Leaderboard

OH-58 fuel page from Polychop Discord

New pictures of La-7 development.

DCS: F-16C Viper | January 2023 Update (COMING SOON) COMING SOON What map is this? A preview of the upcoming DCS: Sinai Map. NOTE: Multi-Threading is enabled in this video, but DLSS is not (forgot to enable it). Purchase DCS: F-16C Viper from: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.co... In this DCS: F-16C Viper update, we’ll talk about the primary new features coming to our Viper: new ALR-65M radar warning receiver features, an animated tail hook, and the alternate landing gear handle. First, we’ll look at some of the new features coming to the Viper’s radar warning receiver, or RWR. Some of these items may have been introduced a bit earlier, so I’ll cover them all in this video. In the center of the RWR display can be indications for the Search and Low Altitude functions that can be enabled next to your left knee. When the S is flashing on the Search button, acquisition radars are not displayed on the RWR display. This can help declutter the scope. But, if you press the button and the S becomes steady, acquisition radars will be displayed, and an S is displayed in the center of the RWR scope. When the Altitude button is pressed and LOW is displayed on it, low altitude/short-range ground air defense systems are prioritized, and L is displayed in the center of the scope. If LOW is not displayed, then air emitters will be in priority. If both SEARCH and LOW are both enabled, then the S and L on the scope will mipple. Also please note that symbol sizes have been slightly reduced and Early Warning Radars, or EWR, are now displayed as a dish symbol on the scope. To see them, the SEARCH button will need to be enabled. New air and ground emitter visual and audio indications have also been updated. Newly detected emitters will pulsate for a few seconds between half size and full size to grab your attention. When a new airborne emitter is detected, you will hear a high frequency alert tone and when a ground emitter is first detected you will hear a lower alert tone. When you are locked by an airborne or ground-based radar in tracking mode, the scope symbol will now have a square around the emitter code. As before, if the radar is guiding a missile, there will be a flashing circle around it too. Speaking of radar-guided missiles launches… The missile launch tone is also now quite different. Rather than continue to sound if the radar is guiding a missile, it will now have a high-frequency launch alert tone of about seven beeps and then it will go silent for 15 seconds. If after 15 seconds a missile is still being radar-guided on you, the tone will repeat but at a lower tone. This pattern will continue until the radar is no longer in missile guidance mode. The target separate button now correctly separates a group of over overlapping emitters along the azimuth rather than incorrectly spreading them along heading. Only the priority emitter will be at its “true” scope location. Upon pressing the SYSTEM TEST BIT button, the RWR TEST BIT will run and display on the scope. Later, once we have a library of the pulse repetition frequency, or PRF, tones for each radar and operating mode, we will add the handoff mode that allows you to cycle the priority emitter and hear the PRF audio of it. In this next update we’ve hooked up a couple new items in the cockpit. The first is the tail hook. By setting the hook switch to the down position, the hook will be lowered. If then set to the up position, the hook will be slightly raised, but you’ll need to land and request a repair from the ground crew to fully raise it. Before you ask, we’d like to include the ground arrest system for airfields later, but there are currently no plans. I’m sure many of you will try it with the carrier though, good luck. The other cockpit item is the alternate landing gear handle, left mouse button clicking will allow the landing gear to drop using the same air pressure bottle as the tail hook. Note that the pressure is limited, and you probably cannot do both.

Misc Military Assets by Currenthill M142 HIMARS Version 1.0.0 released - see first post

Our F-4E has dive toss, this is like a pseudo CCRP mode, you have the WSO lock the main lobe clutter from the radar in the air-gnd mode (don't be fooled this is the same as boresight pretty much but the antenna doesn't move when locked and the range scale can be greater than 5 nmi) then the pilot puts the pipper on the target as accurately as possible and depresses the bomb release, this tells the computer what the slant range is and it computes the target point, then using the INS the computer figures out when to drop the bomb so it hits the target.

Это право разработчика - какую именно машину моделировать - эталонную или бракованную. Главное, чтоб сделали это максимально приближенно к реалу. Пусть только укажут паспортные данные, на которые опирались. Хотя зачем худший экземпляр моделить, не пойму.

F-16C develop by Wags RAZBAM A-29 Supe Tucano develop Update

My father's brother's cousin's nephew's college roommate knew somebody who knew somebody involved with the AHIP program in the '80s as well as some involved in TF118 back in the day. The reason for being against these additional weapons is that without any real data on employment, you're guessing as to how they were integrated into the aircraft. The documentation only covers the authorized and approved weapons loads, not fantasy or test loads. If you throw in guesswork, then anything becomes possible: you in essence have ~1600lbs to work with, which means everything up to and beyond a B61 is theoretically possible. Even if you dial it back to say, TOW, you're still trying to guess as to how such a weapon would be integrated into the MMS and fire control. FYI: they did actually employ M261 pods a couple times during TF118's deployment, but this involved removing the MMS and a severely reduced fuel load. This loadout was abandoned in short order due to the performance inhibitions (~1050lbs for the rockets + ~500lbs for the crew leaves only ~200lbs available for fuel when removing the MMS). It worked because they basically just told the weapons computer they had 38 rockets onboard (the 58D never had the AH-1E/F/AH-64's RMS). Get an appropriate variation and it's part of the suite. Most examples are from the AH-64E series, which is markedly different from the variant simulated in DCS. Alternatively, a DJP from Mitsubishi would fit, but you're going to have to give up your CMWS and flare packs for it. The testbed A model had significant issues with Stinger integration in the 80s; there's a document available on dtic.mil that's distribution A describing how they integrated it. Among the issues identified: no way to cue the seeker; no way to cage/uncage the seeker; no integration with the FCS (gross safety issues as a result); difficulty in determining lock status; and a host of other issues. Find the (open source) documentation for how the weapon is integrated to the aircraft, then make your case. If you desire to make fantasy loads available, then perhaps DCS is not the game you're looking for. ATAS on the other hand was an approved loadout for 58A/C/D models and it was also widely hated. The words described to me at one point were "yuk ATAS, what a POS!"

Very soon. I just have to tidy some stuff up and package it. And since this is the Misc Military Asset thread. As a small side project I felt the urge to make a battleworn Ukrainian BTR-4. It's equipped with the ZTM-1 30 mm autocannon, the KT-7.62 MG, the AG-17 automatic grenade launcher and two RK-2 Barrier ATGM.

We tried to separate the assets by country, Egypt and Israel have their own buildings and assets. Of course, there are same objects for both such as industrial buildings, ports, etc... When flying, I am absolutely sure that everyone will understand in whose sky and on whose territory you are) We tried to separate the assets by country, Egypt and Israel have their own buildings and assets. Of course, there are same objects for both such as industrial buildings, ports, etc... When flying, I am absolutely sure that everyone will understand in whose sky and on whose territory you are)

Chad Vader Posted 8 hours ago Hi, First, I realise this is a sim and realism is paramount and must take precedence. However i would like to ask if there is an option or ED has considered perhaps adding a special option to have this procedure carried out by the ground crew and not the pilot. This adds about 5 to 10 minutes of time onto every pre flight, as you have to wait for the mavs to warm up and in a multiplayer environment, if you lose a few airframes could add up to half an hour on to the play session, depending on efficiency. It would be great if there were a special option like this so we could start in a hot aircraft with the mavs pre boresighted and warmed up. Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion, please be civil if you disagree with the sentiment here.

Although I am fully depended on this guides to get airborne in any aircraft, I honestly think, you should take a vacation break or slow down a bit. Seriously, the amount of content updates on old guides since the Apache guide release is overwhelming. I am worried you might get burned out at some point and l can't have that happen, since I am totally depended on you work as I mentioned. Be assured as one of your patreons, I haven't stopped support during the months of making the Apache guide and won't in the future.

Будем всем самолётам моделировать производственные дефекты или только советским?)))

discussion posts removed. please info only here thank you

В английской ветке недавно пояснил. Продублирую здесь. Под форсажем имеется в виду повышение допустимой степени наддува: 1200 мм.рт.ст на форсаже и 1000 мм.рт.ст на номинале. Именно по повышенному наддуву в двигателе АШ-82Ф сделали "безлимит". Повышенная степень наддува отключается с включением второй скорости нагнетателя. Поэтому отдельная ручка форсажа не нужна, в отличие от И-16. "Взлётный режим" это и форсаж и повышенные обороты: 1200 мм.рт.ст и 2500 об/мин (на номинале 2400 об/мин). По превышению оборотов есть ограничение времени использования, поэтому ограничение имеется и у "взлётного режима".

Actually "forsazh" means overboost: 1200 mmHg vs 1000 mmHg. Overboost disables when second supercharger speed engaged and there is no time limit to use overboost with 1st speed. So there is no need to have separate forsazh handle (unlike I-16). Full WEP mode means overboost and overrev: 1200 mmHg and 2500 RPM (vs 2400 RPM at nominal). Overrev has time limit and RPM control has separate handle.

@BIGNEWY Please lock this topic... Please.. If you have one shred of decency akin to seeing someone being tortured for .... hours...days...weeks... a year. Just. (*sniff*)... Please. Put an end to it already.

You're missing the point - it's not that we don't know how or can't be bothered. It's that it doesn't work or it's almost impossible to properly align it even when using the correct procedure and it's something that no other module even has the pain of bothering with. The INS always aligns perfectly, but right now you cannot boresight the Mavs from a cold start. It's broken. Similarly for the HMS alignment in anything that tries to simulate it realistically - it doesn't work in VR, you can't keep your head perfectly still and so it's always a bit off (not to mention the parallax and the way they've made it in some modules, e.g. Apache, means it doesn't even make sense how it boresights). I'm all for going through the procedure, but if it's impossible to boresight from a cold start to an acceptable or realistic level because of issues in how the game is made, what are we even simulating?

Nobody can legally get the information required to do modern Redfor jets, especially the Flanker. ED almost got to do a MiG-29 9.12, but that fell through recently. You know, the original Fulcrum? Russia doesn't just hand this stuff out you know. As for what Heatblur should do? They should release the F-4E(when it's ready of course), get the Viggen and Tomcat out of EA, and then finish the rest of their announced modules: the Eurofighter, A-6 Intruder, and the Naval F-4. Then we can discuss what comes next. The F-111, assuming they can get the data for it, makes perfect sense given Heatblur's current and future lineup of two-seat American aircraft and with Jester 2.0, I expect we'll see plenty more two-seaters from them in the future.

On the M261 example alone, its more than just adding the external model. Think about the rocket zones, KW would normally be using just two zones for the 7 shot pods. How would you have the extra zone for the 19 shot pod modelled? I doubt there are any manuals or examples around of how that works, so would you just make it up? Hopefully that highlights how some of these things are more complicated than just sticking an extra CLSID into the lua.

Pick up gunners on the Lunar Sale video.

Fly the Mirage F1. It has similar maneuvering characteristics to the F-4 and also shares a need to carefully manage speed and AOA. In terms of avionics, the F-5 will be the best primer for you.

I'd be happy with an option to remove JHMCS alignment as well, thanks for suggesting it. Chad is only asking for an OPTION to remove it. Not that it is removed.

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

So nothing from this list has ever been implemented, or for that matter even dictated priorities. . For all we know not a single developer at ED ever looks at this forum

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so please keep it civil. Having said that, the AH-64D's FCR is like an optional external sensor pod. Removing it is simply removing a sensor option, nothing more. It would be like saying the F-16C is only iconic because of its HTS pod, and removing it somehow detracts from the aircraft in other ways aside from removing a sensor. I think that for many fans and advocates of the AH-64, its performance in Desert Storm prior to the FCR even existing, as well as its use in several conflicts in the past 20 years (such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, 98% of which was without FCR's), is what has made this aircraft iconic and legendary in its own right.

What can I say? I like to rustle jimmies. My "blablabla" comes from studying Army Aviation for quite some time, knowing more than a few people involved, and a small sliver of awareness of how these systems are intended to be applied on the field. Thus when I see a lot of discontent over the lack of systems such as the FCR, especially when it comes to a total misunderstanding of how said systems work, I'll chime in to annoy to explain the capabilities that exist even in absence of that equipment. Even in "full spectrum warfare," an AH-64D without the FCR and AGM-114L is an incredibly capable and potent weapon. It achieves this capability not by its own weaponry, but through the far more important data linking and information sharing utilities. In other words, the key capabilities that were added over a plain weapons and sensor package alone (which had been one of the intended upgrades in the late 80s). I understand it's hard to believe, but the ability to work as part of a team eclipses any individual system's capabilities. The AH-64D was built to work within that framework by integrating with a combined air, land, and sea team composed of many working parts. Within that picture, the FCR has a place, but it is still a very small part of the whole. For the record, under the US Army's original plan, only 1 out of 4 aircraft would be FCR-equipped. Perhaps it's time to write another guide...

Are you serious>?

The audio for the module is fantastic but I noticed from watching the real thing there is definetly more Bladeslap when the aircraft manouvres around especially when rolling. (see video below) Is there any chance we can have some more Bladeslap added to the sim?

CASMO has already mentioned this as well. In DCS, you can fly an APACHE without any basic flying skills and act as no trained pilot would. (@CASMO / sorry for hiding behind your authority here ). This makes it especially difficult to develop a module and to check it for correctness when it comes to things that are not known from the real aircraft. Especially not from situations you don't usually create. The same is true when creating a campaign. The really difficult and time consuming part is to anticipate things and actions that you would never think of yourself. To make matters worse, those players are often the ones who voice the most harsh criticism. But we do not want to generalize. Crowned whiners and those who can not express themselves particularly diplomatically are rather the exception. But they are hard-working writers.

Hi @6S.Duke, and happy new year to you and all IFE team members! What's boiling in the pot? The January OB update seems to be soon to be released and I'm curious about what will include for Mb-339...

A short update, here are pics of the HUD frame and support, the 'glass' is some thin transparent polycarbonate sheet but to keep it scratch free I will only install it once the HUD frame is fixed to the rig Cheers Les

Nur eine These aus eigener Erfahrung: Manchmal funktionieren Tastatureingaben nicht mehr, weil ein Joystickbuttonmakro sie blockiert. Ich hatte teilweise "schlechte" Makros erstellt, die nicht nach einmaliger Betätigung endeten, sondern in Endlosschleife den verknüpften Tastaturbefehl wiederholten. Wenn dadurch zum Beispiel ständig die Shift-Taste aktiviert ist, erkennt DCS dann die Betätigung der #-Taste als Shift + #. Kann man überprüfen, indem man bei auftretenden Problem das Multiplayer-Chatfenster aufruft oder auf dem Desktop eine Textdatei mit dem Editor öffnet. Wenn dort ständig automatisch Zeichen eingegeben werden, liegt es m.M.n. an einem Makro. Ich nutze Voiceattack und es klappt meist problemlos. Ab und zu scheint es die Audiobefehle nach einer Weile nicht mehr eindeutig zu erkennen, dann hilft es mir, das Programm kurz stoppen und wieder zu starten.

No DP, requires a dedicated 3rd party RF device, laggy, chinese privacy standards, not legally sold in the US, requires internet connection, requires 3rd party paid software to work properly, requires fiddling with developer mode functions to work properly, standard official api is flawed and half baked, only lasts for less than an hour on a full battery charge, previous gen processor+compression... Edit. I thought I had to clarify a few things. First of all it's nothing against you, sorry if I sounded that way. The thing is that I'm also in the lookout to replace my current 1st-1.5ish gen HMDs within a budget. It might just as well be the Pico 4 eventually. But at this point, there are so many inconvenients everywhere with it, including the alternatives and the path this market is taking that to wait IMO is the best course of action probably. When I put a list like that, perhaps other people will agree and will also voice out their disagreements and maybe we will even, perhaps and eventually, be heard. It boils down to the fact that currently, there is no current gen consumer grade PCVR on the market, only previous gen products like the Reverb G2 and perhaps HTCs, being sold for premium prices because --no competition.

to follow up on the issue i had that in this thread i went on to explain, im still not 100% sure exactly the file or files that got corrupt, but after i renamed the dcs saved games folder, all my issues are gone even with combined arms.

I'm a bit confused about the laser range limitations. I understand own-ship lazing having an 8nm range as simulating the laser getting weaker the further away it is, and so a weak reflection becomes visible when 8nm away from the laser source. But if the JTAC is, say, 1nm away from the target won't that laser reflection be comparitvely much stronger when viewed at 8nm than the one lased from the ownship? I. E. The laser beam and reflection's only travelling 9nm instead of 16nm? So shouldn't we be able to see JTAC designations from much further than we can see our own designations if the JTAC is closer to the target (assuming equal laser power)?

Here is a video featuring the Rafale and other Cuesta Brothers Team Mods. A few cameo appearances from SuperBug, Military Aircraft Mod, VSN -35, and some of the Chinese Aircraft and Ship Mods. Many thanks the all the Mods creators and I hope you enjoy the show.

It's the utter lack of transparency that is the most insulting. We understand you're a small team. We understand commercial pressure and you have to fix the 'big ticket' items first and pump out more modules out to bring in money. But your community is your lifeblood. The Mission Editor is the heart of that, it's the singular tool we have for pumping that lifeblood around. It's not only archaic, but it's vile to use. It's a hinderance and things that should be trivial take hours to do in it. Let alone the lack of undo/redo and multi-select / multi-edit or the broken auto-save system. I've looked at the ME code - to shoe-horn that in, is a logistical nightmare and probably a total re-write. So that is the point, instead of a pat on the head and being sent away with no clue as to when or even IF something is ever going to get done, how about coming out and saying it. 'Yes we are working on a whole new mission editor, we have more news later this year' or 'no we're not working on it this year'. If you're not ashamed of the answer, then tell us. Don't be a Frontier and keep everything vague and silent and treat us like garbage, be like RSI and tell us roadmaps, plans, let us see and hear from the devs working on this stuff. Make the community *part* of the solution. We're literally keeping you in business. We're your customers. We pay so you get to do the jobs you love. We shouldn't be treated like mushrooms. There are CRITICAL FEATURES i.e. the menu commands per unit or coalition/group in moving zone that even your Beta Testers have said have been known about and asked for, for over EIGHT YEARS. The deficiencies in the ME are obvious to everyone who has tried to use it. Why aren't these - the very tools we need to keep the interest and variety in DCS alive, more of a priority? The fact that great suggestions drop in this forum weekly, yet never even get a 'reported' or 'acknowledged' or 'working on it' tag... just means we're being treated like mushrooms. You may be working on all this - but actively withholding all that isn't about making the customers feel let down if you miss a deadline. It's about keep us engaged and knowing you're working on it. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, just tell us. We won't get 'mad' if you miss a few deadlines because you have to pull people off of something to fix something else - just *tell us*. We're all adults.

La-7 Octopus-G new develop report

LA-7 update:

Perhaps if it didn't feel like screaming into a void or shouting at clouds and had some real ED Feedback from the actual dev team, this might actually feel like it's accomplishing something. As it stands, the community engagement and interaction is sorely lacking to non-existent.

The next note about the module development is devoted to the "heart" of the La-7 aircraft - the powerful air-cooled engine ASh-82FN. This 14-cylinder radial engine makes the La-7 an extremely dangerous opponent. The basis of this technically advanced engine was the American Wright Cyclone R-1820 engine, produced in the Soviet Union under license, which has undergone many improvements and modifications, including the M-62 engine of the I-16 fighter. Thanks to the ASh-82 engine the Lavochkin design bureau continued to exist (the bureau was on the verge of closing after the overweight LaGG-3 aircraft with a weak liquid-cooled engine was discontinued). It was the engine replacement that led to the implementation of a line of magnificent aircraft from La-5 to La-11. In one modification or another, this long-lived motor is still found to this day. Of course, the engine of the La-7 aircraft deserves the proper level of both mathematical and visual modeling. The depth of visual elaboration is clearly demonstrated in the screenshots. In the game, you can open the hood to look around the engine. In turn, the mathematical model provides high accuracy of reproduction of the motor throttle and altitude performance. The bright lines on the graphs mark the results of the calculation of our engine model in forsazh (WEP) and maximum power modes. It is worth noting that the forsazh mode is activated by setting the throttle to the FWD position at the first speed of the supercharger and automatically turns off when the supercharger is switched to the second speed, which allows you to safely and efficiently operate the engine. The use of forsazh mode due to the modernization of the cooling and lubrication system is not limited in time. And the direct injection system, in addition to increasing power, increases the stability of the engine during negative overloads. At the same time, it is needed to strictly observe the regimes in terms of RPM and boost to prevent motor damage. To control the engine and propeller, the following are provided: - throttle handle (1) - propeller control lever (2) - lever for combined control of a two-speed supercharger and forsazh (3) - oil cowl flaps control lever. (4) - controls for the cowl side flaps and frontal flaps (mounted on the cockpit right side). The throttle handle, as on the I-16 aircraft, has an extra stroke zone for air throttle direct control. The composition of the fuel mixture is automatically adjusted by the altitude governor. In skillful hands, the La-7 aircraft with the ASh-82FN engine becomes an extremely effective fighter.

I'm not a fan of any of this boresight stuff, that's not the kind of realism I'm looking for primarily when playing a sim.

This is the result of the fact that a large part of people coming to DCS are looking for an arcade air equivalent of Counter Strike rather than a simulation ... Almost like wishes for hanging a set of 8 pieces of AGM-114 or 4 pieces of M134 under the OH-58D ... And probably in the topic for each module, such "flowers" are found. In the case of this topic, after the declaration from RAZBAM that there will be no option to remove the CFT, this topic should be ended. But unfortunately, every now and then someone comes who hasn't read more than the last page, maybe two... and so on...

I would also like to know if any progress has been made.

As an addendum: The target-box/square won't show when locked onto somebody with the radar in "standby". The rest of the symbology will, though. Haven't tried to shoot, as I was not in the mood of getting kicked from the server

Literally 12 pages of SME's, enthusiasts, and I believe, at least 1 person from the company that makes the module, telling you, it's not gonna happen, and yet, here you still are, trying to push for it anyway... Ya, you're right, visual impairment is a real thing. Perhaps forums aren't the right place for you.