Leaderboard

Your conclusions are based on false assumptions. As I mentioned in another thread, the SME's involved with the DCS: AH-64D have noticed (including me). Further, we've also openly described a lot of these "quirks" on these very same forums ever since release, and have identified them in our own reports to the devs months ago. The BRU was identified for improvement as well (you can even find old posts from myself explaining how it should eventually appear later in development), but it needs to be weighed against other priorities within the project. Coincidentally, yesterday's patch got the BRU reticle closer to how it should be, but the accuracy is still not quite there in how the pattern is projected within the BRU itself. This has been reported internally, but again, it's all about priorities. Can someone use it to boresight their IHADSS? Yes. The appearance of it can be corrected later. The color of the BRU reticle itself isn't necessarily wrong, but it was a game design decision (recommended by the SME team themselves). When the naked eye looks at the BRU reticle, it will appear as it appears in game: yellow-ish in color. When viewed through the lens of the HDU, the BRU reticle will appear pink. The HDU's combiner lens has a color filter on its surface that allows it to reflect certain colors of light (namely the green symbology/FLIR underlay being projected onto it) while allowing the pilot to see through it. This filter is normally not perceived by the pilots as they are using both eyes, but if you are boresighting the IHADSS, the BRU reticle will appear very distinctively pink through the lens. However, since the computer monitor must simulate both eyes within the cockpit, the recommendation was made to not have everything seen by the player appear with the tint color. The same design decision was made when blending both visible lights and FLIR imagery at night, since both eyes are simulated on the computer monitor. So to reiterate, there are a lot of things that the SME team has and continues to comment on, flight model related or otherwise. But just as is the case with other DCS modules, everything cannot be refined or improved at once. Prioritization must be made. But if the assumption is that the members of the SME team are not as knowledgeable or have the same attention to detail as the author of that article, that assumption is wrong. I'm not throwing mud or shade at the author or anyone else; but due to confirmation bias, people will tend to believe the opinions of AH-64 pilots that agree with their own beliefs and observations, and discount any counterpoints to such assessments.

Small correction, campaign will be for the -B, Reforger Part II, Syria map.

This is already fixed internally and will be available for you in the next update. The reason of the bug was an interaction between our code and the wake turbulence in multiplayer.

Reflected Simulator new campaign. Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

I read that some JF-17B block II will be retrofitted with KLJ-7A and PL-15s at some point, with that in mind, how likely would it be for our block I to get a new HMS and PL-10Es and if that did happen, would Deka add it?

Это как? Оптимизация - процесс снижения потребности в ресурсах для решения определенной задачи. Если ресурсов просто становится больше, то это не оптимизация.

От наших системщиков "Так как карта 40x серии мощнее всех предыдущих, в зависимости от конфигурации железа она может дать прибавку производительности, включая VR. Касаемо второго тезиста, движок себя не исчерпал - он находится в процессе постоянного обновления и модификации."

As per title here's 2 screenshots to show this issue. after zooming out a certain amount, the numbers get replaced with 000 This also applies to default skins that come with the module, not just custom user made liveries

Dear All, Apologies for the late notice on this; with our intense pace currently, we’re quieter than usual and time has flown since the AIM-54 update. Today’s patch does not include any changes for the Viggen or F-14. Recently, lead times changed significantly for DCS patches, and while we managed to ship our large Phoenix overhaul last update, there was only a very very small gap to contribute to this patch and so we focused on shipping a larger update for the F-14 and Viggen in the October patch. Major features which will release will be, amongst others, the new cockpit pilot bodies, Viggen art updates, a new free campaign for the F-14A, and the new full implementation of jamming and associated EW effects in the AWG-9 radar. We'll also be updating the Forrestals with various improvements and adjustments. We’ll do an in-depth dive on the last part soon to give you all an idea of what to expect, as with the AIM-54 as it’s a rather large update to the F-14’s radar and another massive step towards full completion. Thank you for all the support and stay tuned for the breakdown on the EW/Jamming effects! Sincerely, HB null

The team have reproduced this now, thank you

Isn't that universal for all games? There are tons of blockbuster titles that revel in beautiful, stunning graphics, yet are as empty in content as cotton candy. If you don't have content, the old game publisher adage goes, apply lipstick liberally. Tons of it. Glossy, shiny sells. An empty husk of a game (e.g. Avengers, Death Stranding, Mass Effect Andromeda, Duke Forever) with pretty gfx still sells well. That being said, it never hurts if you have great content and great graphics. And that's what we are hoping for, already knowing that we have a content King in DCS.

I read this article today as well, and this is my response because I know it will probably snowball: 1) This is one AH-64 pilot's impression of the DCS AH-64D. Multiple real pilots that have just as much experience flying it have (at great length) provided feedback on recommended improvements to the flight model and SCAS characteristics of the DCS AH-64D. Anyone that has been around this forum section for longer than two weeks has seen myself or one of the other SME's openly state that there are inaccuracies with the flight model that are actively being addressed by the dev team. This isn't some big revelation. But hardware does play a big role in simulation, so his own assessment is no less subjective than any other pilot's. 2) From what I gathered reading the article, the author did not seem to understand that the aircraft is in fact representative of a very specific avionics version and era, as stated in the FAQ section on the forums as well as the manual. His statement that the aircraft represents multiple aircraft versions across 15 years is 99.9% false (There is a discrepancy in the shape of the underside of the engine nacelles, but that is a known item). Beyond that, there are no known inaccuracies based on the configuration that is modeled. He does not identify any of these inaccuracies that he is referring to, which makes it impossible to judge what his assessment is based on. Further, he makes references to "equipment timelines" that were misunderstood or unknown. Again, without him identifying what he is referring to, the statement itself is probably not within the proper context. For example, there is no BFT antenna installed because this system is not planned for implementation due to sensitivity reasons. 3) In one instance, he admits that he doesn't know what systems are fully modeled and which ones are actually "inaccurately implemented". As an example, he mentions that the ice detector is cycling to random values, yet the stickied posts in this section list the anti-icing systems as "later in Early Access". But then he subsequently makes a series of very generic assessments on such systems, after admitting he isn't sure which version of the AH-64D is being modeled, although he does say it seems to be based on an older version of the software. Without knowing what version is being modeled (which, again, is listed here and in the manual), how can he assess the accuracy of the avionics? If he is incorrectly assessing that this aircraft is a mash-up of many AH-64D versions (which it is not), than I can see how he may incorrectly see inaccuracies if he is expecting something different than what the DCS: AH-64D is modeled after. Elsewhere, he makes very generic statements about the pages. I get that he may not be going into detail due to sensitivity concerns, which I respect and support. But in doing so, it makes the credence of his assessment on the accuracy of the module in question if it is driven by generic statements and not quantifiable data. And before it happens, I want to stress this does not mean that it is ok to post real-world documentation on here to credit or disprove his assessments, nor mine. The reason I am posting this here is to bring awareness to the fact that his review is based on a broad misunderstanding of what the DCS: AH-64D is, or what it is not. There are additional things that I feel are questionable in the review, but these three items are the big ones. The author is very direct and honest with his review, so I will be equally direct and honest with what I am about to say: I suspect many people reading this post will probably interpret it as an ED team member that is speaking on behalf of Eagle Dynamics and their interests. I can assure you, this is not the case. I joined the ED team this summer because I wanted to contribute to DCS. This drive comes from the perspective of a player and as someone that is passionate about aerospace and bringing such experiences to those that might never have the opportunity to fly themselves. If anyone has read my posts in the past you know that I will be brutally honest about what is accurately modeled versus what needs improvement/refinement (short of restricted documentation/information or what is not appropriate for discussion of course). If I don't know something as fact, I will simply say I don't know or identify my statement as an opinion or as a "reasonable certainty". Overall, I get the impression the author did not not do his homework prior to writing a review, based on his own misunderstandings of the DCS: AH-64D. Therefore a lot of the content within that article should be taken with a grain of salt from the lack of specific context that was not provided.

So back in the day I got the GameTrix 908 chair and loved it for flight sims. Fast forwards 10 years and I'm older now, need reading glasses, and got a herniated disc. So I had to take apart my home cockpit and use my desk now. Not as cool...but works. I miss the Gametrix 908 so I was looking for something similar that I could use that wouldn't hurt my back too bad. Saw the Woojer vest and decided to look into it. Didn't see any info on it being used with DCS...so I got it...and tested it. It would be hard to compare it to the GameTrix 908 chair because it uses the simshaker software. It's essentially a vest that's a subwoofer. But it does make things a bit more fun for flight sims. I made a video about my experience: Overall...its works amazingly for helicopters but I found it lacking for planes. But it is more versatile in that it can be used for other games (I tested it with Fallout 76 and felt like I was in a war zone) and also works with VR. So in my current situation it works well.

With today's OB update it seems the option to use keyboard Alt + Enter to switch fullscreen in game has been disabled. Is this the case? I ask because being able to alt + enter in game had a considerable positive impact on my GPU load (85% reduced to 60%). GPU is now 85% or higher regardless of fullscreen choice in the game ui settings options. I'm noticing many more graphical hitches and micro stutters than pre patch. Where's the key stroke combo gone? Hopefully.........

One further thing I want to be clear on. The author of the article, who I have met, is a good person and a solid professional. My critiques of his review are because I disagree with some of his assessments of the DCS: AH-64D and the context that they were presented, not because I don't respect him or his experience.

Still missing: - Pilots [- Torpedos (still not sure if I'll get them to work...)]

No one is breaking any rules SD. You have suggested here and elsewhere that something can't be done, I simply pointed out that it can be. SD said... "Combined Arms was a old JTAC military trainer to the UK army, aproved to release on DCS, no a driveable tank module. That never was your target." Where your comments in the quote above are wrong IMO are in regards to the features offered in CA. Combined Arms might be an old JTAC trainer approved for release on DCS, but it also allows the end user to drive and control tanks. As far as I understand, CA was marketed with this feature from its release. As a customer that purchased the CA module, I fully expected to be able to drive tanks when I purchased it. In terms of working on CA, which is what this thread is about, it really doesn't matter to me if an improvement is done to the DCS core, or the CA module itself. For example, we can now start and stop the engine of ground vehicles. I really don't care at what level this improvement had to be implemented on, what matters is that I saw an improvement in my control of ground vehicles in CA. Regarding DM's, the issue isn't about the time period the current models come from, it is about improving them. I'm not expecting DM for ground vehicles to make the leap from where they are now to the same scale and level as the current DM for WWII planes. But any and all improvements are always appreciated. Work on CA please!

They need to finish Vulkan + MC before any more GFX Features are added. DX11 is at it's limit, adding more stuff is just going to lower performance even more.

Hi Rongor, here's the video I posted in the discord where we were discussing this. Thought it might be helpful for folks if they've been experiencing this.

those numbers are padded, I know users with similar setups that gain maybe 10-15 fps. nVidia saying DLSS 3.0 doubles FrPS is just b.s. Some of the reviewers intentionally went from DX11 to DX12 w/ RTX/DLSS on. Plus DLSS 3.0 is only for RTX4xxx

Until proven differently for DCS, I'm naive-ing shoulder to shoulder with you Us VR users must think in glass-half-full terms, or you won't make it

He has been flying 64's since 2005 he has flown 6 different helicopter types, 8 if we include the 64' versions as well... I don't think he is purely subjective at all, not even close to subjective. He is also using the puma which is considered "premium" grade control type most of us don't even have access to, so yeah like I said his review is not subjective at all IMO. He is saying its like nothing he had flown before. That's miles off to my ears. IMO

He is talking about the range from the shooter when the missile goes active, not the range from the missile to the target. IF you shoot at 30 nautical miles, using his rule of thumb, when the target is at 20 nautical miles from you, you have an active missile and can leave it. This roughly holds true in DCS btw. If you shoot a phoenix at 60 miles, when the target is ~around~ 35-40 miles from you, your missile should be active. The one caveat is this only really holds true IF YOU CRANK, if you do not its roughly 1/3 the shot range plus seeker distance This rule of thumb holds roughly true for the AIM-120 in DCS as well. Its just a rough rule of thumb for how quickly the missile will close the distance from you to the target and get active. Here. 32-33 miles from me at active range on a 60 NM shot with a crank. Not a particularly good shot or crank either, barely supersonic at launch, didnt slow down much after the shot, just stayed at .9 mach. I'm at 30,000 feet. Target is going .9 mach at 30,000 feet. Well within the margin of error for a live rule of thumb wag at the missile being active or not.

Hi all, this is known, it was temporarily removed to fix an issue, will return in a future update. thanks

SSA currently does not support unofficial mods! The A4 was added since I knew the original developer and to pay respect regarding his passing I made an exception...

Just did some tests in the OpenBeta to confirm that we were seeing the same behavior. In the first image, you can see that with the Yaw axis and pedals centered that there is a little bit of positive pitch in the blades, which would produce thrust toward the right, inducing a left yaw of the nose. On the ground with the collective bottomed out, this would also manifest a slight right lean since the tail rotor is mounted high on the vertical tail, creating a slight rotation around the pivot point at the landing gear tires. In the second image, you can see the pedals are positioned so the right pedal is approximately two inches forward of the left. The tail rotor blades are very close to "flat pitch" where negligible tail rotor thrust would be produced. A good reference point in the Controls Indicator is placing the far left limit of the Yaw channel's SAS white shaded region (yellow arrow) in lined with the vertical red line above it. When in an IGE hover around 5 feet and torque in the mid-70s, I would expect the left pedal to be maybe a half inch to an inch forward of the right pedal (provided there isn't some other extraneous factors affecting this like crosswinds, poor heading control, or other environmental factors). I would be looking for the vertical red line on the Control Indicator to be somewhere along the outside 50% of the right-sided shaded region (indicated by the yellow bracket and yellow line I drew in this picture). So to summarize, this is correct behavior and in-line with how the real aircraft pedals would be positioned. As a side note, whenever the BUCS test is completed during real-life run-ups (it's like the F-16 FLCS test or the F-18 FCS BIT), the BUCS test returns the pedals to centered and even with each other like in the 1st image. Prior to starting the engines, I would always ensure the right pedal was forward of the left pedal as seen in the second image. This would ensure the tail rotor was slicing through the air without making any significant yaw motion as the RPMs increased during run-up.

Just landed safe at the burning airfield What a great campaign, many thanks for making this possible. I really loved it and could fly many more missions. Of course it would get worse for the German Pilots due to history. I'm very looking forward in flying many more of your awesome WWII campaings. Thanks for all your efforts, much appreciated Cheers

I agree that the lack of FLIR makes a noticeable difference, and it's also useful in daytime (guess why all the cool tanks have it these days), but the good thing is that most MP servers have really nice sunny weather, so it's not as much of a problem there. As for me, I'm a fan since BS1 (yes, even before DCS, I still have the disks) and aside from the aforementioned the Shark is... somewhat boring. It just has all the things - the literal autopilot on top of hold modes, the laundry list of weapons including the cannon that pops heads a country mile away, powerful engines and efficient co-axis rotors (I never managed to catch the VRS, they just snap off when I try too hard), the ABRIS system with a built-in mission editor (guess where the ME map came from). The $5 or whatever for BS3 seems like a no-brainer.

@Yurgon Here is the new version of mission 1, where I tried to address most of your suggestions: Today I'm testing also M2 and 3 (will not make a video of them, since the changes are very minor), and then I will set to finish my first Weapons Training mission (for Gun Strafing), in time for updating the User Files entry. Best regards, Eduardo

The AH-64 tail rotor pedals are rigged in such a way that if they are centered, there is anti-torque thrust being produced. The pedals should be placed so that the right pedal is approximately two inches forward of the left, which will place the tail rotor blades at "flat pitch". This will result in a need to apply right pedal to remove tail rotor thrust when no collective is applied producing torque.

AMDs new drivers finally enable RayTracing on Vulkan, Plus there's FSR. DLSS Predicts vectors for up sampling frames, DCS would be a nightmare for DLSS, trying to predict all the moving objects vector paths. FSR on the other hand, would not have a stroke as it does not use vector predictions etc. The FS2020 Team is huge

Is this the YAW Issue are you talking about OP? Apparently seems to be when wind hits the aircraft in a certain direction.

Adding on to this, the PW2 uses “bang-bang” guidance, which is basically a bunch of full deflections, which is probably why there is no DLZ. It’s inefficient and leads to a lot of overshooting on the way down. PW3 behaves more like a JDAM and should be continuously lased.

It does not need to freeze for all-time. I just wish for a matching groth between hardware and software. But I know myself that this is just naive. Because developers will always try to get the best 2D quality possible. So VR will always be suffering. I just hope for a giant leap for VR users with multithreading, Vulkan ( DLSS3, 2022-CPUs...). Ok I'm still in naive mode, for the next "12K" VR headsets will shredder all of those efforts to similar performance. Hope I'm wrong. edit: I want to add that it is not easy at all to get all if that matched. Developers are deciding today what we'll get in 3 years and more.

Ага, ага. Мы ещё увидим фотки на wikileaks, как мутные типы из NVidia носили разработчикам ED наличные в конвертах.

There are not many threads where all posts have one thing in common. Here, we all agree that we need multithreading in DCS. So does ED. It seems to me that it is all about patience. I hope ED will soon have more news to share.

...

So upgrade something that would help, instead. There's more to performance than the GPU. For example, your CPU, or your cooling solution. DCS will not usually be GPU-bound. It's a single thread program (except for sound) and you're not going to help that with a 90 series. The devs are working towards a new, multithreaded engine, even without asking for yearly purchases. Creating a custom engine takes time, which is why most games don't bother, and use an off the shelf solution, which is already made. This works well for games which don't need to get too fancy with physics or world size. For games that do, it works much less well. Considering they are likely having to rewrite most of DCS from scratch to accommodate new technologies, it's really unsurprising this takes time.

The new beta break the mod, all features based on masking are down and a white screen is diplayed when in MSAA and sharpen is on. As a first workaround, disable sharpen. I already fixed the masking, but I am still trying to understand the white screen...

Но есть же снятые с вооружения ещё в 90-е или в начале 2000-х. Неинтересно же играть на F-16 против F-14, образно говоря. А всякие модельки ИИ МиГ-23, МиГ-25 вызывают лишь желание обнять и плакать. Конечно, это всё обсуждалось уже миллиард раз, но всё равно обидно (у меня есть все синие модули, кроме Хоков и Газели, хотелось бы и красных равновесных).

There’s another thread where some of the Apache consultants were describing the behavior of the real aircraft. There is a computer which keeps the heading by adjusting the tail rotor for small deviations. However, if the heading deviates more than 2 degrees then the computer thinks you are trying to turn and stops ‘helping’. This behavior is intentional and almost eliminates the need for constant boot input to maintain a heading. But if for any reason the aircraft yaws, intentionally or unintentionally, the computer backs off. this system has nothing to do with the optional attitude control. It sounded like it was also different than scas.

We aren't supposed to nate other "games" but being that they already released what we have been waiting for and then now just posted this.. I think it's fair that it's shared...

I think the KA-50 is a great module. In the daylight, it’s great and I believe could go toe to toe with the Apache. However at night, the systems are not on par with the Apache’s night suite of sensors. With that said I have tried both at night and the Blackshark does come up short. I would be interested in others experiences on this topic. The Apache’s short comings would be the lack of a real two man crew. When I have flown as the pilot or CPG, with two crew, it’s hard to beat. In closing, don’t forget the Hind which can also rock your world, when sun is shining. I still have a place in my heart for the mighty Hind.

New theme: less Playskool, more real. Do you folks like it as much as I do?

тоже что-то такое читал. там говорилось про 4х поизводительность только в DLSS 3 (которого не будет в 30хх и тем более младших сериях) в остальном да, на уровне 3080-3090 З.Ы. нам бы хоть какой DLSS прикрутили, уже была-бы победа...

PG map. Set around the Nimble Archer campaign 1987-88.

The newsletter for the MB-339 is expected for the 7th of October.

Although this is what happens on a forum (and I guess what they are meant for in the first place), this whole discussion is pretty pointless if you ask me.. In the end, we're all on the same page and wish for improved performance within DCS. The sooner the better also. ED already gave their answer, so what's the point in trying to fish for more? For obvious reasons, ED will only provide us with news on this huge matter, when they are ready to do so. I don't understand why every week several people seem to think, that it helps when they ask for an update. Clearly the entire community is waiting for a news update, so why not just get in line and wait patiently like the rest of us. I think the main reason why some use strong wording in this, or any of the other threads on this topic, is that it gets a tad annoying. Like the kids in the back asking if we're there yet. Asking ain't gonna speed up the process and yes, ED knows this is what the community screams for. Don't be scared, ED won't forget telling us whenever there's something to be told.

I just tried above 36k again, and indeed, unless one is precisely at null rate, and well below m 0.9, it just pulls straight down. Definitely a bug. Thanks again for all the feedback!