Leaderboard

Hi folks, After months of leaving the F-16C Viper guide gathering dust, I have now included the new updates implemented by Eagle Dynamics over the last year or so. This update is a very important milestone since it is the very last item on my backlog before starting to work on "new" guides. The page count increased from 730+ to 780+... happy reading! Changelog (1/02/2023) Updated HMCS Bore Logic Added IFF NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) Added Spotlight Scan Radar Mode Added ACAL (Navigation Altitude Calibration) section Added Navigation Fix section Added HSD (Horizontal Situation Display) and HAD (HARM Attack Display) EXPAND functions Updated CRUISE page section Added Destination Page section Added Offset Aimpoint (OAP) description and procedures Updated Maverick missile controls (Cursor Enable DEPRESSED cycles between Visual, Pre-Planned and Boresight Modes) Added PDLT (Primary Datalink Track) Added Datalink Steerpoint, Markpoint, SPI (Sensor Point of Interest) and HTS Pod Radar Emitter sharing procedures Updated RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) section Updated Air-to-Air Refueling Section Corrected typos and errors across the whole document

No problem, and we have a great community here, always helping each other out and sharing new info and workarounds. I am sure there will be wore tweaks to come, we also want to move away from command lines in the future as not everyone is tech savy. thanks

asset for SAM system is ready: it will be located in places that are freely available as mentioned above, thanks. As such:

Just got over the 24hr wait period for my first post, but I just joined to give a massive shoutout to @BIGNEWY and @mbucchia. I am super excited to have native OpenXR, despite the bumps in the road. Bugs are easy to deal with, and it was a non issue rolling back to OpenComposite. I know you both probably put a lot of time (even personal time) into finding a resolution for these minor bugs. I've seen a lot frustration and rudeness by community members (not just here), but not much feedback/support to help the situation. So again, just a big thank you to you folks and and the surprise native OpenXR support. Very much appreciated.

Working on it.

This is normal. On the collective is the collective droop potentiometer. This is tied into the Transient Droop Improvement (TDI) part of the engine control system. If you rapidly increase the collective, the speed of light signal to the DECU leads the power demand by dumping more fuel into the engine to prevent a droop from occurring. This was added specifically to prevent a droop from occurring during recoveries from practice autorotations. Anytime you’re below something like 15% torque, this is automatically there. It doesn’t have anything to do with coning or other aerodynamic phenomenon, well, except for maybe drag.

Indeed. Even the Israelis, who are generally considered to be good at staying on top of things like this, were caught out by the SA-6 during the... er... I think it was the Yom Kippur War. Their RWR and ECM systems had never been programmed to pick up/broadcast on the frequency spectrum the SA-6 operated in and thus were useless against it. Their losses were correspondingly high until they figured out what was going on and updated their systems accordingly. Technology and warfare; you bring new technology to increase lethality and your enemy scrambles to find a way to mitigate or negate that advantage before it becomes decisive. It's as old as arrows and armour. Move & counter move. Trouble is people think this doesn't apply to the Phoenix; you can bet that the Eastern Bloc and their Allies were furiously updating their RWR and ECM equipment after the Revolution in Iran (if not before) and were likely aware of the F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54 limitations. Thus it's not beyond the realms of possibility that any Soviet/belligerent nation pilot worth his salt that would potentially face down an F-14 in the years after could well be educated in the tactics to employ that could exploit these. Topgun instructors would use the same exploits to present Intercept problems to students going through the syllabus in the 1980's - why would they do that if they weren't expecting their foes to be behaving similarly? Thus the parameters that a 100 mile AIM-54 shot taken from 40,000ft against a bomber sized aircraft in 1971 will not match those of a fighter-to-fighter combat mission of the '80s/early '90s. Those who march in here and moan loudly that their AIM-54 won't shoot down a fighter at 110nm when launched sub-sonic from 20,000ft and isn't reaching Mach 5 have obviously imbibed a whole lot of the Kool-Aid that the popular science mythology peddles regards the Phoenix. Don' get me wrong - it's an impressive system, especially considering it' s heritage, but it's impressive when it has a cooperative (non/low-manoeuvring target) and is fired at specific altitudes and airspeeds. As so often with any piece of engineering to excel in one area means compromising in another. The Phoenixes girth, required for a large enough motor to propel it the distances required and to provide sufficient space for the avionics and radar dish to support a useful active seeker, make the missile heavy and draggier than it's contemporaries; this is mitigated by pushing the missile to 80-90,000ft where the aerodynamic drag is a fraction than at lower altitudes and it matters less. However, you bring it down into the thicker air at 10-30,000ft and it not only forces a range reduction (and possibly into the WEZ of your opponent) but it suddenly starts to look less impressive against it's contemporaries in terms of speed, range and manoeuvrability.

From a bit of testing there is a lot of improvement to be had with a higher proximity fuse setting. A 15m proximity fuse is fairly safe with our current warhead. Stealing @vtaf_archer 's barrel rolling track from another post and replaying it with a 15m instead of 7m proximity fuse makes the missile hit in this case instead of having a near miss. 7m prox: https://streamable.com/yx62kq 15m prox: https://streamable.com/iy8ym3 120_vs_barrel.trk Taking one of my older tracks which results in a miss with the 7m proximity fuse, it now also hits with a 15m proximity fuse. 7m prox: https://streamable.com/9ndhts 15m prox: https://streamable.com/5zo7z5 120_barrelroll_HALFRANGE.trk You might run into problems when dealing with modules with more robust damage models (F-14, Mig21) however I don't own these modules so cannot really test this in practise. When testing with the mirage f1 (reasonably tough damage model, often "survives" missile hits) I didn't run into any problems.

And to be clear, there will not be an "early" Vietnam E like those that started showing up in 66-67. "Early" in this case is still effectively post-war, but are those "early" serial jets (66- to ~70-) after they received the mentioned modifications. So don't expect to see the original short gun muzzle, hard-wings, missing/terrible APS-107 RHAW, etc. Like with the F-14A, "early" is a relative term and doesn't include those original F-14As with the IRST from Block 70 that deployed during Frequent Wind in '74.

We are very close with multithreading and testing continues, DLSS will be in a future build also, but it will all depend on test results.

from our first newsletter of the year Multithreading Multithreading has been one of our primary efforts to improve DCS performance, and it is currently in closed beta testing. Initially two threads (graphical and logical) will be implemented, and once the technology is stable and mature, we plan to expand this number. Large and complex missions, both single player and server based as well as the upcoming dynamic campaigns, will see the most significant performance enhancements. Our render graph was written from scratch along with many other subsystems. We now benefit from parallel rendering that schedules inter-dependent rendering tasks in a correct and optimal order (e.g., mirror reflections first, then mirrors while running other independent draw calls in parallel), frame graph, graphic scenes, scene renderer, and scene manager. We unified all other graphic subsystems that permit node embedding in the render graph. This allows us to rapidly experiment with new graphic pipelines and enhance efficiency. The introduction of our render graph will improve DCS efficiency and deliver optimal performance with modern graphics APIs such as Vulkan.

I got the links on the developer's Discord: https://discord.gg/g7yMmKYs the channel is #f4b-patches I'm editing a few training missions for this Mod, will release them once I have a more complete set:

yes, there have been three patches already: Patch Notes 29Jan23 EFM: - exaggerated pitch-up fixed -> flaps ½ will lead to slight pitch down on takeoff. Flaps up will have a pitch-up tendency when full fuel is loaded. Full flaps will deliver a good bit of pitch down. - exaggerated stall changed -> Plane will stall, but will enter a flat spin a lot later. Once in a flat spin, no chance of recovery. Spinning speed, when entering spin on alt. still to fast, but a minor problem, see above - horizontal stabilizer authority reduced due to AoA -> stab will feel +5/-5 ° AoA more than real AoaA due to down-wash. Stab will be effective beyond stall, but not much, since effectivity decreases at high AoA (back stick at high AoA low effectivity, front-stick at high AoA full effectivity and vice versa) Systems: - Trimm-Gauge implemented (left-front-panel) - Off/inactive signs added to standby and main horizon - Nozzle-gauges show right/right and left/left - “All” Stations for rockets do work, BUT all stations need to hold rockets. If a station does not hold rockets, ALL will probably not work. Select Station pairs in that instance. - Gun-Pod is not droppable anymore since it is way to expensive to just drop it somewhere - Wing-Tanks and Center-Tank is droppable, but needs to be selected through Station-Selector - Faster movement of radar-carrot Animation: - Burner Left/Left and Right/Right corrected - Nozzle Left/Left and Right/Right corrected - Seat-Hight adjusted - Mirrors adjusted (no more fisheye) 3d: - Suspension adjusted (a noob like me could make 3 landings (Forrestal/SC/Forrestal) in a row without braking the gear. If you can’t do it...well, practice makes perfect ;-))

You are unbelievable! From 'no can do' to 'asset ready' in the timeframe that simply got me collect my jaw from the floor. Thank you!

Looks like that's it, people. The next update is scheduled a full month away, with a 1+ month gap from the previous one. That can only mean... multicore is going in! That, or winter holidays. Still, it's unusual for them to announce it this early, and to have such a large gap planned. I expect delays, but if that's what it takes to get multicore out of the door, I'm for it.

Released a new version of OpenXR Toolkit 1.2.4, when used with DCS in native OpenXR mode, will let you use WMR reprojection and also Turbo Mode. Quickstart | OpenXR Toolkit (mbucchia.github.io)

Guys, this topic is about "pleasure of pre order ", so about certificate of ownership of a model without a model , pls dont mix too many subjects here ;). With CFT, or without:

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

About that. From the Razbam discord a few mins ago

I'd say you require an intervention, but you'll have to wait until the shrink is done with me. Only two more sleeps.

Your guides are a God's send ... thank you so much for keeping them updated. I have high hopes for an eventual Guide of yours for the Mirage F1, as sadly its official manual is not really user-friendly (no offense Aerges, I know writing a good manual is a pretty laborious job)

Are you kidding me? No-one bothered the post the holy image of Helicopter 66? The Sea King? And if we get that model, please, please, pleeeeeease include an Apollo 11 capsule as static object just for us old timers who dreamt of becoming a rotorhead since July 24, 1969 (didn't give a hoot about those fuzzy moon images, I was too small. But helicopters? Wupwupwupwup! Yeah!) null

phewn CLARKSON.mp4

I take four at a time on the first day of pre-sale, for myself and three sons - two full crews, pair in the air, crying and screaming among the enemies

Haven't had time to do the last night cq, but I have to say this was the most fun and challenging campaign I have ever flown in DCS, really looking forward for more! I actually start Naval pilot training soon, and hopefully my grade sheets in Pensacola look as good or better. Regardless, from my research and understanding of military aviation these missions were pretty damn close to the real thing!

I would love a Germany map, although not a modern one but rather a 1980s Cold War Germany map (Fulda Gap!).

Hi,just trying to help. Based on my personal observation. I think the FBW pitch will change from ground logic to flight logic when the noise wheel is lift off. When the FBW is in ground logic,it'is very sensitive,the control surfaces will reach their full limit even with just a very small control input. So before the noise wheel is lift off,you pull the control back a little,but the FBW in ground logic will deflect control surface to their full limit. As a result,the initial rotation rate will be very high if you pull the stick too late above the calculated VR. And this may surprise you, so you may push the stick. After the FBW change to the flight logic,it will try to maintain your AOA,so it will automatically adjust the control surface to hold your initial rotation attitude if you just keep your stick there. If you push the stick too much now,it will be FBW command correction plus your manual correction,double correction,then you are doomed... TL/DR 1.The FBW will change from ground logic to flight logic when the noise wheel is lift off, in the ground logic the control is very sensitive 2. rotate at the right rotation speed,too late is not good,the initial rotation rate could be very high if you rotate above Vr, 3.after noise wheel is lift off,just hold your control stick their,only make tiny correction,don't push the stick too much if the rotation rate surprise you,the FBW will handle that as soon as it switch to the flight logic

Hold off a bit until I've completed my updates. I'll make an annoucement in this forum and The Agile Spear forum when its ready. I don't want to disappoint you (or anyone else) with the campaign as it is. A bunch of weird stuff got broken with the recent DCS World updates.

I’ll be in on the preorder. It think it helps to get some funds up front to keep the product moving. For me, if I plan to get it, I preorder. If I’m in wait and see mode, I may order later. F-15E is a purchase for me, so might as well preorder to get a little discount for keeping the faith.

I guess you can only know what they want you to know. If you do some research, you may find that its a real thing on the f16 radar. Here are some references that i came across. Pm to @BIGNEWY

Buzz, I was going to send you a link for my A-10C campaign Operation Agile Spear for your 80th birthday. I sent you a direct message which you may have missed. I just need your email to send you the link.

To further develop the statement Early WW2 shaped charges where able to penetrate 150%-250% of the shaped charge diameter and modern ones up to 700%. (https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/history/show/75257). The BLU-97 shaped charge diame ter is approximately 63.5mm/2.5" (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/BLU-97/B_Combined_Effects_Bomb). So a 200mm RHA penetration would not seem out of the ordinary. (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA264233.pdf) A T-72 has composite armor and translating RHA to composite is beyond what I am trying to prove. A T-55 however has 30mm armor on top of the turret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55) and the armor is of a cast type turret (http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t55.htm) so a direct translation of RHA would be more reasonable. By all metrics a BLU-97, with a 200mm RHA penetration effect should be able to penetrate the top of a T-55 hull consisting of 30mm cast steel. But in DCS, 1616x BLU-97 are unable to destroy a single T-55 in a small cluster of 9. QED that in DCS the BLU-97 is underperforming. Test-BLU-97-T55.trk

From Airplane Simulation Company Discord

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.

please dont derail threads. thanks

I'm surprised it's a deal breaker for you. I don't mean to sound critical, you can like what you like.

BUG This is how AI aircraft currently take off from the boat during CASE 1: When spooling up, they turn the beacon on. When launching, the turn the beacon off. When airborne, they turn the formation lights on. Then they immediately start climbing to at least 1200'. SOLUTION This is what carrier based AI aircraft should be doing: Do not use any external lights at all (especially on and around the boat, but in general no lights during the whole flight). When launching, fly 300 kts IAS and climb to 500'. Continue along the BRC in this manner until 7 nm away from the boat. Then start following waypoints. REPRO Put a 4-ship Hornets on the Supercarrier, mid day, clear weather, with a waypoint somewhere on the map. Observe them in Spectator mode. REMARKS The bug is somewhat serious, since it stop players from using carrier based aircraft while performing realistic CASE 1 recovery procedures with human players. The AI aircraft will climb too high and risk collision with recovering aircraft. The unrealistic external lights handling kills some immersion by looking a little silly. They actually do turn off the lights before the landing, which is nice. Well done there! Even if providing the AI flights with waypoints trying to get them to hold speed and altitude, they will ignore them during the departure. This makes sense because they're in a departure AI state, but also stops us from working around the bug. Lights should generally stay off daytime even during CASE 3 with low clouds, for both departure and recovery. In fact, except for nighttime, they rarely come on at all. REFERENCES Track and miz attached. Hornet_AI_Case1_Bug.trk CASE1_Bug.miz

nullTesting out the panel lines on the wings with a quick unwrap before mirroring the wing over to start adding individual detail like landing lights and air intakes

One test you could do and that would be interesting: try OpenXR+SteamVR (not OpenVR) and see if you get the same experience (that you like) on both. This would give me some more information on where to look specifically. See my other post on how to toggle SteamVR OpenXR and OpenXR for WMR: Thanks.

Thank you for your interest and effort in missile testing. We aware that current loft implementation is far from ideal and can be improved. Unfortunately, real-time computation of optimal solutions for missile lofting is a quite hard non-linear problem which require lots of time to solve. It's already included in weapons wishlist and will be solved with time.

I don't go on PvP servers but I have seen enough videos of every 4th gen jet beating the pants off of every other 4th gen jet to know that it is 100% the pilot and how they employ their aircraft that make the difference.

Not sure I understand that. The 22, 30 & 45 reprojection have all worked in OpenXR & DCS since the initial opencomposite release. 22 isn't great but 30 is very playable - almost indistinguishable from 45 in my experience with WMR & G1

Don't worry about him and his ilk, they get thrashed too often on PvP servers and look for the culprits everywhere except for their lack of skills.

Hi friends, I really don't mean any offence with this, but I can't cry out loud enough about the fact that everyone is just designing vehicles and ships, which is absolutely great though, but that we need civilians and personnel. All you designers are doing such incredible great work, and we love it so much ! That being said and with the announcement from ED that somewhere along 2023 we would get this update along the line, that THAT should be tried to design. I am sure that some are too disturbed by the frozen and non-movable people standing outside these great designed vehicles, when everything else around it seems to move. Being only able to have armed soldiers (M4/M249) to move around, and seeing the SC personnel move about , but not being able to use them, beside as static. But how long do we have to wait ? Now, isn't it possible, to implement and use the moving capabilities of the M4/M249 into some of the Supercarrier's personnel for example, and combine these two shapes into a single movable, selectable shape other then a armed soldier ? The ingredients are there, same as the basic designs/models used as for the ships and vehicles throughout all of the new designed models. If i wanted to move a personnel group from point A to point B, what would it be ? It would be only one of these two designs ! Who dares to take the challenge designers ??? In hope and with much respect to all designers out there .... Kind regards, RWC

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?

Now in every topic, even on the air pressure in F-15E tires, there will be someone who will cry about CFT?? Quickly, there is nothing about CFT in the thread about the sound of actuators, don't let me down...

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

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