Leaderboard

Quite. This is probably the most impacting thing in the patch for VR users and snuck in without a mention!

Would you kindly include things like that in the changelog next time? Thank you.

Dear all, we hope you had a great start into the new year. While we are largely skipping this patch, some fixes which did not get pulled from the last patch made it in, plus a hotfix for an issue not allowing the player progress in "Training Day". As always, we would kindly like to ask you for your feedback. Thank you! DCS F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations - added missing changes from previous changelog: Fixed wheel chocks appearing in wrong place after moving the aircraft and setting them again. Fixed Op Reforger Mission 5 TALDs not working for Pontiac. Updated Quickstart F-14A_IA_NTTR_Zone5 by Reflected Simulations. Fixed Quickstart Training Day stuck at checkpoint issue. Fixed Quickstart Training Day tanker TACAN.

You may forward to dev team: the game is doing 2 back-to-back xrWaitFrame() from the same thread, which causes a deadlock. nullThis condition is probably exacerbated by the frame timing of motion reprojection. Read more about xrWaitFrame() deadlocks here: OpenXR-Guide/frame_submission.md at main · KhronosGroup/OpenXR-Guide (github.com) Happy to find a more official channel to discuss. Thanks.

You guys should probably ease up on disrespecting your own members, also making misguided assumptions about matters while evidence suggest otherwise. Neither is an effective way to defend the hard work put into these modules. Some of us have been engineering aerospace systems and components for decades and know a thing or two... Why not just forward the concerns to the relative individuals and leave assumptions out of it?

WARNING : The 2015 date is mentioned as a reference to the documents used to build the authorised loadouts. No load is tied to a particular date in the DCS mission editor other than Eagle Dynamics already enforced dates. -Added AIM-9L (not on the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015-ish N/A, added because compatibility is known) for station 1,2,6,7 (as for the aim-9M) -Added 19 rocket pods (station 2,3,5,6) (not on the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015-ish N/A, added because compatibility is known), as a legacy from AV-8A and AV-8C, and day attack variants, and to roleplay british Harrier II's CRV-7 rockets. -Changed the GBU-12 500lb Paveway II loadouts according to the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015-ish N/A: -2xGBU-12 on D/ITER on cheek stations only are only allowed on stations 2/6. -2xGBU-12 on D/ITER on chin and cheek stations are not authorized. -3xGBU-12 on D/ITER are not authorized. -No loads are allowed on stations 1/7 if GBU-12 are mounted on D/ITER (double racking GBU-12s means no sidewinders!) -2xGBU-12 on D/ITER is authorized on stations 2/6 with tanks on stations 3/5 -GBU-12 mounting on stations 1/7 is not authorised according to the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015 N/A, but we let that possibility in to roleplay british Harriers (and these stations are known to accept dumb bombs, and the GBU-12 is authorised there on british Harrier II's. The loading of PWII kits is probably not authorised on 1/7 in the USMC pubs because it was not tested either due to lack of funding and/or need for it) -Changed the GBU-38 and GBU-54 500lb JDAMs loadouts according to the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015-ish N/A: -FYI : The JDAMs can only be triple racked on BRU-70 D/ITER triple racks. In DCS, only the BRU-42 ITER (non digital) rack 3D model is available. However, we simulate the use of BRU-70 to enable triple racking JDAMs, which are an important loadout for modern AV8B N/As. -2xJDAM on D/ITER is authorized on stations 3/5 only in a chin and cheek configuration (D/ITER mounting location closest to aircraft is empty) -2xJDAM and 3xJDAM on D/ITER is authorized on stations 2/6 with either inboard or outboard station full. -2xJDAM and 3xJDAM on D/ITER is authorized on stations 2/6 with tanks on stations 3/5. -Changed Fuel tanks loadouts according to the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015-ish N/A: -D/ITER authorized directly near fuel tanks -Bombs are not authorized on stations 1/7 with tanks on stations 2/6. -AIM-9 is authorized on stations 1/7 with tanks on stations 2/6. -Changed ITER 500lbs with bombs loadouts restrictions according to the USMC authorised loadouts for 2015-ish N/A: -On station 2 and 6, if the outermost cheek station of a D/ITER (BRU-42 or 70) is full, only bombs with regular fin kits (so no GBU-12) can be mounted on station 1 and 7 (meaning no sidewinder with a full triple rack)

Please disregard Bignewy's comment, he's talking nonsense. The issue is caused by the F-16C's damage model. The pilot's hitbox is defined by the entire canopy. It is the same in the F/A-18C too. Any hits to the glass cause the death of the pilot.

We will post the patch notes soon. thank you

So I've tried to write this out about 5 times now in a way that doesn't end up that technical that we have about 5 pages of math and this is attempt number six, so I figured for the sixth attempt I'd try and just dumb it down a lot. It seems to come up a lot that there has to be a 'bug' or a 'fault when a laser tracker only detects energy at a certain range that is far less then the designator can target. Lets use our beloved Apache as an example it can start to detect functional laser energy with it's TADS at 9999m, despite the fact that laser designators might be able to go 15km or even 25km etc this however seems to get people upset with the arguments being made that the laser is able to fire 15km or 25km and therefore should be detectable at the same. The simple answer is, No it should not. The reason for this is Physics, and that's why this is the sixth attempt to well write this, but it's why the topic name says people need to understand the difference between 'Designator' and 'Detector' they are not the same thing. Lets take this rather simple plot that I have here (its an example it's not meant to be 100% scientific accurate), for the purpose of this discussion this is the amount of Laser energy hitting a target from 5 (red), 10 (green), 15 (blue) km on a 'perfect' day with no changes in any atmospheric issues between the point of each laser designator What you will notice is that over distance the amount of energy at the 'spot' falls and it's not a linear fall in reality either, once this energy hits the target it gets bounced and scattered and when it gets bounced only a fraction of it does so, this energy then plays the same 'game' of loosing well Energy as it travels, and it's this energy that the 'Detector' has to look for, which should tell you something as well here.. The further the designator from the target, the less energy that reaches the detector! That is why that detector has to be sensitive as hell to be able to detect the small amounts of energy that can reach it, and because of that it has to a lot like a radar does filter out returns, it does this in a lot of ways, some are by cryogenically cooling the sensor so that it's getting the least amount of 'noise' from itself, but others by using software to calculate a noise "floor" and cutting off any returns that fall below that floor. Because of this the Laser DETECTOR is generally (ok I'd say 'always' but always is a bad term) going to be less capable then the designator in terms of range when it comes to detecting the laser SPOT (the valid amount of laser energy to guide onto) How much so? Well lets put it this way, in all the public documentation I've found on the subject including but not limited to an awesome paper by the Army Research Lab specifically on SAL (Semi Active Laser) Guidance, none of them bother publishing any tables that go beyond 10,000 meters for both eye and non eye safe mil spec lasers, why? Because anything beyond that range tends to start falling below the signal to noise ratio limits for the detectors. This information is further backed up by the public information for various SAL munitions, almost all of them have a 6nm/30,000ft range limit on their seekers. Why? because if you do the math that's 10km. And the thing is that 10km range or 9999Meter limit in the Apache or any of those guided munitions? that is literally for a 'perfect average' day, days aren't perfectly average, most days have haze and dust and all that and on those days typically your lucky if the detector gets enough energy to get a lock at Sea Level before it hits 5km. But remember, Designator SHOOTS the energy. Detector 'Spots' it. And their ranges of 'function' can be very different. ---- Edit: If you want a paper that goes into this in a LOT of depth, including how the guidance etc works that is public do a search for ARL-TR-5654 - A terminal Guidance Model for Smart Projectiles Employing a SEmi-Active Laser Seeker. It covers both the physics of the Designator, the Detector and even the impact of the Atmosphere etc all while also showing you how to do a computerised model on it.

No shadow fix? The bug has huge performance hit for some of us. Wysłane z mojego SM-G960F przy użyciu Tapatalka

For this wonderfull update

yes agreed, should have been in there. Caught me out, but I have been using openXR for a while and didnt notice the change

Hello ladies and gentlemen, The changelog for the AV8B Harrier did not made it to ED for this update, here is what it contains : DCS: AV-8B N/A by Razbam - Fixed: Fuel boost pumps switch should be on for cold start - Fixed: RPS switch should be on for cold start - Fixed: AFT EQUIP switch should be on for cold start - Fixed: Anti-Skid switch should be on for cold start - Improved: Minor adjustments to dry engine performance based on hover performance checks for 0 datum engine - Fixed: Water loaded/unloaded in mission editor sometimes not taking effect properly - LOADOUT REWORK : See the forum post - Fixed: Rocket rippling -Changed : Can now change GBUs/APKWS laser codes and rocket pods modes with engine hot Apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers, Alpha Juliet

We will restore it later when missile get new 3D, flight and guidance model.

Testing is going on right now. Most likely it wont require an update but rather just a new updater. I just tested the initial install and you are able to install with selected maps or no maps, same is going for the server install. We should be seeing it soon.

Liable that the patch notes where not submitted in time (again). If you look at the F-14 files there have been updates to them in todays patch.

"Soon" has a nice ring to it.

No need for sarcasm, Urbi's criticizes specific aspects of this Mod in a polite way and focusing on the Mod and not its author. His views are valuable to many of us, as he has shared a lot of his own work here ( https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/sort-is-date_desc/user-is-urbi/apply/ ) and has collaborated on many aircraft Mods, like the Civil Aircraft Mod .. ... So, he is not airing empty criticism like many others do. Hopefully the Mod's author will strive to improve the Mod and reduce its shortcomings.

Not sure if his mod will match your attempt at wit. His criticism is welcome and informative.

Airplane Simulation Company C-130J

Hi, hoping someone from Heatblur can clarify what FFB support there will be in the F4? The F14 is already the best supported jet in DCS for effects etc and a complete joy to fly with my brunner joystick as a result......so I am hoping that with the F4, from the same developers, we can expect similar or even better hard coded FFB effects? Looking forwards to hearing back from the team!

Got it running but trying to fly is useless. Despite my PC not being awful, I always needed to force motion reprojection to on. Without it or on automatic, even with low settings on maps (especially Syria) the outside is blurry when looking around and would give me a headache. Tried 60HZ but it hurts my eyes. Now I can only force it to auto in order to get DCS to run, and performance is bad and game unplayable for me in VR. I've been waiting for a push to give Falcon BMS a go (now it supports VR) and I think this is it.

I would love to fire it from the fitter

You can also force SteamVR back for troubleshooting. Start SteamVR->settings->Developer->click "set steamVR as OpenXR runtime" and restart the game.

For those with crashes. Disable the openXR toolkit. AND Don't set motion reprojection in Openxr-Tools for Windows Mixed Reality to "always on". (not toolkit - the app from the store) Set it to "off" or "auto".

Wow. Since open xr native applications can switch in between vr and 2d dynamically without restarting the game can you please tell us what keybinding or hot key do you use in DCS to do the switch? Thanks for openXR.

If you want to clear SAMs then you are looking for using the wrong airframe for that. The A-10 is more the type of aircraft that comes AFTER the SAM has been disabled. Of course that's if you are trying to use it a tad realistic, noone stops you from doing SEAD with your hog. But nonetheless, it's still viable as it always has been.

Devs are working on it.

Updated.

700$ ?!?! My dude, for 700$ you can't even get a sole RTX3080, much less one with a kickass 11700K, motherboard and 32GB RAM on top! JUST GET THAT RIG NAAUUU (...and worry about possible upgrades later, that's definitely worth it!)

Kannst Du "kackt ab" näher definieren ? Gehen die FPS in den Keller oder stürzt das Spiel mit irgendeiner Fehlermeldung ab ? Wenn letzteres, was ist die Fehlermeldung ? Und ja, bei sowas ist es immer sinnvoll die System Specs zu nennen.

Thank you to @Callsign JoNay for assisting in testing this. Two tomcats flying at each other. Taking a AIM54C-MK47 shot at ~60nm with the target switch settings in the following profile. 1st launch -> Target Size Switch "Normal" 2nd launch -> Target Size Switch "Small" 3rd launch -> Target Size Switch "Large" When the launched-on F14 flares, it signifies the RWR is warning of an active guided missile. When the launching F14 flares, it signifies when the TID ticker starts flashing. What we found was that the TID ticker flashed at different times directly related to the setting of the Target Size Switch. For example, when the Target Size Switch was set to "small", the TID ticker would begin flashing <15s. When the Target Size Switch was set to "large", the TID ticker would begin flashing at >20s. However, no matter the Target Size Switch setting the missile ALWAYS went active at ~7nm. This is a bit different than the AI defending ALWAYS at ~10nm which may be why some folks saw improvements in their PVP engagements over their PVE engagements. TLDR: Nothing has changed with the Target Size Switch recently. It is still non-functioning in changing the go-active distance of the missile. It only seem to affect the TID ticker. Attached the TacView of this encounter for your viewing pleasure. Tacview-20230124-202744-DCS-51st_Syria_Training_Map-48.zip.acmi

Wouldn't you wanna know... haha. Jokes aside, we'll see. I have some maintaining of released assets to release first.

Pick up gunners on the Lunar Sale video.

With the new PBR materials added to the Viggen last month it was finally time for me to rework the camouflage pattern, the decals, and also adding and changing some of the external details of the aircraft. Made with a modified version of the new templates. The liveries can be downloaded: HERE Get them while they're in stock! (97/100) Liveries included: F15 wing (152. div.) - A plain aircraft with no additional decals F10 wing (101. div.) - Same as the one above, but with the addition of the ghost decal on the tail F21 wing (211. div.) - Same as the top one, but with discolored and worn out paint F21 wing (211. div. Akktu stakki) - Same as the F15 livery but with custom nose art - IRL it's a SF37 that is painted like this Enjoy! More:

I’ve just returned to DCS after a break of a few years, attracted by all the specialist cockpit kit now available, new models like the FA/18, the promise of a dynamic campaign coming soon and what was now possible with exciting kit like the Elgato Streamdeck. I have very limited desk space in my den and I wanted to construct some sort of Hornet cockpit that I could easily and quickly set up to play and stow when I was finished. After a lot of market research I settled on the various Winwing control panel offerings. Here’s my experience for what its worth, hopefully anybody considering buying the WinWing panels may find it informative. I started off by buying the Winwing Hornet UFC panel. It took just over a week to get from China to the UK and pleasingly I wasn’t charged any customs or tax. I was very pleasantly surprised by both the quality of the kit and it’s ease of set up. I ran the SimAppPro software from Winwing, downloaded and installed the Hornet config file and the UFC just worked perfectly (although I subsequently ran into some glitches - see below). The thing looks and works just like the UFC panel in the Hornet. Although it’s made from sturdy plastic and feels pretty solid it is actually very light which is perfect for me as I wanted a light weight pit setup. Based on that experience I ordered 3 MFD units from Winwing, both the button panels and the actual displays. Again it only took just over a week for it all to arrive but this time I was charged custom fees and tax. I found setting up these units more complicated but once up and running they worked great. Again lighter than I expected but the actual displays are very crisp and clear. There are quite a few extra buttons on the MFD frames you can program with anything you want. The MFDs are bigger than the Thrustmaster Cougar MFDs. Over all I think these panels, both the UFC and the full MFD displays, are good value for money and I would recommend them. There are however a few issues that would be buyers should be aware of. First all the panels come with attachable stands but these are pretty restrictive in that only two positions are possible, neither of which met my needs, and because the panels are so light if you try pushing the buttons with them sitting in the upright position they move and/or fall over. So they work best attached to something. I didn’t want to attach them to the desk as I wanted to be able to stow them away easily so I built a lightweight thin timber sheet panel box, with a slightly inclined front panel, onto which I attached the various Winwing panels. This means I can just lift the entire structure on and off my desk in one go. This leads to my first criticism which is that the back of all the panels have a small raised area, so if you want to attach them to a flat backing surface you have only a limited grip area and attaching them to a surface is a bit tricky. I did it with a combination of velcro on the raised area and a small wooden weight bearing rail for them to sit on on the tilted front surface. The Three MFDs and the UFC require seven USB sockets so I attached a powered USB hub at the back of my panel box and only need to plug in one USB cable and a power cable to get the whole thing working. All the panels come with nice long USB cables, over a metre in length, so I needed to use cable clips to stow away all the various cables neatly at the back of my panel box. However you cannot install the occasional firmware updates via a USB hub, so when the a firmware update becomes available I will need to pull each panel off the velcro to attach it directly via a USB cable to my PC. A bit of a pain. . The display panels for the MFDs need to be arranged in the Windows display setup in portrait mode underneath the main monitor. Unfortunately because I am regularly detaching the MFDs from my PC I found that Windows kept resetting the position and orientation of the three MFD displays meaning I had to rearrange them each time. I could not find a way to force Windows to remember the MFD display orientations but I found an easy solution in the app Displayfusion, which you can use to set the position of the displays properly then save it as a configuration that can be invoked though a key combination (which I have set up as a Streamdeck button). I still have a weird glitch where one of the MFD displays keeps showing the Windows task bar but I just set the Task Bar to autohide and that solves that. The final problem I had was caused by fact that I was the using the HUD only view a lot more because I don’t need to see the cockpit instruments most of the time as I have the hardware panels. However I found for some reason this view interrupts the instrument feed to the Winwing UFC panel so the instrument display would freeze and the unit would become unresponsive. Going back to the default cockpit view, with the UFC visible on the main screen, reestablishes the connection and solves this problem. To sum up. Very pleased with this Winwing kit, I’ve finally got a DSC cockpit that’s easy to move in and out of position and it makes flying a real pleasure. Here's a couple of photos. One shows the back of my instrument panel with all the cable management and the USB hub. The other shows the instrument panel in place and in use

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.

ED added native support for OpenXR (not documented) You may need to update SteamVR to to be your default runtime to use SteamVR. Under settings, Developer - Set SteamVR as OpenXR runtime.

just bare in mind options.graphics.stereo_mode_use_shared_parser = true is very w.i.p and possibly obsolete in future versions I can assure you the viper is more vulnerable, but no worries, you do you.

Да был багтакой, поправили.

Hallo liebe Leutz, so, da meine kleine Hundebirne sich gedacht hat "Komm, was soll's!", habe ich alles noch einmal in Ruhe de- und wieder installiert. Ich stehe ja noch ganz am Anfang meiner erfolglosen Laufbahn und hatte weder wichtige Missionen, Einstellungen noch überhaupt irgendwelche sinnvollen Dinge gespeichert. Bis auf den Zeitaufwand, den ich mit Gassigehen überbrückt habe, war also nix Verlustreiches zu melden. Und nun sind alle Funktionen, die ich vermisst habe, so, wie sie sein sollen!!! Der größte Fehler sitzt bekanntlich meistens vor dem PC, und ich will mich da nicht ausschließen - wie schnell hat man in der anfänglichen Euphorie tatsächlich was falsch gemacht, ohne sich später daran erinnern zu können. Damit an dieser Stelle einen Riesendank an alle, die sich hier eingebracht haben und mir so motiviert mit dem Start in die DCS-Welt geholfen haben - sorry, wenn ich Euch mit Problemen konfrontiert habe, die wahrscheinlich gar nicht existiert haben.... ich fühle mich hier gut aufgehoben und bin gespannt, womit ich Euch demnächst nerven kann ....

Please, don't quote any videos from that channel for information. From what I see, he just takes scraps of publicly available information, adds lots of sensationalism and conjecture into it to collect clicks out of low effort content. He quotes no sources for the claims either. Fragger himself denied it being on hold on Miltech-5 discord after seeing that video. Are things rosy for Bo-105? No. Looks like coder who was supposed to work on it isn't available anymore, and they're looking for a new one together with razbam, and Fragger is continuing the 3d work. So the project is in a difficult spot alright, but it is ongoing anyway. But that channel ain't the place to look for reliable information, at all.

A low quality asset is better than none at all.

So I am going to jump in the front seat for Raptor as his gunner, I am sure we will be shot down in a ball of flames in no time Bug Tracking A long time ago Kate mentioned the idea of a public track, we looked at it, we examined it and we decided against it. When she first talked about it I thought, well that could be a good thing. No more bug reports on the forum, all of them entered into the bug track directly... Then I look at the forum, and for every good report there are two incomplete reports. The devs are even more critical about how a bug is reported than we are. Me, Scott, Raptor and others take a lot of reports and make the work for the dev team. Then I thought, well ok, we still report them, but users can see them. Well no, some bugs are deemed lo priority, some take longer to fix, some take discussion before being addressed some take research to be done. Would that help or hurt to see all the communication. Some would love it, some would hate it. Well then, maybe they just see the bug reported and status... Well sure, that works for bugs that are fixed right away, for other, well... its just another thing to be frustrated about when it sits there for a long period of time without action. Well what does that leave us. The forums. So we try and do better and mark things fixed when they get fixed. Internally we are marking things as user reports and a link to the thread in hopes to help this, but its still far from perfect. We are trying. A tracker just doesn't make sense for us right now, we do not have the manpower to support it, we it would just be another source of aggravation for those waiting for a fix important to them. Maybe one day it will make more sense or we will be staffed to be able to support it, right now no. The forums makes the most sense, and me and the team doing a better job to update posts as well. Not an answer most will want or accept, but it is the answer now. Opinions aside, that is how it will be for now. People Frustrations I would love one day to come on the forums or Discord or wherever and have 0 people frustrated. As you pointed out, other games have the same issues, or similar. I do not agree that DCS World is worse, maybe you do not see us as better, but I do not see us as worse, for whatever that is worth. As far as ignoring posts, we really do not go out of our way to ignore posts. We may triage the bug forums trying to tackle the most critical and important that we feel need addressed right away, and because of this some may slip through the cracks. We do not ignore reports though even if it takes us time to get back to them we generally try and get back to them. If people make reports missing info, incomplete reports, etc, those might be skipped over with a simple missing info tag and reply. I randomly picked one of yours and I can see how you might be frustrated: Playing devils advocate had you included a track with your initial report it might not have slipped through the cracks as it seemingly has now. This is not an excuse for us to have not gotten back to it, but I want to show you that making a proper report can get things looked at faster. As a side note about a bug tracker that users were involved in, this could be the same issue there. So in conclusion, yes we can do better relating information back to the forums about fixes and the status of bugs. You also have to consider the size of the task, and how you may be focused on a handful of bugs, we are juggling hundreds each personally, and then the Devs and management are making a plan based on that. If you think DCS is worse than other games, its the sheer complexity of the game that probably makes these seemingly simple tasks seem so slow and unresponsive.

I have uploaded a few updates as follows (see first post for links to downloads): Tu-214R v1.2.0123: Fixed a bug preventing proper display of 64514 livery and aircraft configuration. O-2A Skymaster v1.1.0123 - bug fixes, added texture and model details, new livery, gunsight, SUU-11/A minigun pod, and more

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.