Leaderboard

My conversations today went something like: This morning Me: I'm going to put something on the online card today, I'm not sure how much but I'm pretty sure it'll be less than a hundred bucks Wife: Sure, what are you getting? Me: Nothing, but someday I might get a new DCS plane Wife: When are you going to get it? Me: I dunno, but, someday, I think, maybe This evening Wife: I don't see any charges today, did you buy that thing? Me: Nah, it wasn't ready yet Wife: I though you knew that already? Me: Oh yeah, I did, but the thing that's not ready is not ready for me to buy before it's ready ... uh ... yet Wife: But ... Me: Oh but here's the thing ... the thing that's not ready will still not be ready in two days, but they might be ready for me to buy it, you know, when it is ready ... Maybe. I mean, it's still possible that they still may not be ready to not have it ready to, wait, be ready when it's, uh, ready ... you know the cat's looking really fat, what have you been feeding him? Wife: Temptations! The cat is a fiend for those things! I read online and people are calling it "kitty crack". By the way, can you put some more wood on the fire, it's getting cold. Me: No can do, the last time I even talked about firewood, BigNewy changed my thready title, so I got rid of it all. You know how I am about making people uncomfortable. Wife: Who's BigNewy? Me: Oh he's ... you know what, forget I said anything, tell me more about these Temptations things ...

Then present the contradictory evidence. If you're not accusing them of incompetence or dishonesty, then they have no reason to present you anything to prove they are right. You are the one that wants the change. You are making the claim that they are wrong therefore the burden of proof falls to you. If you truly believe that they are not dishonest or incompetent, then you should not have a problem with them making an internal comparison without revealing what their side of the data is.

Я не старался попасть, что с первого раза получилось при выдерживании угла, то и получилось. Во втором случае, правда, первый раз самолет не удержал, почему и написал, что это в реальности так noway.

В общем вот так, 9000 lb: - как учили (легкий самолет без закрылков и с полуопущенным хвостом с УА примерно 9 градусов) - 1372 фута, - с подрывом (с закрылками 20, с выходом на 16 градусов УА и с хорошей вероятностью убиться даже при стерильной атмосфере) - 792, - с закрылками и выдерживанием стояночного угла ~12 градусов до отрыва - 928.

The reason why we do not share our business propietary knowledge, of any sorts, is because we don't have to - unless we ourselves deem otherwise. It is neither usus, nor is it sound for a business to do so, nor would I know of any business that does it. We are very much for transperancy, but transperany does not mean renouncement of private data and intellectual property - which the researched objects may not be part of, as they are potentially available to anyone - but the composition and approach very well is, also including objects that are not readily available as you purchase certain rights to use, while even the mention of certain documents may reveal more than we want, for reasons we cannot and will not ever disclose, which can be as benign as the original owner, like a museum, asking us not to do, to expensive propietary knowledge, to legal obligations and anything in between. Additionally we are in no way contracted or obliged to prove to you that what we do is accurate to the T. We choose to do so voluntarily, and so we set a constraint for ourselves by saying "we want our modules to be as realistic as possible" - and re-affirm this constraint to the community by marketing them in this way, by making a promise. Other simulator modules - across all sims - may choose a different path and not even put in the effort to model to a certain depth, or accuracy for that matter, in full disclosure or not. Or they may even make up things. It seems to have a market, one could go and say "we did it like this, because it is fun." But we don't, we want the opposite, we say we want our modules to be as realistic as we can get them. I think looking at our modules, it is without a question that we thus also abide by these parameters that we set for them. So we put in the work to research it, put it together and then present it to you. The outcome is an amalgamation of that research, of countless hours of digesting, disecting, re-arranging, understanding and then coding that hard-gained knowledge, technical, historical, cultural and professional information, into a product that you then can experience. And with all the effort we have put in, with all the skill applied, with all the research done, we can safely say: this is the most realistic experience of a Tomcat in any sim to date, and as real as we can make it. Knowing our demeaner to also continuously evolve, continue to research and to correct earlier findings when necessary, you can also safely assume that we stay committed to the above mentioned realism long after the release of the module. It is however not our obligation to disclose our proprietary knowledge or "trade secrets" to you to prove any of the above. Yet we do try to disclose as much as we can, and want. In the end it is our decision, and we have to weigh what is good for our business to disclose and what not. We also make ourselves accountable by putting out a module with the claim of being realistic. Anyone can go and either try and prove it or disprove it. And since we made ourselves accountable, if someone does disprove something, we have to react to that by improving the aspects in question to uphold that claim. This is why we try to be so thorough before releasing something, like gathering SME input, tester feedback and finally publicizing it to a brought community where other experts or subject matter experts can react and comment on the work, and through their input help us not only maintain a standard of realism but evolve it even further. The duty to disprove our claim however is not on us, but on the person making a counter-claim. And mind you, as you said yourself, we're doing still entertainment products for the end-consumer, that is video games, genre flight-sim or not: we are making a product which again we like to tie to historic accuracy, but ultimately still remains a product for your amusement, and not a thesis for a phd, or a scientific article for a university paper, where quoting rules apply. Which brings me to your approach, if I may. You have a counter-claim, or at least a differing idea of what we present to you, even though backed up on our side to you in person by someone who works with military radars in his professional career on a daily basis. That is fine. More so, it is appreciated. We should always remain open to re-think our decisions, to re-visit our data, to re-verify our sources and to double check the outcome of our findings. We should always remain open to improving our products. But you cannot demand from us to prove to you that our claim is correct or false to disprove or prove your own claim. You can ask if we may share our sources with you, but when we say no, you then cannot demand it. Please be so kind and understand, that you also cannot expect us to follow up or change our modelling based on a claim that you have not backed up with any source or proven otherwise outside of putting up a theory yourself. Because contrary to us, you should present sources and factual data, if you want us to change what we presented so far. You don't have to, afterall, it is not your job, but please understand that we will not allocate costly ressources, work and time to overhauling something, which has been presented to us as wrong without any reputable source to back up your claims. Remember what I said above? If you do, we will however, because we made ourselves accountable towards what we promised. And lastly please accept it, when you ask for documents, and we say no, that it is a no which will always be given without reason, because the reason alone may be revealing what we may prefer not to reveal, which to protect is not only our right, but also obligation towards our business. Thank you for your kind understanding.

The pre-order date was moved to ensure everything that was needed for the pre-order event was ready. ( Media, video, shop ect. ect.) As for the Early Access date, as soon as RAZBAM / ED are ready it will be announced.

Yes, and 80-90% of added things are just "fixed" something broken.

This. And I'd also like to add that the major example of us changing something, which is the AIM-54C change, wasn't about finding contradictory information. It was about finding new sources with additional information. During that process we were open about that we had much better data on the AIM-54A than the AIM-54C and because of that we used those facts and then changed those parts of the baseline AIM-54A that we knew were improved in the AIM-54C to model that missile. The information we later received then got us additional info in regards to the difference between the AIM-54A and AIM-54C which we then tried to implement as best we could in the AIM-54C. The fact that we didn't change these things until we had more solid information on the AIM-54C should show our sincerity in how we use our sources imho. In this example we have explicit sources saying the zero doppler filter was like this. No ambiguity. Added to that we also have SMEs (including myself) corroborating that early pulse doppler radars had these issues due to the antenna design and limited signal processing available. This is why later pulse doppler radar systems have specific features added combating this issue.

From Baltic Dragon FB "Making good progress & having fun while working. Off course everything on the pictures is subject to change and WiP. Have a great day, everyone!"

When someone promises me nothing by a certain date, then dammit, that is EXACTLY when I expect to receive nothing! And I will accept nothing less than noth .... uh ... wait

You need a better translator. I can rarely understand your posts.

I'm 18 and work on a Phantom for Christmas sake, The amount of other young people I have seen that love the phantom is astounding. The Phanatic culture is most definitely still alive. I'm a feature there

Variations variations Made basetextures for I, II and II Gruppe JG.301. Stab will follow soon. Textures are made in such way, that each Staffel will look different. Contrary to my previous post, it indeed is possible to reference other liveries via lua. Albeit im a bit restricted by my color choices due to how the textures / uvw´s are layed out. Oh well... cant have everyything.. Atm the JG 301 hast 12. Staffeln. Mix and Match will take place once Stab is done. There is a IV Group, with a blue bar on the tailband, but that group only sported 109s afaik.

You will always find the latest version of all my assets here: http://www.currenthill.com Hey guys! Since the numbers of assets I've created is starting to grow considerably, I've decided to reorganize everything for your sake and mine. This will be the thread where I post information about releases of new and current assets. And I'd be happy to get your feedback on them as we've done so far. I appreciate you mentioning any issues you have, or ideas or new assets to create. To avoid confusion I will be decommissioning all my other threads. All the assets are available in one place with information about version, download link, size, stats and changelog with just a click.

Welcome to the Wish List section for the core game, this is for all those things you would love to see added to DCS World. This is a safe zone for free expression of ideas, there are no bad ideas that doesn't mean every idea will be added or can be added. In an effort to acknowledge your wishes more we have decided to start tagging threads and even joining in on the discussion if needed. This is not a high priority though so there may be some time that new wishes might go a little while before being acknowledged, but we promise to try and do better at letting you know we are watching. In the past we would just scroll through and look at them when we are looking at new features and additions to see what people are talking about, but no one knew we cared or watched, we do! The Tags: noted: This means that we have looked at your thread, we might add to the discussion and we will keep an eye on it. submitted: This means that its a intriguing idea and will be highlighted to management and the team, this doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow or even ever but it will be highlighted for possible addition to our internal plan. already requested: This has already been requested by someone on the team or in the past by another user, its already in the system but again, no guarantee it will be done soon or not. reported: This is just straight up a bug or issue that needs to be put into our internal reporting system and we have skipped right to that to do so. available: If a thread is marked solved then a solution is already available in the sim. Discussions: Wish List threads can be very personal, and as I said above there are no bad ideas. This doesn't mean everyone will like the idea. If you do not like the idea use the star rating on the threads We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing why something is bad, in fact most times we will just read the first post for the idea and move on from there, if there are 30 posts and a good star rating we will just assume everyone loves the idea. Yes that means that those of you that love arguing about ideas you don't like will actually help the idea get views. So if you don't like it, don't respond, give it 1 star. And be nice to each other. Added 'available' for tags.

I always wanted to try and paint that dragon onto a type 45 bow, getting an image to copy was difficult because they have changed that dragon shape a couple of times over the years but I found something I could copy and paste, it works quite well. I am old and my eye's are on the way out so I had to darken your Mod down a lot otherwise the game blinds me, so forgive me if this image looks a bit too dark, it's me age Guv !! I redid the numbers and added the flight deck codes as well, finding a decent RN font is almost impossible so its a compromise.

The thing with GN and most other reviewers is they don't test VR, and they don't test DCS in VR, we are a corner case of a corner case. I have seen 18 or 19gb or Vram used in missions, which would exceed the 4080 just, but I don't have a feel for by how much of an impact that would have. I deliberately waited to upgrade my 3090 to a 4090, I am not disappointed by the investment.

Agree it is very slow. Even with that long list of changes like 90%+ are fixes and some of the few 'added' are things like liveries, patches on pilots, etc.

This is not about legality. We do not have classified documentation and wouldn’t look for that either. Do we have documentation not available on the net? Yeah, ofc we do, that doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to have them. We also have information collated through extensive dialogue with SMEs. The simple fact is that when you have put extensive effort and resources into acquiring said information it doesn’t make sense to just give them away. And even so we kinda do in a way as we put the relevant information into the module and the module documentation.

Not all documentation acquired for module development is, in fact, covered under the lack of government copyright law for materials produced on its behalf. Systems training and company engineering and troubleshooting texts authored in-house retain copyright protection and are accessed accordingly, quite often at substantial cost, or donation (for example, they be provided by a museum). Contrary to popular opinion, "freedom of information" isn't. Contest a mandatory declassification review finding- that's the point where lawyers, billable hours, and government costs kick in. But wait- this is for *commercial* purposes: billable research hours and per-page costs start government side from the initial request. After all the expense, all the time, and all the back and forth between controlling offices and final service branch chief office oversight prior to signoff, you're left with materials that are very much in the realm of proprietary- because that research cost is an investment; one that needs recovered at a threshold well above e-peen wagging in forum debates. Somebody else wants that material, they themselves can go fetch, as not every document hits the servive reading rooms. So what it all boils down to is simple: when the system works like it should, to the recollection of the people who flew the machine and operated the radar, as well as the people who tested and maintained the equipment- when the people who helped build the model explicitly state a number from documentation, it's the number. At this point, with the amount of heat they've willingly accepted for supposedly downgrading weapons and systems to more closely approximate what they can prove to have been the functionality, a wide gate is the least of your concerns to debate regarding how well they understand what has been presented. And if you're still unable go accept that an early 1960s derived system built with a specific operating area in mind, constructed with the best (but albeit era-limited storage and back end techniques), and with processing far more dependent on the operator skill and knowledge of the EW environment than what it had built in under the hood, that's a "you" issue regards to understanding, not anybody else.

Legally availably does not mean freely available. You can purchase documentation or be granted access with a restricted license.

rip

Glad to see the interest Before the release, I'd like to make a couple more variations of the middle floor so it doesn't look too repetitive, especially once destroyed. There also doesn't seem to have any consistency with where the units spawns once placed on top of the building. Sometimes they spawn on the very top floor, sometimes on the ground floor and sometimes somewhere in between. It seems random which is a bit annoying, needs further testing. i.e. 3 story building, they all spawn on the top floor But here they spawn somewhere in the middle

MODULAR BUILDING MOD PAINTKIT FOR THE GROUND & BILLBOARD Installation: Drop the "Modular Building" folder in C:\Users\%username%\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\ Ingame, the building elements can be found under "Static Objects -> Structures -> MB - XXX"

Nobody pays attention to the ingame ATC. The only thing it does provide is a suggestion to which runway to use, but online people take off from whatever direction is closer to them. Especially in aerobatics/free flight servers, real life procedures are most often disregarded and the players fly like they want to. The only "etiquette" to follow is try not to kill too many friendlies.

The OPV HMS Tamar P233 also has a red Dragon painted on the upperworks and I'm sure I saw another 'Dragon' in Plymouth Sound last year but I forget which ship it was. Might have been one of the smaller MCM boats. I think what you posted there from the Wales website is probably true, its unusual, but very credible. Close associations with named ports/cities has always been encouraged in the RN, port visits being undertaken where possible to show the ships off to the Taxpayer ! - and its good for recruiting, which is major problem for the RN today. Cant think why HMS Tamar has a Dragon on her, must find out ! (Ships crest has a red dragon on it - is the answer) Hijack over - sorry Currenthill !!

Yes. @fat creason is working on it as we speak.

Should be there in next patch

No conversation about delays is complete without someone mentioning the F-35...

Cheers. I'll try again after the next update then. Keep up the good work. (Pantsir? S-400? )

It's abundantly clear how little experience you have with the process. Get yourself through the successful appeal of an MDR and come back to me.

I've just bought some random Chinese product (which I will cancel as soon Razbam starts the pre purchase) for exactly $55,99. Feels almost like the real thing.

Razbam doing it all wrong. They should start preorder right now, and call it something like "Early Preorder" with the price 1k$. I bet there will be alot of people paying that price.

When it finally arrives in earnest, it will be great. It's tantalizingly close.

J-8II represents the drastic redesign of some features of the J-8 that distinguish it from J-8I. Here is the J-8I Finback-A airframe. And here is the J-8II Finback-B airframe, this picture is actually of one of the J-8IIs that vistied the US for the Peace Pearl (PP) Program. So to clarify, the J-8PP isn't truly a separate variant from the J-8II but a modified J-8II. The J-8B, 8PP, B Block 2, 8C, 8D, 8F, 8H, JZ-8F, F-8B and F-8IIM all belong to the J-8II family line . The J-8PP we are getting represents an early J-8II model with later models getting newer radars and weapons such as the PL-12 or reconnaissance equipment. Hopefully this helps clear things up for you and others As a sidenote, I'm hoping the AI variant gets PL-12s

Why do all the people whining about a Pre-Order? Well, i could understand that, when an early access date postponed again. But a Pre-Order, that's hilariously.

I strongly suspect that deliberately delaying the pre-order time again and again may be a means of starvation marketing, which feels bad

Yea BRAA should definitely be magnetic, this also conflicts with the true/mag mode set in the aircraft.

You can't make an accurate model based on qualitative descriptions. The kind of documents and data that is classified or otherwise held from the public is also, not coincidentally, the kind of data you need to make an accurate model. You, the general public, not knowing what's classified about a program might just be by design

Одел пенсне и ещё внимательнее пригляделся))). Можно мертвые зоны убрать! Переключаем в настройках кривые отклика осей на пользовательские тн «ползунки» и делаем так, чтобы самый первый столбец-ползунок начинался со значения 4 или 5. Остальную кривую из ползунков кривим как нужно. Хопс: теперь Вайпер ходит за ручкой и начинает аккуратно откликаться на ее милиписическое отклонение сразу! Как я раньше не догадался туда залезть - хз…

@FlyingAlex The loft can be adjusted, and in fact has been. I haven't tested them thoroughly since the holidays when I put out the Modern Missiles mod. The F-22 is using similar code for the 120D's. Something may have changed in recent updates to increase the effect of the loft value. Depending on which version you're using, look in the files A2A_Missiles.lua or aim120_family.lua and under the AIM-120D you'll find this line: loft_factor = 3.0, --NIGHTSTORM Reduced loft factor from 4.5 for new seeker code to avoid overshoot. As you can see, even by the note I'd already reduced the loft value from the original 4.5. Also, I lowered it to avoid the exact issue you're describing. That problem was introduced several months ago. Since they've adjusted the seeker code again, it might have broken it again. Try dropping it down to 2 and see if it makes a difference. I won't have time to test this until the weekend myself. However, that's the likely culprit.

Yes, and what you're describing is the usage for motion reprojection. It is possible for VR platform vendors to use NV Optical Flow to improve the quality of motion reprojection drastically. See the other post shared by @Pride37 right above explaining how I am doing this for WMR platforms. You can read my explanation of how motion reprojection works here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/motion-reprojection-explained/548659?u=mbucchia. NV Optical Flow can be used to greatly improve the motion estimation phase of the algorithm. In all cases, this remains completely different from DLSS3 frame generation, which interpolates between 2 already rendered frames, as pointed out by @Rifter. Sure both use the same method for estimating motion between 2 images, but forward propagation (used in motion reprojection) is much more complex and less forgiving (hence the artifacts). The issue with DLSS frame generation (and backward reprojection in general) is latency, which I have detailed in great amounts here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/will-dlss-3-0-be-supported-in-vr-msfs/543836/47?u=mbucchia Personally, I don't see any easy path today to get DLSS 3 frame generation in VR, because the added latency is just too much. I expect it would take significant rework of any game engine and/or VR platform to support it. At which point, today's motion reprojection techniques are simply more attractive, especially if they leverage the power of NV Optical Flow. This is however not accurate. NV Optical Flow doesn't come for free. It needs to be implemented by each vendor in their motion reprojection algorithm. Most implementations today either rely on Direct3D motion estimator or the NVENC SDK, both are generic motion vector engines and they are not capable of leveraging the Optical Flow capabilities (in other words: neither of them get any "free" benefit from Optical Flow). For reference, it took me quite a few weeks of on/off work to replace our usage of the D3D motion estimator with the NV Optical Flow in WMR (but unreleased at this time).

Release is way more down the line. This is about the pre-order date! And Razbam already said it is only delaying the PRE-order, not the development, or the release...

Sure! Great idea. Edit: It's now implemented!

detailed area and airfields are at the first page of this topic. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/309536-faq-and-updates/ now the task is to prepare and release the map in early access, of course we will continue to develop and improve the map after that yes we thought about it, but we are not doing it at this stage of the map creation

Ich kenne das Problem. Findest du? Fliegerisch ist die A-10C ein Traum. Keine Computer, die einem dazwischenquatschen und irgendwas Komisches veranstalten, exzellente Flugeigenschaften, gutmütiges Flugverhalten, fast unmöglich in einen tiefen Strömungsabriss zu fliegen, geringe Landegeschwindigkeit, gleichzeitig hohe Wendigkeit... Ich finde, von allen DCS-Modulen fliegt sich die A-10 so ziemlich am einfachsten und am direktesten. Wenn es um die Systeme und den Waffeneinsatz geht, wird es komplexer, klar. Da nimmt sich die A-10C aber nicht viel mit den anderen modernen Mustern. Anders als die Hornet hat sie immerhin eine vernünftige Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle sowie ein HOTAS-Konzept, das diesen Namen auch verdient. Beispielsweise die F-5 soll ja recht einfach in der Handhabung sein. Aber wenn man dann Waffen ins Ziel bringen will, ist ein CCIP-Pipper, gefüttert mit ballistischen Kalkulationen und einer digitalen Terrain-Datenbank im Zusammenspiel mit metergenauer GPS-Positionsbestimmung, echt eine andere Hausnummer als wenn man die Parameter eines Z-Sleds mit höchster Präzision treffen muss, um seine Bomben wenigstens in die Nähe des Ziels zu bringen. Für mich vereint die A-10C das beste beider Welten (einfaches und größtenteils durch Mechanik und Hydraulik gesteuertes Flugverhalten mit modernen Systemen für den Waffeneinsatz). Plus die üblichen Talking-Points: absurd große Waffenzuladung, lange Loiter-Time, gute Überlebensfähigkeit, eine 30mm-Kanone mit über 1000 Schuss, und zu guter letzt Piloten, die sich auf diese Aufgabe spezialisieren ("protecting the 19 year old kid with a rifle").

Type 45 Destroyer 1.0.0 released!

F-4 all the way. I don't have time for ultra-complex 4+ gen fighters anymore. Too much too learn and remember. A week passes without flying and I have to relearn. No time, no patience. Cold War ftw.