Leaderboard

Guys, you have me laughing here a bit, I cannot lie. The important bit is: LudL0w understood what I meant, I understood what he meant, and more importantly even, he is now flying the Tomcat and eligible to grow a feisty moustache. What else matters? Love you all.

When the DCS F-16 picks up a jamming target, the datalink symbol for that target warps under the jamming symbol and you lose all the ranging information your datalink had for the target. In the video linked below, you can see the effect of the jamming on the datalink symbol as I switch from NORM to SILENT and back. The datalink info has no business warping to under the jam symbol. It should be entirely separate, as the jet would have no idea that the jamming target is the same target as broadcast on datalink. The jet lacks ranging information due to the jamming, so it would not have enough data to correlate the two tracks. The datalink should continue to come in displaying the information from Link-16, and the jammer symbol should show at the top of the display. The current implementation is just not logical. I'm sorry I don't have a track right now, but I sure do have a video showing off the issue and I hope it is sufficient to demonstrate it. This is 100% reproducable, and all you need to do is pick up a jamming target from beyond burn through range and look at the datalink symbol.

Yes, model is 11D (V-750), you can gauge which generation it is by thrust values if you manage to open the files: You are right, it's not this effective. In reality it's more effective due to things I and Okopanja mentioned earlier in this thread. Majority of the playerbase also suffers from profound skill issue. That is no way to gauge if the system is modelled right. What you do need to look at is if it actually works the same way as in real life or not. Which it simply doesn't, for both better and worse. Missiles currently use proportional navigation instead of appropriate method of command guidance. This brings advantages and disadvantages. The missile will lead the target perfectly, but also bleed way more energy on a manoeuvring target and can be simply driven into ground. The system also works as a part of wider IADS system, which is simply not a thing in DCS, in reality you will have your air defence brigade HQ pick up targets and distribute them to subordinate detachments for destruction, who would also coordinate with air defence fighter regiments (though for a lot of the conflicts these systems were in, this was either not used or worked on the basis of people simply relaying information via phone or even radio). Missile proximity fuse does not react correctly to chaff or jamming either. And this is simply down to how the DCS engine works. You are not going to make the system perform correctly using the current missile API. You'd need a custom missile code. And while I'd love to see this rework, all of these "bug reports" which are simply posts about "how come i got shot down in a game" are not helping, in fact it's doing the opposite by filling the forum with clutter. Because conversely, how do you know its overperforming other than comparing kill probability statistics from wartime use with a million different factors coming into them and not accounted for? And for that I'll just quote the following post:

Ich fand die Module bisher gar nicht mal desaströs. Bei der M-2000C hatte ich viel Spaß mit der mitgelieferten Kampagne. Seitdem hat sich aber, soweit ich gehört habe, nochmal echt viel geändert. Nur nach den Erfahrungen aus mittlerweile zwei Modulen (plus einer Map) wäre ich halt zurückhaltend, diesmal eine komplett andere Release-Politik und ein nahezu fertiges Produkt zu erwarten - was nicht heißen muss, dass man nicht zum Early Access Release schon ganz viel Spaß damit haben kann. Ich bin gespannt, aber versuche mich nicht vom Hypetrain mitnehmen zu lassen. (Bevor jemand fragt, ich habe absolut keine Informationen, die ihr nicht auch alle habt).

Hi Bignewy, my evidence is that this is impossible. Datalink info comes in, jamming signals come in, there is no way for the plane to know the two are the same. In DCS right now, the moment someone starts jamming, their Datalink symbol warps under the jam symbol, when the plane cannot possibly have any idea that Datalink symbol is the same as the jamming symbol. Jamming comes in, Datalink comes in, two separate things entirely. Right now the jamming takes over all the info we have on the target, when it should only affect the radar itself. Sent from my SM-F711W using Tapatalk

It's a good example of what can be done in terms of customizing their placement.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/09/28/bjorns-corner-supersonic-transport-revival-part-8/ The intake design on the F-15 has to be one of the most elegant aerodynamic solutions I've ever seen. The nodding ramps also function as a canard/leading edge flap for the lifting fuselage, and help control the center of lift shift from supersonic flight ala F-14 glove vanes

If you go to steerpoint 500, you will see what the other plane has shared. WARN RESET on the ICP to get it removed.

Someone in an f-16shared a SPI over link-16. Comm switch IFF in long press

The wording of the statement was poor. One possible interpretation of the statement is that the module will release on the 15th. This interpretation is grammatically correct, but is factually incorrect. Thats it. There really isn’t anything more to this. Ya’ll are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Oh man! I've been fooling around with those vehicles!!! and they're incredible!! The lightbars are amazing! THANKS AGAIN buddy!!!! PD: If I make a "High Speed chase Cops TV Show for DCS" you are the one to blame

Wenn es wie bei M-2000C und Harrier läuft, dann sieht sie ziemlich fertig aus, ist es aber nicht, und in circa 3 bis 5 Jahren wird sie dann einen ordentlichen Sprung nach vorne machen.

I think the C-130 will be a good way to test the waters for such aircraft, I am hopeful it will be popular and we can see more like this.

id be very interested in that "other publicly available data" as the only one i found after long searches is the one mentioned in my original post. this one also includes the values for other missiles like the aim7, for which the lua data in our game files exactly matches the values in the mentioned document, not so much the 120 as the ONLY missile that has different values in the game files even the "very specific navy publication" (dont know if its still allowed to mention its true name) states that the aim 120s explosive power is larger than the one of the aim-7 even though it has a smaller explosive mass than the aim-7 edit: that navy publication says that the AIM-120 is using a 50 pound warhead that explodes into thousands of fragments. even though it is approximately 30% smaller than the warhead of the AIM-7M, the 120 is using higher density gases to propel fragments more explosively than the aim-7. edit 2: since the document is publicly available under: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-825.pdf, page 158/159 according to the ED gamefiles, even the aim-9 has the higher proximity fuze setting than the 120, this defies every logic

To avoid confusion - many people associate 'release' with something being handed off to customers. Simply stating that "<date> is the date when they start to accept pre-orders" for their product would be less prone for mis-interpretation.

Добрался я, наконец-то, до записи трека. Заранее прошу прощения за корявое пилотирование, т.к. привык это делать в VR, не очень получается лететь глядя в монитор. Первая часть трека. При неизменном положении РЦШ на пикирование от нейтрального, при частом нажатии на триммер идет изменение тангажа на пикирование без изменения положения РЦШ, и, наоборот, при неизменном положении РЦШ на кабрирование от нейтрального при частом нажатии на триммер идет изменение тангажа на кабрирование без изменения положения РЦШ. Это баг однозначно... возможно, какой-то косяк с САУ. Настройка управления: джойстик без пружин и обратной связи. Пользуюсь прогой SIM-FFB, т.к. обратная связь в DCS при триммировании работает абсолютно не корректно. Вторая часть трека. При движении ОШНВ вниз вертолет переходит в кабрирование РППУ при этом находится без движения, а при движении ОШНВ вверх вертолет переходит в пикирование. Хотя, как минимум должно все происходить с точностью до наоборот. При этом на Ми-24 установлен стабилизатор с с изменяемым углом установки: шаг вверх-угол установки уменьшается, шаг вниз-увеличивается, что должно компенсировать момент на пикирование при уменьшении шага и момент на кабрирование при увеличении шага. Так же работает САУ, которая минимизирует эти отклонения практически в 0. Заметны должны быть только тенденции. И это основной баг, который есть сейчас, так как вертолет летает не так, как должен летать вертолет. Open beta 24.3.trk

This is something we are currently investigating, I do not know at this time if it will be possible or what will be possible but this is something we would like to do. Thanks!

A lot of people have mentioned some version of the AH-1 would be cool, and way back when BST had planned to do one, while there is no active plans currently, its certainly something we might see in the future depending on how the chips fall. Thanks.

DCS World will not see any more FC3 modules no, but its possible we will see new or unique airframes at that level when MAC finally hits the ground. All that said, yes, we would love more Russian aircraft, for a number of reasons its tough for us to do so, this is where we would love to see 3rd Parties pick up the "slack". Thanks all.

Thanks for the kind words. Please remember this is a low poly model. There is only so much which can be done. That being said, A new version is in the works. With pylons and proper load out. First post will be up-dated when ready.

Maybe later, coding come first at the moment....

The entirety of the uncage / re-cage function for Sidewinders is not implemented as far as I can see. It's only scripted to indicate a good-tone and show the diamond on the radar target as soon as you press un-cage as far as I can tell. When you press Cage you can't even re-cage the seeker back into position and break the IR-lock.

RAZBAM Discord F-15E

Grumman C-2 Greyhound please

In general this actually is not the right thread for this discussion. And - @BubiHUN - I get it, you are frustrated, I recently locked a thread of yours about your gripes with the aim54, and we may not see eye to eye on the matter - which is completely fine, and it is also fine that you try to vent your frustration further. But in the end it is still your opinion and facts are not being presented to you to put you down, but to balance out your impression. Now all that is fine, but what is not fine, is to sour the game for others who just want to start out, have a clean slate and fresh set of mind, ready to experience it for themselves and make themselves their own picture. In case you think you are hurting us with that - you are not. In case you are telling them something, which is not fully public and known through forums and else - you are not. In case you think you are saving a guy from a horrible waste of money or something - you are not. You are only setting a negative mood for someone who was looking forward to something new, asking for help, and potentially talking him out of - I will still proudly say - one of the greatest experiences in simming to date. Just because you do not enjoy it, because you struggle with the aim54 or cannot get past its remaining issues and think that an FM that is within 3-5% accuracy (more than required even by professional sims and additionally one of the most accurate feels), is "broken", it does not mean that others agree and do not enjoy it and share your frustration. Nothing's worse imho than trying to take away the joy from folks who enjoy what you do not. So, if you feel like going on a vendetta against us, feel free to do what you please in the whole wide internet, but please also understand that this kind of behavior is not really welcome here. Not because you may chase away a potential customer in such an explicit manner (which I would honestly have to ask myself why we should tolerate even that), but because you are trying to take away their anticipation and potential fun with a great module and setting a bias for them, out of your own disgruntled mood. That's really not ok. And I hope we can simply leave it at that and I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Please keep this thread on topic, everyone. Thank you.

I bought the Mosquito impulsively after having watched The Shadow in my Eye. And there is one thing that irritates me to no end: Safety covers and locks e.g. on the landing gear lever, flaps lever and arm switch etc. I would assume most virtual pilots do not have a setup where they can adequately bind those. Fumbling around with the mouse in the virtual cockpit during critical stages of flight e.g. take off and landing to release those is kinda annoying. And remembering key binds for such really minor functions on the keyboard is also annoying. I get that the real one operated like that and I'm not suggesting to outright ignore stuff like this in the future. However I would suggest to have a option in the aircraft's special option menu to basically put them in an auto mode or off mode. Similar to how ED has an option to enable or disables gates for afterburners. E.g. in auto/off mode if the gear down button is pressed the safety lock is operated automatically and gear selector lever is moved down directly. No need to worry about the safety lock anymore. This is btw. not just the Mosquito the P-47 has a safety cover for the Camera, Gun & Camera switch. This is one of those switches as well as it can not be operated with the cover in place. It is just that the Mosquito is the worst offender as it has several of those and also linked to actually important controls.

Hoffe schwer dass RAZBAM beim Release der vorherigen Module was gelernt hat und nicht das gleiche Fiasko nochmals auftischt.

@Wiggo: Grab those two files with my fixes and give it a try. Your logbook should not have been damaged. The good news is @Flappie told me ED had fixes for all those issues, I hope they will be in the next patch. me_logbook.lua me_campaign.lua

Thanks for pointing on these campaigns…..Looking really intetesting!

Well, saying deck crew only walks casually is a bit "bluntly" as well 6:08 I'm definitely not saying they should be running all the time (agreed, that certainly was unrealistic), but deck crew are, well, human . So a bit more variety in deck crew behavior would be a nice touch. I know, we're just talking details here, but that's what DCS is all about. (Though, not playing/using the SC module due to this, is next level exaggeration imo )

When not specified, I would always assume that it's relative to whoever says it. Unless my memory completely fails me, the DCS AI always calls out relative to them. So when your wingman's nose is offset to you by 90 degrees and he calls out "Mudspike 12 o'clock", that's also offset to your flight path by 90°. Takes a lot of situational awareness to understand these calls correctly at any given time. In multiplayer environments, someone could specify "Mud, your 12 o'clock" - it's good practice to really say "your" or "my" whatever o'clock to leave no ambiguity. Then again, when the flight is in formation and the thing of interest is (beyond a doubt) at the same relative position for all flight members, "2, mud, 2 o'clock" would be perfectly fine. Excellent, that means it's tea time already!

here is finally the patch, finally ... the new version. 30.63.302 This is the complete scriptsmod, save the old one and copy this one instead. Otherwise wait for DCE_Manager to propose an update (but the servers are more and more recalcitrant...) ==:20.63.302:== 302 fixed [CSAR] some ejectedPilots are missing from the MAP, and CSARs are moving to empty positions 301 modified [loadout] new loadout or adjustment for F-1EE, Viggen, Tchad campaign, 300 fixed [IA strike] strikes do not attack MAP structures 299 add [mission] place men looking for some ejectedPilot "Manhunt^^" 298 fixed [campaign] the transfer of replacement (reserve) aircraft does not take place 297 fixed [radio] guard frequencies are sometimes used 296 fixed [Eventslog] ***provisionally cancelled***use "forbidden" characters for its name DCS plant DCE. 295 fixed [task] simultaneous task injections freeze the intelligence of AIs ^^ 294 fixed [M2000] Radio: the red and blue radio sets are reversed 293 add [plane] Add all SA342 playable 292 modified [mission] attempts to "dilute" all packages throughout the duration of the mission 291 modified [MP] all players' planes in the same target pack (where possible) 290 add [IA] the helicopters (all of them) try to follow the valleys (this is under test) 289 add [plane] Add Mirage F-1EE 288 add [Datacard] makes DCE compatible with the use of programs such as Datacard Generator or CombatFlite (M63) 287 add [third] allows you to use third party files that Data information without being overwritten by central information updates (M62) --> use Init\ADD_data.lua scriptsMod_20.63.302_complet.zip

You're confabulating Sir. Alied planes enjoyed high quality 100-120 octane gasoline. Very rarely was it below 100 octane. Todays fuel is probably more ecologic, since in WWII a component of fuel was ... lead (PbO). In Eastern Europe Lead was a component of gasoline up to ~1990. For Engine built in old standards modern fuel may be to aggressive. PbO used in old fuel used to create a protective layer around Valve socket, and Valves. Without it, those element will be destroyed just in couple hours. Modern fuel requires much more expensive materials for Valves and Valves Sockets. In thermodynamic sense modern fuel isn't any better than those in WW2.

Effectiveness varying due to crew skill is indeed a rationale. A <profanity> crew with a Patriot or Iron Dome is likely to be less effective than a well drilled and experienced crew with an Sa-2. That's just a reality, and the concept applies to virtually everything in life irrespective of context. My argument was, since we already know the crews in 1990s Iraq were probably not particularly high quality, them being relatively ineffective against a large, highly trained, combined arms force fully utilising the electronic spectrum to disrupt defending efforts is not a significant reflection against the system under more ideal circumstances. Like one or two dip<profanity> gamers yoloing into an AO lobbing HARMs and JDAMs at random targets, let alone the entirely absent EWAR stuff and combined arms support. DCS result do not equal realworld results for a lot more than just ''ED DOING IT WRONG''. AAA aims directly at your plane, specifically your pilot's head. They will lead you, but do not anticipate or coordinate. That is a fact. Unless you're so close you cannot evade the bullet, or the particular arrangement is such that you're being fired on from multiple angles eliminating any ''safe place to go'' AAA is extrememy easy to dodge as long as you do not fly in a straight line. SAM's are equally simplistic. There is no EWAR or group coordination, they don't even blink their radars on and off. They come on, they lock, and they spam missiles until you die, they lose contact, or they run out of ammo. That's it. Yes, they are more dangerous than AAA for that reason as they don't care about your barrel role, but they are far from realistic. Countermeasures do not work realistically either, each flare/chaff has a percentage chance of making it lose track. So again, not hard to deal with on its own, circumstances permitting and depending on the specific environment. I've been here 10 years. Yes, you can get killed, and we argue about over/under performing missiles, but the core mechanics driving the interactions are extremely simple and a known quantity. It isn't black magic or techpriest babble. So, my ''evidence'' is how the game actually functions.

If you want to account for physics perhaps you could consider: The F-15's intake ramps will recover a lot more pressure at altitude compared to the F-16, so simple thrust to weight assumptions get thrown out of the window immediately. The F-16 can pack on plenty of drag. You could compare them empty, but it's a worthless comparison since they wouldn't be in combat when empty anyway. The eagle isn't going to suffer as much from hauling air to air weapons compared to a viper

I agree that this sounds perfect for a community mod, I cant imagine there is enough here to do a DCS level on, but noted guys. Thanks.

When the FTR is not being held, the SCAS is always trying to "help you" keep a stable heading. It will counter your slight pedal inputs with opposite controls to maintain your heading, up to a point where you are providing more input on the pedals than it is programmed to try and counter. This is the "break-out" force that was mentioned above, and is something that has been adjusted over time with tweaks to the FM. If you gently give it more and more pedal, you will find the point where the SCAS stops trying to correct your heading and lets you override it and change the orientation of the aircraft. It just takes practice to know how much pedal it takes. Alternatively, as long as you are holding the FTR button down, it stops trying to make those counter corrections for you in all channels: pitch, roll, yaw, collective, etc. I personally find that holding the FTR creates more problems for me than it helps, since I am not used to handling the aircraft without the SCAS assistance engaged. It is a very different animal when unassisted. So I just know that to get the aircraft to actually change heading to the left, I need to give it 1 inch of left pedal, because if I only give it .5 inch, it will counter it.

Hello everyone, and thank you for the appreciation. About other mods WIP, thera are the Il-28 Beagle with Don Rudi and the Tu-22 Blinder with Hawkeye60. Here some very preliminar screenshot.

You see, this is why god created the A-10C II. Whenever you are waiting for a new release and are restless, you can go back to the A-10C, remember that you barely remember any of it at all, and it feels like you're in a brand new plane all over again. One more week..............

Why should it?

Just a few new pics of the AG Radar from RBs Discord. Notice the screen pixels are now simulated. null

From Baltic Dragon ”Training missions for Strike Eagle. I'm going to break with the tradition of having long, overly complex sessions in favour of larger selection of much shorter ones, lasting max 10 minutes. So instead of flying a 40m sortie to learn about the navigation, you will have 5 or 8 more concise missions, each covering one system at a time. That also has an added value of being much better in terms of updating / troubleshooting later on.”

It looks like these guys are a big name in the civilian sim community, too. I'm really looking forward to the A-7E, the SLUF is really going to rock at this rate. It's not the most complex aircraft in the world, but that's good, I like primitive systems. The A-7E is from a period that's got just the right amount of electronic aids not to make it too easy, but still assist you in getting the job done, as opposed to warbirds where just about everything is done by feel and sight picture. Plus, landing this thing on a carrier is going to be something.

It could also be a G model as we can see the two controls aft of the radio panels (possibly for a targeting pod?)