Leaderboard

2 Versions are done on the 3D/Texturing side (PAH1A1 / VBH) HKP External Texturing / Modeling is done -> I am currently on the Cockpit. The KLH (South Korean) will be made as an AI Aircraft due to the Lack of infos. The search for a coder replacemnt is currently on the way.

Aviastorm Tornado https://discord.com/channels/1020277498363269120/1020303137145368627/1069301035472003092

From Polychop Discord

@BIGNEWY more information for the dev team regarding the remaining lock-up due to the frame loop deadlock. After some more investigation, I believe the condition happens if and only if the frame predicted display times (xrFrameState.predictedDisplayTime) does not increment monotonically: As seen above, the last value for predictedDisplayTime returned before the lock-up is 3,081,690,700,100, which is smaller than the previous frame predictedDisplayTime of 3,081,701,810,000. This seems to cause the game's frame loop to entirely skip the frame, without calling xrBeginFrame() (which is illegal and causes the deadlock). Now I have to admit, this is a little bit weird, because per The OpenXR Specification (khronos.org): I am thinking that because the loading screens in the game are skipping many many frames, this is confusing the motion reprojection logic. That's not OK and I will make a report to fix this in the next release of our runtime. Meanwhile, I believe if the game engine made sure to always invoke xrBeginFrame() for each xrWaitFrame(), regardless of the predictedDisplayTime, this will make the engine more robust to these situations. Perhaps better, always use corrected_predictedDisplayTime = max(current_predictedDisplayTime, last_predictedDisplayTime + 1) to even avoid skipping a frame and ask the platform to perform the necessary frame reprojection. I believe if the dev team implements either one of these measures, the lock-up issues will be resolved. For OpenXR Toolkit users, I believe this is the same issue that they are seeing with Turbo Mode. To be clear, there are 3 bugs here, one in the game engine frame loop, one in the WMR OpenXR runtime, and one in OpenXR Toolkit. Oops!

Dear ED, current status of AIM-120B/C5s is ridiculous, what is your plan / schedule with this weapon? About year ago, you promised us whitepaper, where you explain lot of things and roadmap of their developement as well. Where is it? This ridiculous / sad state of AMRAAMs is here for more than year. Where is the problem? I am not gonna send you tracks, you have to have thousands of tracks right now, that should be plenty of tracks to make things happen and do something with state of these weapons. Thanks for understanding, your beloved customer.

Thanks! Yes, russian & european police cars are on the to-do list. I also have an european firetruck and a couple of more modern ambulances for the US and EU. Aswell as a few more surprises

This chart is the famous one from a Northrop sales symposium for promoting F-20s in Asia. It's made to convince buyers that the Mirage 2000 is an inferior aircraft as a competitor. Besides this, the Mirage 2000 performances are not publicly available. You won't have answers here. There is no real point to this new thread since the other one has been closed. @myHelljumper?

RAZBAM has already said they wont be removable, I dont see another topic being created as being helpful it has been debated a lot already thanks

The BLU-97 submunition, present in the CBU-87, CBU-103 and AGM-154A, underperforms in DCS. The BLU-97 is supposed to be a combined effects munition which is able to have effect on air defense radars, armor, artillery, and personnel. Basically it has 3 effects. (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-97.htm) Anti-armor effect, due to shaped charge able to defeat the top armor of any known tank (edit 1993 document ) (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA264233.pdf) or 7"/200mm in other pubs linked below. Fragmentation effect, 300 pieces of shrapnel able to penetrate 6 mm steel at 20meters (https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/publications/A-Guide-to-Cluster-Munitions.pdf) Incendiary effect, due to the zirconium ring. As it stands the 4x CBU-87 (808x BLU-97) are not able to defeat a single T-72 in a small cluster, as the included trackfile demonstrates. Further reading: http://googlebordello.crushhumanity.org/projectdoomsday/blu97.html https://bulletpicker.com/bomb_-heat_-blu-97_b_-blu-97a_.html https://tinyurl.com/3h4k2mtu Test-BLU-97-T72.trk

The FM is based on data and SME feedback, some data we can share, some we can't. What we were able to share is: - The dead engine landing procedure, which gives the best glide speed and AoA as well as induced drag at this AoA. These are very useful information as they remove the engine from the equation. - The break landing procedure, being done from 350 kt to 200 kt at 2G, it gives a good drag information with minimal engine input as it is done idle. The last turn also gives a lot of information on the lift of the wing, as it is done at high AoA and AoB (14° AoA, 40° AoB). The AoA induced by the AoB is critical here and is based on videos. - Engine performance were based on a research paper on the M53 and M88 engine, we determined that the thrust curves on the document were in perfect condition and not accounting for limiting factor of the airframe so we are under-performing compared to them. - Engine thrust based on VTH Jx. - Flight domain performance based on videos and pictures. All of the above have been tested and discussed with SMEs and adjusted where needed. I should be able to post the sources for the research paper and post the break and dead engine procedure if you want to test them. One last note, the current STR of the aircraft is lower than the old FM (pre-engine update). The Mirage wing and lift devices create a very flat STR curves (like most delta wing aircraft) which makes the aircraft very good for dogfights.

Pretty sure SME's can corroborate, this is an accurate representation of F-14 pilots. I don't see the problem here.

What is the point of this useless poll? Not going to have any effect on the module as Razbam have stated no. Lot of threads giving opinions on this so this serves no purpose.

Maybe OP should have a read through the previous X amount of threads regarding this request to see the current opinion of the community and ED on this subject.

Скоро будет много потоков.

Which SSA version? All FC3 aircrafts? Which SSA version? Yeah, some WW2 planes do not have good hit effects. It's a lot of work for me to identify all 3d model arguments which may reflect damage. DCS does not provide a simple interface to get "noticed" if one is hit... Which effect do you miss in your WW2 plane? New Mirage will be added soon... Could you show me the log output of SSA when you fire? In general I'm still on the road but will start to work on the above mentions things soon...

Не, я подожду еще пару лет с G2. Этот бесконечный поток денег ради мизерных изменений в VR уже надоел.

I do care, but Speed & Angels is my only post-1989 campaign. Most of them are WW2. And timeframe accuracy is by far more important than anything else. In my book. My campaigns are meant to be like virtual, first person documentaries, I take pride in getting all the little details right through thorough research. That's how I work. Everyone else is free to do whatever they prefer, though.

That’s one more than any other campaign maker so not sure why you’re knocking on my door with this. btw I’d love to, but all my other campaigns are set in times when there were simply no female pilots. So I try to use female voice actors for ground control or atc where possible.

We don't develop models from "popular belief/knowledge about the mirage and delta wings in general", but trustable sources. And I know, there is a "self sustained DCS community myth about delta wings" that comes from nowhere but is highly persistent. What you report about your personal MP experience is likely very biased by the respective player skills. It does not reflect the statistics of top level dogfight tournament rankings, where the 2000 is present and competitive, but not at all ruling them all. I invite you to check what these top tournaments are, and their best players, and results. Besides this, we don't model anything with competitive and balancing ideas in mind. Only sources about the aircraft.

Please ED, make adjustable detents for cutoff/idle and afterburner in axis controls like in BMS Falcon for example. Thank you!

After finishing sortie 5 and receiving my first unsatisfactory grade I thought I'd spend five minutes explaining how I got here and how maybe you can avoid my same mistakes. It goes without saying the Reflected and Paco have created a unique and phenomenal experience for DCS. Unlike anything that has come before. I have never concentrated or worked so hard simply to fly in formation and Nellis has never felt so alive. Ever since watching the preview mission by Red kite I have been dreading the air 2 ground syllabus. I even created a target range to try and practice low pops in anticipation, but last night the time came and i was all in. Now, my mentality going into this was that the LGB element was where I shine. Unlike manual drops I have hundreds of laser guided drops under my belt. As such, while I read the brief for the other elements three times in detail before flying I skimmed the LGB part. I did a quick check on height and speed and yadda yadda the rest.... you can see what's coming can't you.... Fast forward to over the range. Paco calls abeam and I start my climbing turn. For some reason I realise I'm 1,000ft too low, i'm slow and my circuit is too close. OK, no worries, a little extra power and straighten up. No, wait I turned too far and didn't climb, now I'm too far away, still too low and now I'm too fast.... bugger, bugger bugger, yep, no, I'm fine I can still make this. Paco called 'hot' and now my brain is swimming. Is he is in hot? Is he saying I need to turn in hot? Time seems to be speeding up. Wait, no! Stop!!! Crap now I'm at the wrong altitude, speed, distance. Everything is unravelling unravelling and unravelling fast, do something! Anything! I'm really behind the aircraft now but let's do something. Its a 50/50 so lets assume he is calling me in, I can still do this. Let's roll in! Oh crap! Now I'm approaching the target at a really poor angle, about 60 degrees off from the agreed, why did i turn so soon? My RIO is trying to talk me on and only 10 seconds to drop. Ok, get lined up and just focus on getting the bomb on target. Somehow through all of this i have dropped in the turn and am now below the agreed release height but at least I'm lined up so while I'm fast, low, lined up wrong and completely out of position.......pickle. The pull off went fine, so at least that went ok and the bomb hit the target. Time is starting to slow back to normal and back with the aircraft. Can you see where I went wrong? Unsurprisingly I was scored unsatisfactory. I reflew it immediately with an understanding of what i was meant to do and got an average. Given the circumstances i'll happily take it! More importantly I have learnt an obvious lesson and hopefully you can learn from it and not make the same mistakes I did. So using Bio's debrief system what are the good and others? In the good column I hit the target, didn't die and it was a good teaching opportunity. In the others column I was unsafe, potentially put people on the ground at risk. I was unable to hit the numbers and became task saturated, screwed up the wagon wheel and put my wingman at risk. All in all I crapped out. The lessons I have learnt are. 1, always read the brief. Even for the bits you think you know inside out. Just because you have done something in dcs countless times doesn't mean you know how to do it properly. Make sure you know what you are doing before you do it. Don't wing it. 2, task saturation sneaks up really quickly and it's amazing how quickly a couple of small things can build up and how it affects your ability to listen and make decisions. Knowing what you have to do before you start helps you with this. Be more aggressive on hitting the numbers early to give yourself time to ease into the rest. 3, know when your behind. It's really hard to catch back up when it starts going wrong, but it's dead easy to make it worse. Thanks again to Reflected and Paco! Now comes air to air and something tells me that despite flying the Zone 5 campaign multiple times I'm going to take this hop and the associated brief a little more seriously.

It would be nice to have something come from bug reports. I don't mind bugs and problems in early access, that's to be expected. What I do mind is being treated that way when I take the time out of my day, and the days of other people who help me make those multiplayer related bug reports, reproducing them and posting them here with detailed steps on how to reproduce them and uploading tracks. And after all that, nothing is done, no acknowledgement is given, no communication, no updates, just nothing at all. Those people I do those bug reports with feel increasingly frustrated and more unwilling to do it, because they get the feeling that nothing comes of it. And if they get that feeling then something is wrong because either a) Really nothing comes of it, or b) That something comes of it, but it isn't communicated properly and both of those things are issues that should be fixed. I don't know which it is, so I will assume the latter to give the benefit of the doubt. I have posted well over at least 50 bug reports, some recent, some a long time ago, and recently just a single reply from the forum- or DCS staff. I have paid a lot of money, I am taking my time to report bugs, because I want the module to be as good as it can be, and I get ignored. I feel like I'm wasting my time, working for you, for free. I admit that a good portion of those are minor details, not important or often used, but as a big fan I want every detail to be accurate and working. Other bugs are indeed more concerning and relevant to major elements of the aircraft. Some are duplicates, but that can't be helped if a forum is used to keep track of bugs and people using different words to describe things so it can't always be found via search. Furthermore, once a thread had been looked over and marked as "Needs track replay", "needs more information", or "Investigating", it seems like no one every checks on it after a track or more information has been provided ever again. No updates are being made from "reported", if it ever gets to that, to "fixed", except for a select few, very major bugs. On one occasion I was reporting a bug, with video evidence of it, showing it and giving detailed steps on how to reproduce that bug. I have since talked to at least 5 other people who experience that very same bug while no one I asked claim that they did not have that same bug. For me and every one of them the bug comes about by literally pressing 2 buttons in the cockpit and nothing else. Yet claims are made that this can't be reproduced. I did not have a track file at the time but it was requested. The thread was marked as "Investigating". 3 days later the track was provided, showing the bug. In 6 months since then, not a single download of those track files has been made, nor was there any further comment, and nor was the bug actually fixed since then. I don't know if I'm crazy or something, but to me it seems that asking for something, then being given the thing and then ignoring it for half a year seems just a little absolutely rude to me. Since this had been "investigated", this bug is still present half a year later. Granted it's a small inconvenience, and nothing game breaking, but all the same it's disappointing and most of all I feel like I'm being treated like a moron, and as a result, of course I get a little grumpy and frustrated at times and less faithful that my bug reports actually are taken seriously at all. I don't think that's how you should treat your customers who, mind you, are paying for your product. The least you could do is show some appreciation. I feel this should be addressed and improved. To improve the situation I would like bug reports to be updated once their status changes, not just on the initial reading of the report more efforts be made to merge the reports of the same bugs A notification be given if a report has been read and/or confirmed/reproduced A list of known bugs be published and kept up to date, such that the list be easily checked before posting a report, possibly with status updates such as "fixed for next release", until a proper bug tracker is implemented Be revisited once more information/tracks are provided Be acknowledged again once said information/track was provided Be appreciated more I understand that DCS is a large project and that the forums are big and several bug reports for all different modules come in and that not everything can be taken care of right away, that certain things need to take priority over others. But on the other hand, asking for a track and then no downloads or replies in 6 months, or no comments after several weeks is just not explainable by that. There are several people that are paid to manage the forum. And If i can take my evening to look through the bug report sections of a few aircraft and check for new posts, then so can they. Keeping track of bugs with a forum is generally just horrendously inefficient. Personally, I think a new, streamlined bug tracker system should be put in place to link bug reports and software development closer together, such that when the team finishes working on a bug, the bug tracker is updated for everyone to see, including your customers, allowing the simple merging of reports. There are plenty of good, open source bug trackers out there that will do the job just fine. Integrating them of course would take a week or two, but version control and a good bug tracker will make development a lot easier and more streamlined. Taking issues seriously and being appreciative of the community creates a better environment for everybody involved. People feeling like "Writing bug reports is pointless because they're ignored anyway", and that is a quote from some people I asked before to help me report bugs, must be a red flag. The very fact that they think this way lies in how they perceive the efforts being made here. This must be addressed if you want your community to stay engaged with the product you are trying to sell. We're all enthusiasts in a niece hobby, we're passionate about military aircraft and we're passionate about details. Neglecting those that raise issues with either the product itself or with how things are handled generally will create a toxic environment where everybody is frustrated. I don't want that. What I want is an open discourse with an open company that can be both proud of it's achievements while also admitting to it's faults and failures and that is open to suggestions to improve and criticism. Sorry for the rant.

You're pulling up with airbrakes out in partial thrust and then yank back the stick, while firewalling the throttle, provoking a massive compressor-stall, from which you never recover. That's what it seems to be to me.

Here are some diagrams I made some time ago that reflect the current FM. Flight domain, MAX AB, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere: Flight domain, MIL power, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere: 15000 ft, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere: 10000 ft, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere: 5000 ft, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere: Sea level, 10.9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

Ive been doing some AG lately and notice no sounds at all when release bombs and it would be nice to hear some sort of "clunk" when releasing stores. Also, the HUD is incredibly hard to read against bright sky. Thanks for the work Aerges I love the module.

It's a bug. Fixed internally. Wait for next update.

F-16 has the best FLCS/Avionics suite of any 4th Gen multirole fighter. Everything accessible and extremely easy to operate, whereas non-GD properties such as McDonnell Douglas stuff are unnecessarily convoluted. The F-18 is as if they never fully tested making stuff operable in an efficient manner through the HOTAS and literally wanted pilots punching MFD buttons all the time. Also, the Viper is the sexiest jet in the sky.

please dont derail threads. thanks

Do not want to stir up the whole debate again but Razbam are clear it is a No in their FAQ. Then Notso said it was a maybe in the Razbam discord a few days ago. So not so clear, even if it would be a very long way off. Why I hope for a definite answer, and roadmap, when pre-order is available

How can you tell if that thing on the screenshot is a male or a female? Seriously, with the helmet, mask and all the gear a pilot has to carry, you won't be able to tell. Even if ED puts a different model and calls it "female".

We can make very good educated guesses as to why the AF didn't adopt the Phoenix. First of all the AF didn't have a platform that could carry it, the F4 "might" have been modified to carry the phoenix but the phoenix system was a system, it wasn't just the missile. I don't think that the F4 would have been able to mount the AWG9 or the expense of the upgrades simply wasn't worth it. Another thing to consider was the rules of engagement that the AF operated with at the time (and all the way up to and including the early 90s). Engagement of any potential enemy required visual ID. A big heavy BVR missile simply didn't fit the bill here. By the time the F15 hit the scene, the sparrow's reliability and pk had gone way up since the vietnam era days, it would have been a "good enough" interim missile until the AF developed a BVR Fox3 missile of their own.

A reminder for any one posting here 1.7 No political, social or cultural disputes on the ED forums. Thread cleaned thank you

From some of our perspectives, the older 2.5 version (v9) of this smoke mod portrayed the most realistic smoke, but then the 2.7 update changed the core smoke features. Is there any plan at ED to update the smoke to make it look more realistic, and less think/chunky? Currently, if you bomb a tree-line, it lights up in a massive fireball like an oil depot...

Brand new to DCS, but have leapt into the deep end, and built a new PC just for the game. Normally a Mac person, but obviously need Windows for this. Background. Now retired, but a pilot for my whole career. Flew the A-4G for the Royal Australian Navy, and then the 767, 747-200/300/400, and A380. Had to set up a 'sim pit', as I found the ergonomics of controls on a desk to be too off-putting. So, now I have the Next Level Racing Boeing cockpit, with the Thrustmaster Warthog throttle and joystick, and the TPR pedals. Feels quite real. The computer is a 5600X Ryzen, with 32gb of RAM, and 1TB nvme SSD. I was given a 1080 card initially (son's cast off), and that has since been changed to a 2080ti (another cast off). Currently running a 4k 43" TV, which works much better than I expected, but I can see a 4080 and 43" monitor in the future plans. Track IR works better than I imagined it would. I like the idea of moving to VR, but that's something else for the future.

I'm so much looking forward to the F-15E

Its the naval aviator Moustache, bullets just bounce right off.

Well even if people provide tracks, data, graphs, evidence and logic, then a lot of bugs are not followed up properly. HARMs not using INS. With evidence from tacview data graphs (a lot of them) of track files (a lot of them) and the logic of 1G means they're not guiding to anything, as well as actual INS guidance (EOM mode) looking different (not 1G) and they actually hit somewhere near the target. Verdict: Correct as is, topic locked. Objects not being cleaned up properly. Destroys long running servers' performance. High impact bug. Result: "Can not reproduce" for half a year. Then Flappie got to it, reproducing the issue from the data provided in short order. Actual communication taking place with that hero. He asks for stuff, he gets the stuff to find the root cause. People are in fact willing to help and go the extra lengths. One of mine. FPS issues when using TV mode and looking into the woods (FLIR works perfectly fine). Maybe just me, not sure. Provided track with the first post. Labeled "can not reproduce". Provided video evidence, no further communication. No asking for information, no follow ups, just silence. Then there is stuff like the recent patch. "Added: IAT now syncronized". Then I'm flying for 5 minutes and IAT desyncs when using LMC. Surely one couldn't blame me for coming to the conclusion that testing wasn't done thoroughly enough, especially since this was the big new thing and the patch was in development for over a month now, granted with a christmas break in between. I submitted a bug report, but it certainly doesn't scream competence when "Fixed bug" in patch notes and 5 minutes afterwards the same bug is found when I'm not even specifically testing the feature with all the variations like it should've been done after implementing it. Again, it's EA, one expects bugs, that's fine. But I'm sure you can at least see where I'm coming from here. This one has been here for 5+ YEARS. Mig-29 locks anything STT, whole server gets spiked. Not 5 months, 5 years. Are you kidding me? And that's not one of those "windscreen wiper knob doesn't turn to HI without generator power." RWR is a major feature in DCS for all aircraft that have it, it's very visible and obvious, it's been reported many many times now. Why is this still a thing? Sure it doesn't blue screen the computer, but it affects basically everyone. How can this be? I can understand most things, but those are just incomprehensible to me. And that's just a tiny sample of the things that have been going on. I could go on for pages. I'm sure everyone is working hard, but maybe the methods are wrong. Or you just need more people.

so in this thread . it explain that the smokewinder is too heavy. however i went a bit further to test all of the wingtip payload. the testing method is simple. have an F-5 with a single asymmetrical wingtip loaded with smokewinder as a baseline and see how the aircraft would react without touching the controls. and then compare it to other wingtip payload. as you can see with the track below, it seems the aircraft react the same way(in terms of roll rate) as the smokewinder when loaded with asymmetrical pylon for every loadout which brings to the conclusion that all of the wingtip payload weight are incorrect. now if i were to guess, in the original thread, it was found that they input the wrong weight of 200 Kg instead of 92kg, I believe this is a unit error that they assume they put 200 pounds instead of kilo smokewinder.trk 9b.trk 9p.trk 9p5.trk ACMIpodtrk.trk catm.trk

imo if you're spending a lot of time pulling 8Gs then you're going "too fast." not really, but you need to turn that speed into an advantage. Sure your turn rate is awesome when pulling 9Gs at 440kCAS but your turn radius is terrible. You will never get turning room on an angles fighter in that situation. The highest turn rate for the Viper is maximum pitch deflection at 330 knots. At SL this is only going to be a little over 7Gs and less the higher you go. It is also really close to the minimum turn radius for the Viper, a LOT smaller than 9Gs at 440. Every Viper pilot should practice at least a minute or two in a slice sustaining 330kCAS with maximum pitch deflection to see what it is like. I bet you lose less altitude than you think. Use this in a fight with an angles fighter: Get into a 2 circle (nose to tail) fight. Time your speed such that you are going 330kCAS when you pass the target's 3-9 line. Do this with a hi yo-yo, loaded roll, AB reduction, fan the brakes, any BFM that slows you down and gives you a geometric advantage, or all of the above. Use a maximum deflection slice to sustain 330kCAS until you pass behind the target. Then you can pitch forward to under 1G to reduce induced lag and accelerate. Because the slice at 330kCAS has a high turn rate and small turn radius you will be close to the target. Therefore the acceleration will zoom you to behind the target (speed will help reduce the angles as long as you're close enough). Then you can use that speed to do whatever BFM you want because you'll have energy on the angles fighter in that situation. It only takes a second to go from 440 to 500 if you want even more speed to do some even crazier BFM. Maybe an Immelmann is in the cards in that situation. THIS is when you want to use just a few seconds of 8-9Gs to utterly terrify your target. If you're always going 440 then you will never be able to use your speed in this way because the distances will be too great. (For example, if you're at an airshow and an F-16 does a flyby at 500 knots 300 feet above the runway, its aspect to you will go form 90 degrees right to 90 degrees left in a few seconds. But if an F-16 flies by at 500 knots 10,000ft above the runway then the aspect will take minutes to go from 90 degrees left to 90 degrees right of you.) I can't help it, I'm going to shamelessly plug my youTube channel: (My voice is gravelly because I'm recovering from that cold everyone is getting)

It is for the A-10 but this article explains why A-10 pilots usually boresight in the air using their wingman https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-why-warthog-drivers-often-boresight-the-agm-65-maverick-on-wingman-rather-than-on-a-ground-target/

Setting a keybind in the UI layer fixes the problem. Only a problem in VR this it seems like...So the fix is to keep a keybind in the recenter VR tab in the UI layer. @Flappie Im only running the Steam version of DCS open beta latest and only playing in VR. no mods, only OpenXR and a reverb G2

Maybe not insults, but this is getting ridiculous. This is the third topic about this, and the conclusion is always the same. The only people who want to remove the cfts are the people that like airquake and don't realize that this plane was made mainly for low level strikes, and not for air to air. The USA has other planes for that.

Mk 8 is coming post early-access as stated before and posted on their website.

Whilst I have been vocal about the implementation and lack of prior communication, I do believe we need to be careful not to stifle innovation, it is what many of us strive for in a continual development environment. I tend to take the opposite view, if users are expected to handle incredibly complicated aircraft systems that top pilots take years to learn, then a bit of IT learning shouldn’t be too much to ask in the field of VR which is still something of a niche (and a bit nerdy!) tech. if we want it super polished then expect to wait a bit more than two weeks…

Keep up the out standing work and do not let a few irritated people distract you. My old man worked for Aerospatiale (Air Bus Helicopters) and I remember when MBB became a part of Eurocopter. They had the one they used in Mission Impossible out at the Grand Prairie plant. I remember as a kid going out there and watching them fly. Also went up a few times (back then you could). I am very much looking forward to this Helo and very excited with all the hard work you have done. We have plenty coming and plenty to keep us busy with DCS until you finish her. This will be a day 1 for me. Brings back very fond memories of growing up around the flight deck with my Dad.

That's from my VF-31 Liveries from the 1991 Med Cruise. Those liveries were meticulously created to try to recreate every RL detail that was viewable including the weathering patterns and corrosion control patterns. I also added the early gun vents via removing the diffuse textures in those areas and creating the Roughmets and Normals to mask the areas. The mesh is 3D geometry so there's only so much that can be done to create the illusion, but IMHO, it's done about is good as you could make it without recreating the geometry mesh. Enjoy.