Leaderboard

The aircraft, which is launching the AIM120, isn't rolling at the launch. The rolling begins after the launch. The stable platform is therefore given.

Would you mind providing some hard numbers other than baby’s ass? I would like to remind you that baby’s bottom is what’s smooth, and baby’s ass is where bio waste comes out.

Okay - here it is, updated to work in 2.8. I know you wont bother but do read the ReadMe, it will explain how this mod came about, how it works, what is can do and what it cant do, why certain things you might expect to work dont work and why lots of things appear in several different places, which is what is supposed to happen. I have no idea what Mods you have installed in your games but I do know that this Mod does not conflict with any of the Mods I have installed, ie the other Mods I have used in this Mod, so if you have a problem it's unlikely I can solve it for you. All this mod does is enhance a number of existing Mods created by others and make them available in one place to be used as Eye Candy. With a couple of little freebie Easter eggs thrown in with my thanks to Hawkeye who found them and created them as statics for me. It's a rather large file, sorry. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UeayP-xRuPqXIj1F8KcUTGFUrQ4dAmVt/view?usp=share_link

this. SPI is SPI, no matter how the SPI was set. the mav does not know the difference between VIS and PRE, these modes are only methods to set the SPI, has nothing to do with the mav itself. after setting the SPI, the mav will then slew to that SPI and thats it. so yes, if the mav slews to the SPI in PRE as the plane starts turning towards it, so should it in VIS the only mode you have seekerhead-limits is BORE as there you set the SPI with the mav itself using the HUD Boresight cross or the mav WPN page and if it would really be limited by seekerhead FOV, then it would even have to take into account which wingstation is used (left or right). makes absolutely no sense at all

A Spi is a Spi, so the missile should try to acquire its location once designated. how else would that feature work? "yes you can designate with the helmet, but only if it is within MAV seeker FOV and no, we dont give you any visual info in the helmet of where its limits are." really? It would make the feature obsolete and possibly risky if the missile would not try to acquire the SPI location designated by helmet in EO VIS. The pilot sees a threat off his 3/9, designates it in EO VIS and when turning towards the TD box, the missile doesnt slew there because at the time of designation the Target wasn't within the MAV seeker limits? i am not referring to PRE, i am referring to EO VIS, which can be found in the M3 under the HMCS section.

If you want to show it off then on desk, it will be prettier, especially the new RGB glass cases. If you are all function guy and don't care about aesthetics then on the floor, it will be quieter. you will need to blow out dust either way sooner or later. To clean I blow it out with compressed air outside. this probably should happen more often... My PC lives on the floor, behind the desk, on elevated podium to reduce the valid dust comments above. out of sight, out of mind (lights are usually off on that one). We just built a PC for my older one. he enjoyed picking parts and building it so he put it front and center on his side of the desk. I have a suspicion he is going to get a RGB memory kit for Christmas (and I'm going to take his 32GB kit, muhahahaha!) My Flight PC lives in a retractable shelf in a DIY "rack"

What did you expect exactly from a flight simulation that strives for realism? It's one thing to ask and that's totally fair... it's another to come to literally one of two high-fidelty combat simulation communities and then be salty when hearing what you don't want to hear. Then on top of it, act like you're entitled for the developer to develop the uneducated guess of two lines of code it would take to make the feature. If it's that easy, make the mod yourself.

@BIGNEWY Here is some more testing data. With my Varjo Aero this time too. Seems like an additional 1 ms CPU frame time happens using the latest OB compared to stable with both VR headsets. Creating the negative spikes in the GPU graph of the Aero. I have the same 1 ms CPU frame time loss on the Pimax too, although the CPU graph shows that the CPU frame time for the target frame rate of 90 fps should be sufficient, the GPU frame graph shows the loss of 1 ms. CPU graph shows it too, but is not marked as the bottle neck, but it could be too for the Pimax. So maybe it was misleading to me, that the performance drop using the Pimax came from the GPU , it might be coming from the CPU although the graph shows that the CPU frame time still should be sufficient. EDIT: In my ealier post with OB 2.8.0.32235.1 Open Beta the loss was only 0.3 ms on the CPU but about 2 ms for the GPU. Just as a heads up. Direct link to post below: EDIT2: I also attached my test mission with just an empty mission only 1 F16 over Batumi. Thats the same mission I used in my original test above. perf_test_caucasus.miz System Spcs:

Thanks for your kind words guys, the consequences of too many years jumping in and out of too many helicopters and airoplane's, falling in and out of too many landing craft, being run over by all manner of weird military vehicles whilst living in holes in the ground up to my neck in icy mud, but would I do it all again if I could - TOO DAMN RIGHT I WOULD !! The money was good and so is the pension !! Life is an adventure, got to enjoy the whole package otherwise there is no point to any of it. Had a good look at the Mod and made a start on it tonight, I had already done a little work on the update a while ago (which I had completely forgotten about !!) so it should not take too long. A day or so if its good, a bit longer if I have to sort out the textures and Liveries again. The mod will include a couple more things that are not shown in those images above, it's all eye candy of course but I use it all the time, makes the scenarios a bit more realistic.

The AIM-4D was in many ways a generation ahead of its time, it had a cooled seeker that had "semi All aspect" capabilities (in burner and at or forward of the wing line) it had the ability to be cued to the radar in some field of view off boresight, and it was pretty maneuverable. This all however was marred by several very severe drawbacks "most" of which were due to its integration with the F-4, not really the missiles fault itself. F-102/6 drivers and other jets (draken/Mirage 3) that utilized it had none of the issues that were prevalent with the Phantoms implementation of the AIM-4D. The primary issues that gave it its terrible reputation were 3 fold. First, most egregious and obvious was the 2 minute cooling time limitation combined with a 3-5 second time to actually get the missile cooled and ready to fire. This issue was actually known and the fix was on the way before the AIM-4D was deployed to vietnam, However it garnered such a terrible reputation that by the time the fix was in (2 hour cooling limit, ability to pre-cool 2 of your 4 missiles and have them ready to go for 1-2 hours instead of 2 minutes) was implemented essentially right as they were relegated to the sideline in 1968, after 1968 most AIM-4D's had the extended cooling implemented. The second issue that was also solved by the same or same series of modifications was that cooling the Falcon and not employing it, meant it had to go back to the depot (Stateside) to get refurbished. The deployed units were not able to refill the coolant bottles in the field after they were popped. This was also fixed by the same series of modifications that gave the missile 1-2 hours of cooling instead of 2 minutes. The above two issues were primarily issues of the F-4's integration of the weapon. The F-102 and 106 did not have the fire control switchology complexity that the phantom had because the Falcon was designed to be integrated with the 102/106 Fire control system. It was kinda hacked into the phantom and that's why so much of it was suboptimal and complicated in the F-4. You were essentially manually doing all the things that the 102/106's Fire Control would take care of automatically (cooling, readying, cuing, and "uncaging" the seeker). The cooling and readying also weren't an issue because the missile was carried internally so all of that was handled by the internal weapons bay systems on the 102/106. The LAU implementation on the Phantom was essentially a bodge to make it work and it did not have all the systems and integration to support the missile that the 102/106 had. Finally the third issue that was never fixed was the contact fuze. No prox fuze and no larger warhead was ever installed on the AIM-4D. There was a follow on variant of it that was cancelled in the early 70s that potentially would have fixed this, but there was no appetite for it and the AIM-9L was already in the works and was going to be better anyways at that point. It should probly be implemented, although it was out of TAC service by at least the 80s, it would be a fun if difficult system to employ if implemented properly. For my money I would want both the pre mod and the post mod versions available to play with. Theoretically it had quite a lot of capability for the time, and I'm sure in DCS it would probly do much better once people have some practice than it ever would have done in the real world.

In my opinion the current water transparency watervisibility is too high, as you can see in the screenshot below. In real-life you couldn't even see the fuselage of the ship a few feet below the water surface. I hope ED will change the transparency visibility soon, so that DCS gets another step closer to what real life looks like.

As a result of a discussion on the Hoggit sub-reddit with NineLine I am submitting this documentation for consideration by Eagle Dynamics. This document was written mostly by myself but with heavy advice and expertise being provided by Grimes whom I believe to be _the_ expert on the DCS scripting system. This document could not exist without him. It has already been reviewed by around 30 community members and endorsed by admins of the following online servers: Hoggit Enigma's Cold War Server Growling Sidewinder Flashpoint Levant Conquest DCS Task Group Warrior 473rd Squadron MMSERVERSMACK [KW]LaTaniere SK Dedicated Server DCS Singapore Through The Inferno servers Rotorheads Server DCS Academy server D3W Server (Spanish community) Airgoons server Havoc Company servers VAF Servers Grim Reapers Stoneburner Training server BSD Squadron Servers As well as the following DCS related projects: LotATC DCS:Liberation Skynet IADS DCS-gRPC OverlordBot The CTLD Project The Hound ELINT project I am posting it here so that others can read, comment and offer their support if they so desire. This document can be read at the following URL: https://gist.github.com/rurounijones/92fee4f9f2acb4fac99da9121ac1cc1f and is available in PDF format as an attachment to this post. TL;DR Below is an example of things that could be done if these proposals were implemented so comment with your support if these sound good: For example: * Allow servers to fully implement their preferred logistics systems for units, weapons and fuel. Have players handle it or have AI handle it but let players escort or attack the ground, sea or air transports. A mix of both? Why not! What about Storing inventory in targetable objectives for strategic strikes by crazy Viggen players? Whatever the servers want for their scenarios. * Fully procedurally generated objectives instead of the usual hard-coded ones in a limited pre-created set of safe locations that the mission make manually picked. * Fully procedurally generated ground forces without units in forests and untargatable or clipped into buildings * Let players build their own FARPs and roadbases and spawn there to conduct their missions, then make them destroyable so the other side can recon and then deny them. * Allow for mission flight planning using an online Webmap then generate your flight group mid-mission with waypoints and loadouts on the server. ScriptingProposal.pdf

The AIM-120 does not consistently acquire a flanking target on active, even when the missile is fully supported through the entire midcourse stage. The missile never acquires the target even though it is being provided datalink updates from the parent aircraft. 120_naq.trk 120_naq2.trk 120_naq.acmi 120_naq2.acmi

Thank you, ColinM9991! It is extremely obvious in your screenshot that something has changed. And while it does not look necessarily worse in the screenshot (I might like 2.8 even better in 2D), it is a completely different story in VR where it is so much harder to read.

Beim Netzteil vorallem wirklich Markenware, wie BeQuiet, Chieftec oder vergleichbares. Bei den günstigeren stimmen die Angaben oft nicht und die gehen in die Knie oder rauchen gar ab! Die teuren können in den Spitzen oft sogar etwas mehr ab als angegeben, da sie einfach nicht zu knapp kalkuliert sind. Beim Netzteil keinesfalls sparen, das ist vollkommen falsch denn da hängt die teure Hardware dran, die dann Schaden nehmen kann.

Also, many instructional vids don't mention it but right after you create a markpoint, press the MSEL-0 on the ICP. That will instantly make the markpoint the current steerpoint and save you some steps.

I'm a little bit confused by the "cannot reproduce" tag and the fact that we're still talking about this as if it's solely a VR and user graphics issue. It is an issue that affects VR and 2D. It is an issue with DCS in the 2.8 update, it is not an issue with any settings that users have configured that have not changed between both versions. I have already provided comparison photos taken in 2D, not VR but 2D, that show a clear difference between 2.7 & 2.8. To say it again, on my end absolutely nothing was changed in Nvidia/AMD or in-game graphics, aside from the inclusion of the new shadows setting, between my test on 2.7 & 2.8. In case it has already been forgotten, here is the comparison photo that shows a very clear difference in the weight of the text. There has been no editing of this picture other than to include the version. What incentive is there to report bugs if the evidence is just going to be ignored? At this point I cannot understand how the difference in this photo is not being recognized. The reproduction steps are 1. Take a screenshot of the MFDs in 2.7 2. Take a screenshot of the MFDs in 2.8 3. Compare the screenshots 4. Look very closely at the definition of the text.

Hi as a newbie in lua files, i spend many time to understand how to make it, but now it works. The flares are going out from the pod. https://youtu.be/JIq4uEc3qsQ

Are you sure that the view in DCS all the way back equals to the same position a human would have, including the part of the head behind the eyes plus the helmet? Also, look at some videos, the pilot does not rest his head on the headrest for most of the time.

Its clearly stated in NATOPS manual, no gear down is needed for DLC to engage. From F-14B (same for A, only different paragraph no.) NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1, 2.22.6 Direct Lift Control During landing approaches, the spoilers and horizontal stabilizers can be controlled simultaneously to provide vertical glidepath correction without changing engine power setting or angle of attack. Only the inboard spoilers are used for DLC. Before DLC can be engaged, the following conditions are required: 1. Flaps down greater than 25°. 2. Throttles less than MIL power. 3. Inboard spoilers operational. 4. Pitch B and Yaw B computer segregations operational. 5. Operable combined hydraulic pump.

Very uncalled for, GG has been one of the major drivers of getting the F-15 changed at all and he did nothing to warrant being insulted. No one making good faith arguments should be subjected to that. the F-15A launched with A-7 equivalent attack capability. https://books.google.com/books?id=wLI9AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA4217&dq=f-15+ground+equivalent+a-7&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCpojDvdP7AhXOGFkFHVYtDwQQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=f-15 ground equivalent a-7&f=false the USAF retained that capability but all light gray Eagle training was focused on pure air to air while procurement only filled air superiority squadrons. This was the right move as we saw by the great success of Eagle Squadrons in the Gulf war and Balkans conflicts. By the time the USAF was in a position to buy eagles for the strike mission technology had based the original air to ground suit by and it was desirable to build the strike Eagle. As I understand it the USAF only planned to use the Eagle’s air to ground capability in a situation where they had limited assets in theater. Given how FC3 is simplified I don’t find this a major omission.

@sifusunSo eine dann aber bitte nicht mit 500W Netzteil. Denke da mal da sollte man in Richtung 750 oder 800W gehen, und das dann ohne OC und mit einem 5600X oder 12600K.

In jedem Fall, ich habe in meinem Gaming Rig auch einen Noctua NH-D15. Aber wenn das Geld knapp ist, kann man den Kühler auch nächstes Jahr zu Ostern oder so nachkaufen und erstmal den Boxed Kühler nutzen. Der Tipp war also auf dein Budget (1.200€ inkl. GPU) bezogen. Und lieber kaufst du dir ein vernünftiges Netzteil, das 2 oder mehr PC's überlebt, als den besten Kühler am Anfang. So der Gedanke. Jein. M.2 ist in jedem Fall schneller, außer vielleicht man baut sich ein Flaschenhals über den Chipsatz, macht flasche BIOS Einstellungen und/oder kauft noch ein extrem schlechtes Modell. M.2 ist halt auch teurer. Im wesentlich reduziert diese Schnelligkeit deine Ladezeiten. Beim gaming selbst kommt es dann eher auf die anderen Komponenten an, das Meiste wird ja in den RAM geladen wenn ich mich nicht irre. Eine Möglichkeit wäre eine 512Gb M.2 sowie eine SATA SSD zu kaufen. Auf welche man dann Windows oder DCS packt, das ist dann Glaubensfrage denke ich. Das kann man dann klären wenn es soweit ist.

From Miltech's facebook page.

We understand how you are interpreting it, it would seem common sense, however we need to be sure before we commit dev time to it, for now we are looking for clarification from other sources. thanks

Even though I was not able to find the cause by 100%, I found my own conclusion. SSAA was on on my 7680x1440 setup. But I strongly doubt it was really actively working. I found older threads where it was not possible to put SSAA to 1.5x or 2.0x at high resolutions. Maybe this is a relict from that times and SSAA became active when using the reduced resolution of 5120x1440 with the new monitor. I did a lot of adjustments in the options and this was the only point where I really found a key to raise the FPS to the expected level. Now I can even raise MSAA to 4x and Clouds to high and still have more FPS. For me this topic is closed, as I´m fine like it is now. By the way, the Odyssey G9 is a great monitor and I don´t regret anything, even though I lost 1/3 of the physical field of view.

without restarting DCS like in MSFS (cause i'am tried to restart missions because of VR cable unplug)

Your threat title got me intrigued, as for me, the only times George didn't fire Hellfire's, was due to my own errors or him not having a clear LOS. So, I checked your track: On first two attempts, you have George track and lase the target and he fires his Hellfire just fine Then, a bit later, you try to have him re-engage by spamming the "consent" button, but the first few times you are outside missile constraints (small square box): At some point, a bit later, you are within missile constraints. However at this point, the target is going all over the place (and maybe your yaw inputs are a bit to rapid), so I think that prevented George from actually firing at that point. In your frustrating attempts to have him fire, you then order George to select the gun and try to have him engage (obviously still well out of the gun's max range) Then, when at ±2200m from the target, you suddenly have George WAS back to Hellfire, "consent" and he fires, while the missile leaves, you have him WAS back to gun and again back to Hellfire. Lucky for you, George is beyond human and picks up the target again and lases again, allowing for the already airborne Hellfire to pick up the laser again and hit your target just in time. Your thread title kinda suggests that something is not working (again), but I'm pretty sure, this is just another human (pilot) error mate Also, have you ever tried to engage an airborne (and defensive flying) target while operating the CP/G station? You'll know that this is extremely difficult (next to impossible). The only reason that you can do this from the PLT seat, is because George is inhumanly capable of tracking flying targets. It's actually quite realistic that George didn't manage to engage the Hind in your track file.

I think bug fixes, a little facelift, AAR Probe, 4x AIM-9, and Maverick integration is a reasonable ask for $10-15.

As one who has pointed out the effect of imaging technology versus what the eye represents- white balance and exposure aren't undercompensating for literal missing paint. The centerline isn't going to magically reappear by overexposing the image by two stops because it's been worn off. Given this is mid-cruise- the deck spends far more time looking closer to what is in those images with respect to wear than it does post-workups and fairly clean. With regards to the angle of the image- the second large image is at a higher angle relative to the deck than a pilot would be looking at it coming down the glideslope.

Hey!, Im on a role. Lets look at some low level Close air support with Artillery providing SEAD! Enjoy.

IMO this is a technical - I assume texture rendering distance, but I'm not a developer - issue, not a texture art issue. Weathering and all is fine, if it would render further away from the boat. Even when "weathered and grimy", you would still be able to see something, not a monochromatic light-grey blob. The ball is also affected in the same way. Greenish-yellowish blob. All that changes magically once you reach a certain distance from the boat. Or if you zoom in. All of a sudden everything is visible, "weathered" or not. Look at the video below. The deck markings seem to be in a similar (if not worse) worn condition as currently in the game. Now, despite this being GoPro wide-angle lens, tiny sensor footage, which also suffers from YouTube compression, you can still see features very well and can make out the deck when he rolls out into the groove. The deck appears to be a much darker grey than in-game, which gives everything a higher contrast. This is what I would like to be able to see when I am at the same distance in DCS. That's all. Preferably In VR, with affordable hardware, without having to use crutches like "zoom view".

You absolutely should never go to your grave with your body in pristine condition. Glad to hear you're on the mend.

When it's stable. Preferaby after they figure out what screwed up performance. The whole point of stable is lacking major bugs.

Been asking some aircrew, by month 2-3 the decks were quite worn like we are seeing, both the markings from all the tire skids and fluids, but also the actual anti-skid wore off and the decks got slippery. IF the tempo and time and weather allowed sometimes they'd re-apply anti-skid, and sometimes touch up markings, but not always and it again would quickly get worn/beat up/grimed over again. Add to that weather, sun position, and trying to see the deck markings could be extremely hard.

But why would the Mav not try to line up with the TD box as soon as it gets within the seekers gimbal limit? M3 manual on page 84/85 describes the workflow in detail, and nowhere does it say that the target must be within seeker FOV for a designation with the HMCS in EO VIS.

^^^ This...100%. DCS has struck an INCREDIBLE balance between eye-candy and simulation power. It absolutely needs to be optimized and it is most certainly a hardware destroyer, but it is doing so much more than the 'other' flight sims out there. "You collided with an object and caused critical damage to the aircraft."

Perhaps if you put your mic at the other side of the room you can enhance the realism?

Hi all. I've been playing DCS on Liberation Campaign for years. It seams when many units are involved in a map/mission things get very quirky with AI AWACS, ATC, and Wingman communications. Below list some key issues I have observed that have been emersion killers flying single player missions. AWACS Issues: In particular AWACS calls out every single contact on the map as a BRA instead of groups referenced to a bullseye which would simplify and reduce AWACS chatter. I don't need to know about contacts 300 miles away other have a situational awareness in reference to bullseye. I'm not sure what proper AWACS protocol is, but may give BRA if within a 100 mile radius of your plane or if asked for a bogey dope. ATC Communication: ATC should be able to give you IFR routing in poor weather or night operations. Not all planes have ILS/TACAN ability. Ideally they will give you a marshal stack information for spacing for airports that have a lot of traffic. Also, add the ability for requesting that ATC repeat the information (for both Carrier and airports). AI Wingman: when there tens to hundreds of contacts on a map/mission, wingmen will call out every ground and air contact within a 200 mile radius - they must have eagle eyes or advanced radar/avionics that are 6th generation. In these situations, they will saturate the airways until they have completed their callouts (20 minutes sometimes). Also, if you are trying to command during these wingman callout situations, they will ignore your commands (engage, rtb, etc) until they are complete. AI Wingman Joker/Bingo Fuel Settings: There is no way for you to establish or set bingo/joker fuel loadouts in the mission editor. You have no idea what their fuel situation is until they call out bingo...then 15 seconds latter they eject. Recommend a bingo/joker fuel setting is created in the editor and add AI communication about Joker & Bingo fuel conditions. Also add the ability to request fuel status in the comms menu.

Great idea. For the people who want to pretend DCS is another game entirely, let the game modification people handle it. Heatblur shouldn't waste time on frivolous unrealistic "features" when the true naval version will be worked on immediately after the land-based version as has been previously stated in this very thread. Those who know about naval Phantoms know that the changes required are more than just invisible hookups to the catapult. The Phantom has to maintain a critical angle of attack to achieve a proper flyaway attitude. The F-4E cannot extend its nose strut and therefor will have difficulty achieving flyaway attitude before hitting the water without excessive wind over deck. If you have to do excessive wind over deck you might as well put it at 190kts in the mission editor and lift off vertically. I doubt Heatblur would want to mar their reputation with unrealistic capabilities built into their modules in any case.

You guys keep comparing sims via relative eyecandy, ignoring the part where those sims are not simulating the same level or types of things that DCS is. The engine is dated, and Vulkan and MT will yield some improvements, but no matter how ''Optimus''ed they make it it will almost definitely always trail behind them in FPS because, shockingly, doing more requires more horsepower, which eats into FPS. If DCS disabled all the things that make it DCS and just focused on pretty graphics, optimised or not, it would yield comparable performance. That's kinda the point, you can't have ALL THAT, AND pretty graphics, AND maximal FPS. You have to pick two.

She is done, and too strong, lol. Not a bad thing since that means longer flight times without degradation in performance. Right now I am flying with 3/100 centering force for my trimmer and 1/100 shake. I will be doing files or parts kits on laserwing.com and GitHub. Working on more motor options to keep cost down and variety for the range of strength.

null

A few liveries for the JR Moore Tugboat, all generic so you can add anything you like to the funnels, the hull and superstructure sides are mirror images so unsuitable for adding names etc. Simply drop the file into the Liveries folder. I have included a Default livery to replace the one in the Mod, for some weird reason the default wont show up in the ME drop downs when you have other liveries, it needs the actual texture files in order to work properly. https://www.dropbox.com/s/aod9tf89vyswnn4/jr-more.zip?dl=0

There is no need to open a thread for the same topic every two weeks. Checking for older threads on the topic and using them is actually a good habit. So no need to apologize, F-2, you did it right.

Hello pilots and friends. We've been working on real time lighting and improving terrain textures, a couple of screenshots of progress:

Sorry just my experience from cold start, disregard i spoke too soon

This issue already fixed internally

Hi, I absolutely love this mod and Love the real Gripen! My favorite paint is the Gripen E 6002. I noticed that on your last release that the paint for that one changed (see pictures) and is missing some color near the speed brakes and the nose and underside color almost looks white, the real one appears more light gray. Is there anyway that could be corrected when you release your next update? Thank you so much for your passion and hard work with this mod it is very much appreciated! Keep up the great work!!