed increase. A pitch angle would help here. The missile could be pointed straight down at max AOA in which case gravity will make it accelerate.

I mean, to me it's a bit like if a module has a wrong flight model and its top speed is too high, and you say "just don't go full afterburner and you'll get the right speed." Yes, it's possible. But should we have the realistic option in the game? Imo yes. And that would be nice for mission designers and server owners who would want to do that too.

Nothing on the user side, procedures or tinkering with axis settings, will change the absence of a helicopter flight model.

Sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads are OP.

It’s the same gross weight. The only thing they did was add in a lot of wiring and replaced some of cockpit components with computers. Whatever weight difference is negligible. Engines didn’t change at all. the aircraft cannot fly without the gun, they can fly without bullets but they add in ballast plates in the nose to compensate so there’s not much of a difference in gross weight either. the interesting part of the demo video is the pilots first ops check when he calls out he’s only got like 3000 lbs of fuel. That’s why he’s so much more maneuverable and has so much G available.

I've been playing DCS for... jeez, at least 10 years. I've invested a lot of money. I have most modules, most maps. And I'm getting so frustrated lately I'm considering walking away from it all. What good are phenomenal modules like the Hornet, Viper, Apache, Tomcat.... Just about every module, just phenomenal work - what good are they when the base engine is a dinosaur? High end PCs can't make this game work well in VR, and crashes like this... I just lost another Liberation mission due to this crash. At 50 miles, check in for Case III approach, and crash. No other game I play requires so much work just to get it running smoothly, or crashes so frequently. I'm just finding more frustration than enjoyment lately. I truly, truly hope they are close to the engine revamp they are promising. Because all of the wonderful work on the modules is for naught when you can't use them to their potential. I want to help in any way I can, I really do, but aside from reporting bugs that often go unacknowledged, I don't know what else to do.

Yes please, S version need to come to DCS, please RAZBAM

Ох! Ан-26 от ЕД это вообще моя голубая мечта. Но, к сожалению вероятность такого очень сильно стремится к нулю.

Late 80's Phantom SEAD anybody?

Depends on how you (or in this case, TacView) defines turn rate. If you define turn rate as a rate of flight path heading change rate, a falling rock can't have any. If you define turn rate as nose heading change rate, then it can (if you define a "nose" on it). I strongly suspect TacView uses the second definition. Normally, flight path rate and nose rate are closely coupled, but if AoA is increasing during the turn, then it means the nose is rating faster than the flight path (this is the cause of the phenomenon known as "accelerated stall" or "high-speed stall"). Moreover, in a tumble, nose position uncouples from the flight path and can take wild values totally unrelated to flight path rate. Also, it's quite possible to turn with less than 1G, it's called an unloaded turn. In fact, if you turn 90 degrees and unload the rudder to 0G, you can load the stick to any value you wish and your heading will change. Just remember that you're in freefall on the horizontal axis and thus accelerating towards the ground.

Another good tip I can give you, is to tell Jester to set target size to large if you're playing single player or PVE. AFAIK the new and improved DCS AI does not begin it's missile defense when it detects the pitbull on their RWR, they begin their defensive maneuvering at a set range. I think it's 10 miles. So there is no downside to using a large target size. It makes your missiles go pitbull sooner, which is less time that you have to support them. If you fly PVP it's a different story...

Shameless promotion , but I put a table with all arguments and corresponding F1 versions in this post (click :-)) This encompasses adding correct probe (2 versions!), CR chin, CT chin, various changes in ECM, dorsal fin extension, and external model of cockpit.

Only if we get a Beka valley MP mission we have most of the elements either on the table or in the works Syria/ Israel border MiG-21 Bis -----in the works------ MiG-23 F-4 Kfir Now add the F-16A , F-15A and possibly Mirage III(add the Mirage III even if they weren't used in that operation)

The most important piece of information you need when setting up for a Phoenix shot is your target's altitude, which I don't see mentioned anywhere in your post. It's at least twice as important as your own altitude. It affects the optimal shooting ranges much more than your own altitude or speed. It sounds like you might be losing track before the missiles are able to pitbull though. Is there a tiny little x in the middle of the track file? If so that means the AWG lost contact and is extrapolating where they might be based on their last known trajectory, but I don't think I've ever seen a successful hit on an extrapolated track file in my experience. I don't think it works in DCS. If I see the little x, I consider it a lost missile. Edit/Add: I think the C-model Phoenix is the worst in the game right now, so if you have the ability to do so, switch to the A-60.

One of the mysteries of the universe I guess.

The OP has given his feedback and wont be buying. Please continue to be patient when the team have news to share they will share it. thanks

I mean, blocking slots for rearming probably isn't the best solution and don't get me wrong, quick turnarounds/ICTs and hot rearming/refuelling should be a thing. Personally, my preferred solution would have it be configurable, allowing mission editors to increase or decrease the time. My preferred solution would be something like a rate expressed as a percentage; 100% would be realistic and then reducing the percentage would increase the time and increasing the percentage would decrease the time. Personally, I would set it up similar to C:MO. Here, you have say an airbase, with a certain number of aircraft assigned to it. What state these aircraft are in (i.e available, maintenance, reserve (i.e unloaded)) and the time to ready is configurable by the user. Aircraft that are available and ready can be occupied by players, aircraft that are under maintenance, lost or already occupied are unavailable. This way it's more in line with real world air operations and there's more of a practical consequence for expending weapons, fuel and aircraft. Mission editors would just need to make sure there's enough slots available (where players can just slot in to a new aircraft). Obviously the default option should stay, which grants airbases an unlimited amount of aircraft, fuel and weapons.

I hope the testing inculdes pilot bodies for the A-10C and the F-16C - i feel so empty without them in VR

I think they are an attempt to model this kind of landscape: Stock photo of Mt Tumbledown

What I forgot to ask was are you also using the throttle as a throttle in airplanes? You would also see the jittering in the animation of the throttle as you move it. As others have said it sounds like you could have multiple control inputs fighting against each other though you appear to have checked this. DCS has a habit of assigning defaults to controllers it finds which need to be cleared.

Fair comment. Yeah, sure, if it's optional, why not. Good suggestion.

This will NOT be made public, only for Virtual Air Shows. This came directly from the dev. Sad.

i would not want to use such a feature, but i think it's a very reasonable wish for a realistic flight sim to have such realistic features as an option. also when we have a dynamic campaign, there will be more stuff to do while on the ground (mission planning, strategic decisions maybe), so a longer pause for rearm/refuel might feel less like a burden. some day we will maybe have animated ground crew working on the jet making it a bit less boring to wait a little longer... also turn-around times could be a tactical factor: maybe certain loadouts take longer, maybe certain aricraft do, maybe certain airfields have higher skilled ground crew etc. ... so this would be low priority for me at the moment, but imagining a possible future with a super high fidelity dynamic campaign, i think it makes a lot of sense.

I'd love a Blk. 15.

+9999999999 Definitely prefer the Block 15 to the Block 15 ADF (the former is much more numerous and much more relevant to the Cold War). It was widely profilic and is probably the perfect contemporary to the 'hope to' 9-12 MiG-29. It would also fit basically perfectly for the upcoming Kola map, where it was operated by the RNoAF, on bases we're getting (such as Bodø).

Yeah, I've got hopes. But the list of stuff to do (and this is without ASW mind) is gigantic. Mmm, agreed. I'd love a Soviet Nanuchka I. Right now we only have the Tarantul III and the Type 148 Tiger-class (La Combattante IIa), though the latter still fires the wrong missiles. Yeah and IRL there are coastal defence missile batteries on the coast of the Kola Peninsula. Something like the 4K51 'Rubezh' [SSC-3 Styx] and (seeing as we have an appropriate missile in the files) the 3K60 'Bal' [SSC-6 Sennight]. AFAIK, there's at least a former P-35 battery (formerly a KS-1 battery) at Kildin island. There's even a coastal RBU-6000 installation at Cape Vyevnavolok, there's almost certainly some more coastal defence missile installations around. At the moment, I unfortunately have to agree. The naval aspect is the least well modelled and developed and the above list is huge even without ASW, which would have just about all the items of said list while adding a few of its own.

I can’t help but think that someone wishing to wait can simply…wait.

Laut Titel des PDFs anscheinend von Notso, der wohl F-15E-Pilot ist und ja auch irgendwie mit Razbam in Verbindung steht, da er die UFC-Videos gemacht hat, die auf Razbams offiziellem Youtubekanal hochgeladen wurden.

According to one member of F-35 mod team, the mod is still developing but their Discord has to be closed due to negative pressure from community

Hello Fellow A-10C and A-10C II Pilots, Combat King Simulations is proud to announce the updated Operation Agile Spear campaign for A-10 and A-10C II Tank Killer released in DCS World DCS 2.7.16.28157 this last August 4th, 2022 for single player. Added 6 new voices characters for a total of 500 more lines of dialogue A-10C II and A-10C loadouts modified to enhance mission parameters Missions 3, 8, 10, 11, and 12 significantly changed Updated Triggers and Conditions for most missions Updated objectives and scoring for most missions Added "Objectives Completed" radio message to all missions Updated _ README FIRST_AGILE SPEAR Gameplay Settings And checkout our new Operation Agile Spear Update trailer:

Gents, Mirage F-1 engine was very reliable. For your info, 2 HAF F-1CG squadrons, in a period of more than 25 years, had no more than a succesfully relighted flame out and no more that two succesfully recovered partial compressor stalls. In DCS, it needs a lot of work to reach this reallity.

If you are willing to edit the mission, it is easy to make it disappear. Drop a trigger zone on the offending light pole and then create a MISSION START trigger that uses SCENERY REMOVE OBJECT ZONE to remove it. null

WIP items of the Mirage F1 CE: Autopilot: o Implementation of R and G modes. o Fixing oscillations in some regimes. o Mode logic, failures and tests overhaul. Implementation of S530 F ‘supermatra’. o The S530 D used as a placeholder in some AI models will be replaced by the F variant. Full implementation of the intercom (will enable communication with JTAC). Adjust adverse yaw behaviour. Pedal toebrake and control stick animations will be added. Implementation of miscellaneous armament: o CC - 420 external cannons. o JL100. o Etc… Implementation of countermeasures and jamming pods: o BARAX. o PHIMAT. Radar: o BZ short range mode. o Different detection ranges and target visibility conditions in IC and HA modes. o Radar noise visual appearance in various modes. o Elevation control in V1 mode for 7 and 15 nm ranges. o Radar slaving of the IR missiles’ seekers. Optical Sight: o Radar related symbology logic - relative velocity, range, correct display sequence with the radar tracking a target. o Gun sight is not correctly fed by the radar measured target distance yet. RWR: o Addition of specific F1 RWR sounds. New pilot 3D model with new helmet, 3 variants. Improved external model textures. Cockpit panels texture overhaul (dark cockpit) due to game lighting. Option to adjust the speed of the fuel selection dial. The Flight Manual has to be completed. New missions will be added over time. Main known issues of the Mirage F1 CE: Wrong number of flares at mission start (14 instead of 15). Jettison of CLB4 bombs when infinite munitions are on does not stop bombs from respawning. R530 jettison should eject the pylon too. Clickable sounds for the shock-cones and high sensitivity nose wheel steering not audible. Control stick switches sounds not playing. First preset radio channel is tied in both radios in ME. Some liveries are inaccurate. AI flight model is underperforming. We are aware of other issues that we will solve over time.

Quick update : Ive been away from playing DCS in general for months , this including mod making as I have grown abit tired of some issues in regards to the game itself aswell some tiresome behaviours. That being said ive also been waiting for Razbams SA map to see to what level of quality it will be released at and with what assets . Vulcan Mod has been mostly finished for some time except for an EFM model . Was hoping razbam would have made the release of the map sometime around the Falklands war anniversary (marketing wise would have made alot sense than this EA release). Considering the map's state , dont see much need to hurry but since the EA is released , i will be looking to get the vulcan an efm and shall see how things go ...