Leaderboard

Hi guys, Sorry for the late reply, I promise I will release something before the end of the year. Not sure what yet but best candidates are the seaking and an update to the ship pack. Might be both...or neither...but I'll release something, damnit

It looks like wind affected clouds are coming soon:

RAZBAM F-15E Ground Radar

Nice of you to generously declare my work 'free' , bud Or that of the ED map developers for that matter. Can't we use your salary from here on to buy the Channel map and campaigns for newcomers to DCS WW2? I'm sure it would be attractive for new players (just kidding, I'm not offended, but things are not as simple as some may imagine) The Channel map will still serve a purpose as one of the best looking maps in DCS at the moment, complete with winter textures too. I'm sure N2 will look awesome, I can't wait to see it, but I highly doubt it will be much better than the Channel. IMO the best solution would be - if at all possible - is for ED to expand the Channel map toward the north and the east to make it more suitable for USAAF ops, thus making it even more relevant

My 2 cents; 1. Farnborough and Heathrow are irrelevant airfield choices; there are far better choices better relevant to the aircraft available in DCS. For example there are a slew of Advanced Landing Grounds based in the New Forest area west of the Solent that would be eminently suitable for the P-47; additionally RAF Thorney Island would make a prototypical home for fighter bomber Mosquitoes on the Normandy map. I have already provided information pertaining to these in these forums. 2. The lack of airfields that otherwise appear on the Channel map is disappointing; if ED are willing to share their development data for these airfields (Biggin, Detling, Manston etc) it opens up far more flexibility for mission makers who wish to make historically authentic missions to utilise both maps as appropriate to the mission target whilst keeping the player’s home base accurate - for example I might want to use 132 sqn based at Detling but attack a target that appears only on the Normandy. Previously I would have either had to use the channel map to have the correct home base but make the target in an inaccurate location or alternatively, use the Normandy map but use the wrong airfield to base the player at and have the target in it’s prototypical location. I was hoping this quandary would have been a thing if the past. 3. Since day 1 of Normandy 1 being announced many of us have been asking for the ability to remove/redact or otherwise have a version without the French allied ALGs; this would allow for the map to be prototypical for a far wider period than having them baked in. Is there any way that the locations could be left as grass field locations and for mission makers to load in templates to show the ALGs as required by mission date? 4. If any detail is required on any airfield layout I am happy to assist, free of charge, and provide relevant documentation, maps etc to ED or Urga. Please PM me. 5. There are a few of the large Luftwaffe airfields in France that are often referenced in allied combat reports (Poix, Montdidier) that aren’t included but the tiny (and operationally almost irrelevant) Fecamp field is; what is the justification for this choice?

What a sad and pitiful discussion … meanwhile legitimate questions that could be added to the FAQ will be lost amongst the many rantful posts

Updated task status. Kind regards, Matt

The one thing I don't get is: why should the poorest customer in your examples now should pay 14.99$ instead of the offered 9.99$? I am one of those and beg you: please don't speak for me.

In Chuck's F-14B Guide... Read the Note. AB is not allowed because of the higher thrust of the F110 motors causing controllability issues at low speed if an engine fails. None of that applies to the F-14A with its much less powerful TF30 motors.

I guess I lost the equivalent of two beers. Poor me. On the other hand I've been using those maps for quite a while now. Worth way more than two beers though. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

PF / PFM were second best, after MiG-21bis, when it comes to thrust to weight ratio, and only because latter one had second afterburner stage. Take that out of the equation, and PF / PFM end up at the top with T/W in excess of 0.8 And if you really want to be prepared to fight Phantoms (especially F-4E than PF / PFM with R-13 engine will be needed ). Michael Wegerich, former NVA and Luftwaffe pilot who flew, among other things, MiG-21M, than MiG-21SPS (NVA name for PFM) and finally MiG-29, preferred the SPS. I recall similar statement from a Czech pilot. So Michael, in recently released book about NVAs JG-1 - "697, Montur-Start, Überfahrt zu Halifax-Start, Kanal 1", said this about MiG-21SPS (mind you its automatic translation from German to English, some errors will be there): "FLYING ON THE MIG-21 SPS / SPS-K - Michael Wegerich, Lieutenant Colonel NVA While I loved the MiG-21 F-13, my true love was the MIG-21SPS. It was very balanced in controllability and stability. It reacted immediately to control deflections and could be flown in a stable attitude without great effort. Compared to the F-13, the controls felt slightly subdued and not as fidgety. This made flying easier, especially when intercepting targets in the clouds or at night. But even in a dogfight, the controls left nothing to be desired. A clearly audible warning shaking signaled that the maximum permissible angle of attack had been reached and that the aircraft was about to tip over or be imminently stalled with an unwanted rotation as a result. With only two weapon stations, the SPS was very light compared to its successors and it was powered by the powerful R-11F2S-300 engine with 6,175 kg of thrust. The SPS had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 0.8. Relatively tight maneuvers were possible thanks to this good thrust-to-weight ratio. It was permitted to go up to a loads of 8.5 G. Even brief 11.5 G did not bother the aircraft. It wasn't a heroic feat, but I once pulled enough in air combat training to shake off my opponent. I managed to do that, but for the time being I had to do without the next flight on the same machine. As the permissible load of 8.5 G was exceeded, the machine had to be checked to ensure that all devices, lines and cables were still in the correct place and that nothing was warped or bent. That lasted about an hour and my planned aerial opponent was in the air with another one in the meantime. After checking the aircraft, I was able to throw myself into the dogfight again with the aircraft, provided the permitted limits were observed. Such an experience strengthens confidence in the stability, reliability and performance of this technology. If some people dreamed of a Porsche in their garage, I would have loved to have had a SPS in my garage, to do a few flights at the weekend without asking anyone, without a flight order, simply for the fun and joy of flying this MiG. (...). After the work on the aircraft in the KRS, the machines had to be checked under simple weather conditions, i.e. blue skies and sunshine, before they were certified for combat training. If necessary, these flights were also carried out at the weekend with a small crew at the airfield and without much organization. Since I really enjoyed doing these flights with the SPS, I felt that this task was like pursuing a hobby at the weekend. After an engine change, the check flight program called for a check of the engine system to Mach 2 and to an altitude of 18-19 km. The SPS flew slightly faster than the F-13 at 2,175 km/h and achieved the same static ceiling altitude. The flight characteristics at altitude were just as excellent as with the F-13. The directional stability in the supersonic range and when flying with high angles of attack was improved by enlarging the vertical stabilizer and keel. The lurch around 21 the vertical axis was occasionally still noticeable when pulling up, but it was not a problem. The SPS accelerated best in the supersonic range compared to the other variants. The machine owed this to the powerful engine, the relatively low flying weight, but also to the new continuously and automatically adjustable cone. This regulated the air flow in the air intake section depending on the engine RPM, speed, altitude and angle of attack, so that the engine could be optimally supplied with air under all flight conditions. I noticed the effect of the positive thrust-to-weight ratio of the SPS in comparison to the successor models when I switched from the M/MF to the SPS and carried out my first summit interception. The interception procedure saw the climb to an altitude of 11-12 km with a west-southwest curve. At altitude, the aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.2 with a slight descent. The acceleration was speeded by the descending flight, since the drag coefficient increased with increasing speed at Mach 1 and only dropped sharply when Mach 1.1-1.2 was reached. This area had to be overcome quickly in order not to consume too much fuel. When Mach 1.2 was reached, a 180° turn was carried out on a north-easterly course with an inclination of approx. 35°. At the end of the turn, the speed should be Mach 1.5, then accelerate further to 1.8 and climb to the target altitude of 18 km. You had to fly the 180° turn very carefully, otherwise you wouldn't reach Mach 1.5 on the commanded north-east course. I flew the turn on my first flight on the SPS, as I was used to on the M/MF, very carefully and sensitively, with not too much bank and load multiples. At the end of the curve I had Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 1.5 because the SPS was able to accelerate very well. Corresponding to the high speed at the end of the curve, my curve radius was also much too large and I was much too far north for the normal recovery geometry, almost 30 km. Thanks to the energy reserves of the SPS and its agility under the flight conditions, I was able to correct this error and still successfully engage the target at an altitude of 18 km. This would not be possible with an M/MF , because of the increased weight one always flew with higher angles of attack and thus with higher drag, which resulted in higher fuel consumption. The stepless and automatically moving cone also made aerial combat easier than on the F-13. There were no restrictions on turning on the afterburner. Whenever you needed thrust, you could switch it on regardless of the load factor, angle of attack or position. An example of a flight maneuver where automatic control of the cone was required in air combat was the following: as a target for another fighter, I let the fighter fly towards me from behind and from a good attack position. Shortly before he was in firing position, I deployed the airbrake and pulled towards him at an 80-degree bank angle with a high loss of speed but a small turning radius, at the shaking limit, so that we met on opposite courses. None of his weapons, cannon or rockets, were usable now. At the same moment I switched on the afterburner, retracted the airbrake and the flaps to 25 degrees. I turned the machine on its back and pulled it down again at the shaking limit, i.e. with maximum angle of attack, behind the target and immediately retracted the landing flap again. With this extremely fast maneuver I flew at the permissible limit just behind the target. I was lower than the target and the pilot couldn't see me. I had to leave the burner in place, then I was within shooting range and was able to shoot it (simulated) without him seeing me."

For well over a year now the catapults have been bugged on the carriers as to not allow another aircraft to hook to either bow catapult if a Tomcat is hooked to the other. This is a huge bug that leads to long lineups on the carrier waiting to get airborne, combined with the AI's shoddy taxiing ability leads to the carrier being nothing more then a huge fuster cluck where I have even had AI aircraft collide with me while I am sitting still waiting for the catapult. ED has been totally silent on this and has not said a damn thing about any fixes to either the catapults or the AI taxiing ability and instead will just dangle the carrot of the briefing room in front of our faces to try to make us forget that they are doing literally nothing to fix serious bugs in their product. And before someone comes in here and says "It's early access you need to expect bugs" Yes I am well aware that it is, but in the over 2 years we have had the SC module the ONLY decent update we have had to it is the deck crew wands for night ops and that took a embarrassing amount of time to even get that. So before a mod comes in here and locks this thread answer this for me, when are we going to see some REAL updates or even some communication from ED about the supercarrier?

Sorry all, I have no news to share, I will mention it to the team again but can make no promises.

Now you made us want badly a MiG-21PFM .

This is turning into a real fuster cluck! I also understood from the initial announcement that Ugra was going to expand/update their Normandy map. The fact that old missions were supposed to be compatible is what led me to believe we would still only have 1 Normandy map after the upgrade. But the recent news actually legitimizes arguments from posters like @GUFA, and raises serious questions as to why ED and its third parties would even venture down this road. Kick starter 2.0! In light of the recent news, Ugra should fix their Normandy map, and exclude all areas currently covered by it and the Channel map. If that means drawing an "L" shaped map just to include London, then so be it. We not only have maps tied to specific assets because of a time period, but now we are supposed to buy multiple versions of the same map for specific campaigns? Seriously guys, go back to the drawing-board on this one!

SATAL23 Survivor Series "War does not determine who is right -- only who is left..." From the team that brought you SATAL 2019, 2020, 2021, Dogfight 1v1, Folds of Honor, and Oddball... We are PROUD to announce the SATAL23 SURVIVOR SERIES. The Survivor Series is a new LEAGUE to better define what SATAL is, a LEAGUE. Teams will not be judged based on solely wins and losses, but also how many members of your team return home safely and SURVIVE. After all, a win means nothing if nobody returns home alive.... The objective of each match is to eliminate all enemy players in the zone, or own the zone for certain time limit. And return back home to base with as many survivors as possible. Some new features include many improvements from the previous SATAL21 season. BRAND new redesigned from the ground up SATAL mission scripts. Including the DCSWE SHRINKING ZONE Servers are available 24/7. Teams can schedule their matches at ANY TIME during each stage. You can fly all in one day, or over 4 weeks. This ensures all teams have ample time to fly their matches. Teams will fly against different teams in each stage, NEVER the same team twice. The old "best of 3" format is being replaced by a new League friendly system to better accommodate teams. A match is made of two halves. Points are earned by each player having entered the combat zone and returning home to land after the zone has been captured. A match win is 3 points Every pilot who returns to land counts as 1 survivor point. (Multi-crew aircraft with 2 PLAYERS count as 2 survivor points) A draw is 1 match point per team and survivor points (if any). A loss is ZERO match points but survivor points are still given (if any). Teams global rankings and scoring are all AUTOMATICALLY populated and available at the beginning and end of each match. And updated real-time in Discord. Matches should now never last longer than an hour with our new system. Players can now change aircraft in between halves. This is new to SATAL. Teams are competing for a top 16 RANKING to qualify for the elimination championships at the end of the league. The league will consist of 4 stages. Each stage being 1 month long. Each stage will run on the same DCS patch. Every stage will consist of a different theme. AWACS will not be available in all stages. Stage 1 = FLAT maps + AWACS Stage 2 = SARH rules + AWACS (Fox 1's and Fox 2's only) Stage 3 = NIGHT + AWACS Stage 4 = Mountains - NO AWACS Championship Elimination + NO AWACS Teams will fly a total of 12 matches over 4 stages. (3 per stage required). Teams with lots of members have the benefit of entering multiple teams within their organization. For example: If TeamABC has 13 members, since this is a 4v4 League; they have enough people to enter up to 3 teams with 1 reserve! TeamABC 1 - TeamABC 2 - TeamABC 3 (You can name them however you like as long as their unique) The catch is that you can NOT share members between the teams! Once a member flies a match on team 1, 2, or 3 they must remain with that team! This will be STRICTLY enforced! We are excited for this option because it allows larger teams to give all of their members an opportunity to fly in this 4v4 League! Due to the number of improvements, new features, and new league style/rules; one more big change this year is that 4v4 and 6v6 will NOT run concurrently. Instead we will begin with 4v4, and the 6v6 will begin straight after the championships end for 4v4. Signups for 6v6 will begin around May/June2023 RULES: WEAPON RESTRICTIONS (ALL Stages except SARH Stage 2): AIM-120C | SD-10 | AIM-54C | AIM-9X - BANNED TOTAL 8 AIR TO AIR MISSILES. MAX 6-Fox 3's on any aircraft. *Except F14 with Jester listed below. All Air-to-Ground weapons (Including TALDS and Decoys) - BANNED Jamming | Jammer Pods - BANNED Jester is ALLOWED While using a Human RIO you are allowed x6 AIM-54's While using Jester AI, you are only allowed x4 AIM-54's WEAPON RESTRICTIONS (SARH Stage 2 ONLY): FOX-3's - BANNED R-27ET | R-27ER | AIM-9X - BANNED Max x6 R27-R/T Max x4 R-73 Jammer Pods | Jamming | Air to Ground Weapons | TALDS | Decoys - BANNED ADDITIONAL RULES (Applicable to ALL STAGES): This is a 4 PLAYER vs. 4 PLAYER PvP Competition. Human RIO's and WSO's count as a slot in your 4v4 match. For example one F-14 Pilot + 1 human RIO is 2 player slots! Each Stage will be run on the SAME version of OpenBeta. (With the exception of hotfixes) Teams can schedule their matches at ANY time during each stage. Trial accounts - Disabled Sharing of ED accounts - Not Allowed - Every member must own their own aircraft and theater's. Monitor exports to your main screen are prohibited! AOA barrell rolls, all exploits are all prohibited. Should you choose to push the boundaries of an exploit, you will be dealt with accordingly by either reduction of points or removal from the league and possibly even banned from future events. Disrespect of any kind to all staff members, poor sportsmanship and behavior or malice or other team members WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Please take this warning as your ONLY warning... Shadow League: We are going to run a shadow league, at the same time as the Survivor Series League. The shadow league is identical to the normal league except that new teams and signups can join at the start of any stage, even after signups close. Those teams will have their own rankings and points separate from the main League. Those teams may fly up to 3 matches per stage, their results recorded separately. For teams that are new to this world and not quite confident in the ability to commit to the schedule of the main League, and want to gain experience in the competitive world. You are welcome to directly join the shadow league. (Beginner friendly as well) The main league must consist of a total team count in multiples of 4. Example - 32, 36, 40, etc. Because of this, any teams that fall outside of that number will be put into the shadow league unless we get more teams to equal a multiple of 4. TOP performing teams from the shadow League MAY be pulled into the main league should the need arise to fill slots. Thank you for taking the time to read our rules and how this competition works. SATAL is a long standing PvP competition with some of the top players and teams in the entire DCS community. We want players of all experience levels to have a chance to fly the BIGGEST competition in DCS World. However, that being said, please do not be discouraged if/when your team may lose a match. Many teams here have years of experience and we all started somewhere. We encourage you to continue flying in the main League or the shadow league, and do not be discouraged when those hard battles end up in a loss. We've all been there... For all the new teams out there reading this: Winning isn't everything. But remember were all here to have fun and do your best and enjoy some of the most extreme air to air battles DCS has to offer! SATAL23 Survivor Series is cleared for departure in JANUARY 2023 For more information to sign-up, please join our discord: https://discord.gg/fq8G8D5DXj **DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD**

I don't know if you have come across this situation where you see a bunch of vehicles hidden in the trees, some of them are close to the edge making them easier to spot, so you fire your hellfires and they hit the trees instead of the vehicles, causing no damage... You see that they are not an air threat so you move in closer and switch to guns and blow them up, through the trees. I guess bullets can get through trees but firing a hellfire which is capable of taking out a building doesn't harm the tree or the vehicle.... I know this isn't an Apache issue but makes you laugh none the less

You're trying a non-AB take-off in a heavily loaded F-14A? I would expect a long take-off run then, yeah.

In the editor set George to realistic and he will only report what he can see, but he wont necessarily know if it is friendly or not so bare that in mind. This is W.I.P however and we are still tweaking thanks

Amazing indeed. btw, WSO is a pure monster, so fit and strong he doesn't even twitch

You could start a campaign with a Nazi "sneak attack" in the early hours of 1st of September 1939 on Paris &/or London. Both France and The United Kingdom aren't at war yet so neither city is on a war footing. Beirut could be sitting in one of the ready rooms around London. Suddenly the alarm goes off-a moment later the young steward who serves Beirut and his chums Tea & scones and goes by the name of "Whitey Wipelordsass" informs him that "Jerry" has bombers over the channel and they are tracking towards London. Beirut "scarpers" in a "MANLEY" way to his Hurricane and rises "Heroically" into the air to "meet Jerry" and protect Queen & country. In the back of his mind he thinks "Lizey" " we will all always have Penzance" As his Hurricane "claws" it way over the skies of the great but unaware City of London as the Lion films band plays on. He thinks to himself ... "Lizey Even if Jerry shuffles me of this Mortal coil tonight..." He look eastward with grim trepidation... "Lizey know that you were my 1st, my only......" Suddenly an Angel's voice "melodically" an "Dulcitly" sings, "We will always have Penzance, where you got into my pants laa-la-la-laaaa". Now how can Beirut/ Or anyone not want night lighting to go along with this, Me, I'll be at Rene's chatting up Mademoiselle LabonQ.

This is the part the I think escapes the group developing this map. "This is a daylight summer of 44 map". I agree that a field needs to be static. As a house. But the seasons? The light? Please, give us some versatility. $60 for a map that serves a single purpose in space and time is not a great offer, IMHO.

I rather have a bigger map with low detail zones than a smaller map with only high detail.

Hopefully not, at least not during 1939 - 1945.

thanks a lot for all the Mods you have created and given to the DCS community… on my case, I prefer the ship pack .. merchant ships are really useful for editing more diverse missions.

We have our hand full at the moment with multi threading integration, the team want to get our current core work completed. We have made a request, but can make no promises at the moment. thanks

The external textures created by Eagle Dynamics for their F-16 Viper seem to have been left in an unfinished state since Early Access release. Which means details, as well as a somewhat realistic or authentic weathering pattern are absent next to many other things. I spent a lot of work in the past to improve and add up all these small details to the external textures. Overall I added many missing panels, rivets, holes, exhausts, vents, seams, lights and other details to the whole aircraft. Too long and finicky to list all the changes in detail. So below is a short list of the main changes and improvements so far. Added missing panels, rivets as well as holes and exhausts to the bottom fuselage Added more detail to the engine exhaust Added dirt, scratches and leaked oil to the airbrakes mechanism Reworked all rivets and added rivets on the top fuselage (rivet counter) Added textures to the M61 gun Added sealant to the canopy frame, RWR and AIFF antennas - Added new cockpit textures (Currently a sort of WIP placeholder. They are a custom mix of textures made by watermanpc and wolfthrower) So far I reworked the main fuselage, some parts of the tail, all pylons and the fuel tanks. The wings will be overhauled as well with new rivets, etc. WIP preview screens. Compared to the "default" livery by ED (before). Sealant around the RWR antenna Static discharge mounts New engine exhaust. The gas residue on the inside of the nozzles is not final and may vary, can be lighter. Textures for the M61 gun Textures for the internal air refueling door Panels and rivets on the belly near the tailhook Sealant around the AIFF antennas and rivets on the canopy New rivets on the aft fuselage Sealant around the canopy and the AIFF antennas. New rivets and details to the main top fuselage. Close up of the refueling door with new rivets and deeper seams. Complete overview of the main fuselage. Notice the tail (hollywood) lights. My favorite so far, the sealant around the canopy.

1. CIVILIAN ASSETS PACK - NAUTICAL v2.1 DOWNLOAD v2.1 Content, installation, credits, etc: README.pdf If you have downloaded v2.0, it appears the armed trawler isn't engaging targets. Download this lua, place it in "\Civilian Assets Pack - Navy v2.0\Database\CAP Ships" and overwrite. for those who wish, here is the "unpimped" version of the ships (no girls in bikini). Grab the edm files, drop them in the mod "Shapes" folder and overwrite. CrazyEddie made 6 additional liveries for the J.R. More Tug, be sure to check them out! 2. DCS: COMBINED FARMS Link to thread 3. CIVILIAN ASSETS PACK - VEHICLES V1.0 DOWNLOAD v1.0 20 vehicles (including variants) and 1 static object (shown in the picture above). Goes in the ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech folder. In the mission editor the vehicles can be found under ground units --> civilian vehicle --> CAP - "..." A showcase mission with all the vehicles is included. DEMO mission demonstrating the ability to turn the lightbar on and off with the spacebar: CAP VEHICLES - Lights Toggle Spacebar Addtional liveries by CrazyEddie: DOWNLOAD Many thanks to @tobi for the .edm exporter for Blender ALL VEHICLES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH COMBINED ARMS Some vehicles have animated drivers, others don't Some vehicles have destroyed models, others don't Some vehicles have LODs, others don't No rhyme nor reason to it, just depends on how lazy I was that particular day...Harmonisation is planned for a future update. Customisable lightbar reflectiveness/brightness through liveries (only for the police cars at this time): CUSTOMISATION FOR SOME VEHICLES: Extra liveries by CrazyEddie (separate download) PICTURES: And more --------------------------------------- Old post (these vehicles will be upgraded soon...or later...):

was wondering if we'll get to see the BME-330s, the retarded versions of the BR.250s and the BR series of bombs itself on the centerline CLB-4 rack in our DCS mirage F1, as they were used in this plane by the spanish airforce and i dont believe they've been mentioned in any upcoming weapons list some examples of them in this aircraft below BME-330 BRP/BRPS.250 BR series in CLB-4 rack (BRP.250s specifically in these pictures)

Hi, Been trying out the F1. It's a nice bird. However something's bothering me. Is the severe roll imbalance after firing a missile correctly modeled or is it unintended? Loadout is Center 1x R530 IR, Wing 2xSidewinders. After just firing 1 sidewinder, the flight's a bit wonky.

Good, so I'm not the only one wanting it now

it can be removed for Maintenance, but it is an integral part of the targeting systems for the F-15E and would not be removed for a combat operation, even in Allied Force missions when they flew CAP they had CFTs, Targeting Pods, wing tanks, and 8 AAMs.

bought gigabyte 4090 gaming OC at microcenter i just tried DCS with samsung Odyssey.. wow.. 90 fps all the way thru with visibility range to ultra, and 2x MSAA. (note, i was using 2080ti, and most of the time it was 50 fps) it went down to 70 with 4x MSAA on 4090 but wow.. so smooth on the odyssey headset.. and it was a joy to have things on high and ultra..seeing things nice going to try out aero later my 4090 purchase experience. i was shooting for gigabyte OC or zotac OC. waiting on the line to get in the store, a few said they were going for ASUS or MSI i went for gigabyte because i have bought in past with no problem but bummed that there is no more EVGA. drove home and start to question if i brought the right brand later on i looked up clocks and saw that MSI OC had the higher (excluding the ridiculously priced ASUS) and then i was eating myself up for not getting MSI, to find out they MSI gaming trio X has a power connecter that splits into three... (gigabyte gaming OC has a 4 way split PSU connector) now i am glad i bought the Gigabyte model....

Or, you know, call up Dick Jonas and tell him "hey, we're doing the Phantom, want to contribute some country music?" He was still singing last time I checked. Having an actual Phantom backseater doing the music, one who flew with Satan's Angels in Vietnam and was friends with Robin Olds, at that, would really be something.

@ADHS and @Flappie : I see the "issue" both in the attached mission from previous post and from a clean mission (syria / caucasus and 2 FC3 planes : Mig29A and SU27). The "issue" is that the landing event doesn't fire when the airbase is not from the same coalition or neutral AND the aircraft is a FC3 module (only tested with 2). (landing event as visible in the debrief). All is OK with a Hornet for example (landing event fires whatever the base's coalition). It seems to be a bug.

[deleted]

tree damage has been requested but we have no news to share currently.

Yeah, multi-threading ! More benefits that DLSS given where we are now.

So really they are compatible it just might be buggy. Just like any mission on Caucasus from 1.5 to 2.5 where the map received a assorted updates. The mission still loaded, thus compatible. However the place where you need to land your helicopter on some specific mission is now in the middle of a forest, thus buggy. The expectation for a mission file to simply load is the main barrier of entry with any sort of inconstancies that *can be corrected* within the editor are the far lesser concern. Frankly map differences from version to version impacting missions can be expected any time a map updates paid or not.

So, the whole MSI thing in this community is badly misunderstood as to what it actually is and can do, and more specifically as to when it could do what. And mind you what I'm going to write, is VASTLY oversimplified. On a very simple level, in case 1 you have say 3 sensors, your radar, your IRST, and your RWR and lets say a basic INS system. And lets say the year is the early 90's for these capabilities. Which in large part determines how much actual processing power you have to deal with and sort all this data. The accuracy of all 3 of these sensors is limited by physics, and I'll simplify that to just dealing with lets say wavelengths and how they are detected. So lets start our hypothetical scenario, you are flying along all passive like at 500kts heading 000. Your RWR is gonna be your worst sensor with the most ambiguity but it can get you a rough bearing of lets make up a number say 10 degrees. So, this sensor tells the MSI "computer" hey boss ping bearing 340 (the submarine analogy here will become a bit more clear later). So the MSI computer gets an target at an angle of 340 "ish" at time and position X and time Y (time is well known, ownship position less so, but lets say internally referenced its perfect at time Y to 0,0,0), the RWR periodically updates this contact every time Mr. Enemy radar paints over your ship. So you being the ace you are think to point your amazing IRST sensor in that general direction and tell it to search whatever volume of space along that bearing line. IRST of course works not on really bad radar wavelengths of whack units like "centimeters" holy cow, how crude is that. IRST works on in the micrometer range (way way way smaller wavelength wise), and therefore the angular accuracy of IRST's is "phenomenal" relative to things like some poor mans 10m long antenna (your RWR) or your radar. Well off your IRST chugs along and lets say a minute later Mr IRST gets a ping at bearing EXACTLY 342.3 degrees. The sensor of course keeps track of this contact. So now at Time Y+1min, at location 0,0,0 + 500kts in the north direction for 1 minute, PLUS whatever INS drift you have in your system in all 3 coordinates. Mr MSI computer now has 3 radar ping points over that 1 minute however, and they are still roughly coming 340, 345, and 335 according to your RWR but you have moved in space as well. Whats a poor MSI computer to do? Well ok, so the target is either at 340, 335, 345 or 342.3 degrees. The RWR has a track file that is "on average" 340 degrees. Luckily Mr MSI computer was programmed by a smart man that knew something about physics that realizes well, the IRST sensors is the better sensor but hedging bets the target is likely at 340 degrees or 342.3 degrees, now that is a volume of space, or "solid angle" if you want to think about it this way. Of course Mr. MSI computer can also choose to ignore the RWR track, or in a "computation" give it less weight because we know its a low tier sensor. Well you keep this up for like 10 minutes flying as due north as you can, the track gradually changes from 342.3 degrees to like 330.7 for the IRST, and you get a bunch of data points on that. Your RWR is still getting lit up, however the tracks are now moving "away" from the IRST track... So now for any "submarine sim" fans will know what is happening. We are now building a ranging baseline track on our enemy contact, but instead of relying on absolutely huge sonar waves (many meters long) we are now using IRST tracks, and radar tracks to do the same thing. Now we can start to get range data for our contact from either our IRST or our RWR. However, due to our INS drifting our own ship position is now not a point, its a "sphere" (technically a spheroid). So we now have an estimate of enemy range from 2 sources, our RWR track file, and our IRST track file... They aren't the same, the RWR is giving us one range and the IRST another. Which do we believe. They are roughly coming from the same direction... The other fun bit we have is that our RWR has also classified the target as a mig29 radar, we know the output power of that radar, and we also understand the radar equation, so we now also have in addition to that angle data, some very rough range data from the power of that radar for each "ping" and its getting "closer". So at this point the MSI algorithm has merged with various weights, all of these angle rate tracks, along with estimates of range from these sensors, be they angle rate measurements, or radar "strength" measurements. And its now munged all that "data" into an "estimate", which includes within a circle of X miles, heading direction approximately Y, at speed Z. Just like Mr submarines much larger and more capable computer (cuz hey its a submarine), which of course has the same problem, but only one (ish) sensor to solve it with.... Now disaster strikes... the IRST has been totally and utterly defeated by its greatest nemesis. Mr Fluffy McCloud... "sad bzooop" and R2D noises from Mr. IRST ensue... But you just lost that track. Luckily Mr RWR still works through clouds, but now your track file is only being updated by your absolute worst sensor. And Mr. Mig29 in the MSI computers estimate is coming close enough to detect you. Being a smart and well trained Ace fighter bro, you quickly cue up the track, and point your might Mr. Radar at it. BZZT... Scan, scan, scan, send cancer out. Ping... Ah well there he is, and now he's at bearing 328, but the range is waay off from your RWR estimate and your IRST estimate of range. But hey this is your fancy fire control radar and your #1 most trusted sensor. So now Mr. Radar starts sending Mr. MSI range/bearing/azimuth data. With the standard uncertainty of Mr. Radar (which is really fairly good). And Mr. radar gets weighted MUCH more heavily by Mr. MSI than Mr. RWR who no one trusts, and Mr. IRST that we kinda trust, but he's always a bit dodgy. So now the track files are getting updated quite precisely and you now are starting to build up a very good firing solution on poor Mr. Mig29. Your rather large spheroid of uncertainty of the enemy has now shrunk considerably to a weapons grade firing solution. But wait it gets better, Mr. Cloudy McCloud suddenly isn't in the line of site anymore. And the IRST picks up Mr. mig29 again. And starts sending much more accurate bearing data to Mr. MSI which now knows that Mr. IRST is providing superior bearing and azimuth data to further refine the firing solution to a VERY good firing solution for Mr. AAMRAM... FOX3.... Splash, glory awaits.... So that was the early 90's version of what these systems were capable of doing in general. The F18C has this system, The F15E had this sort of system, the F15C MSIP had this sort of integration, even Blk 40 vipers had some level of this integration. What happens next.... in say 2005... You know "DCS MODERN" Radios is what... (yes turns out "datalinks" are just fancy radios, also turns out "GPS" is a bunch of fancy radios) Now instead of INS with dodgy errors and bad absolute position error data (I don't know where I am, please god help me) I don't know if I'm here or half a km over there plz halps. In 2005 (or earlier) you have INS plus GPS. You know where your ABSOLUTE ownship is at all times within some error margin of well a few meters, or worst case 10-20meters.... So now all your ownship tracks are much more accurate. But your own tracks are just the start. Now instead of just 1 ship. you have 2 ships (or more). Now with a 3 body system, I'm sure the smart guys here will figure out you can do really advanced stuff like... GEOMETRY... Holy cow we can now make "TRIANGLES". Pythagoras would be so proud of us and how we weaponized math. And for those that are in possession of advanced, weapons grade geometry will know, if you have two known points in space, and good angle data, you can fix that 3rd point in space pretty well. But wait it gets better for Mr. MSI... Not only does that work with a 2 ship, it also works even better with different sorts of triangles that you can draw from "multi ship" pictures... And even better Mr. Awacs also gets a vote in the MSI equation (though no one trusts his ass cuz he's using low grade UHF radars with absolute garbage accuracy....) So whats my point with absolute "WALL OF TEXT"... In the context of MSI in DCS. Not ED, not Heablur, not Deka, not anyone has access to the level of information to make even a meaningful guess of how these algorithms and sensors work. And no one in the mil industrial complex will give up ANY details on these types of systems or how they work, even if they are 30 years old or more at this point. "best guesses" from ED or heatblur can be made on "basic physics". But since DCS will not, or cannot actually model "basic physics" of these sorts of systems its gonna pretty pointless beyond very general facts like RWR bad at bearings, IRST good, Radar in-between. And the companies that have developed the multi sensor type inegration algorithms and techniques pointed out here at the kindergarten level of understanding that I have laid out will absolutely laugh in ED/subsidiaries faces when asked about details. So, ask yourself this. Do you really want a "simulator" that can't even begin to simulate how your "uber fighter" actually works in the modern world? And then ask yourself, is that world even simulated all that well, are SAMs as simple as they are in DCS? How "good" is DCS IRST modeling when they currently see through clouds (same question for IR missiles)? OR is actually realistic combat systems much more possible to simulate (and more fun) in the pre 1990 world? This post brought to you by Mr. Coffee null

Thanks Rudel, duly noted

The Typhoon for DCS will probably have the PIRATE available as an option, but I doubt it will be available immediately. Initial featureset will be reminiscent of a German Tranche 1 according to the FAQ. To be clear, it's not going to be strictly a German Eurofighter. It's just the initial release will likely be reminiscent of one. I think you are misunderstanding the whole MSI thing. In DCS, the F-16, F-14, and F/A-18 all correlate datalink with radar contacts. This is correct. The issue is the ability to set MSI trackfiles as launch+steering targets even when they are not contributed to by radar. In the discussions I've read on this forum, that seems to be the source of contention, as the Hornet and the Hornet alone is argued to have this enhanced capability. Since this is a Eurofighter thread, you may be wondering about the Eurofighter. Judging by what I've seen, it should be even more capable in this sense. This video heavily implies that radar, IRST (if it's mounted), and datalink all work together to create trackfiles, and you can use whichever source from your "toolbox full of tools" to provide guidance for your missile. This is an interesting article from the Eurofighter website on some practical applications of this capability. https://web.archive.org/web/20120319052436/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html

Just to make this perfectly clear for when a moderator sees this post. I am not asking for a immediate fix, but for clarity, transparency, and communication from the ED devs about the Supercarrier module and all the associated bugs(and fixes) and development progress to go with it. We will typically go months without anything and be left in total limbo wondering what is happening behind the closed doors of ED. We all know this was early access when we bought the SC and were fully prepared for a wait period until it was brought to full fruition. But the total silence from ED, the lackluster updates, and refusal to acknowledge bugs is the problem. It looks bad on ED because we as consumers showed faith toward the company in purchasing the module and this is what we get over 2 years later. Throw us a bone and tell us whats happening.

It's a symptom of falling empires, the parties get wilder and expenses are of no concern. For me personally, 4090, completely of no interest. I would betray my family if I would do so. Der Krug geht zum Brunnen bis er bricht.

There is still a lot we are trying to figure out and how it will all end up, I have talked to Reflected and will continue to try and make sure we can transition him and all content creators over to the Normandy 2.0 easily and with the most compatibility. We are hearing all your concerns and trust me, they were all noted before the announcement on Friday. I will continue to follow up on all things here and let you guys know as soon as possible how things evolve. Try not to get too worked up though, the ultimate goal is a kick butt area to throw our Warbirds around in.

The solution for the larger multi-crew aircraft is dynamic switching of positions. That way, you can play an active role in each part of the mission. Start-up, taxi, takeoff and form up as pilot, transit from the navigator seat, bomb the target from the bombardier position, hop between gun turrets as you are bounced, back to the navigator to get you home, and finally return to the pilot for landing. If you have multiple clients in the same aircraft, then you can occupy any of the vacant positions, and if you want to spend 3hrs+ as a waist gunner, then you can, the remaining positions will be AI controlled. Let's face it, it would be fairly boring as a pilot for the long missions, as you are essentially just formation flying the whole time. I don't think there is any single position I'd like to occupy for the whole flight, but the ability to swap seats could make it a entertaining experience. Microprose managed it in 1992, I'm sure ED could make it work if they wanted to.

Guys, what has any of that to do with performance? Let us get back on topic please.