Leaderboard

Most if not all of the guys in our Discord with VR who I fly with most nights have resorted back to what they had prior to ED trying to implement OpenXR with this patch and the hotfix. All have reverted back to using the Opencomposite or SteamVR method and running with MR running if they need it. To me it seems ED haven't achieved anything yet with this OpenXR rollout except to cause confusion amongst its user base and some angst with users who were not tech savvy which wasn't helpful at all, it took a few of us quite some time trying to help others out and getting information from here to our Discord on what was working and what wasn't and getting them sorted out with a broken DCS install. I do hope ED can learn from this and any future updates to OpenXR in a future patch make it easier for the lest tech savvy to use and understand, include instructions on what to do and what it means to them and also properly test it first before rolling out a massive change like this as it obviously it wasn't tested by many beta testers with VR as the MR issue would have been picked up very quickly. OpenXR is a great change and very welcome, but we need a solid release with release notes and documentation of the changes from ED going forward.

So, @mbucchiahas worked his magic yet again, and released a wrapper for Varjo Base that effectively stops the advertisement of the headset as supporting QUAD. The upshot of this is that you can now use the new DCS native OXR, OXRTK (if you so wish), and the offset cursor in the cockpit that has plagued us for a long time is fixed. Turbo mode now appears to work if you are running OXRTK 1.2.4 so give it a try and see (YMMV). The wrapper can be found here: https://github.com/mbucchia/OpenXR-InstanceExtensionsWrapper/releases Follow the instructions exactly! And don't forget to start DCS.EXE --force_enable_VR --force_OpenXR and disable OpenComposite if you were using it previously Based on my limited testing, I am actually seeing a 2FPS increase in performance over using Open Composite. And remember, a Varjo Base update will very likely overwrite these changes, so you'll have to redo them, or preferably use a Mod Manager to apply and remove them. Enjoy, and thanks to @mbucchiafor getting this sorted in less than 48 hours!

I don't know why he even bothers helping us with all the headaches he gets from both ED and Varjo, but I am extremely grateful and happy he does. I hope he knows that.

Developing a whole second flight model is a LOT of work just to "have the option".

This update is focused on the RWR page to bring it up to speed with the 2.8.2.35759 Open Beta. > Download < P.S. If you ever wondered why the "F-14A old" and MiG-31 are marked as "buggy": both aircraft refuse to launch their missiles at maximum designed range.

Oh hey, and don't forget to set up the new Speed & Angels UI background under settings-misc-theme

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

From OnReTech Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/onretech/ Sinai map Israel aera Port Said

Why, because you were caught on facebook making up things I never said and got called out for it? Or because you try to practically dissuade any of our potential customers, who inquires about our modules, which you have done now repeatedly? Or because you keep making up accusations and false claims, because our work and/ or schedule does not fit your own wishes? We're all for criticism, open dialogue and meeting on eye-level. But repeatedly claiming falsehoods about us, bringing an almost exclusively negative attitude, not taking any constructive input by us or members of the community, refuting any disagreement by providing you facts and blowing up normal processes into exaggerated claims and accusations based on fantasies, and then playing the victim role, despite not only never having been attacked by any of us (merely disagreed with), but simply because you do not get the attention you seek with this kind of behavior and attitude, I am sorry, but we do not have to stand for. I strongly suggest that you cool off and come back with a more courteous and mature attitude, please. Thank you.

Please show me that proof. Please show me where a member of the Heatblur Team called someone an idiot. I can assure you that this never happened and that if it did that person would not be a member of our team for long. Everything has been said regarding the phoenix, specifically in the thread you were linking. We have zero intentions to change its performance anymore as it is as accurate as can be, which has been demonstrated and backed up several times. We have no influence on the issues with the AI and terminal guidance or any other limitation within DCS. We have to wait just as patiently to see missiles for 3rd parties progress in this regard. We are continuing to work on it with ED. I am not sure where these exaggerations stem from by some lately, but we neither stopped work on any outstanding remaining issues, nor on regular maintenance, nor on further evolving our products. Stating the obvious =/ calling you names or branding you in an unfavorable light, but what you are trying to do, like some others, is to force us to change the narrative and admit things, which are a) not proven or lose claims or b) impressions/ feelings (aka "I feel the phoenix should be stronger") to satisfy subjective expectations that are not in line with how the phoenix should be. How it should be? As it is, simply put. Why? Because it is more realistic. Saying that does not mean neglecting or denying the oustanding issues (like with the AI, terminal guidance, etc), which have nothing to do with its FM, performance and general behavior. If you cannot accept that it is more realistic now and as close to reality as it could possibly get, but hinges on DCS limitations, then you need to either provide proof that says otherwise or deal with it in some other form or way, sorry to put it so bluntly. The phoenix will continue to evolve, but we won't change it unless we see data even more accurate than the one we have.

Вот интересный комментарий от пилота (из ТГ): "Доброе утро ФБ! Там периодически пишут о неэффективности стрельбы с кабрирования. Дескать мимо, не попадают, в небо, и так далее. В ряде случаев в первые дни так и было. Все таки на полигонах на учебно - тренировочных полётах и учениях этот вид стрельбы не практиковался. Так, посмотрели что это, и забыли про него. Расход боеприпасов большой нужен, да и когда четыре ракеты летят, оценить попадание очень сложно. А мавиков на полигонах нет. Мы тренировались с расходом пол блока за атаку, но с расходом 40 НАР за вылет. То есть на обучение много вылетов не спланировать, вылезаем из лимита ракет на смену. А на учениях вообще неинтересно начальникам, если просто прилетят ракеты из ниоткуда, или наоборот если вертолёт атакует цель которая для них за горизонтом. Но на Украине после трех - четырёх вылетов, летчики руку набили, и теперь накрывают с расчётом плюс минус 50 метров центр элипса рассеивания. А после того как в бортовые компы вертолётов поставили программное обеспечение для расчета стрельбы с кабрирования для всех видов НАР, результаты по отклонению близки к нулю. Тяжёлые ракеты летят точнее, на них меньше влияет ветер и другие внешние условия в полете. Есть у меня индивидуумы которые за одну атаку применяют С-13 с кабрирования, потом ещё пикируют и стреляют С-8 с нового кабрирования по соседней цели. И всё ведь попадают по данным беспилотника. Жаль что тяжёлые НАРы пока не все вертолеты могут применять. Но мы работаем над этим. Так ... сентября 2 С-13 из 6 запущенных с Ми-28, попали в здание переоборудованное под склад. Взрыв получился как атомный, а наводчики о том что горело ещё сутки потом. Прямое попадание с семи (!!!) километров неуправляемой ракетой, это конечно элемент везения, но без мастерства везения не будет. Так что и с кабрирования у нас очень даже неплохо получается. Зря пишут о низкой эффективности такого способа. Он не уступает применению с горизонтального полета с двух километров, потому что и с двух км цель типа людей в окопах в посадке ты не увидишь. И все равно будешь работать тупо по координатам, как и с кабрирования. Тогда какая как разница как стрелять, если результаты сравним? Только с учётом большого количества ПЗРК у противника, при стрельбе с 2х км, вертолеты и экипажи у нас бы к моменту написания этого комментария уже закончились"

Another from Ron's twitter:

From Ron's Twitter: How good does this pilot look?!

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.

Dear AH-64D virtual pilots, Although the DCS: AH-64D was released with a rich set of features, there are certainly important features that will still be provided during the Early Access period. To help understand what is still planned and the status of each, we’ve created a roadmap to ensure clarity. As with other roadmaps, we will color-code items based on their status: Green – delivered. Blue – in development. Gray – to be developed. Our roadmap features are as follows: Auxiliary Fuel Tank / Gun Ammunition Option AGM-114L Radar-Guided Hellfire Laser Spot Tracker (LST) Improved Flight Model and Stability and Control Augmentation System (SCAS) Improvements (continuing improvements) Datalink Laser Warning Receiver FARM Reports BDA/SHOT Reports Fire Control Radar (FCR). GTM first being developed. AI Damage Model Improvements Priority and No Fire Zone Data Transfer LINK Mode ZOOM C-Scope FCR RMAP Mode FCR Air-to-Air Mode FCR Multicrew Synch TPM FCR Mode After Early Access Continued Flight Model and Flight Control System Tuning Campaign Data Transfer Cartridge Anti-Ice System Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI) Radar Jammer Selectable Pilot Patches Automatic Pedal-Input Assist Option Kind regards, Wags

The Title of the Article is Mis-Leading, Current F-15E's aren't having CFTs Removed, The article is regarding the lack of CFTs Ordered with the F-15EX's, and When All the F-15EX's are delivered, there will not be enough CFT's for all F-15Es and F-15EX's, So the F-15EX's that are replacing Aging F-15Cs would likely choose to operate without the CFTs in a Pure A2A Configuration, Leaving the CFTs and more Available A2G hardpoints for the F-15E's As the F-15EX's can use the AMBER Launcher to carry plenty of AIM120s without the A2A Stores hardpoints on the CFTs. (As the 4 A2A Hardpoints on the CFTs, there's 4 A2A Hardpoints on the main airframe), Also the CFTs Do not have the Performance Impact that would be large enough to even be considered as a reason to remove them. The Article is grasping at straws for reasons, when the main and only reason will be CFT Availability. On that note: The External Model for the F-15E likely makes the CFTs Part of the model and not removable as there is likely no wasted polygons underneath. Second Note: The Image in the Article is a stock public image taken years ago during maintenance, not of actual CFT's being removed for A2A Roles. And in the picture itself, it's actually being re-installed.

I certainly wouldn't (and didn't) declare we have no room to complain. The issue is that OpenBeta is the de facto release. My FB feeds have a few DCS VR groups and they were quickly awash with people who had no understanding of why DCS had stopped working. They just clicked on DCS, it updated and bang it didn't work. As I said, I don't know how we got here. ED announce themselves that Open Beta is best for multiplayer on their download page for new players, so the players are hardly to blame. I guess at some time there was a tipping point when multiplayer servers needed Open Beta for essential fixes and it kind of spirals from there. Critical mass is everything in multiplayer. Single player wise I would suggest most of us want the new stuff and latest updates. So OpenBeta has long been the "normal" version for most players (both multi and single player) The problem is that it renders the very purpose of a Beta and Release version somewhat moot. Something like an initial version of OpenXR is ripe for Open Beta testing. There are a myriad of headsets, APIs, third party tools plus VR can be a very subjective experience where one person's perfect settings can feel horrible to the point of physical sickness to another. It needs a wide test group. Now of course had the original patch not defaulted the change to everyone a lot of anguish would have been avoided. We are right to complain about that, I have complained about that and ED have appeared to take that on board not to repeat it. That is the purpose of post mortems of IT issues - to ensure it doesn't happen again. I feel the message has got across, time will tell. That doesn't completely take away the risk that stuff won't get broken again in Open Beta. If the Open Beta was used by people who are prepared to help develop the product by providing a degree of field testing then it would be fine but it isn't. Far from it and that in my view is where some of the problems lie. Personally I would advocate a third branch, call it Open Alpha, whatever it doesn't matter. Get stuff tested in the wider field where we have so many more variables of hardware and software configurations - before it gets to Open Beta where the majority of normal customers exist. The multiplayer "version" of DCS should in my mind be reliable and balanced and having a constant feed of new stuff doesn't fit with that. Just my two cents!

I have repeatedly tested it with the OpenXR Toolkit disabled. It consistently crashes (hangs) when loading a mission in the terrain loading part. I note that others have it hang in the menu screen. I have removed any third party hooks like openkneeboard and jetseat and it still crashes. I changed the headset to 60Hz and it hung on the menu screen for the first time. Turning off motion reprojection and it runs fine. Reverting to the opencomposite method of enabling OpenXR also works fine with motion reprojection on.

these are my results on three different options (DCS OpenXR, Opencomposite OpenXR, Vrperfkit). No Upscaling, Turbo mode on in OXRTK. Test with F18 low level free flight over Persian Gulf. i7 12700K/ 3080 12Gb/32gb RAM 3600 End result: DCS OpenXR works better PS. Now I wish Skatezilla's App was able to launch directly the DCS OpenXR option so I can use different settings for different use cases.

I have never found any advantage to using Steam.

Fully agreed. People neglect the fact that without accessible data (provided by relevant sources) there's no way such alternative flight model could be more representative than one used in other games like i.e. Hawx or WarThunder/FSX. Getting at least a dozen proper EM diagrams/PS curves are absolute must in front of developer, not to account numerous tweaks being applied as a hints from SMEs. And that is BIG IF since SMEs most probably never flew that bird with an actual ordnance.

now I got it, new version is still coming. I mixed up different threads. thx for clarification. have a nice weekend everyone & thx for this great tool zilla.

Ropucha will soon be made available for USSR, Ukraine and Yemen.

Then why are weapons on the wishlist that weren't used in the timeframe that they are modelling? Suite 4E+ only had GBU-31s, other JDAM variants were not possible, JHMCS was not implemented, SNIPER pod was not implemented, Mavericks are kind of a questionable edge case, JSOWs were not a thing in the USAF, the new UFC doesn't fit either, some other weapons on the wishlist from their Discord are also not a good fit like the GBU-39. The good reason against the CFT removal is avoiding feature creep which already seems to be heavily present in the development, we don't need yet another feature that's so highly limited in utility aside from specific circumstances, but if you're gonna use the timeline argument, you should hold Razbam accountable on that basis for all of their decisions.

I did some measurement with instant action DCS A10CII, takeoff mission, first 20 seconds recorded with Fraps, Reverb G2 60Hz, no reproj. No option triggered with OpenXR toolkit (except menu duration) DCS : no mod, OpenXR => Avg: 59.850 - Min: 58 - Max: 61 DCS : DCS 3dmigoto hunting=2, OpenXR => Avg: 59.750 - Min: 56 - Max: 61 DCS : 3dmigoto hunting=2, OpenComposite => Avg: 57.000 - Min: 53 - Max: 61 DCS : 3dmigoto hunting=2, SteamVR => Avg: 55.800 - Min: 51 - Max: 61 As my mod take ~5fps, keeping same fps with openXR would mean there is some fps margin. So I put my Helmet at 90 Hz and then DCS : no mod, OpenXR, 90 Hz => Avg: 45.050 - Min: 44 - Max: 46 Even if reprojection is not set in openXR tool for WMR, fps are capped at 45 but, as there is no reprojection, there are a lot of stuttering ! That' strange, because 60Hz is not forced at 30 if the target fps is not achieved, but it seems to be the case for 90 Hz.... But it looks like there is some potential, as soon as reprojection issue will be fixed.

It all works fine as before, including MR, if you revert to the previous methods for using OpenComposite. ie. not having a command line in the shortcut and then replacing the openvr_api.dll with the OpenComposite one https://gitlab.com/znixian/OpenOVR

Not for me it isn't. This is a shame as without it I find the image dragging, shuddering that occurs when I move my head a real deal breaker. Please fix soon. PS, OpenXR worked fine before you tried to use it natively.

It's not always possible. Once unpaused, the planes start moving, and I can't always afford to have a random factor, maybe the player needs 10 sec to trim the plane, maybe they ignore the on screen message and press spacebar a minute later. These missions require the utmost precision to work, and I can't always implement leeway. Bottom line: you'll get used to it quickly, the first 20-30 seconds are never graded anyway.

Well, this is more like the standard WW2 carrier pattern, but not for the Corsair. 1) In the Corsair you can't lower the hook before the tailwheel is down. 2) If you start your turn when abeam the LSO you end up aft of the ship and have a little straightaway before trapping. Fine in a Hellcat, but deadly in a Corsair. You start your turn on final when the forward leading edge of the left wing touches the stern of the ship, then put the left side of the nose on the middle of the ramp as it moves away from you. This is a great source with lots of insights: https://www.aviatorsdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/F4U-Corsair-Carrier-Qualification.pdf

There’s plenty of video out there of Strike eagles flying out of Lakenheath with AA fit and no CFTs. It’s been happening for months. But as mentioned that probably doesn’t apply to the timeframe of the module we’re getting. My opinion on this has changed. If units are doing it now I think it would be an interesting and valid thing to add to the module at some point later in development. But I’m not sure if the juice would be worth the squeeze for the devs, having to totally change the FM etc. Would be cool to see though.

Охотничьи байки. С таким разбросом накрыть можно только город. Тот кто приравнивает пуск с 8 км к 2 км вероятно это никогда не делал. online_video_cutt.mp4

I've just bumped the report one more time.

I know it was considered once many years ago. If you were unaware, Steel Beasts Pro is literally for tanks what DCS is for aircraft.

What did you do post launch? Cranked? Reduced speed? Went Out at activation? There are several means to increase separation whilst the missile is flying, and you can push the performance of the missile even more, if needed. I see what you mean with Creech, but 7 nm Vs a striker can still be relevant. Also, let's say their objective is close to the border or a SAM site: you can throw a missile that intercepts them as they are crossing or out of the SAM envelope, but if you have to sustain a Sparrow, this may not be feasible. I don't know if you see where I'm going. Then we can talk geometry: your example may partially prove a point in a hot scenario, but if the intercept is colder and you need to stop the target, only the Phoenix will get to the target (have a look at WEZ and LAR). As you can see, the matter is much more complex than you put it. Also, yep, the AIM-120 is a much modern missile. But, you know, to name the two we have in-game, the AIM-120B was introduced 20 years after the 54A, the C-5 was introduced 26 years later. I understand was Mr Einstein said, but time, experience, technological advancements, can't really be bent as we can do in a videogame. But I'm sure the Brits during the Battle of Britain wouldn't have minded a good stock of Meteor missiles. They would have closed the matter much sooner EDIT: actually, this is an interesting topic, especially when it comes to the geometrical aspect. I'll put something together next week, if I have time.

Сталкивался с такой же проблемой при прохождении командировки в DCS 2.5. В ручную правил миссии и вырезал лишние деревья. Есть адаптирование кампании к Dcs world 2.5 силами пользователей: Для BS3: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/files/3328007/ Не проверял мешают ли там деревья Для BS2: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/files/3311102/ Или https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/files/3308753/ Деревья тут должны быть вырезаны. А так прекрасная кампания, проходил ее ещё во времена ЧА1 в 2009. Жаль что ED не хочет сделать её официальный ремейк и дать прикоснуться к прекрасному новым пользователям.

This is extremely opinionative and YMMV much depending on your mindset for starters, but the above is really the best advise. However I understand it may not be practical because of the difference with mindsets. There's really 2 types of people (got to love that saying ) but it really is applicable here: For perfectionists Those who like their ducks in a row and won't compromise, yeah - DCS in VR is no good. I have friends with this mindset, and there is nothing wrong with it. They will throw a tonne of money to get the best equipment, and expect things working right for them. Unfortunately, the way DCS has been - no amount of $'s is going to make DCS work fine in VR - even worse on MP mission with lots of action, etc. I would not, and could not recommend DCS in VR for them (at this point in time). The problem is, compromisers will come and say stuff, but it simply won't be relevant, because perfectionists and compromisers have two different mindsets that are not compatible - they just have very different expectations. For compromisers Those who are willing to compromise to have VR will have better success. As @ddc196 mentioned - lowering expectations is the key trick. This doesn't mean frustration free, and even then, some compromisers may not find DCS good enough, depending on how much they are willing to compromise. But the fact is, the compromising mindset is really the only mindset at present that will find DCS usable in VR. If you're like me, and the joys of VR are worth compromising on, the trick is simply to lower your standards. (And sometimes lower them a bit more ) , then DCS is very playable at the moment. (I fly 2080S with shadows off though - I'm willing to compromise to that level). However, I'm aware that works for me - and I completely respect that someone else's mind may be wired differently, and that sort of compromising will grate on them. @Nomorefly - my guess is that you're in the first category. I (and others) can give you advise on how to get DCS to run smoother, and there are a number of different options out there at the moment, but it's probably pointless if you're not in the 'compromisers' group and expect to be able to look 90° sideways and see complete smoothness low to the ground in VR. The good news is that we've been told performance improvements are coming. However that's not much hope for perfectionists until it's actually here, and I fully understand. Us compromisers go "sweet - we'll compromise until then", and yeah - get impatient at time, but it's workable for us. For perfectionists - it's not, and I get that. The only advise I can really give is to accept what it is, accept that as much as you want to play DCS - unless you can join the compromisers camp and still be happy - it's probably better to focus your efforts elsewhere until ED release their actual solution, otherwise you're just going to remain frustrated. Don't let the state of DSC get you down. Just focus elsewhere until DCS is at an acceptable level.

Direct link for those that want a one-click solution: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3328454/

If you want a USAF jet that can sling HARMS get a Viper. It’s what they use to do it, and it has the HTS to do the job properly. RAZBAM are already adding stuff from across the service life of the mudhen with the USAF and that is great. There’s a lot of varied ordinance to carry, and even if you can’t be a HARM shooter there’s more than one way to nail a SAM site.

@SharpeXB Tidy list of all aircraft, each with its own checkbox and expandable sublist of liveries, no chaos, all very intuitive, just like a customizable installer. If you want it prettier and more practical, then some sort of livery manager would be a better option, something along the lines of @Exorcet's proposal. If you want the cherry on top, then it could also have a livery preview window, just like in mission editor. If you want all liveries, then click on "select all ", done, nothing confusing about it. Anyway, you've already stated several times that getting all liveries is the only option that makes sense (to you, that is). Therefore, you won't be choosing your liveries. So I'm wondering why you kept posting, telling the rest of people (the ones who, unlike you, are actually interested in choosing their liveries) what's best for them. As if it were any of your business, as if it were up to you to decide what makes sense for other people, what's "madness", " what's "too time consuming", etc. Being forced to download 30+GB of unwanted liveries (only to have to delete them afterwards) every time there's an update... that's what I call "time consuming", "madness", "absurdity", etc. and it definitely makes no sense.

Pics or it didn't happen. A random article on the internet is not a reliable source. For all we know, the article could be written by someone in this forum who was mad their thread got locked lmao.

It's not a screenshot, it's a movie, but maybe it will find a place in this topic. Polish MiG-21bis Solo Display from the 90s.

This issue is fixed, and while I understand the issue some people have with how issues are handled the truth is we are doing our best, and its not just me and BN doing it, but Testers like Flappie helping out. This thread is not for the discussion of that so I have hidden the off topic chatter and will close this one now as it is fixed.

I can confirm that I am observing the same exact xrWaitFrame() deadlock as before. This is the same issues that certain users of Pimax (not WMR) are experiencing too (and there is no motion reprojection involved there). This is not an issue specific/related to motion reprojection: this is an issue of frame loop that gets exacerbated with specific frame times. The frame loop seems to entirely skip a frame and go back to the top of the loop (which the first call appears to be xrPollEvent()). The last "good" call before that "skip" is to xrGetActionStatePose() to check for motion controller tracking. The OpenXR API is agnostic of motion reprojection. This is a bug that could happen even without it. I would look for what can go wrong between xrGetActionStatePose() and xrBeginFrame() and that may cause the code to hit the top of the loop (xrPollEvent()).

Any chance in a future update we could get a checkbox to toggle OpenXR from within the game, rather than needing a command line argument?

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

@SharpeXB Again, you seem to think that you're in a position to tell other people what's best for them... stop it. I'm already sifting through 30+GB of unwanted liveries every time there's an update, it's time consuming and absurd, which is why I started this thread and would very much like to see some sort of livery manager in DCS... or at least have the option to choose which liveries I want to download and install. I wouldn't have a problem with liveries if they didn't take up so much space, but they do (tomcat, apache, mirage f1 and mig21 are among the worst offenders), if there's something in DCS that should be optional, it's liveries. If you want to download and install all liveries, just select them all and you're done, you won't be forced to waste your time, so there won't be any problem for you. But don't force other people to do the same, I don't want to waste 30+GB (and counting) of SSD space in unwanted liveries, that's a problem for some of us and would like to see a solution. You let me worry about what's the best way for me to classify and choose my liveries, thanks.

Please get this fixed - trying to type in a coordinate makes me nauseous every time I type a 5

Nope. ED called dibs on the UH-60. Good news is the flight model, 3d and 2d will be most likely be really good. Bad is news is it's probably half a decade away...