Leaderboard

I spoke a bit too quickly last time as I forgot a few things I wanted to add to the pack before release. Almost there, promise. And now we have a selection of driveable ships

@rato65thanks a lot mate Yes, you'll need CA. Those driveable ships are actually amphibious ground units (like the BTR-80 or the LAV25) as I've never figured out how to make a proper driveable ship. I wont make them all driveable, only those with a half cabin. This means the new trawlers (research, somali and armed somali) the speedboat shown above and a version of the new tug, to which I've added a helipad. I'd love to make them all driveable but the other ships require the interior to be made from scratch so...in a future update maybe?

Found a workaround! Go to -Mods\aircraft\Ka-50\Liveries\Cockpit-Ka-50_2\english - and copy all 7 .dds textures there and paste them somewhere. Remove the "_ENG" (change "ka50_cpt_01_alb_ENG.dds" to "ka50_cpt_01_alb.dds" for example), do it for all 7 files and then paste those in the zip folder "Cockpit-Ka-50_2_Textures" in - Mods\aircraft\Ka-50\Cockpit\Textures - Make a backup before you do it just in case. Keep in mind that now the cockpit will be in english as a default. If you don't wanna go through all that, here's a link to the edited "Cockpit-Ka-50_2_Textures.zip" folder BTW in case you use any custom textures for cockpit in your "Liveries" folder, you have to rename your Ka-50 folder to "Cockpit-Ka-50_2" in order to see them in the special options in the game.

Miltech-5 / PD VBH External done ! https://www.facebook.com/PolyDynamicsDCS

ED Shorts

thanks for the feedback, always appreciated and spurs us on to include some really cool stuff in the coming months

Hello everyone: extra extra extra… at 10:00 November 20, 2022 Beijing HK time, 21:00 November 19, 2022 EDT, 3:00 November 20, 2022 German time, our MIPS will complete restock and all online orders will open. We warmly welcome all aviators to our store to build their cockpit and we will arrange all deliveries as soon as possible with the purchase order. Thank you for trusting WINWING, have a nice day, into reality.

Not abandoned. Besides the new aircraft mods they are working on, AND, the FM;s They are creating for them, And trying to stay on top of all the fixes and requests, I suspect they have their hands full! They monitor these threads. News will be provided when there is news to share. Thanks for understanding! Cheers! And Happy Holidays!

Thats an understatement. Try flying at low level 350 kias plus on a hot summer day. Banging is just amazing.

The TALD fix for the F18 changed the task logic, unfortunately, I will upload a fix later today, and it will then also be included in the next patch. Our apologies.

You have no idea, dude.

Thank you! Checked myself as well, and have it, too. We'll take a look. Thank you for the reports.

Holy crap flying carrier ops off the Super Carrier in the Persian Gulf with the Hornet - Bliss! And my head only goes through my Hornet cockpit if I intentionally try to move it out there. So I don't.

Thursdays patch from us was 55GB with substantial changes, to summarise, 6 new airfields new detail maps for the whole map re-done vegitation maps Normals enabled for the whole map substantial lighting update to bring it up to 2.8 standard and much more not sure why you are stating that it's not been updated for a while

I use his trees now too; less flickering and way less pop-in. Just look at those super-low-poly trees from default (top left): And here's better trees v6 (medium): True, the colors now are different, but quite ok (not enough variation imho, but maybe that's coming in v7 or so^^)

I did, yeah. I have never been a fan of Reshade; it just changes the overal feel of games too much imho. But after seeing this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGxgD9GNVNw) and the crisp textures and clarity (like lifting a veil), I had to try it. So I've tinkered a bit with the settings (I didn't want to change the "warmth/colors" too much). I'm currently using my "optimal" profile, in where I follow the "less is more" approach. Not even setting clarity too much (as it makes the textures too crisp to look at). FakeHDR is also not really working (I have an 1000nits HDR monitor and know what it shoud look like^^). I've included my 3 profiles, BUT: everyone has to find his own settings! The good thing is: one can adjust the sliders and plugins on-the-fly ingame, which is a huge help setting it up. Hotshot_dark-crisp.ini Hotshot_optimal.ini Hotshot_dark.ini

Multiple RL pilots have stated FM physics are, in fact, mostly correct. So you are very much not right on that account. FBW and hydraulic controls do make fighters feel "over-controlled" if you're used to flying a Cessna, but that's just how they are. Try WWII aircraft, they're a lot less smooth. Yes, weather needs improvement, that much is well known. However, this isn't a glider sim. Thermals and turbulence from weather don't throw jet fighters around nearly as much as they do GA aircraft. Terrain effects we could use, could be a nasty surprise for low level attackers like the Viggen or F-15.

Post yesterday's post we focused on BOT (Bomb on Target). This is when the pilot sees the target with their eyes or sensors. In this case today we cover the attack procedure, executing the 9 line with BOC (Bomb on coordinate) ED thinks they can challenge users with their pretty clouds, but that means nothing when you have precise coordinates and GPS guided munitions!!!! Enjoy and add another tool to your kinetic toolbox.

@Skyracer Its complicated but the way I get it is that there are 3 phases the AIM120 has, MID phase - from launch to acquisition phase, datalink guidance. Acquisition Phase - has two phases: A-Pole is the range from your aircraft to the target when the missile goes Husky. - HPRF or High Pule Repetition Frequency or Husky. M-Pole is same as the A-Pole, is the range from your aircraft to the target when the missile goes Pitbull. - MPRF or Medium Pulse Repetition Frequency Final Phase - When the missile is in pitbull mode or husky, MPRF or HPRF, and F pole is the range from your aircraft to the target when the missile hits that target. So basically, you will first see lets say 10M on the left side on your DLZ, before you fire the missile, that means that your Aircraft will be at 10 miles from the target once target goes into MPRF or Pitbull. Below the DLZ youll see A17 for example, thats the time till your missile goes HPRF active. Whe you launch the missile your 10M will move below the DLZ and on the right you will see 8M and thats for next missile on your rail. Below the DLZ there will be 10M which wont change, and A17 that will count down to 0 and that's when the missile goes HUSKY or Pitbull, When that happens the symbology will change again, Below the DLZ youll see 8F thats the F-pole and it means that youll be 8 miles from the target when the missile hits, you'll see, below F-Pole, T15 which is the time till impact. at this point you can lose the lock since missile is guiding to the target on its own. That's how I understand it.

Sure it would, the more you guys report on the issue, the more likely they will take notice, etc.

Per RAZBAM_Specter on Discord, L118 light gun: According to RAZBAM_Jockeyboy2.0, 2 versions will be present: one as a functional ground unit (not able to be slingloaded) and a static cargo version able to be slingloaded.

The altimeter thousands drum flips digitally rather than rolling with an analog animation as the hundreds drum does. This results in 1000ft inaccurate readings as you approach the next 1000ft altitude. For example, 4000ft and 4999 feet display the identical readout of 4000. MB-339 at just below 5000ft: A-10 at just below 5000 ft:

I spend nearly 90% of my time in the sim in training missions and in that specific scenario the F16 is very much unfinished, or dare I say practically not operational with incorrect Master SIM functionality and missing inert weapons. Nearly all of the training/SIM features are missing from our F16 currently. I'll try to collect all the info necessary for ED to make changes in this thread (please add any documentation you have in the thread) CATM-9M Current implementation: Even though the missile appears in SMS INV as TA9LM when entering A-A mode or DGFT mode no seeker diamond appears on the HUD, no growl can be heard and the DGFT mode defaults to the gun with no option to select the missile. Desired behavior: Same operation as the 9M up until pickle where the jet should treat the missile like it's in SIM mode (no launch). Seeker should remain active after pickle. CATM-120-B/C Current Implementation: N\A Desired behavior: It should fully simulate an AMRAAM with a rocket in it's ass. Provided on the HUD should be the M/F pole, DLZ, and all the other symbology that should appear in MSL/A-A mode, as well as proper after launch symbology. PGM-65 Current Implementation: N\A Desired behavior: It should provide us with a view from the seeker on the WPN page, all up until launch when the seeker should unlock from the locked target but should keep providing the picture, as well as proper time to impact. I will add documentation to support this in the coming days, and any contribution by other forum members is appreciated. PS. Please don't tag this correct-as-is, because it's not. Thank you

Hi, just a note of appreciation to Razbam for today's update ... particularly the addition of more airfields: and also the improved night lighting: Great map, I'm loving flying on it

Hi, Thanks ED for the recent fixes to ACM BORE / HMCS functionality. Based on some rather widely available docs, in MLU M3 the ACM BORE range was increased. Range scale was made selectable all the way up to 40 nm. It also depicts how after acquiring the target in ACM BORE and switching to STT, the automatic range scaling works for 20 and 40 nm ranges. So basically, it tells us in clear terms that in ACM BORE you can search for and lock targets up to 40 nm, practically all the way up to radar max range against fighter-sized targets. This in ACM BORE only, not in other ACM sub-modes. Again it's different variants, different radars etc. but I wonder if our variant should have that same, increased ACM BORE range which was increased in MLU M3?

It is my understanding that if a track file is lost/dropped while an AMRAAM, SD-10, R-77, or Aim-54 is in flight, the missile will guide to the last known estimated location of the target at the time of pitbull. In game as of now, this is also true even if the track is reacquired. I suppose the older radars and missiles that are modeled in DCS currently do not have the ability to reengage lost contacts. Fine, I guess. The problem is, if a track is lost while a fox 3 is in flight, even if the target makes a very slight deviation from its original course, the missile will fail to track. In the track below, I fire on a target with both an Aim-120B and Aim-120C-5, the track is lost due to the excessively harsh lookdown penalty (another issue all together) and the missiles fail to track the target even though it made a slight deviation. AMRAAM No Track.trk

Is it only me who thinks that low proximity frags should be correctly modelled in DCS? Right now, you see people shooting other jets down from just few meters away all the time, then flying through their fireball without getting any damage at all. That simply feels odd. No real pilot would voluntarily do that. I think this should be addressed in DCS, when you shoot down another jet from low proximity, or fly through its debris (after having shot it from adequate distance before), or when being too close when your own bombs denotate on ground, you should accordingly be punished by DCS with damage to your jet. How much damage and whether you might get luckily away with it sometimes, that's open for debate. But always getting away with it for free, that should really be changed IMO.

Ok, I have isolated the OpenXR stuttering problem. It appears to be from OXRTK, will inform mbucchia about this. Due to very high framerate, I barely noticed any stuttering at all but GPU FT graphs revealed everything (those intermittent spikes). null And the image below is OpenXR without OXRTK. No GPU FT spikes. Noted the dropped fps, this is due to running at full resolution without OXRTK res override, so it's 4100 horizonal pixels vs 3200. OpenVR mode doesn't have this problem either, pretty smooth GPU FT graph similar to the bottom picture. EDIT: Had a brief chat and got some pointers from mbucchia. If you have stuttering with OXRTK, try enabling the Safe Mode from Companion App then reset the settings with CTRL+F1+F2+F3--this fixed my GPU FT spikes. It might be the foveated rendering setting in my case, turned that back on and the spikes came back.

I've been re-acquainting myself with the Kurfurst of late, and was really disappointed in the performance of the Mk108 ... came to the forums and found this thread. I still call shenigans. I ran multiple tests last night (1v1 vs P-51, firing Mk108 HE/anti-bomber only), all fairly consistent in outcome. Replays cross-checked with TacView. I got video captures from multiple angles of the last fight, watched in slow motion for several hours. P-51 in fairly constant 2.5G right turn (mostly level) All stable tracking shots First burst (4 rounds) fired from 87m 3 misses (they scraped the paint) 1 hit to upper portion of vertical stab lots of shrapnel damage (hole stickers) to rudder, vertical stab, horizontal stab, elevator shrapnel damage to port wing no impact to combat effectiveness (elevator & rudder still functional, everything attached) Second burst (1 round followed by 2 rounds) fired from 76m first round hit starboard mid-wing 20mm - sized hole "size of a head" -- consistent with pic of Spitfire with 20mm hole in fuselage from video posted in this thread white smoke from radiator exhaust vent (fuel leak?) second round hit fuselage at base of vertical stab (at stab extension) shrapnel damage (holes) third round looks like it hit rudder, but port elevator got shredded empenage and all flight control surfaces still attached AI had enough at this point and bailed In my opnion, each one of those single hits should have blown massive chunks off of that airplane, ending the fight. Specifically: First hit (upper vertical stab) should have blown most of the vertical stab and rudder off the airplane. At 200 knots, full throttle and 2.5G there's no way that plane is maintaining controlled flight Second hit (starboard mid-wing) should have detonated the fuel tank and blown the starboard wing off I assume the white smoke from the radiator vent was fuel, because a P-51 has no coolant in the wing... so, either the game thinks I damaged a fuel tank in the wing and the only fuel-leak-damage-indicator is in the fuselage, or the game thinks a hit to the wing damaged the radiator. Either way, the damage model is screwed up. Third hit (fuselage at vertical stab extension) should have blown the entire tail clean off Fourth hit (rudder? elevator?) at a minimum should have blown control surfaces off I'm fine with the damage stickers not lining up 1-to-1 with actual damage, or location thereof, but these results are so far removed from expectation and common sense that something must be broken... and the simple explanation is that the 30mm ammo just isn't lethal enough. Tack file attached. N.B: I fly in VR, not external view... I don't know how the views got screwed up, but I probably messed up the original track file in the process of duping and resetting replays in all the various viewings. Mk108isWEAK_copy.trk

Wer sich für die Herc interessiert, dem sei dieses Buch hier empfohlen: Gerade neu erschienen und sehr C-130J lastig (also passend für das kommende Modul).

I don’t know if this is related, but smoke trails in general (air show smoke/ smokewinders) seem to be very short lived atm.

Good!! You reached the conclusion we all knew, online servers do force realism settings on client side. In truth it's the other way around, it's used usually so people getting in online servers are forced, for instance, to realistic settings no matter how you have that setted up on you end. You can have take off assistance, or wake turbulence off, or endless ammo/fuel, or whatever on your end but online those settings are told by the server, not you. Some of those can be tweaked at the time you launch a mission online, most of them are coded and saved in the mission itself when you save it in ME. It's a quite useful option so many times, no matter how people forgot their settings they'll have all of them the same settings once online as it should be.

Then your path is clear. All the best.

Just a tiny bit of sharpness and a tiny bit of contrast to lift the gray haze does the trick for me. The nice thing about reshade is, that you can toggle it on and off in a split second and compare the differences. I bet if doubters would see the A/B-comparison between a good (less is more!) Reshade profile and vanilla DCS they were convinced on the spot. Of course you can easily overdo it and completely mess up the picture and hurt the performance with Reshade, too.

Fixed. We'll commit it for next update.

I know this is the wrong thread... but here are some more comparison shots of default summer textures + default trees vs. default summer textures + better trees. DEFAULT BETTER DEFAULT BETTER DEFAULT BETTER DEFAULT BETTER

I agree on the lack of weather/ air physics. I miss that, too. Would probably a performance issue right now. The criticism of the controls setup I can’t understand. Where‘s the problem in adjusting the sensivity?

Someone give this dude a sonic boom close flyby please, he is in need to feel a wake turbulence...

Seems like something had broken, will investigate. Thanks.

OK, apparently the last hotfix fixed this bug. But please keep an eye out, and if you see an AI following someone longer than it’s supposed to, give me a shout.

From ED's manual Target Aging's pointer in manual's pic seems off. ED's fault

I don't know that you have the choice. Doesn't it decide which to use based on your altitude?

Please remove this from the bug list. It was all my fault. I had double bound the zoom to both a switch and an analogue control. My apologies for the error.

In my testing A-4E-C mod v2.1.0 on DCS World 2.8.0.33006 openbeta with A-4E's Instant Actions (Caucasus or Marianas / Takeoff or Cold Start), A-4E looks a bit (perhaps 5cm or 10 cm) falling in its ground mission starting , but not so big value like 1m. One reason I can think; mod's update failed like some same named files not overwritten. How about once clean-up A-4E-C mod folder from your Mods/aircraft/ and install the latest v2.1.0 ?

I suggest that ED builds in performance logging so ED is not dependent on us, and can run a proper statistical analysis on what system+config gives what performance. Building in some regression testing would also prevent the general OB public going crazy over broken stuff.

Since looking through 35 pages admittedly is a bit much, here are two posts to share with the newcomers to the thread. See above and below. It's hard to stress how close the current missile is to irl performance, likely among some of the closes end-consumer missile simulations we have to date. This is just to underline once more, that we have zero intentions on changing the performance anymore, whatsoever.

Nobody noticed the track. Nobody knew the original posting was changed as such changes don't highlight the thread and everyone involved probably did not bother to re-read the whole thread letter by letter, but focussed on his actual reply to NLs request for a track. It's not always "this attitude on the forums here" ....

I'm going to post my youtube comment on that video here, I encourage Phantom lovers to have a stiff drink on hand So much is wrong here. This video started off ok but then took a very strange nose dive after the 6:00 mark (no pun intended). 6:20: Initial F-4's delivered to the Navy and marines did not include laser bomb guidance systems. 7:03 The F-4N upgraded variant of the B pre-dated the J 7:20 What is "operational lock on capability?" Acquiring, locking, and FIRING on a target without a human in the loop? Is this a confused misinterpretation of the VTAS system? That's my best guess at what happened here in the research phase. Or are you referring to semi-active radar guidance for missiles? In which case, that was not pioneered on the F-4J, or even the F-4 in general, it pre-dates the F-4. 5 seconds of google will clarify what SARH is, (and the pilot still needs to pull the trigger or pickle it off, folks) 7:44 No, the F-4N is a further development of the F-4B, and pre-dates the J. The S is a post-Vietnam upgrade of the J 7:50 How specifically did smokeless engine improve the reliability and aerodynamic capability? The performance of the engine was better, but not necessarily because it was smokeless. This is confusing 8:20 The F-4S did not serve in Vietnam 9:03 No. Incorrect. Iran does not operate F-4J's. They received F-4D's, followed by F-4E's and R-F4E's. They have never operated an F-4J. 10:33 Easily outmaneuvering and outshooting the MiGs after improvements to the equipment and pilot training. The initial reputation wasn't that good, and that is an important part of the history of the Phantom that directly led to the creation of TOP GUN by Dan Pederson and the rest of the bros. Would have been a nice tie-in here 10:47 What specifically about the Phantom was modular? It wasn't any more modular than other fighters, upgrades like slats and radars required substantial re-fit, it wasn't like you could just snap things on and off like lego. 11:11 From birth the F-4 Phantom was fitted with a PULSE radar, not a DOPPLER radar. It did see a doppler radar in later variants, but it absolutely did not start life with a doppler radar, this is just plain disinformation 11:28 You said meters per second but the screen shows mph 11:47 EIGHT air to air missiles total, not twelve. 4 sparrows in recessed fuselage nacelles, and 2 pairs of sidewinders on the inboard pylons. The Navy variants had launchers on the inboard pylons as well that could fit one sparrow each as well, so a total of 6 sparrows, or 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. Unless you're referring to some modern frankenjet, there is no ordnance chart of a phantom with more than 8 A2A missiles 11:58 Initial production versions of the Phantom did not have a cannon. Initial prototypes did have colt cannons, but these were removed from the design. This is what was controversial - it was a fighter that went into production and hit the fleet without a gun. There are plenty of other sources that discuss this so I won't get into it here, but the way you present it in the video is incorrect. 12:10 Which historians? 12:29 Interesting that you mention this here, but you never once mention the F-4E anywhere else in the video up until this point, especially given that was the definitive export version and the backbone of the USAF until the Eagle came along 12:41 I am going to start a drinking game where every time someone says that their jet drivers coined the term "speed is life" I take a shot, as well as "one pass, haul ass". These did not originate in the Phantom community 12:45 in truth, it was true - Phantom drivers kept their speed up to both achieve their best rate speed, and out-energy their MiG counterparts with their thrust to weight gained from the J79's. Also, at 10:33 you literally said the exact opposite statement and you don't back it up either time lmfao 13:03 I think at this point my sanity is slipping away - THE F-4 PHANTOM IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN THE PRIMARY TRAINER OF THE USAF OR NAVY 14:45 They weren't RE-designated the F-4G, the F-4G WAS the wild weasel. YGBSM! 15:23 ………. No. Just no. They retired it in 2004. Phantoms are going strong in Turkey and Greece however. I need a drink