Leaderboard

Summary: DCS World is creating invalid ballistics objects which are not cleaned up. These ballistics objects persist until mission restart and have a significant impact on the performance of Multiplayer servers, measured in "Server FPS" or the number of simulation frames per second that the server is processing. Background: Ballistics objects are spawned whenever a rapid fire weapon starts firing. They may also be spawned when cluster munitions are dispensed but I have been unable to confirm that. Ballistics Objects tend to have an impact on Server FPS which depends on the power of the server, the number of objects and, apparently, the number of connected clients. This is because the server has to spend time calculating the trajectories and other properties (Collisions etc.) of these ballistic objects. Here is an example of Ballistics Objects being spawned when rapid-fire weapons fire. You can see that the number of Ballistics objects in the mission spike when a shooting event starts and the resulting impact on server FPS. You can also see that the number drops back to 0 as the ballistics objects expire. (Note: The below graphs come from a liberation mission running with only AI running on a home-server) Bug: There are times, however, when Ballistics objects increase without an associated shooting event (Or any other event that I can find). You can also see that after this jump the objects are not cleaned up and the number of ballistics objects in-mission steadily accumulates. If we look at these objects we can see that they are invalid and they are always identical aside from the main ID. Their type is all 0, their coordinates are all 0 and the lat/lon is always at map origin, the country is 99 which is not in the country enum. Clearly these are not something that should exist. "33584385": { "Pitch": 0, "Type": { "level3": 0, "level1": 0, "level4": 0, "level2": 0 }, "Country": 99, "Coalition": "Enemies", "Flags": { "Jamming": false, "IRJamming": false, "Born": false, "Static": false, "Invisible": false, "Human": false, "AI_ON": true, "RadarActive": false }, "Name": "", "Position": { "y": 0, "x": 0, "z": 0 }, "Heading": 6.2831854820251, "LatLongAlt": { "Long": 34.265515188456, "Lat": 45.129497060329, "Alt": 0 }, "CoalitionID": 0, "Bank": 0 } I have also noticed that these invalid objects tend to (but not always) spawn 76 objects at a time as evidenced below (Note: This graph is from a Hoggit Georgia At War session). The trackfile for this Liberation mission can be found in the attached `liberation-mission.trk` which is tiny because, I assume, there is only AI. Impact: The accumulation of these Ballistics Objects has a deleterious impact on the Hoggit multiplayer servers (And potentially others, but Hoggit is what I was analysing) due to the fact that the server still has to assign time to process them even though they are doing nothing. Here is a graph of a typical mission on Hoggit Georgia At War. You can see that the server FPS steadily decreases as the number of Ballistics objects increases. I could find no other metrics that shows such a correlation. You can also see that the number of players also has an impact on the server FPS in that the FPS recovers very slightly as player count drops at the end. I am not sure if the number of players amplifies the impact of the ballistics objects but my assumption is yes because on a server with very few players the impact is not as great. (Note: The below graphs come from the Hoggit "Georgia At War" server) As well as a corresponding increase in CPU usage: You can see here that the number of invalid Ballistics objects is in the thousands. However I have also observed that this depends on which of the two missions that make up "Georgia At War" is running (P1 or P2). In one mission the Invalid ballistics objects consistently numbers in the hundreds and one in the thousands. However even just a few hundred ballistics objects has a massive impact as well. I have observed this behaviour across about 20 different mission sessions. Track files for some GAW sessions with this ballistic object accumulation can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-_Ae-h6dl5s2k9v1FWwfkME0OBOflbWt (Size warning. 300-400MB) Request: Eagle Dynamics to find the root cause for these invalid ballistics objects being spawned and fix it. liberation-mission.trk

Let us please not throw around accusations, etc... All levels of skill are welcome here, always, please do not forget that, and all levels of skill will struggle to adjust, from more to less. Which is the main point: to adjust. It is no one's fault, but ours, that folks now compare with the state of before, which slows done the getting to terms with it. Which of course, if you think of it, would not have been the case, would we have known better at the time and released it as is. I cannot blame anyone who finds these adjustments frustrating, irritating or difficult to come to terms with. But the flipside of the coin also means of course that if you treat it as if it just released and as if you never knew the overperforming version from before, you will adjust faster and better. If I may offer a general observation about "skill", too: There are times and situations in gaming, where it really is lack of skill that causes a complaint, although even then I find guiding newer players the most constructive reply to that. But when it comes to changes, it is - in my observation - usually the skilled players who complain the loudest. This is very logical if you think of it: they have a very particular, dialed in set of tactics, skills, workflows that get thrown over bord (in parts) by such changes. Which puts them (in parts) to square one. That is a lot of hard work being forced to be redone, which naturally is frustrating. So simply deducing that loud complaining equals lack of skill, is missing the mark, besides the above mentioned not being very constructive in general. Especially when folks just reached a certain level of skill, changes are a nuisance, always. You start getting more relaxed again, once your (ever changing and ever evolving) skillset has proven and tested through many and above these changes over many years. Really good are those who don't think of themselves as good. The moment you do that, you stop being good. It is about doing something right, and knowing that each time you start something, you start at square one again. When we obsess about skill, we are usually and actually still training. Only later you understand you did not train a specific skill, but actually the method of acquiring skills or skillsets as needed (for the particular area you want to develop expertise in). So then it does not bother you anymore to start at square one every time again (while with growing experience this ofc becomes easier), in fact you appreciate it, and thus also gain a new outlook on really appreciating new and unskilled players and their gripes. Anyway, short novel over.

"Missile?" "Yeah, RIO?" "I want you to hit that target 30 miles outside Rmax." "It'll be hard, but I'll give you my maximum effort! Wait... you said thirty- three zero?" "And if you can't get to it, I want you to not even try." "But... look at the range- why are you shooting me? FCS, back me up, son!" *pushes button* "WAIT, BRO?!" *WHOOSH*

Bogey Dope with more info on the C-130J

Admiral Kas update! She's almost complete. I need to add the Navigation lights and the surface-to-land missile. Shouldn't be much longer. It's moving slowly but i'm getting her completed. Thanks for your patience!!

Airpower 22 Austria Heatblur, I fell in Love with the Phantom and can't wait any longer

Despite the lack of updates for the 21, we do have big plans currently in the works that will bring it up to today's standards. Both graphically and coding. https://leatherneck-sim.com/2022/06/01/2022-summer-update/ Towards the bottom The gentleman in the video below recently learned the 21 and flew on Enigma's Cold War Server. A few weeks later he seems to be having fun... Give it a watch and make your decision.

Hi devs, This issue has been bugging me for some time, and I thought I'd raise it since I rarely see it mentioned. Setting up the Magnetic Declination for the KM-2 is pretty straightforward: you turn a knob, you get a deflection, and that's it. However... most players do not know what value to input by heart. The magnetic declination value changes from map to map and most developers have a Magnetic Declination value indicated on the kneeboard as a reminder (as an example, the Harrier, Tomcat, JF-17 all have this value in the kneeboard). However, for the Hind, it seems this was just omitted. Therefore, new CPG players need to sort of "guess" what the value to input is. This isn't practical and is easily remedied by adding a Magnetic Declination information field on the first kneeboard page. Could this "quick fix" be added in the near future? It would solve a bunch of headaches for people flying the Hind in multicrew.

Four more new 3rd party module announcements in the cue. What could they be?

I think everyone is getting far too wrapped up in the numbers. If you know what you doing, you are going to get plenty of kills with the Aim-54. It has never mattered that much through any of the changes in the past, the ups and downs of performance. Your going to win (or not) usually because of your tactics, taking high PK shots and not putting yourself unnecessarily dangerous situations. The factor that everyone seems to be overlooking when talking about if your long range shots are going to connect..is the other pilot in the other plane (obviously I'm talking about a MP PVP situation but since fighting the AI is generally easier..). When I get an 80nm kill, it is almost always because the other pilot was still in his climb flying toward the TA and simply was not expecting an inbound missile yet. Catch that viper when he is just climbing up to 40k, setting up something in his jet, or looking at his phone. My point is.. the missile is fine. Some things changed for the worse, some for the better (I think the C changes were very positive), such is life. Remember that we fly the F-14 not because it is undefeatable and has the greatest missile man ever conceived, but rather because we love flying the Big Fighter. Focus on tactics and good launch parameters. Also, we dodge Aim-120s all the time (if you fly against hornets and vipers...a lot of Aim-120s),so don't be overly offended if someone dodges your phoenix. Your missile missing doesn't mean that it is "garbage" now, or that HB has "broken" it, it may be that the other pilot was paying attention and simply defended well..so kudos to them.

RAZBAM M2000C improvements.

Please show me once where we said something someone reported does not exist, when it really existed? We may say we do not see it or cannot reproduce it, but never did we not believe a factual report. But, if for example someone says "can't lower the flaps above 250 kts, they are bugged" and we say "that is not a bug, you broke them by overspeeding", and it then gets called toxic, it is creating toxicity in itself, if you'll pardon me pointing that out. No one is trying to shut you down, but you want us to change things we just have no access to. The F-14 is us, the missile guidance not. That's a nuance which is not outrageous to ask to understand. And it is not toxic if we do so. Which is what Fringe was trying to point out, again, trying to help you gain perspective. And while ED may be a meme to you, they are not to us, and to the contrary very forthcoming and helpful, but you will have to forgive us that certain things take a certain time. You say you want these things talked about, but when we talk about it, you say it comes from a - fair enough, as you say, seemingly - toxic attitude. If a discussion means only agreeing with what you say, then it is quite frankly not an invitation to a discussion. Not sure if I come across wrongly here? But I hope you do notice that I am trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. There is a whole lot of claims and accusations, which I am sorry, I do not see all just as substantiated as you put it, and that is something you will have to accept just as much as I have to accept your being displeased with us. We can talk more about loft, if you want, which btw I already acknowledged twice now, and many times before in general. We are aware that it is irrational in certain regimes. But we also mentioned and explained several times in the previous thread that it is the best compromise given with how loft is currently handled in DCS, and why in most circumstances it is not only not wrong, but correct as is. I also acknowledged it is being worked on. In essence thus it is not being worked on fast enough in your opinion, which is fair, but reality dictates the speed, not willingness. We want loft to improve, but we, ourselves, cannot do that. We have no control over that part. And again, imo to ask to kindly understand that is neither outlandish, nor toxic. "Should" is a word used often in air to air, because it depends on so many factors. Anyone who says always "is" instead, I would take with a grain of salt. And again, when the testers do tell you "does", because they did so many tests, which Fringe told you literally in his reply, you fail to see that, you instead choose to see it as a "firestorm of ppl trying to tell you that you are wrong" and to reply "thank you for proving my various points about *testers*" ... I am not even going into the "what information we are missing" thing, because I fail to see how you could possibly know that. We're open for criticism, we are exchanging with the community likely more than many devs out there, and we always meet you guys on eye level. Calling us toxic, or our testers toxic, for trying to provide clarity, is not fair, especially if you just literally asked for that, then don't like the answer and come in barging with accusations in such a manner. I get it, you find it frustrating, and fixes for some issues are not delivered fast enough for you. That is fair. We will try to do better, I mean that. But please try to refrain from accusing our testers to have a toxic attitude towards you, they are not. You are instead being toxic towards them, you really are, so please understand if that is where I draw a line. You can express your being displeased with us, no biggy, but please do not involve those who are willing to give their free time to improve the game I would guess you care about, and on top of that are willing to help ppl on the forums to understand and learn the Tomcat better. Thank you for respecting that.

There is a bug in OpenXR Toolkit that makes anti-shake interfere with motion reprojection. Hoping to fix that eventually.

Let's put you in the role of tester: provide a Tacview of a level shot Phoenix, ie, non-manually lofted, of any type, that performs a loop or over the shoulder response. Herein, again, lies the problem- its not the testers saying "git gud"; there is nobody on this side of the table who doesn't want people to have their Phoenix launches connect. The SMEs confirm the profile. The materials confirm the profile. The devs express this, and the testers reinforce with hundreds of shots during the lead in to release. Update drops. Community outliers choose to not accept the guidance provided, perform their own routines, and come back and claim everything is broken. We literally witness Tacviews where the claim is made there's no attempted loft, have the images shown here, and oh, look- there's a manual loft you can literally see in the missile smoke trail. Actions that need to be discredited are going to be discredited in practice. That's not being a fanboy, and not defending a developer blindly. That's expecting people to actually use the weapon as intended, rather than making it up as they go along then coming back complaining that it's broken. Sorry, but no. When some of us have manually shot 100, 200 or more Phoenix rounds against varying target types in all ranges and looks, plus group MP test sessions, and none of them become moonshots based on simply honoring the shot profile, they're rare. HB works through the flight dynamics and increases the guidance capability while expressing the limitations under which the weapon must be fired, the player base needs to then own their part of the equation and use it like it's being explained, and own up when they aren't. Everybody loves Victory's comments. He says center it up. Everybody jumped for joy over Puck's 75 minute 10 Percent True interview. He discussed the limited azimuth shot envelope and 20-30 mile hold. But nobody wants to honor those limitations, wants their big angles and manual loft and shoot a missile thats two and a half times as large as an AMRAAM and get 120 mid range performance out of it, then come back and complain when it doesn't work. Sorry- you can't have it both ways. You can't call for realism, then complain it doesn't work when shot in an unrealistic fashion.

Good catch. Either he's remembering wrong... or... Globalsecurity lists a C+ variant. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-variants.htm AIM-54A First production model for F-14A. Analog electronics, klystron tube transmitter/receiver. Liquid-cooled hydraulic and thermal-conditioning systems. Design range of 60 nm (69 mi; 111 km) was easily surpassed in testing. AIM-54B Interim model. Simpler construction, non-liquid cooling. Not produced. AIM-54C Last production model. Analog electronics replaced by Reprogrammable Memory (RPM) digital processor, yielding faster target discrimination, longer range, increased altitude, improved beam attack capability, better ECM resistance, and greater reliability. Continuous-rod warhead replaced by controlled fragmentation warhead. AIM-54C+ High Power Phoenix Improved variant developed by Hughes for F-14D. Contains internal heaters, which eliminates need for temperature conditioning liquid, high-power Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) transmitter adapted from the AIM-120 AMRAAM, and low-sidelobe antenna. Latest version of RPM substitutes 6 ultra-high-speed computer chips for 45 of earlier, less-capable chips. Full-scale development began in August 1987. First test flight of fully upgraded missile on 14 August 1990 scored a direct hit on a QF-4 drone. Puck did seem to more time in the D and would have been in them by 97 anyway, probably and isn't talking about which version he was in at that point.

The image below taken in the last century (RAAF Mirage IIIO) shows an AIM9B training missile (CATM) . The seeker heads of these training missiles got a lot of air time. Consequently repeated exposure to rain etc at high speeds could lead to pitting of the seeker glass. These metal covers were fitted to help reduce the pitting. They had little impact on getting tone as they were in the centre of the seeker FOV. They obviously were not fitted on live missiles.

Not yet, sorry. I'm working on the remaining seasons. Once they are ready, I'll update the first post with the link. As for the previous version, I won't be uploading it till the end of the week (need some space on my google drive for testing new releases). Please be patient - you won't regret it. AUTUMN:

I grew up on Little Rock Air Force Base, and got to hear and see E and H models flying on a near daily basis. Those to me will always be the classic C-130. J model is nice, and more capable than the H, but it did lose the iconic sound of the turboprops in the process. I too would have loved to have an H model in DCS, but I will very happily fly the J model! And I too am a sucker for steam gauges!

Right, so at the very least some of these announcements may possibly be modules known/hinted/teased to be worked on by existing 3rd parties but weren't licensed from ED and hence officially announced yet. These would include, from the top of my head: - Pucara (Razbam) - Mirage III (Razbam) - Su-17M4 or Su-22M4 (Magnitude 3 or OctopusG) - La-7 (OctopusG, though their more recent Su-22M4 tease leaves this in doubt) - English Electric Lightning (Razbam, but this one was far down the pipeline and seems to be backburnered, so not too likely) - A6M, likely A6M5 Zero (Magnitude 3? Unlikely for now, considering they have Corsair, F-8, possibly Su-17, and some sort of MiG rework on their plate) - Razbam has at least one secret helicopter in addition to the collaboration with Miltech5 for Bo-105. Still, while their helicopter team is almost entirely a separate entity, even them themselves are occupied with the Bo for now, thus this isn't super likely either at this point imo. - Other assorted things in works by devs, but don't have forum sections yet like Super Tucano from Razbam, F-8 from Magnitude 3, G.91 Gina from IFE, but I don't know if these would/should count as new announcements. - We know that there most likely is an Afghanistan map being worked on from 2022 and beyond teaser. We don't know if it is ED or 3rd party, as the other big tease at the end of same video was the 3rd party F-4E from Heatblur. Then, there are things that were known to be under work, aiming to be 3rd party devs (like C-130 team and Kfir team just did recently), or mods that may have decided to go that way - MiG-17F from Red Star Simulations - A-4E team deciding to go 3rd party, but I find this highly unlikely, they've said no to this time and again, and frankly they already have the mod(ule) more or less fully implemented without the need for further SDK access for the simulated type. - Bronco, which is 3 days away from release, so doesn't seem likely unless the same team have another aircraft in mind for going 3rd party with - VNAO has another one of the "full fidelity mods" in shape of T-45 Goshawk, they may want to turn it into a module, but I don't think that is the case. Rather, what intrigues me is that there is a secret project listed on their web site, and perhaps they'll go 3rd party with that one. - There was also a team aiming to make a full fidelity Avro Lancaster mod. - There is of course the UH-60L mod too. - Yak-38 from Cubanace - Similarly, there is a full fidelity mod of SAAB 105 but that one seems near a release already, so I don't know if they're looking into going 3rd party with that one. However, one can still hope they may give us a J35 Draken From the above, I only find Yak and the MiG-17 to be at least somewhat likely, but my gut feeling says that one is probably some time ahead in future yet as well. As for the maps, I have no idea, apart from most likely ED made A'stan anyway, and I am not that much into maps anyway, so moving on... Finally, Deka may have decided their next module, and maybe even started working on it, who knows, perhaps one of the announcements is from them. So the may, or may not be among the upcoming announcements. As for the merry wishlisting we all do and love? I do so hope it will include 80s to early 90s AH-1W or F, and most definitely wouldn't say no to a Jaguar, F-111, or Tornado, or a J-7G from Deka, or a Q-5, or a good Su-30 from anyone, or a Mi-2, or some more cool warbirds, especially an Emil and/or early Spitfires.

I've just released version 0.6.0. You can see the changes and get it here: https://github.com/rkusa/dcs-scratchpad/releases/tag/0.6.0 Changes in a nutshell: - A lot of fine-tuning of the coordinate format for various aircrafts - Optional config to add shortcuts for changing the page and inserting coordinates - Some minor UX improvements A lot of changes came from other contributors (mentioned in the detailed changelog). Thanks to everyone who got involved!

I tried to have George engage troops as CP/G, after friday's patch. It seems he still has a hard time to actually engage. I noticed some things though, that may be helpful to find the cause of the issue. When you command a search and he detects enemy troops (infantry), you have him "lock" a guy, he says "Lased & stored". Actually he has the target in the cross hair, but is not lasing it (did that before some patches ago) and you get no ranging information on the TADS. If you command him to switch to Hellfire he lases and the distance is maybe 2,000 m, have him switch back to gun and he stops lasing. If you command "Engage" he says "Firing", but actually won't. Neither would he lases to range the distance. Even if ROE set to Free Fire (George Interface green) he won't engage with the TADS and laser ranging. It seems(!), as if he actually starts shooting only if a) you are in Free Fire and b) you are closer than the range set in manual ranging or closer, of cause you need to check for constraints. When he finally fires, it isn't the set burst, but a couple sputtering, sporadic shurt bursts. Last week (before the last patch) we had a TacView, where it looked like George (after finally engaging a couple insurgents in a treeline) distributing his shots between the original locked target and the "fixed" waterline position straight ahead. This maybe just a glitch with TacView, but it could be a hint to George shifting between target and look ahead position? As this worked pretty well at Early Access release, there's definitely something going wrong currently. Hope this can help to figure it out. I'll try to get a short track, but this seems pretty consistent. Added: TacView Screenshot

So next in line for the SAAF CZ No ETA as of yet. Got 3 days of travel coming up, and then some family time.

I'm awestruck by the quality of the mods in the first page images. Especially liked the texturing on the strv103. This pack is going to be phenomenal.

The TGP makes for both asymmetrical weigh and airflow. Remember that the Viper is a very lightweight fighter. Even small CoG shifts can have a profound effect on trim, you can throw a Cessna out of trim just by leaning forward in the back seat, and WWI airplanes could literally be "trimmed" in a limited fashion by shifting your body around to balance the plane. Aircraft depend on a very particular arrangement of forces in order to stay in trim, and any deviation from that arrangement will produce a rotational moment.

It's interesting, this absolutely became my best practice with the previous iteration of the missile. You either need to fire in TWS with enough range for it to get a good shot... Or you need to gauge their/your altitude and speed so that it burns (most of if not all) of the way in at sub 20 miles. Once that motor is off it's speed drops rapidly unless it's in a very high loft. With the way the current missile is though, I'm not seeing that as clearly. 30-40 it is defeated nearly without maneuvering. Inside 20 it's likely your target is fast and maneuvering. If they stay high, maybe sure a sub20 mile shot will work... But any high to low shot is extremely low PK right now. It's so slow to accelerate, barely accelerates when being shot downhill, and reaches a significantly reduced top speed, it's total distance it travels while under motor is much less - and that's the only time it's really lethal vs a maneuvering target sub 20 miles.

Here you go:

Let's try and use another term instead of "competitive"....... let's say..... outperformed maybe? But, regardless of all that, i think the user community may have to accept one or possibly two of the following hypothesis: 1. It is the AMRAAM that could be overperforming. Needs testing in replicating similar shots. Way too late in the evening (early in the morning for that); 2. It may be that the AIM-54 really was that bad, and that the reason for its retirement was that it was outclassed by the newer missiles. Now, on the more measurable side if things, i just completed another series of 48 launches, this time testing the C variant, both Mk47 and Mk60 motors, just as with the A. The results are to say the least interesting. The test is of course the 6 on 6 launch, and to make this post shorter, i'll just go to the final conclusion. Terminal performance wise, the Mk47 C is still by FAR the worst Phoenix variant we have in the game. The Mk60 C is comparable to the Mk47 A. This leaves the Mk60 A as still the best missile available as far as the conditions of the test are at stake. Recommendations: unless you really need that "active on its own" feature, you are probably still best off, packing the Mk60 A. This doubly so in the presence of the dice roll system of CM effectiveness. Mk60 A's will get to their targets (hit or miss) with more smash then the other variants, AND definitely more then the abysmal Mk47 C. As always, tacviews are attached bellow: Tacview-20220904-001932-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-002421-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-002905-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003353-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003855-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-004344-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-004839-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-005357-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi

O now ofc thrust profiles are usually more complex then just one value: Original sources

Newsdiskussionsthread Dieser Thread ist nicht nur dafür da News zu posten (dafür kann man auch einfach in den Roadmap-Thread im englischsprachigen Forum gucken), sondern auch um diese innerhalb der deutschsprachigen DCS-Community zu diskutieren.

try to remember this is early access, no need for the silly comments.

AI infantry units are ridiculously accurate when shooting at attack or transport helicopters at medium range (hundreds to ~1000 meters) drawing what seems like a perfectly ranged / lead computed gun solution and absolutely shredding these platforms. I appreciate that RPGs are supposed to be a threat to these platforms but my experiences lead me to believe there is basically no inaccuracy or dispersion being applied to these weapons as I have been hit often even while maneuvering at medium range. Can we get this looked at as it has been a problem since the black shark / Mi-8 days where infantry once you pass their "maximum range band" are inhumanly accurate with simple ironsighted weapons. It reminds me of the days where a Zu-23 AAA gun would draw a perfect 10 second lead at an A-10 300 kn / 15000 feet and achieve an 80% hit rate in one gun burst with absolutely no means of ranging or measuring target velocity against what was a black dot in the sky. it makes anything but sniping with hellfires unduly risky when attack helis should rule this range with 30mm - rockets without the presence of enemy AAA, shilka, SA-8, etc. Please fix.

Да я не столько про модули говорю, сколько про единство самой среды мира DCS . Ну например, на одних модулях есть какой то эффект, на других нет. Или у одного модуля одна ДМ, у другого другая. И далее по списку ... Гемплей и прочее. Причем это прослеживается даже в рамках одного разработчика. Когда на одном Авианосце есть персонал., А на другом ни души.

Thanks. Pagefile fixed this problem. I added 20GB pagefile i can't add more because i don't have enough space on another my SSD @silverdevilThanks

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/bylrbj/imagine_a2a_simulations_in_dcs/

I have just Bought " BE THE MAVRICK " Bundel. Downloaded no Problem but, I somehow received a SU33! Fearing Someone has lost a SU33, Do I Need SUPPORT TICKET, or to do anything at all?

Есть ощущение что чем больше внешников будет появляться , тем меньше шансов на целостность мира DCS. (Надеюсь я ошибаюсь)

Really sorry to hear this, again I can only reiterate the campaign was fully tested in VR, on lesser systems than yours and performance was completely playable. It was one of the most important parts of testing for me and anywhere we felt performance suffered we made cuts to the mission design. There are actually zero scripts in the campaign so the issue can't be in the scripts as such, I guess more an issue in the code of DCS itself and how the data is processed. Now if this is down to units numbers, trigger complexity or the Syria map itself I'm afraid that's still unclear, likewise I can't explain the big disparity in performance between users, I would expect to see these issues impact all users, but up to now I'm only aware of very small numbers with performance problems. That said I'd like to get to the bottom of it and fix it if I can. Do you run any mods that would use scripts in the background? Tacview? Winwing devices with scripts? Device Hotplug enabled? Just a few of the things out there that can cause performance issues. The campaign is certainly more complex than others and if you're only seeing issues in OCN there is clearly something in OCN causing an issue for you, I'm just wondering if there's something in all the complexity that's interacting poorly with your setup, Tacview hitting performance on big unit counts being a prime example. Apologies again for your experience, if you have any further thoughts please let me know and I'll help as much as I'm able.

I did some tests with the AIM-54A against supersonic Backfires coming in at a slight 20° angle. Here is a little tidbit I found that some might find useful. In TWS, centering the T will point you right at your target (group). Firing the Phoenix in this orientation against a target with aspect will result in the missile doing a slight dogleg with the terminal engagement happening from an odd angle. If you engage in PD-STT though, centering the T will put you on an intercept course. The missile will fly out straight as well, doing a pretty straight intercept and seems to engage the target with more energy in the terminal phase. I experimented a bit and found in this particular situation that firing the first missile in PD-STT at around 80-100 NM (from 40'000k at M1.2+) on an intercept course and continuing on this course, got me a good hit with the target still at around 30 NM. Being fast with Jester, this put me in an excellent position for a follow up salvo in TWS on the other bombers in the group at around 25-20 NM. At this range the resolution of a bomber group is a lot better in TWS with little chances of track mixing/dropping. With this tactic I got a lot of 4/4 kills, while the tactic of engaging bombers in a group in TWS subsequently at maximum range as soon as individual targets became visible resulted in a lot of misses due to track corruption.

who will it intercept at a range of 90 nm? slow transport? an interceptor with new missiles is not able to intercept anything other than a heavy transport or a bomber. aim-54 has flown poorly before. now you can delete it altogether. that is, theoretically, you can try to launch the aim-54 from an extremely high altitude. and even 90 miles instead of 120. but it has no use

New screen showed up today! It works it totally works! The clarity on the TGP is absolutely stunning. I can see everything.

Was schon mit dem Anubis Mod hervorragend ging, war z.B. einen FARP mit Munition zu versorgen. Der FARP ist komplett leer (keine Munition, nur Treibstoff). Nun landest du eine C-130 auf der Wiese daneben und "entlädst" ein paar Paletten mit Hellfire, FFAR Rockets etc. und nun können AH-64D dort aufmunitionieren. Fängt jemand die C-130 ab, müssen die Apaches natürlich für Munition zum nächsten Flugplatz fliegen... Das hat eben ein sehr direktes taktisches Element. Ich hatte mit Yurgon mit dem Anubis Mod damals einen schönen Versorgungsflug von Incirlik nach Manbij geflogen. Etwas Wetter mit tiefer Wolkenbasis, eine umkämpfte Stadt, ein Stützpunkt der FSA etwas außerhalb, dazu ein paar Zsu-23 in den Dörfern die ISIS gehalten hat und das ganze wird zu einer spannenden 1,5 Std Mission , inklusive Adrenalinschub, als wir beim Abflug etwas Nahe an/über das Stadtgebiet von Manbij geraten sind und die Gegenmaßnahmen Feuerzauber in die beginnende Dämmerung gemalt haben... Das hat wie im wirklichen Leben alles seine Berechtigung.

DCS: Su-22M4 DCS: Korea DCS: UH-60/SH-60 DCS: WWII fighter / Zero(?)

Four new 3rd party modules are incoming.

Tested in dcs Realistic nozzle exit area would give about 10% more at 30k and even more at higher altitude as pressure diff is bigger It is clearly not the longuest stick anymore even with the sd10 fix this patch Why even talk about "scoring online" im not here to play counter dcs arena not everybody wants to play deathmatchs I get that mach 4.5 phoenix is probably an urban legend but mach 3 i dont get it either I ll let you define your "realism" with the documentation you have I ll go back to my mach 4.8 aim54 with 260ich isp you can encrypt luas ill find a way around it Good luck with the future api transition

Yeah its a real thing and actually what causes the "snake" behavior of the earlier missiles. The optical system is an inverted cassegrain system so the dead center of it has a small dead spot between the secondary and the focus where the "reticle" is (not pictured). That's why there is a null. When the missile guides is basically steering the target lets say left/right through this null which is why it snakes back and forth as you can see in some actual videos. ED doesn't model that but you can see it clearly in the vids. And at any rate thats an ED issue not a Aerges issue, and honestly not a major one, though it does reduce the Aero range slightly for the missile which may be accounted for anyway. Next steps are to fix the Aim9J/P behavior as those should not autolock as they do now (look at the F5E for correct behavior). They would use the (uncage button on the throttle to do it) Also fixing the 550 behavior (which does autolock) but the uncage switch in that case returns it to boresight. And of course fixing the 550 seeker to be rear aspect (PbS seeker), and the 530IR (InSb) to be limited all aspect.

Тут многое от разработчика миссий зависит. Если сделать по уму то нормально будет всем. Другое дело что это сложно и муторно. Но это возможно. Карты не маленькие, уж найти место для тыловиков не так сложно. Опять же горы. Облачность , Туман, ПВО и т.д. А транспортник может возить ресурсы на аэродромы. Ракеты, топливо. Причем все это физически. И если истребители не защитили свой транспортник, а вместо этого удовлетворяли свое ЭГО где то , где им не нужно быть , то и ракет они не получат и топлива и ремонта будут ждать с большими интервалами и еще минус всем в стату за неисполнение прямых задач. В общем придумать можно много чего интересного. Было бы желание.

The Website's search tool is borderline useless, so I've resorted to using Google search when looking for things.

MIG-23 MLA