Leaderboard

Please remember this is not a discussion thread. However the A4E inclusion in the video is a nod to a great free community mod, there is not other meaning. Thank you

From ED Facebook: - About a B-52/B-1 Pilotable: - About a AH-1W: - About VR improvement / core - About Vulkan API - About Chinnok version: - About DLSS - About the last WW2 aircraft videos - About Napalm - About PTO - About Redfor aircrafts - About Mig-29 - About Afganistan map: - About F6F Hellcat - About a A-4 module - About Supercarrier update - About C-RAM - About A-6 - About Chinook module making Meteor FB New F-4 Phantom II Soundtrack on progress. Aernes FB

"транспортники, ан-26, не рентабельно, не нужно, не вписываются в гейм плей" "Выпускаем чинук" С... я аж поперхнулся с этого. Кому надо, тот поймет.

I think we may have missed the obvious...

Misc Military Assets by Currenthill I have reorganized - see this thread for information:

You misspelled Two Weeks.

A good sign to be sure.

Someone in the Discord said to cut the video up into just the Phantom bits, so here it is, the Phantom supercut haha

Not hb, but I’ll be your huckleberry:

It seems that in DCS, the time displayed in the DED CRUS EDR subpage is calculated from the Opt Mach speed, instead of the current throttle setting. According to the -34 (page 1-328), the time should be dependent on the current consumption rate (fuel flow) and the current altitude, not the Opt Mach. I mean, it is impossible to have a time to bingo (2000lbs) of 1:55:42 with a fuel load of total 8400lbs and a fuel flow of 12300lbs per hour Some part of the modeling seems to be correct tho, as the speed in which the timer ticks down is dependent on throttle and altitude. but the base time value should not be calculated with the Opt MACH, but instead the current fuel flow. The caret in the HUD should show OPT MACH, but the time should be calculated from the current consumption, not OPT MACH.

TALON AI by RAZBAM

ED только что подтвердил, что в следующем информационном бюллетене будет рассказано о Vulkan, Supercarrier и других.

Modernized US Navy Ships by Currenthill Version 2.0.0 released - see first post Version 2.0.0 Changed SM-3 launch parameters to focus on ballistic missiles Changed SM-2MR anti super/hypersonic missile engagement performance Changed SM-6ER anti super/hypersonic missile engagement performance Changed Phalanx ammunition to MK 244 Mod 0 APDS ELC 20 mm Changed ESSM anti super/hypersonic missile engagement performance Changed RGM-84L Block II to RGM-84L Block II+ (135 nm) Changed SM-6ER to SM-6 Fixed AN/SPY-6 minor performance issues Fixed AN/SPY-1 minor performance issues Added Phalanx reloads (300 seconds) Added three loadout versions (SAM/AShM/LACM) Added SM-6 antiship version (minimum range 25 nm)

truth to be told we did not see much cockpit footage in general so it can mean anything. I am just happy that we got so much footage of it in general, but i hope it does not get the "F-15E treatment". Remember in 2022 & beyond where they teased the ever living sºit out of the F-15 and the year came & went but no F-15?

It has more to do if they were ready to be showcased in a video like this. This is an ED project.

Guys the F6F is coming! AMAZING! Probably coming in 2023, a comment under the "2023 and beyond" video that said something like "F6F in 2023, it's gonna be a fun year" received a heart by ED, so yea F6F in 2023 confirmed. I'll provide screenshots of the comment later. This is the main Thread for the F6F developement rumors, ideas, updates and news! Feel free to contribute as you wish. COOL PHOTOS OF THE HELLCAT ARE WELCOME! LET THE DISCUSSIONS BEGIN!

По словам команды ED в комментариях к видео на YouTube, они используют мод A-4, чтобы добавить больше атмосферы. Ни один модуль не находится в работе. Что касается Ла-7, то это конструкторское решение стороннего Спрут-Г. По словам Мэтта Вагнера, создателем модуля Chinook является Eagle Dynamics.

That slap in the face at the beginning, was likely the best and only way to showcase those features lol, as it's all code and not really visible.

DLSS Offers the ability to Render a lower resolution and upsampling/upscaling using the tensor cores that would other wise sit idle on your RTX2K, RTX 3K and RTX4K GPUs. Multi-threading not withstanding. As for "the other sim", in VR The Sim's DLSS 3.0 is disabled as it doesnt support VR. DLSS 3.0 inserts Fake frames to generate smoothness, but increases frame latency, which is something you dont want in VR at all. Never been happier to eat a foot burger

M5 Bo-105

Not only multicore... 2023 and beyond was made wich DLSS as the video states, so... that means that vulkan is close.... just because DLSS in only possible in DX12 or Vulkan, not in DX11. Lets hope...

Update: Module is now public so anyone can try it: https://github.com/tnnovak/Bachem-Ba349-Natter-DCS-Module Have fun! I have been working on this for some time now. Mainly is an experiment on physics modeling, autopilot theory, aerodynamics etc . Also I learned a lot about DCS development: What you people think about? Let me know if anyone is interested in trying. https://tnnvk.com/bachem-ba-349-natter-dcs-module/ Cheers, Toni Novak

Greetings! Today I'd like to share our 2022 end of year development report on the A7 Corsair, which has been extracted from our full company report which is available here A7 Corsair II for DCS World Artwork The Corsair has had a tumultuous journey! 2022 saw the completion of our complete remake of the A7 3D model, which took a significant amount of time. With the aid of Iakov, our new artist, both the external and internal models of the A7 have been completely remade from scratch as we've previously discussed. The remake started work in 2021 and was completed around Q3 in 2022. The remake is significantly more detailed than our original model, with almost all elements of the aircraft accurately modelled, including maintenance areas. Having such a detailed model delivered by Iakov meant that lots of work was required in terms of optimizing the model to extract the maximum possible performance, without compromising much detail. This is still ongoing, however most of the exterior has now been optimized, as well as large chunks of the cockpit. Work is ongoing to optimize the remainder of the cockpit so it can then be textured. Work has begun on UV mapping the exterior model and to that end we have created a dedicated Paint-Kit team, who are providing value feedback during the UV mapping process to ensure that our paint-kit is as easy to use as possible for livery artists. Work is also well underway in animating the cockpit & exterior as well as setting up clickable areas, which has been very helpful in allowing us to start testing more systems in-flight using proper procedures. Flight Modelling The A7 Flight Model has undergone extensive work this year, especially in the first half of the year, with much of that work being 'behind the scenes' so to speak. This year we've been working closely with Research in Flight, an aerospace & hydrodynamics analysis company that creates tools for aerospace engineering applications. They are the developers of Flightstream, a sophisticated numerical flow solver and one of our primary tools that we use for CFD analysis & data collection for the A7. We have been working closely with them to enhance & improve our A7 Corsair model, to the point where we have been able to supply validation studies and case tests against the real wind-tunnel data we have gathered. The A7 model has also been used to test & assist in development of new control surface analysis techniques being integrated into Flightstream, in turn also enhancing our data collection capabilities for various control surface & damage configurations. CFD Collaboration & NASA Presentation As part of our collaboration, we spent some time this year developing some internal tools to aid in the collection of CFD data; not only for the A7 but also for any model we wish to analyze. One such tool that I developed personally was a utility that facilitated the conversion of an OpenVSP model into a solution-ready FlightStream model. Without going into too much detail, what this accomplished was an extremely fast & efficient method for simple OpenVSP geometry models to be analysed in great detail in FlightStream. For us, this allows us to gather CFD data in a fraction of the time required using traditional modelling techniques. Our work was shown off at the 2022 NASA OpenVSP workshop, and we have since made the tool publicly available, where it is now being used around the world in both academic & commercial design purposes. We have even been informed the utility is being used over at Boeing! It is our hope that this simple tool will make CFD modelling more accessible to all sim developers. For further reading, you can see the presentation slides that relate to the relevant Flightstream developments here. Of course, all this only matters if it helps us to develop the A7! Although it's taken some time, these developments have been a worthy time investment. By forging a new workflow, we're able to tweak & experiment with our models in a fraction of the time to get the best results possible when testing unusual aircraft configurations. If you've worked with CFD or know alittle about it, you'll know that it is an enormously time-intensive process using conventional techniques, and almost always requires constant model tuning & tweaking to collect valid results. As we are now developing the advanced aspects of the A7 Flight Model, this has been absolutely essential when testing non-standard configurations. For example, using our workflow we've been able to run tests and collect data on virtually every control surface interaction possible, in order to assess the relative significance of unusual interactions and determine how best to model them in-sim. Some examples include interactions between the flaps & elevator at various high Angle-of-Attack configs, forces in a spin and leading to a spin, spin recovery analysis and post-stall analysis. Furthermore, this new modelling workflow has provided us with a very efficient means to study the effects of airframe damage on flight dynamics, an aspect that is often modelled with only very simple approximations due to data limitations. Not so anymore! Design & Development of Control Augmentation System (CAS) and Automatic Flight Control Systems (AFCS) In terms of Flight modelling, the latter half of 2022 has been heavily focused on designing & developing the CAS for the A7 Corsair. This has been a huge undertaking and admittedly has required a large amount of time on my part devoted to studying advanced engineering control system design principles. Although we don't have the exact equations used in the real aircraft CAS, we do fortunately have enough information on the inputs & outputs of the system to be able to reverse engineer it. This has required us to approach the situation in much the same way as the original aircraft designers, attempting to carefully craft a control system that meets the requirements of the airframe and pilots. Although work is still ongoing, we are quite pleased with how things are shaping up and are confident that with the feedback from our SME's we will be able to fine-tune the CAS to operate almost exactly as the real system would. Flying with the CAS switched on is a completely different experience than flying with it off; the airframe is incredibly difficult to control without it. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we get this right and we are dedicating an appropriate amount of time & resources to try and achieve this. The CAS is only one part of the A7's AFCS, which is used not only to enhance flight stability but also for Autopilot control of the aircraft. The AFCS is being developed in tandem with the CAS and has made significant progress in 2022. The primary Autopilot modes (HDG, ALT, ATT, Airspeed) have all been developed & implemented. We are currently in the process of refining the Yaw Stab system, which stabilizes and corrects for aircraft slip and assists in turn coordination. CAS & AFCS naturally have a strong interconnection with the control surfaces and thus required a complete rewrite of all of our control surface models. This was completed in 2022 and are controls are now working in harmony with the AFCS, respecting defined authority limits and behaviours. As a pilot you will need to be aware of & respect these limits to ensure that you are working with, and not against, the AFCS. The A7 Corsair is not a simple airframe to fly; it has extensive quirks that need to be understood and mastered for the aircraft to be flown effectively. The AFCS is a quintessential part of this; understanding & mastering it will be a key component of flying the A7 well. Other FM Developments On top of everything discussed above, this year we have been working to refine our mathematical classes & methods implemented in our codebase. Focusing on optimization, we have been spending time implementing new methods of data processing that require less computational resources to achieve the same result. An example of this is interpolation and look-up table (LUT) modelling, which is the foundation of data processing in a simulator and one of the primary methods used to implement CFD & aerodynamics data. These calculations happen thousands of times every second and have thus been a big priority for us in terms of code optimization. As discussed in the CFD section, we have developed a new workflow that has allowed us to quickly and efficiently analyze aircraft damage scenarios and the impact of damage on Flight dynamics. While still in-progress, we have been very pleased with the data we've been able to collect and are currently busy expanding the Flight Model to include damage modelling. Sound Design Although still only in the very early stages of development, work has begun on sound design for Corsair! Thanks to the collaboration from some amazing people in the community, we've been able to organise the recording of a real A7 during a maintenance engine run. This is of course an extremely rare opportunity, and we are so grateful to the good people at Tulsa Tech University for making this possible! Thanks to some collaborative efforts from 'Armorine' in our community discord (who has also been invaluable in helping us to secure certain documents. Thank you Armorine!), we were able to organise a professional field recording of the A7. The recording was carried out by Tulsa Tech's team of sound engineers & sound engineering students, with the entire engine run captured from various positions by professional grade equipment. The team even went so far as to produce an excellent master of the samples for us! In total we were given an amazing 29 high-quality aircraft samples from various mic positions, as well as 4 completed mixdown tracks. Below you can see some shots from the recording process Tulsa Tech sound engineering team, responsible for the excellent recordings provided. Images provided by Tulsa Tech & Armorine System & Weapons Development Alongside all of this, work has continued throughout the year to develop and flesh out the cockpit systems of the Corsair. Once again, we owe our thanks to 'Armorine' for assisting in helping us to acquire some missing documentation. Unfortunately, due to the nature of systems development, we don't have a wealth of flashy screenshots to show here, but I will do my best to explain the various systems under development and the state they are in. One of the biggest priorities this year has been developing the codebase & logic underlying the A7's targeting and weapon delivery systems. To this end, lots of time has been spent refining and further developing the armament control systems: developing correct pylon release cues & logic, release inhibition conditions, developing calculations for interval drops and developing the core logic that underpins the sophisticated weapons systems of the A7. The culmination of this has been the development and integration of CCIP & CCRP weapon release modes; both of which draw heavily from various sensors and targeting systems in the aircraft before making real-time calculations to determine an impact point. We are pleased to say our A7 can now accurately release unguided weapons on target, using both CCIP & CCRP methods that are unique to different weapon types. Work is ongoing to further develop both weapon release modes to include inhibition cues as well as to develop the navigational modes of weapon release, such as Bomb on Coordinates (BOC) and offset bombing modes. Navigation systems also received some development time in 2022, with the INS and tactical computer systems currently being expanded upon and developed. We have developed the aircrafts waypoint system, including storage, recall and editing of flight plan waypoints. We've also made progress integrating information from the navigation systems into other aircraft avionics; most importantly the HUD and PMDS. 2023 will see the detailing & expansion of the INS system; expanding on current modelling of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMS) and the development of the Doppler Radar, both of which feed information to the INS. We will also be working to implement mark-points, target points and other in-flight navigational systems. As a pilot flying the A7 will require careful monitoring and management via positional updates and pilot corrections; the A7 requires navigational updates to correct for INS drift, in a similar fashion to the Viggen. As we've shown throughout the year, 2022 has seen the development of most of the A7's key avionic systems in various states of completion. The Projected Map Display (PMDS) is integrated and functioning, with current work focused on integrating navigational data from the Tactical Computer, as well as integrating some of the lesser used functionalities. The RWR has been on the backburner for some time due to some limitations in documentation, however we have now obtained the necessary documents and work is now ongoing in developing the RWR fully! The aircrafts multiple radio systems are also well in development, with the primary functionality of all radios already implemented and work ongoing to implement cockpit controls, presets and other functions. The A7 Radar systems are also well in-development as we've previously showcased, with current work focused on radar targeting functionalities as well as navigational cues. As well as all the above, our current codebase is being constantly refined, expanded upon and rewritten in order to be more realistic with its flow of information. To elaborate, we are aiming to mimic the flow of data as it occurs in the real A7 avionic systems, with many avionics being dependent on other systems and prone to certain failures and accuracy limitations. For example, the tactical computer relies upon information from the Air Data Computer (ADC) as well as IMS systems in order to complete navigational and targeting calculations; any inaccuracies in data supplied from either the ADC or IMS will result in flow on errors and inaccuracies further down the avionics chain. In practical terms, this means that simple things like damage or icing to your pitot tubes can result in inaccurate data being supplied to the ADC and thus the Tactical Computer, creating targeting & instrumentation inaccuracies. We want each system to be interacting with each other as organically and realistically as possible, allowing for the accurate simulation of failures, errors and inaccuracies as they can occur throughout the aircraft. To summarise the state of systems development in the A7 Corsair: most if not all systems have been developed and integrated to at least a basic extent, with work now being focused on expanding and developing the advanced functions of each system as well as the interconnections between each system. This will happen in-tandem with the art, as more & more cockpit controls and displays become available and ready to be tied to code work; we anticipate this will be ongoing for much of 2023. What's next? We've previously discussed our 4-phase development roadmap for the A7, which roughly translates to the following 4 phases: SFM Based model Basic EFM & flight systems Advanced EFM & advanced flight/weapon/avionic systems SME testing & tuning + damage modelling We are currently approaching the tail-end of phase 3, which as expected has been the longest development phase by quite a margin. Our goal is to complete phase 3 and move into phase 4 of development at some point in 2023. We know it's been a long wait and it seems to still be forever away, but we want to say thank you for your patience and hopefully this report can give you some insight into what's been happening behind the scenes. Thanks for reading! Sincerely, Dan K. FlyingIron Simulations

Chuck's Guide to the AH-64D is finally available! *** Link: https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/ah-64d/ *** I am a few months behind schedule and I apologize to all of you for that. This project was a huge undertaking, and I still have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that I started working on it back in March of this year... 9 months ago. As they say in the business, I was stuck in scope creep hell for a while. The Apache is one of the most complex modules in DCS, but I do not think it is prohibitively difficult to learn. The page count (770) might seem daunting at first, but keep in mind that the operation of the AH-64 is overall not that complicated once you understand the basics. It's a machine of war with modern capabilities that can do many, many things in all sorts of environments. As some of you may know, the Mudspike website is shutting down. With the help of a kind and generous soul, I have found a new home at https://chucksguides.com/, which is where you will find the latest versions of my guides. The next few weeks will be a kind of "test run" to work out the kinks and see what works (or not) with the website. Expect some changes/improvements down the line, but I believe what we have now is functional enough to be useful to the community. Happy reading and Merry Christmas to all of you! Chuck

DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator, not Distressed Ship Simulator.

They are not. DMAS was used by the 3rd TFW at Clark AB in Philippines, 4th TFW at Seymore Johnson NC, 37th TFW (also numbered as 35th TFW for a short time) at George AFB CA, 52nd TFW at Spangdahlem AB Germany, the 924th TFG at Bergstrom AFB TX, 3246th Test Wing at Eglin AFB FL, 57th Fighter Weapons Wing at Nellis AFB NV, and the South Korean 17th TFW in Chongju RoK. A few were also used in various test and evaluation units as well. The main external tell for a DMAS F-4E is the antenna fit along the spine of the aircraft. The most noticeable of these are the black trapezoidal shaped antenna radome covering the LORAN-C antenna located just behind the TACAN blade antenna. In this case the wing assigned is the tell as the spine antenna fit cannot be seen. DMAS jets were never assigned to the 347th TFW at Moody AFB.

I strongly dislike threads with a hidden agenda ...

Thanks for sharing, but you have already been told it will come later in early access. thanks

yup, nineline confirmed it as ED's project, in the video discussion thread

I think this is something worth clarifying: The max gross weight of the helicopter may be 23,000lbs, but that's for non-combat flying. The normal maximum gross weight for combat is 20,260lbs. The issue is that these numbers aren't so much theoretical, they're real numbers, but they're at very specific sets of conditions, and usually benchmarks to meet a requirement dicated by the DoD. The reality is, the performance capabilities of the aircraft are futher detailed in "the book". The only number that really matters for the Apache is the OGE Maximum Gross Weight, which is easily referenced via the PERF page. Keep the weight of the helicopter in DCS under this value and you'll do fine. Wikipedia does a great job of qouting max values, but doesn't have any of the context or subtext or nuance (pick your fancy word) that comes with operating the thing.

да это вобще из области фантастики, я мечтаю о банальных вещах, чтобы БМП и грузовики пехоту научились возить, хотя бы рандомная ДМ появилась-попали в танк, у него орудие отказало или ЛД, двигатель (уже без моделирования урона по модулям, хоть рандомно бы рассчитывалось), визуал-башни отлетали, гусеницы сползали, пехота здания умела занимать, ПТРК пехотные добавили, экипаж технику покидал при повреждении, как FPS это вобще не про ED cтаким отношением к модулю(

Greek F-4E Phantoms SEA of different squadrons (notice the differences on roundel and flag) (last two photos taken in Cyprus) Gray camo Aegean Blue (last photo taken in Cyprus) Aegean Ghost

Thats my wish as well, announce Modules when they have passed all obstacles and are pretty much ready to release. That would easy down the Community a lot.

The IFF for the Phantom is the AN/APX-76, It was installed as early as 1966-7 on F-4C's and D's. It was standard on F-4E's. The AN/APX-80/81 get a bit confusing because they are either a combined AN/APX-76 and Combat Tree (AN/APX-81), or just Combat Tree on its own separate from the AN/APX-76 (AN/APX-80) Technical Order 1-F-4-753, Installation of air-to-air IFF system. Production Effectivity: All F-4E, Retrofit Effectivity: the stated F-4C's and F-4D's. At least as of 1970. Here is the TO effectivity from a 1970 F-4C-1 (which also applies to F-4D/E) And here is the line from the CNI section that directly labels it as the AN/APX-76, This btw is the exact same system as was installed and is currently implemented on the F-14 in DCS.

Что-то вы снова за всех утверждаете. Мне вот вовсе не более интересно, а куда менее. Примерно возле нуля интерес.

I understand that Mig-29 is canceled or on hold due to current events. I wonder if F/A-18A possible since most of the 3rd party module that are coming out sets in the Cold War. And there isn't any good red plane set any way to counter any modern blue aircraft. It also would help the MP scheme for a pre 1990 scenario. Currently the F-18 is difficult to balance because it has a capability that cannot be disable. JHMCS is one of them making it tricky to balance them. Also funny enough, I think when the F/A-18 was first release during EA, it was more closer to the A than C in terms of capability. With that said i would definitely go for a (down?)upgrade price like what you did with BS3 and A-10II

IL-18/20/22 Coot?

His accent is international man of mystery

Speaking of CVEs

Well, the AoA limit, lack of JHMCS and weaker engines would make it harder to win dogfight with it, and it would be on a much more even ground with older aircraft we're getting an increasing number of. I think it'd be a nice expansion to the current Hornet.

It was only a nod to that modding team, as of right now it will remain a free mod from that group. Thanks.

Für mich ist Nvidia DLSS die eigentliche Überraschung...für VR-Flieger kein zu unterschätzender Faktor für eine mögliche Verbesserung der Framerate

for "Need Evidence" I recommend read T.O. GR1F-16CJ-1 FLIGHT MANUAL HAF SERIES AIRCRAFT F-16C/D BLOCKS 50 AND 52+ year 2003 Page 1-125 Figure 1-44 FLCS Limiter Functions

I have to say I am continually mystified at what practices an entity could follow that would continually lead to releases like this. When I bought BS1 back in 2009, I noticed that the advertised "Highly accurately modeled GPS/INS system" never drifted like one would assume from the advertising. The manual said the update feature was performative only. I came right on this here forum to ask about it, and was told essentially maybe they'll add it later. 13 frickin years later, after paying for this module once more at full price and another $9.99, with the latest time the feature being 25% of the advertised feature set in explicit terms, it still doesn't work right and they don't even seem to know how or why or who or what or when it happened and somehow it got out of testing without anyone noticing. How can you not notice this? Someone had to know it, or it wasn't tested. When you fly more than 10 minutes and try to correct it literally dances back across the ring skip fakes and superman punches you directly in the face. It is literally impossible to miss. Then, when people dutifully reported the bug/s, they got the infamous "correct as is", presumably because whoever tagged the post followed whatever horrifically unreliable procedure leads to these sorts of things not getting caught in the first place (or just didn't check it at all but I repeat myself). Only after persistent lobbying was the tag dropped on 2 of the posts, with one now being confirmed (Datalink one just now doesn't say "correct as is", but remains unconfirmed). Maybe if we buy it another 3 times and they mega-advertise it we can have INS? People around here are so obsessed with tiny hatches. I just don't get it.

Snappy. I am not one of the devs but just a true Mirage nutter , with real world Mirage III experience in the last century Comparing the Mirage sight to a modern Director sight like in the FA18/F16 leaves us with the impression that pipper on means real time solution and therefore hits. I looked at the track. You did get some hits... albeit not many. Though looking at the tracking and comparing it to real world experience against a 30foot banner (Radar locked LCOS in the Mirage III) the hits you got are probably about right. Even with perfect tracking in the Squadron a score of more than 30% hits was rare. If I was assessing your "film" in the squadron (which I used to do as a weapons instructor) I would simply say your tracking needs to improve ... harsh perhaps but that would have been the reality in the squadron. In your case the pipper is moving , everytime it moves the LCOS solution is behind the game. Recall the sight solution time is probably around 1.2 X the time of flight. in other words you need the pipper on and stable for perhaps at a minimum for 1.2 seconds for the solution to be correct. Everytime the pipper moves (through minor flight control input the timer starts again. So sight handling in an LCOS sight is an art form that requires really really smooth flight control input and anticipation of pipper movement and the interplay between Range, range rate and sight solution time. The LCOS pipper can be likened to being held by two opposing rubber bands. The pilot controls the rear band with the stick, more backstick the rear band pulls the pipper backwards , reducing range the front band pulls the pipper forward, it is the pilot that has to control these forces such that the pipper moves along the "line" (primarily using roll for left right corrections and G for forward and aft corrections) and stabilizes on the target for 1.2 X the time of flight ... this is the art of sight handling. Now that deals with standard LCOS, what about the ANT function ? I only have a limited understanding of exactly what it does in the F1 through logic and reading the explanation in the F1KED manuals (where the sight is effectively always in the ANT mode when locked on). Reading this info leads me to believe that ANT just adds radar antenna position and angle rates to the firing solution. because of this the computation knows the current position of the gun reticle and the target (orange square) the system can than monitor the coincidence of both the theory being if the GYRO reticle is on the orange TD square then it is a valid solution so hits (again assuming sight solution time has been observed) should ocurr. this then allows Auto fire if selected to occur. The F1KED manual states that if coincidence is inside 15mills (and in range) then Autofire will be initiated. though to me 15mills is a huge tolerance. in the F1KED manual there is also reference to "Future prediction angles for radar distance firing at a fleeting target" Not exactly sure what that means but might result in reduced sight solution time ? This then needs discussion of gun harmonisation . The 30MM Defa rattled around a fair bit during firing. For a single DEFA the quoted dispersion was 4mills. In the Mirage III the guns are NOT point harmonised but rather harmonised in a Figure of 8 area type pattern leaning over about 30degrees to the right. Each gun axis separated by 3mills in the vertical The resultant field of fire about 7mills dispersion. This "shotgun" like harmonization to somewhat compensate for gun movement, pilot tracking quality and computational accuracy. I have no idea in the F1 as to what the harmonization pattern was, but i doubt they were point harmonized. Then there is the issue of scintillation. This is the radar tracking point moving around especially as you get close, this will result in the TD square moving around the target as the radar grabs a better return. Scintillation is a real thing and could even be seen in the FA18 circa 1985. The TD box would wander all over the target aircraft. The final point. I am unaware of to what extent in the AERGES F1 all of this has been implemented. Happy tracking

Me too. I occasionally use that other civilian sim (always VR) and found DLSS in VR to be a waste of time for me (factory overclocked 3900 and 5900X) mainly because the text on dials becomes so blurry/smeary. So not assuming it will add much (if anything to VR UNLESS Eagle Dynamics can make a better job of implementing it (no idea if this issue is limited to that other sim, or if DLSS will do this in VR generally).

I have now actually discovered that I can buy a Z690 board, which I can BIOS flash to support 13gen i5k. This is pretty cool as this means I can actually get a great board with a great feature set, for very little money. The 13gen i5 is looking mighty attractive right now, I can get the CPU+BOARD for as little as 500-550 Euros.

From what I've heard and read on this forum, the pilot should have basically all the weapon controls up front but only controls the radar in a borescope mode. Most of the navigation systems seem to be controlled from the backseat as well as primary control of the radar. The main difference between the USAF and the USN back-seaters is that the USAF back seats have full flight controls while the USN do not. Otherwise, they do pretty much the same thing. I'm sure the experts here will be able to correct or explain it better than me, but I can't think of a single two-seat fighter from this era where the back-seater served no purpose. So like it or not, planes like this will require you to talk to the WSO or RIO, that's why they are there. They do things the pilot can't because of systems limitations. I would imagine that the F-4E will require more interaction because the aircraft is older than the F-14 with older analog systems and some early digital systems. Jester isn't that hard to use though and they said that the Phantom will launch Jester 2.0 I believe it was, so it should be even better than what's currently in the Tomcat.

As I understand it, the B52 is only going to be an AI model but it will be great to see it in action particularly in the dynamic campaign along with the flyable Chinook! Wow. Also loved the look of the troops and walking ground personnel. Things are really coming along ED. Avgeek heroin!