Leaderboard

From Magnitude3 Facebook page.

WIP...

Thank you! About the BILL version, we'll see, it's not on the list at the moment. But I'm not ruling it out. Here's an overview of all the assets, weapons and their range, loaded ammunition, total ammunition and reload time. Ping @Abburo

All WIP - I wont release these until eightball has decided how he is going to do the Liveries, there wont work on the current setup without changes to the description.lua's. I will do a few more in due course.

Magnitude 3 FB

MiG-21bis is probably my favorite module despite the moderate list of annoyances and the few bigger areas that aren't up to par. Minor things like the fuel gauge and SARC light bugs are tiny but constantly irritating. ASP and SAU are the two biggest areas of major improvement. The RSBN/PRMG/ARK could really stand to be brought up to L-39 standards although it's an annoyance of realism since it's rare that you can't actually complete the mission properly due to the radio-nav situation. There's much love in the airplane. It's so well crafted visually. It's one of the few modules that you can fry a circuit by carelessly flipping switches. It's impressive for its release date. But the holes and niggles are a drag. This airplane would be so much more enjoyable with an expert pass on the ASP, SAU, POLYOT-OI, and maybe a few more radar touches, SPO, etc. People will rediscover the airplane.

RAZBAM Mig-23

Nothing fancy is required. It will deploy (in stages to simulate the mount/deployment of the weapon) if alarm state is red. But the RBS 70 is dependent on the UndE 23 STR. Sometimes it's easier to show than explain in words. Check out this mission. RBS70_BV410 deploy.miz

...and done, the update is now committed to ED and should be out with the next OB patch.

Hi Bignewy, I think we are still on topic. Since you are here can you clarify also the OP's question: and also the second comment right after OP's opening comment Thanks,

I inserted a sniper team on a hill from a blackhawk, they went on to murder 6 Russians from over 1500 meters.

Nice find! You are correct. I configured the STR for 360 degrees detection azimuth, which would be correct for the new GaN version but isn't correct for the AN/MPQ-65. After detection the azimuth is limited to 120 degrees, but I will restrict the asset to employ a fixed azimuth in the next update. Thanks! Great point! I will compile and publish an overview.

That's an interesting proposition! I'll add it to the backlog.

@currenthillfirst of all thank you for your hard work and the excellent result !!! Secondly, I don't know if you realized when you created this mod how well could be suited for heli logistics actions. For example a Gazelle could transport and infiltrate a sniper team or an ATGM in some strategic spots... perfect for ambush or stealth actions ... Did not try it yet, however the only think I got in here that would need some work according with what I was mentioned above would be the posibility of movement for sniper team, or at least posibility to rotate ... this would be required becasue spawning from heli cannot really control where they will face to. Once again , big thumbs up!

really nice mod, thanks a lot!

oops! att'ed the wrong file! Got it working now, but had to place the file in the in game mon setup folder & the one in "saved games".. Got both LMFDC and Right MFDC on my #2 mon now! Thanks for your help!

The only thing I'm wishing for at this moment is multi threaded engine, Vulkan and properly managed game assets with LODs. This is fundamental. Without it you will not have any resources for anything else than injecting a few more cosmetic shaders. ED should stop with anything that they can put on hold and build the engine as fast as possible that all those study level models deserve.

DCS: F-16C Viper | LADD Bombing Mode (COMING SOON) In this DCS: F-16C Viper video, we’ll discuss the final bombing mode coming to the Viper: The Low Altitude Drogue Delivery, or LADD, bombing mode. Much like CCRP toss bombing, LADD allows low altitude toss bombing ingress attacks, but provides some unique parameter settings that are not available in CCRP toss bombing. While certainly an interesting option, and included for the sake of completeness, I think you will find the standard CCRP toss bombing preferable. I may be incorrect, but I is my understanding that LADD is more designed for tossing airburst nuclear weapons under very defined conditions. And no, we have no plans to add nukes to DCS. Let’s get started. First, we’ll select AG master mode and then select LADD from the bombing mode options, note that you cannot select it from the nosewheel steering / missile step switch rotary. On the LADD SMS page, select the Control sublevel to setup the delivery. At OSB 10 we can set the desired release angle, which defaults to 45-degrees. Let’s select it and set it to 30-degrees in this example. Next, press the LADD options at OSB 6. In the center of the page, we have three options. At the top is the Pullup Range, or PR. This defines the range at which we will initiate the pull up to the entered release angle. It defaults to 25000 feet, but for a 30-degree release angle, 40000 feet is a better choice. Unlike CCRP Toss that automatically adjusts the PR based on the release angle, you must manually set this is LADD mode. As a general rule, for release angles: use 45000 feet for 45-degrees, 40000 feet for 30-degrees, and 35000 for 20-degrees. Press Enter to save the value and move to the next selection. Next is the desired weapon time of flight in seconds. We’ll keep the default 28 seconds and press enter. Last is the Minimum Release Altitude, or MRA. Upon pull up, you must reach the entered altitude in feet within 5-seconds. If you take longer, the weapons will not release. This will probably be the most common reason for weapons not separated and “correct as-is” tags being added to forum posts. Given that we are at only around 500 feet, I’m going to lower the MRA from 1100 feet to 800 feet. Press enter to save the value and then Control to return to the main LADD SMS page. Note that In the center of the page we have our release angle, pullup range, time of flight, and minimum release altitude listed. I’ll unpause now. The target point from which the release is calculated is indicated on the HUD as the box. Fly to align the Azimuth Steering Line on the box. As with CCRP Toss bombing, the Vertical Steering Bar and the Release cue will move to the Flight Path Marker as you near the pullup range. Unlike CCRP Toss, there is no anticipation cue indication or release scale on the HUD. As the Vertical Steering Bar and Release Cue near the Flight Path Marker, press and hold the weapon release button. Once the three symbols intersect on the HUD, the Vertical Steering Bar and Release Cue will reset up the ASL and you’ll initiate a smooth 4G pull up while maintaining the FPM on the ASL. Once the FPM is at the entered Release Angle, 30-degreees in this case, hold the FPM at the angle and wait for the Release Cue to march down the ASL to intersect the FPM and the weapon will be released automatically. It’s important to note that LADD is probably the least accurate of all the bombing modes and bombs may fall on target, short, or long.

The majority of real-world F1 pics indicate that pylons/missile rails were almost always loaded, particularly on the wingtips. It would be nice to have the option for those instead of having totally slick wings.

Hi there, I've been really enjoying the Mirage F1, but a bit of a large turnoff is that if I go on the vast majority of open servers the presets are largely useless, especially on the red radio. It would be great, either in some form of a data cartridge or editable function in the kneeboard, to be able to edit the channel presets. As it stands, the red radio is basically redundant and I can't really have an intraflight and GCI comm. Cheers, this would be greatly appreciated if implemented! Peter

As the title says.

Hello all For the sake of keeping anyone interested up to date on my terribly slow progress I thought I'd share some pictures of what I have managed so far. I'll try to make this a bit more interesting over the coming eons, but for now here's a small photo dump. If you want to know anything just shout and I'll do my best to keep this going. Also anyone else blindly diving into a similar pool of dispair check out the OpenHarrier group on facebook, me and a few others post there too!

Very interesting podcast."Vader" a USAF Viper Driver explains his frustration with The USAF Simulator and try's to bring DCS to his fighter squadron. There is alot of Real Life background noise in this one so skip to around 53.00 to hear Vader's comments concerning DCS

Last few weeks Norway has had to close down airports and industrial areas because of suspect drone activity. I think I've come upon the solution.

As a mission creator, truly thanks for adding a Prefix that they belong to a mod so I do not add them by mistake. Its honestly something that should be standard for DCS.

The Ag 90 Sniper team can engage targets at ±45 degrees left/right from the facing direction. Thanks! That was a main goal with this project. To make as many assets as possible mobile. I wanted to be able to move and deploy a complete LvS 103 site with RBS 98 SHORAD protection etc.

a lot will depend on your frametimes; but a 3090 would offer a considerable reduction in the GPU frame time, so a lot would depend on settings, i can easily hold 45FPS in most scenarios that are not CPU limited

I for one am skeptical about the G2 and its recurrent cable woes. The last thing I want is to have a bricked headset because I can't source a replacement cable; see Oculus CV1.

Bump. Plus the addition of empty external tanks would be awesome - well, certainly for the EE with the refuelling probe.

Install CapframeX, run your "standard" benchmark flight whist capturing. When you check the results look at the CPU thread utilisation and GPU util and you'll be able to work out easily which component is the bottleneck. My 12900K is my bottleneck in both DCS and the "other" SIM since my GPU upgrade.

A lot to unroll here. I'll address this first: I had not intended as such with my remark, but clearly offense was taken. I apologize for my choice of words and will endeavor to adjust my decorum going forward. Evidently, the discussion of rockets lights some fiery tempers all around. That out of the way, I had not intended to start a massive argument over the nature regarding the quality of DCS rockets, positively or negatively. Are rockets modeled inaccurately? Yes, this is true. Are there problems that prevent them from reaching their potential? Unquestionably yes. Will they never be corrected or fixed? No. Like the rest of DCS, they are in a state of flux, and I expect that eventually their performance will match real-world parameters in due time. This is the reason for my current dialogue: the AH-64 module is presently in an early access state, with the associated roughness and issues to match. Along with that is an opportunity to learn how to leverage the aircraft and its systems as they steadily come online. Rockets make up part of the limited weapons triad available to the aircraft and to neglect them is, dare I say, leaving money on the table. Should you use rockets? That is entirely contextual. Part of learning the module is knowing when and where to apply its capabilities. If you're always up against heavy armor, then no, rockets are of limited utility. But what about for other situations? Defilade fire, for example. Rockets can fill certain roles where necessary and yes, those roles can be commonplace if the scenario calls for it. I cannot speak for everyone, but I try to be as diverse as possible in the scenarios I play. That gives me the opportunity to do things that I wouldn't otherwise be doing if I was always working the anti-tank mission, a mission that I consider better served by platforms like the A-10. A scenario that limits me, puzzles me, and forces me to think is ideal. How many different ways can I solve this puzzle? is the question I always ask myself. Within DCS, I've strapped a 230 gallon bag, max internal fuel, and spent 80 minutes flying over the Caucasus to destroy a SAM site, then provide terminal laser designation to destroy a bunker obscured by clouds. I've taken full internal fuel, smoke rockets, and flew 60 miles over Syria to search for targets and mark for friendly aircraft. I've taken illumination rockets and utilized them to provide positive ID of troops in contact at night. I've taken 16 HELLFIREs, 30% gas, and helped kill tanks Fulda Gap-style. There should be no limit to what you can try and do. That's not for everyone. Some people like to dogfight. Some people want to simulate being in a real squadron, patterned after real operations. Some people want to destroy as much as possible, racking up a massive kill tally as they mow down hordes of tanks. These are all possible with DCS. Because of that, sometimes it's easy to get lost and forget why something is simulated. Why have ground radar when targeting pods exist? Why use AIM-7 when AIM-120 exists? Why use iron bombs when JDAM is available? And of course, why use rockets when HELLFIRE is so much better? The answers (that's plural for a reason) can be as varied as you want them to be. No, the AH-64's rockets aren't where they should be. But they do have utility and it's not simply against infantry. If I should complete my planned article, I hope at a minimum to show the ways they can work. The question as to whether or not they should be used is entirely up to you. The basics are pretty simple: set a target point, run up to ~90 knots to the target, then at ~10.5km pull nose up to 30 degrees with full upward pylon elevation. As you pass through 30 degrees, fire your rockets. Use the cruise mode symbology for accurate pitch cuing. I should hope at a minimum you will at least stick around to play the requested scenario when I get it done. It's nothing too fancy and it would be interesting to see someone with a different approach to problem solving than I do.

I can imagine that in ED it's a bit like this... Team 1: This is nearly finished - and we're so excited that we want to share this with our customers ASAP. Team 2: We've been burned in the past by sharing stuff too soon, and then had hiccups that have delayed, so we don't want to give a time frame incase it changes and we're burned. Team 1: But we're so close - and so excited, can't we release some info to our customers Team 2: You can - but only if you use non-committing, obscure terminology that's not going to force us to commit to a time line. Team 1: But, off the record - how far away do you think it is for release? Team 2: I'd say definitely around 2 weeks. Team 1: Oh - that's fantastic - so can I tell them it's coming in 2 weeks? Team 2: Heavens no! It might not end up being 2 weeks. We're guessing 2 weeks. Once we do xxx and yyy then we'll be ready. Team 1: When will then be now? Team 2: Soon. Team 1: OK -we'll release the information as being 'soon' then. Team 2: We're happy with that obscure phrasing. Now let's get back to watching Spaceballs.

No dead center, no sticktion, no gimbal. Provision for both spring centering and programmable force generator. It will practically last forever. Well.... that's a lie. But since you will have to make one yourself in order to get one, you certainly can make all the replacement parts to keep it up forever. null

May I ask where you've seen pilots goggle up on deck and taxi? The light configuration is complex. Second, the deck crew would need to goggle up as well in order to see the goggled crew because the deck (would be have to be configured for such) is dark. Not to mention, the wands we use to direct with, are not NVG compatible. We don't wear NVG's on a CVN, only on LHD type ships is this accomplished. After 20 years onboard, working the Flight deck, the things you speak of are purely fantasy! I'm a retired Flight Deck Chief bro. And a total blackout would send everyone to the beach, as I stated in my previous post. I was not being passive aggressive, merely stating a fact! Whilst it may be an uncomfortable truth, it is what it is. And while you may not agree, my statement about cutting your nose off still stands. There is no point in Night flight ops if you can't operate properly. The US Navy may be a lot of things these days, but we still practice safety and efficiency!

Soon is before later, later is after soon.

Yes, you can. There are gfx options for a reason. No, this is ridiculous to ask devs to stop their job or remove some vital parts of the game just to save some fps. Optimisations are welcome though.

CW doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have monopulse encoding - which is the more important thing here IMO. Regardless though I'm fairly sure the AIM-7M doesn't necessarily need monopulse encoding to guide, given that it has a HOJ mode available which doesn't require the jammer to provide it. Though on my end, with an 84' F-4E-1 revised 1990 doesn't list the AIM-7M in the stores limitation diagram, it does list TO 1F-4-1167 in the TO summary Klarsnow mentioned, but the only things mentioned are improvements to the fuel feed system, self sealing fuselage cells and provisions for mounting selective armour.

From Polychop simulation discord:

A workaround is to have a bigger deadzone on the axis that doesn't "stick". Detail When there's a slew input on one of the axis (i.e. x-axis) the other axis won't slew (i.e. y-axis). Increasing the deadzone on the TDC axis that never sticks fixes this, however the IRMav seems to "jump" a little bit more (as if the deadzone isn't taken into account when actioning the slew). With the larger axis deadzone - switching to the keyboard, to slew the TDC, no longer requires TDC depress (action) before working after using analogue slews. I'm not sure of the exact logic of this because clearly the IRMav will slew diagonally (i.e. inputs on both axis) but it looks likes there's a check/other logic going on when there are objects the IR sensor can lock onto.

It doesn't really matter whether it's a couple years old or brand new, progress on single core performance had been slow, and DCS uses only one for everything except audio (which isn't exactly a huge CPU hog). CPU is the bottleneck in almost every practical scenario, particularly with high end GPUs. I'm not touching my PC's configuration until multicore comes out. It's perfectly flyable as it is, and while I'd like more eyecandy, I want to build my new rig to get the most of the new tech.

Multithreading will be first, then vulkan, both in progress, we will share more news when we are ready thanks

RAZBAM F-15E

This

I'm on mission 15 and hope to have it included in the next OB patch!

1. ED wont do proprietary GPU Tech 2. DLSS 3.0 on the RTX 4000 Series doesn't work in VR, DLSS 3.0 inserts fake frames, increasing frame latency, which is bad for VR. DLSS 2.0 Uses a Tensor Cores to Super Sample Lower Resolution Images, considering VR is about clarity, I'd advise against it. You can do that by reducing the Px Density slider in the VR Options. Know the tech before you demand it.

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.

How about an answer that doesn't take 12 minutes to watch? Dunno why would it be marked as solution, I wasn't able to find the answer skipping through the video. For the record, the reason is that the Viper's FLCS in roll is actually pretty dumb. AFAIK, it was decided not to overcomplicate things when the Viper was being developed, the designers had no idea if the relaxed stability concept will pan out, and as such, made it as simple as possible. The pitch component was a really big deal, due to relaxed stability, but roll wasn't unstable, so they didn't bother implementing a system to keep it in check. Here, and it took much less than 12 minutes. Reading>videos.