Leaderboard

The answer to this question and many more is coming in an update post soon...

@TOMCATZ: before you start, keep in mind that I wrote the following rather quickly. Give me a shout if there's something not clear /**************************************************************************/ I thought I had more time, it turns out I didn't. @The_Tau has already lined up some facts, so I'm just going to add some numbers. Keep in mind the "age" thing. In primis, remember that the Tomcat is closer to a P-47 (32 years) than a JF-17 (33 years). This is a hyperbole, ofc, but it bluntly puts into perspective what we are dealing with. In secundis, you can read a lot of diverse and often wrong takes on the Phoenix on the internet. Trust the numbers, leave the rest out. PERFORMANCE Let's start with the performance. Ab initio players tend to miss the huge differences between common missiles and the Phoenix. This will probably happen again with the Meteor, at some point. The following is the impact speed of the C Mk47 vs range. Forget the loft for a minute, and look at the speed. Scenario: hot, Vc ~M1.9, 35,000ft. As you can see, it is not linear, and it is rather stable after a certain point. Let's use a different chart now. Same ordinate and abscissa, this time standard employment, no loft. They differ a bit because the criteria and the parameters of the scenario are different, primarily Vc (in this scenario the target is static): Due to the low Vc, this chart highlights better the performance of the missiles. See that big jump in the performance? This is due to how the Phoenix is controlled and commanded by the WCS. All this is explained in the manual, but it is paramount from the proper employment of the missile. Something these charts don't tell you, is how the vertical plane is used, so let's move to chart #3, which shows the Apex of the envelope. The employment altitude for this scenario was 35k. To no one's surprise, at 20 nm the altitude is 35k. Then, it increases almost linearly through the envelope. However, this affects the separation at timeout: The separation is again rather linear, and it settles at around 35%-40% of the initial separation. Problem: the chart above shows a manually lofted missile. Otherwise, the performance is worse. So, to put everything into context, we have a long stick, performance between 15-20 nm is poor, until ~30/35 nm is ok-ish, but very slow compared to others. Speaking of others, let's see how much modern missile compare to the AIM-54C Mk47 (1986). Here we have the AIM-120B (1994) and the R-27ER (1990, apparently?). The 120B is comparable-ish, it has advantages and disadvantages. At long range, the Phoenix prevails. The R-27ER is the fastest missile in DCS and blows even the AIM-120C-5 and the SD-10 out of the water. I wonder what they feed the missiles with in China, the SD-10 is damn fast! lol Important: I consider a cutoff date in my scenarios equal to mid 90s. Why? Because the geopolitical situation caused a lot of chances in the evolution of the Tomcat, the AIM-152 and so on, and we don't even have the F-14D. There is little point playing with an almost mid Cold War aircraft vs modern stuff. Therefore, I won't consider AIM-120C and SD-10. This is only a partial relief, as the R-27ER is still a huge threat (although notching in DCS is too easy. It shouldn't be like that). Comparing R-27ER and AIM-54C, we notice that, within a ~20nm, there is no story and the R-27ER performs better. The 120B is somewhat comparable depending on the range, and the Super 530D sits between the envelope of the 120B and the AIM-54. Also, this is a hot scenario, the moment the missile has to turn, farewell energy. So, in conclusion: let's take advantage of our strengths and employ at a range that allows us to safely shoot, and allows us enough room for second employment. 60 nm is a sweet spot, especially if you add a bit of loft. Considering cranking by definition (55ATA), A-Pole is around 25-30 nm. This should allow Out before MAR. Or, you can defend, assess and decide what to do next. The target has to defend the shot (btw, shooting to force someone to defend is nonsense, you shoot to kill), as at A-Pole its speed is M2+: Whatever you have decided, now we get to a shorter timeline, the important is employing in a situation where A-Pole > MAR. Although the 54C gives you a bit more room. The tricky bit here is making sure that you are launching at an advantageous range. If ~10/13nm < separation < 21 nm, then you are in for the worst performance possible of the missile. So, let's say we are down to 15k, MAR R-27ER should be ~17nm, if you shoot at 30+nm, the separation at A-Pole should be around 14/16 nm, which is dangerous but feasible (I'm eyeballing here). The last step depends on your plan. If banzai, notch for a few seconds (it's very easy in the Tomcat, especially with LINK4), if naked go in; otherwise I'd abort, bugout and wave goodbye. The Su-27 should not be able to catch you. You can almost always force a draw against any opponent. I tried to keep this is as simple and plain as possible. If you are new to this, and it sounds like plenty of random words, trust me, it's stupidly easy, and it's not as fancy as it sounds: - shoot at long range (60nm); - crank, manage speed to reduce Vc; - A-Pole, go out or prepare a follow-up shot; - second shot, monitor MAR, then merge or run away. Obviously, the problem with long-range shots, is that they are easily to defeat kinematically. A crank, sometimes, is more than enough. That's why the Phoenix is very strong in realistic, low SA scenarios. For example, in the Cold War, RWRs weren't as precise or common as today. In the Iran - Iraq war, but also in the 90s Gulf War, you see people dying whilst driving straight into a missile. In DCS, this does not happen at all! Humans know everything all the time as SA is too easy to obtain on any server, the avionics of many modules is better than an F-35, and the AI can notch perfectly even with the most basic RWR. These are some of the great issues of the Phoenix right now, but the biggest is the lack of understanding of the missile which, hopefully, it is now a bit more clear. RESOURCES Various definitions: https://flyandwire.com/2020/12/24/intercept-geometry-part-ii-definitions/ WEZ, MAR, LAR + Tool: the plan was to create a proper WEZ model for the 15 most common missiles in DCS, I don't have time to complete it right now, so this is more like a NEZ model. Get the missile performance tool linked inside: https://flyandwire.com/2023/02/17/determining-wez-mar-lar/ AIM-54 Manual loft - Part I: intro to the AIM-54. The Phoenix is unique, if you don't understand it, you're going to have problems. AIM-54 Manual loft - Part II: data discussion: kind of interesting if you want to squeeze a bit more energy out of the missile - at a cost. First look at the "new" AIM-54: written right after the patch. They should still work for a quick, non-in-depth overview. Energy: https://flyandwire.com/2022/09/05/new-aim-54-brief-look-part-ii-energy/ Guidance: https://flyandwire.com/2022/09/05/new-aim-54-brief-look-part-i-guidance/

All earlier AH-64 simulations like Longbow 2, Team Apache, Enemy Engaged etc. were extremely simplified in every possible aspect, we wouldn't even call them simulations today, but arcade shooters, from flight model and flight control, through avionics, weapons up to 2-crew interaction, not even close to the current state of DCS Apache. Let alone finished with FCR, interferometer, Longbow datalink etc. To be honest it's incredible something so complex was even possible to be made in commercial non-military simulation. ED is doing fantastic job here, they have to have significant amount of experienced coders to be able to work on F/A-18C, F-16C, Mi-24P, AH-64D at the same time and still working on DCS engine.

I address this exact point in the last paragraph of the OP. I am not asking for the missile to have magic terrain avoidance. I am asking for adjustments in guidance laws to reduce the chance of the missile hitting the ground when targeting diving targets. Did I not make this clear enough in my original post? If so I will add clarification.

Been messing around with taxi routes again. This is a work in progress and I'm also working on routes for the Forrestal. They don't and won't work in MP and I have no plans to figure that out...I only play SP because I can't commit to a group. Wife says no lol. Once I finish them, I'll deliver the goods.

Regarding zoom see peachmonkey. Ill defo redo the cockpit but later. Ill wrap this up soon. Exterior first. Then ill dish out the jg301 as a beta to gather feedback etc. for improvements. Once that is there ill update, do the interior parts like wheels, gearbay etc. And release the template so that its all neat and tidy. Then ill take care of the cockpit. As you could read on the last pages im really pressing this as i simply want to move on, knowing how i operate. Just dont wanna turn cold on it. Once the base stuff is done i can/will dish out more versions as a "defenders of the reich" pack. Just for the giggles. Thats the rough plan. Regarding id ed implements this idk. I dont mind on my end really . However some portions of the textures are made from samples of free texture pages of which im not so sure if they permit their textures bein "sold", even if these are cut up, streched, dyed et etc. But im no lawyer. Also filesize is a thing... it jumped from 2k per texture to 4k each. One diffuse map is 20mb. The rouhhmat textures 40mb each. Double that for the normals. The jg 301 pack stands at about 1.2 gig now. It puts me already in hard spot where i have to simply recombine textures for more variations. Real franken doras.

Ask Pete Mitchell what he thinks about negative G

As it was noted before AIM-54 Phoenix is NOT AIM-120 AMRAAM - its much older (concept from 1950s, design/electronics from 1960s or best case 1986 for 54C - 14 YEARS before 120C-5) - DIFFERENT PURPOSE! from different era! - Different shape/weight class (needless to say there are no more short, fat missiles, but rather long and thin - there is good reason for it) You have the biggest radar ever fitted to fighter, best detection and possible engagement range at least until Eurofighter arrives. From those facts IMO limiting yourself to 30-35nm shots (like you would employ with 120) is a great handicap and limitation placed on F14. AIM54 is fast in comparison to other weapons which were in service at the time of its introduction in 1974, mainly AIM-7 sparrow. Comparing it to 2000s AIM120C-5 is pointless However it got poor acceleration and ridicules' drag, employing it like 120 will put you in great disadvantage. Needless to say that AIM54 mk47 will have great difficulty to break mach 2 when fired from below 10k, mach 0.9 Firing at 30nm will allow bandit (except one armed with IR missiles or like MiG21) to potentially /spot you/lock you/fire at you/go defensive even before your 54 goes active. All he really needs to do is to go into notch for few seconds and your TWS track is gone. On top of that 54 will not have really energy to do anything to really threaten him. If your goal is to force him to go defensive, you might as well fire AIM7 preserving 54s for closer ranges for Fire and Forget capability AIM54 when employed correctly is amazingly good at keeping same amount of energy over distance. Missile energy wise for TWS shots, there is not much difference between 35nm shot or 60-70nm shot. MIssile will arrive at pitbull point with very similar energy. So why not use that to your advantage and fire from longer range, and stay outside enemy engagement range? If bandit is at above 40k when missile which still have at least 2.5 mach of energy goes active, PK of 54 is very high even against ACE AI or humans. Here is an interview with former F14 crew member that said that they doctrine of using 54s was to fire at 40nm ranges up to 30nm for TWS shots. then 30nm-20nm was missile "deadzone" as bandit will be much more aware of danger from you due to your proximity to him, and more likely to start defensive maneuvers. And then they would use STT at ranges 20nm and less. In my experience in DCS these ranges are very much true or even you could use mentioned older distances of firing at 60nm. In PvP especially, if bandit is high above 30k-35k at 60nm he still is ingresing towards target area, thinking he is completely safe. He might arm bombs, check phone whatever, and suddenly got RWR warning. He might even ignore it thinking its for someone else. You add to that at least 1.2 mach, 30k-40k ft alt you would be cruising, following Missile Abort Ranges (for 120 especially), and then you are extremely hard to kill to any SPAMRAM throwers (F-15 included).

No problem, it only takes one little character in the wrong place to prevent a LUA file from loading! I'm continuing to test, but will update both the single and multi-player releases shortly. Most likely this evening after work. Thank you!

They don't need to be aware of the ground at all, that's the idea. They just need to be conservative about taking a dive and this is all done in relation to the target. This is accomplished by running a different guidance method on the altitude axis. What 'short' distance is, is very subjective depending on what your purpose is.

OK let's do a quiz. I put the aircraft A and B here. A and B are both originally designed as an interceptor for high altitude and high speed, while B was developed for several other usage, but A was never put into most of those usage. A and B have similar intakes design, but A has a fixed intakes and B variable, and B has conical camber while A doesn't. As a result, B is better at dogfight than A. A and B have some rumor about copy, but their similarity is quite limited and can be well explained in their development history, while the rumor just ignores it and keeps on asking for an explanation for the similarity, which they want. Now tell me are they MiG-25 and F-15? Well, it could be Su-15 and J-8II. The difference is just, your preference. Surely invalidate. I have shown you the development history and it can explain "why the J-8II looks in this style", so logically no need for a different theory for its looks getting a Su-15 involved, if you found them similar, the story and convergent evolution have already told you the reason, what's beyond them is only the coincidence. If you persist in your theory, it's your job to provide more evidence for your theory, such like a document of Chinese espionage to steal a Su-15 print or aircraft or wreckage. So where is it? Agree. However, discussing with an impenitent guy is never intended to change his mind, but to prevent him from deceiving others. Our forum has too much tolerance to ill-considered rumors and too little to those against them.

Been a bit sick lately, so no posty posty. Texture files are getting confusing.. forgot to flip normal map Y channel, now its poppin. Also forgot the surface scratch layer and the larger mud splotches. fixed some other things along the way. first test of the stressed skin on the normal map, albeit dont wanna overdo it as the skinl never looked too "bumpy" telling from pics. Madness.Really.

Ultimately, the future of DCS is cold war. DCS modern is basically a dead end. Currently we have like ~10 Cold war modules (F4/23/A7/A6/F100/G91/kfir/J8PP/mig29 (mig17 and su17 likely too)) in the pipe, and literally 1 modern module (EF). And really for modern what more can plausibly be done? ED likely will squirt out an F18E that will be a warmed over C model. You've got the Rafale (unlikely), Mirage2000-5 (maybe), And the grippen (again unlikely) and the F15C (maybe). Thats it for modern, likely only 1-2 more modules. Meanwhile for CW you have smorgasboard of 50's, 60's and 70's planes, I can think of like 20 off the top of my head.

I am a bit late to the party but have been getting into DCS Combined Arms + World War Assets Pack with the intention of looking at all the stuff you have compared to Il2 Sturmovik and Tank Crew. The attitude to development seems the same here as there. Both have produced a module with fantastic potential and just left it sitting on the shelf gathering dust. The ground objects are way better here than in IL2 currently. There are so many more vehicles that can be driven. The outside models look really good as well. I played a mission with a squad mate the other evening where I lazer marked a target for him to bomb from an F16. He did it blind from 20,000 and hit it bullseye. This opens up so many options. Please give CA some love and who knows what audience it might attract.

Source?

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.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3328191/ All missions take place in various regions of the Caucasus map. A series of quick missions (Most take 3-10 minutes though 'Advanced' and 'Expert' missions may take longer), designed to help Viper pilots practice their systems workflow, refine their key binds and HOTAS controls, axis curves, and employment proficiency with a variety of both air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems, Air-to-Air refueling, as well as some more advanced scenario based training, that will test your flying abilities while expanding your Viper skills. These are designed to be quick and hassle-free ways to practice selecting the weapon systems, picking your modes, options, ripple patterns, etc. in order to ingrain good muscle memory and habits so it becomes second nature when flying real missions. If a mission has a live threat present, it will always be noted in the mission briefing. Missions are broken down into 5 categories for easy navigation: - 'Fun' - Just that. Fun scenarios, doing silly things, to just enjoy flying the Viper. No stress. No threats. - '.Basic': Essential skills for new pilots. Landing, formation flying, spotting, etc. - 'Weapons' - Threat free environments to practice weapons employment. The bedrock that this mission pack is built on. - 'Advanced' - Scenario-based training. Live threats may be present. Read all mission briefs in full. - 'Expert': - High level scenario-based missions. May contain multiple types of live threats and/or difficult flying conditions. Limited use of F10 and labels. Read mission briefs thoroughly. These are not tutorials. I include some helpful tips here and there, but there are no step by step directions telling you how to select and employ the systems required. These are practice missions. A basic understanding of the jet is required. (Though they could be useful if you're following along with Tutorial videos or checklists.) There is a briefing accompanying each mission letting you know your airspeed, altitude, situation and overall objective. The F10 map, Labels and Active Pause are available in all missions, except for Expert level scenarios. NOTE: If you have any version older than v.3.2 it is strongly recommended that you delete all old missions and download the latest version. Numerous missions will not function properly due to patch updates. ** MOST RECENT UPDATE **: v3.6 - July 29th, 2025 *Changelog:* THE SNIPER POD IS HERE - All missions where the Targeting Pod is relevant (About half the mission pack) Have had additional client aircraft added with the ATP equipped on the jet. All aircraft are labeled with either 'LITENING' or 'SNIPER' tags, but if I missed one, just remember, if it doesn't say 'Sniper', it has the old pod. Other Changes: - 'Air to Air Guns' has been moved to Advanced from Basic. This was one of the earliest missions I made and it is absolutely not a true beginner test of skill. - A new mission: 'Weapons - Aerial Gunnery Basics' has been added with unresponsive, unmoving F4 Phantom drones for a truly basic AA guns practice mission. - A LITENING & SNIPER pod client has been added to the 'Fight the Phoenix' mission, for those of you who want to practice your BVR target ID skills. - Targeting pod client aircraft have been added to the 'Weapons - AG Guns & Unguided Rockets' mission. Includes the following Categories & Missions: Fun: - Airshow Demonstration - Marianas Tanker Shoot - Carrier Landings Weapon systems: - AIM-9M Sidewinder - AIM-9X Sidewinder High Off Bore shots - AIM-120C RWS Mode - AIM-120C TWS Mode - CBU-87 - CBU-97 - CBU-103 - CBU-105 - GBU 10 & 12 (Single mission for both.) - GBU 24 - HARM - HARM with Datalink - IR Mavericks - TV Mavericks - JDAM - JSOW - Mk 82 & Mk 84 unguided bombs (single mission for both) - Mk 82 Snakeyes - Air to ground guns & Unguided rockets (single mission for both) - Air to Air Guns - Maverick Boresight Practice Basic Skills: - Air to Air Refueling - Cold Start & Takeoff - Cold Start & Takeoff at Night - Air to Air Refueling (Easy comms, no external tanks) - Visual landing: low light & fog - Visual landing: clear night - Visual landing: clear day - Visual landing: rain and light wind - Instrument Landing System (ILS) Practice - Ground Moving Target radar - SEA Mode - Beginner Formation Flying - Spotting Practice: Air to Air - Mark Points/GMT Radar Employment - TNDL Datalink Advanced Skills: (All BFM Scenarios have a randomly selected enemy jet with a random skill level.)- Air to Air Refueling (No easy comms/Tacan required, external tanks) - Air to Air Refueling - Night (Easy comms, labels on) - BFM - Neutral - Fox 2s. - BFM - Neutral - Guns Only. - BFM - Defensive - Fox 2s. - BFM - Defensive - Guns Only. - BFM - Defensive - 2v1 Guns Only. - BFM - Defensive - 2v1 Fox 2s. - BFM - Offensive - 2v1 Guns Only. - BFM - Offensive - 2v1 Fox 2s. - BVR with AWACS - BVR without AWACS - DTOS Mode w/ CBUs (No Threats) - DTOS Mode w/ CBUs (AAA & Manpads present) - CCRP Low level toss bombing attack - Bad weather low altitude Maverick employment - Low level CCRP Strike w/ high-drag bombs (Mk. 84 or Snakeyes; your choice) - Wild Weasel: SA-2 - Wild Weasel: SA-10 - Wild Weasel: SA-3 - Wild Weasel: SA-6 - Wild Weasel: SA-11 - Wild Weasel: SA-8 - Wild Weasel: SA-15 - Wild Weasel: SA-5 - Wild Weasel: AAA & MANPADS - Sustained Formation Flight - Sustained Night Formation Flight - Flameout Landing Approach - Fight the Phoenix - Air to Air Guns on Maneuvering Targets Expert Level Scenarios: - 'Two Dogs' Refuel - 500lbs of fuel remain. Hit the tanker before your engine flames out. - 360 Degree BFM - All points on the compass. Get your head on a swivel. - (2 Player Possible)Go for the Head - Take out critical communication bunkers before enemy CAP arrives. - (2 Player Possible)Gecko Hunt - This mission has received a massive overhaul (as of 7/9/23) in order to increase replayability and now has five possible scenarios that go off a random trigger at mission start, all still involving hunting moving SA8s. Some scenarios involve MANPADS and enemy helicopter threats. Now has three available client aircraft armed with either IR Mavs, TV Mavs, or GBU-12s. - (2 Player Possible)On The Run - Search and Destroy on enemy HVT fleeing via speedboat. (Tanking required) - Fox 3 & Fox 1 Unknown Adversary - Fox 2 Unknown Adversary - Air to Air Refueling - Blackout - Dusk & Night Wild Weasel - ILS Landing Approach - Dense Fog (Huge thank you to Mulder76 for creating this one!) To install: Unzip folder and extract the Folder titled 'Viper Proficiency v2.X. Copy and paste to: Users -> *Your username folder* -> Saved Games -> DCS.openbeta (Or DCS if you're running stable version)-> Missions Then go to the 'Missions' tab on the main menu of DCS and at the top should be the folder containing all missions. Viper_Proficiency_v3.6.zip

Since always in DCS, AI helicopters are even more armored than a T-90 ! In our last squadron mission, I had to fire at least 3 or 4 Vikhr (All splash) to destroy a Mi-24. Since Black Shark 3, we now have IGLAS. But it seems that we have to swing at least our 4 iglas to hope to destroy a single Mi-24! Most AI helicopters are overpowered, overarmored, they resist ATGMs, IR missiles, and even 30mm bursts...! It is high time for AI to be more vulnerable than at present. If a helicopter "survives" an IGLA or a Vikhr, it should be in very bad shape. And if there is a "missile splash", it should result in the destruction of the target in 90% of cases! A lot of Helicopter is as resistant. Mi-24, Mi-8, Chinook...

Currently the cockpit textures are tied to the normal texture setting. The terrain textures are separate. This means that if you require the textures lowered to improve performance (especially for VR) you have to sacrifice the ability to read labels and instruments in the cockpit as well. A solution to this issue would be to have the cockpit textures on a different setting much like the terrain textures. The cockpit is the most important part of what the player sees, especially in VR. Your plane's external texture, or the textures of other aircraft and vehicles does not matter as much as the players cockpit. This method would greatly improve the experience for VR uses or those on older systems.

This has major implications on the flight model, to the point where the entire flight model could be considered incorrect. null This document has a lot of interesting information in it, but what we care about is this graph. This graph shows the relation between the position of the anti-torque pedals and the pitch of the blades of the tail rotor. It shows that at full left (0%), the tail rotor blades have a pitch of 18 degrees. It shows that centered (50%), the tail rotor blades have a pitch of 4 degrees. It shows that 65% from full left, the tail rotor blades have a pitch of 0 degrees, making no thrust. It shows that 100% from full left, the tail rotor blades have a pitch of -10.5 degrees, making nose right thrust. The DCS huey's tail rotor blades don't even come close to that. Here is a picture with the pedals full left. The blades have a pitch of about 22-25 degrees. Here is an image with the pedals centered. The blades have a pitch of about 10-12 degrees. Here is an image of the pedals all the way to the right. The blades have a pitch of about 0- -2 degrees, we'll assume 0 degrees and the camera isn't directly above the top of the blade so it looks a little angled. OK, so maybe you think it's just an animation error. I can prove that it is not. I can prove that is how it is modeled in the flight model. But first lets look at that graph again about 24% from full left (52% left of center) shows the blades at a pitch of around 10.5 degrees. 100% from full left (full right) shows the blades at a pitch of around 10.5 degrees in the other direction. With the helicopter stationary on the ground, either of these positions should place the exact same amount of stress on the driveshaft. This means that if we turn the governor off, both positions should reduce RPM by the same amount. Not even close. The bottom left example shows the pedals 25% from full left, considered 50% left of center, this means that the tail rotor blades will be at a SMALLER pitch than what full right should be, therefore should reduce RPM by LESS than the pedals full right would. The top middle example shows the pedals 100% from full left, all the way to the right, barely even touching the RPM, infact the RPM is slightly higher. The tail rotor, as modeled on the DCS UH-1H, is modeled incorrectly, not only visually, but also in terms of how it affects the flight model. The tail rotor is modeled as if full right pedal puts the blades at a pitch of 0 degrees. Producing no thrust. The repercussions of this encompass basically the entire flight model. With the tail rotor acting the way it does, it means that the phyiscal strength of relative torque values is entirely incorrect, and proper trim in a properly modeled aircraft would technically be impossible in some basic turns.

When entering a new radio frequency into the VHF radio, any frequency above 100 MHz incorrectly require trailing zeroes, otherwise it will just flash and refuse the entry. Here are some examples to clarify the issue. Input -> Expected results -> Actual result 15 -> 15 -> 15 30 -> 30.00 -> 30.00 301 -> 30.10 -> 30.10 120 -> 120.00 -> Error 1200 -> 120.00 -> Error 12000 -> 120.00 -> 120.00 Here are similar examples for the UHF radio (which works correctly): 15 -> 15 -> 15 300 -> 300.00 -> 300.00 3000 -> 300.00 -> 300.00 30000 -> 300.00 -> 300.00 The UHF radio works as expected and the VHF radio works correctly except when entering frequencies above 100 MHz where you need to enter five digits rather than three to be able and input the frequency. B_VHF_Trailing_Zeros.trk

Hi guys, Aerges did a nice job with the CE checklist, but I like it more compact. As usual I made a CE version and today I updated it to the EE version plus Night Ops version of the checklist. Two pages and it solve it. You will find the EE specific items in purple. An example bellow: It may be download from Mirage F1 CE & EE Quick Checklist Files Download Page. I hope you like it. All the best, Sydy

I'm sorry you are mixing things now, unless I misunderstood this was about the speed of development of a in-development early access module. What you are referencing is the Mi-8 which is out of EA, is fully released and feature complete. You are wanting a feature added after the fact, which I will add WE WANT TO DO, but it is a matter of development time, honestly the Mi-8 needs a complete refresh but we require the development time to do so. Anyways, comparing the Mi-8 getting a new feature to the AH-64 still in development makes no sense to me and has no bearing on our "business model". Thanks.

That may be so. But this is not really related to what happens in the real aircraft. Several DCS modules have option of a “afterburner gate” button required to be depressed to allow AB, this is extremely useful for people playing with basic joysticks that don’t have throttle detents, or have very imprecise throttle controls. It effectively allows you to lock yourself out of AB to make sure you aren’t using it accidentally. It’s a nice quality of life option imho.

Just noticed this funny little thing on my forum profile titled "Days Won". It's the number of times you've had the most likes in a day for forum posts. Haha.

I think a lot of people have addressed this already but I'd also like to point out that even if less than half the Israeli and Iranian claims are to be believed, they still scored more kills in the F-4E than the USAF did in Vietnam. They also fired more AGM-65's and possibly destroyed more ground targets with them. I can empathize with Vietnam being the most popular and favourite among the DCS crowd, so I get it. But I think it's important to remember that the Vietnam War was not the only, and arguably not necessarily the most important conflict from several metrics for every history buff on these forums. I think the Marianas could *maybe* work even if you take off and pretend you're in a USAF Thailand base but the immersion sort of breaks down once you see water everywhere. I think we'll have to wait and hope that there will be a practical way of simulating trees that block LoS while also allowing munitions through.

Reference this video as an example of how strike missions against integrated air defenses can be conducted: Desert Storm seemed to have set the standard for how modern bombing campaigns are conducted, at-least by western powers. At 13:24, there is a reference to "Pubar's Party", an engagement that involved using TALDs and other decoy drones to bait SAM operators into turning on their radars, only to be destroyed by a follow-up SEAD mission. These tactics translate well in DCS, especially with Skynet. I would think that these strategies would be necessary in order to defeat modern S-300 and S-400 systems.

Yes our version of f18 behaves that way.

Countless hours playing that against my brother via a serial connection. Belt-fed AMRAAMs FTW!

Распаял магнитный датчик, работает как без проблем. Собрал для тестов регулировочный потенциометр. Немного изменил конструкцию, вращение не идеальное но достаточно хорошее.

I just would like to mention that China did copy a lot of designs in the past. Although i would argue that, this isnt something negative. Its just an step in the Evolution of an Design, first you copy something and use it to learn from its mistakes to become better and make an better product. To somewhat get onto topic, even if China copied design choices from the Su-15 or if they copied other stuff from the US or other foreign nations, its quite smart. Why waste money re-inventing someone's working technology, if its cheaper to recreate it. Also, if China did manage to copy (or "steal") foreign designs, that just means their Intelligence Agencies are better than the foreign ones. As for the J-11 and the Su-27, I mean, cmon. The J-11 based off the Su-27, even through to the J-16, its obvious. The J-15 is quite literally an Reverse Engineered and upgraded Su-33. J-20 has some similarities to the MiG-1.44/MiG-MFI. JF-17 seems like its inspired from the F-20 but mixed with an J-7, which in turn is an Upgraded copy of the MiG-21 (although licensed) As I said, "even if China copied design choices from... ...foreign nations, its quite smart. Why waste money re-inventing someone's working technology, if its cheaper to recreate it... ...that just means their Intelligence Agencies are better than the foreign ones" But asides from that, you need to keep in mind how much intel was actually stolen through spies, cooperation in an desperate cold war, and how a lot of planes from an similar Era look very similar. As an example, i've read a long time ago that BAC had an design for an Harrier and Jaguar succession, that shared similarities to the Su-27s and F-15s design. That explains the similarities in the MiG-25s and F-15s design. In the Su-15 case, i assume that both Chinese and Soviet Engineers came up with similar Ideas for their designs, similar to how a lot of planes that were designed at the same time. Especially when considering that the Chinese Probably studied the Soviet designs carefully. Did the J-8II share similarites with the Su-15? yes. Is it a copy? Most likely not. I think that is the kind of spirit behind technology, there is only one perfect solution, which can only lead to all the designs being similar, as they all try to be as close to the perfect design as possible. Hey, thats almost philosophic... But keep in mind to stay respectful to everyone on here. If someone is an A-hole, dont be an A-hole yourself, be better: Remain calm and respectful. Thanks for reading, have a nice weekend.

So you think we have a UH-1H from the 70s even though I've proven that we don't, and you think that would make a difference? Well fine Here is the flight test data of the YUH-1H from 1970, the literal pre production UH-1H, the one every single UH-1H would be based off of. Here is page 224 full left 19 degrees to full right 7 degrees in the other direction From the START, the UH-1H has had the tail rotor blades able to pitch inverted to push the nose to the right faster. Because if it COULDN'T, then it wouldn't be able to properly trim in certain flight profiles. It's not an opinion, it's not some crazy made up scheme. It's a fact with raw data to back it up. The tail rotor on the DCS UH-1H is implemented wrong.

ATC add-on update Due to my mistake on the MFD page config. The mfds were broken in my previous release. Thanks nightstorm for the testing. Lesson learnt. Would test with a clean build before next release. add-on updated with fixs: https://github.com/kingDevGit/DCS-F-22A-Auto-throttle-ATC

Makes me almost ashamed of myself complaining now how I can't get xx fps in my VR with maxed out graphics.. What if there was no VR or the state of graphics was close to same as in the 80s and 90s? I don't remember ever complaining about anything back then. How easy is it for us to become such spoiled brats!!! I wouldnt mind having that Steve Canyon Helmet now! Wouldn't fit my big head but it would look cool on the shelf next to my flight sim rig.

Correct, in there you can adjust the points for Idle and for AB:

Which is up to them to ask for, and up to us to vote with our wallets as to whether we think it's a valid ask or not. Those who are happy to give it get a slightly lower price as a result. Those that aren't happy can choose to wait. No-one has a gun to anyone's head here

In the modern context the water gets even more muddied. The Ticonderoga is a cruiser and a Burke is a destroyer despite sharing the same parent hull. Well, that's okay because the Tico has improved command and control and therefore earns the cruiser badge, while the Burke is the modern iteration of a Torpedo Boat Destroyer, except guided missiles and aircraft are the new torpedo boats. Fair enough. Then along comes the Zumwalt, larger than the Tico cruiser by a lot and supposed to be more capable. It's a cruiser, right? Well, no, they call it a destroyer. A 'land attack destroyer'; they must practice yoga in order to make that classification make any sense. Other examples abound. South Africa has four Valour-class corvettes. Valour-class corvettes are essentially MEKO warships, which are pretty good yardsticks to judge modern frigates by. Why does S.Africa call them corvettes? Probably to make them sound cheaper/less aggressive and therefore increase the chances that the project would be funded. Politics has a large say in modern classifications, which in turn means that it's messy and there are no firm rules. There are some trends. Corvettes tend to be smaller than Frigates which tend to be smaller than Destroyers. Destroyers tend to be best at fleet air defense while frigates and corvettes may be better suited to anti submarine warfare. It's not uncommon for these ships to be able to passably and independently do many jobs, an ability that historically has been associated with Cruisers. screw it, let's just call them all cruisers and be done with it

What I do and usually works against fighters, even against the MiG-29 is while they are still far out, more than 30 miles away, I will get as high and fast as I can. USually in the missions I've flown I'd get to about 30,000 ft, maybe higher but then I start to lose performance and speed. I track them with TWS until they get to around 30 nm. Once they break that range, I fire, then I immediately dive, but not necessarily right down to the ground. I just dive to about 1000 ft below their altitude. This way my radar can look up at them and avoid ground clutter and obstructions. I remain fast, closing the range and keeping high energy in case the missiles fail--I've already got a Sparrow lined up. If the Phoenix hits, great. If not, I close in with the Sparrow and attack, while trying to keep good SA for the enemy wingmen since I can only STT the one. If I start to get within 10 miles of the bandits, I also start popping flares even if offensive--too many times I neglected this and got killed by a heater while I was monitoring my target and missile. If they are heading at me nose on at this time I do a barrel roll at idle while popping flares and that almost always defeats an incoming IR missile. If they fire a radar missile at me, since I am already coming in hot at them fast, I do an F-pole and that usually defeats their missile and then I re-engage with the same missile or another one of need be. If nothing works, I still have alot of energy to split S to the deck and bug out an re-evaluate if I should go back in or run for it. That's just my usual tactic. I did the stock BVR missions in PG and Syria and it's been working rather well usually. On MP servers against AI the same. v6, boNes PS Note, the key word is USUALLY

In the post I wrote only about the textures of sand. Water is a separate problem There is a lack of foam water edge and other effects, but this is obviously a problem of ED. But for example, on real sand we see a dark strip of wet sand, where the waves moisten the sand In the screenshot, instead of a dark stripe, we see a light border, it is absolutely incomprehensible Obviously, this is not due to the transparency of the water, at the bottom the sand is the same color as on the moistened part of the sandy shore P.S 2 But maybe the devs were trying to simulate surf foam or something like that

In N-1944, I really didn't like the texture of the sand. This is what added a lot of cartoonishness to the whole map. This time I am also concerned about the textures of sand on the map N-2.0. Compare with the photos, it looks like the textures of the sandy beach could be more diverse, with alternating dark and light zones: Preinvasion_bombing: The coastline on this map is the most beautiful and important part, the part that we see most often. Will sand textures get more love in N - 2.0? P.S. I can see that devs are thinking about it, but so far it's not very similar to what is on modern and old photos Dark and light zones are more linear and less chaotic? Which is obviously due to tides and waves

@mrjay As the original mod the creator bind the animation directly to the fc3 throttle bind. I need to create a new binding for throttle and point the animation to follow the new binding instead of FC3 throttle bind. I thought it's done in engine.lua which is encrypted. It can be decompile, not hard but it's time-consuming. For now I could leave it as it be first. Once I finished the new binding which is also mandatory for the throttle push/pull disengage trigger you suggested I may take a look. @Mike34 Good work! I need that ICP layout can you upload it I'm too lazy to download software for extracting it. Actually I do have helios profile showing on my screen while I was recording the video above. Just the nvidia software didn't manage to capture it. Simple stuff, just add code at the end of the init.lua in the corresponding folder of the screen you wanna export. Let's say center mfd: cockpit/scripts/MFD_CENTER/init.lua add this dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path.."ViewportHandling.lua") try_find_assigned_viewport("F22A_MFD_CENTER") In helios the viewport need to have the same name which is F22A_MFD_CENTER and click reconfigure monitor in helios. All done However, if you need to get the buttons work without binding keyboard press to it, you need a custom DCS Generic profile which I mentioned before. I don't know if you are already working on it so I just leave my repo link here so. you may use it if you need it. https://github.com/kingDevGit/DCS-Helios-Community-Mod-Profile. Please be aware I have physical mfds for left and right mfd so I had only exported buttons for ICP, center MFD, PMFD, L/RUFD and startup related bind which those I exported to touchscreens. Won't be hard to add yourself if you get the code meanings (They are well documented with comments ). If you could help to add left and right mfd buttons it would be great. You may create a pull request on github so I could merge it. @Nightstorm As I will keep updating this add-on. I've put it on github so everyone including myself can trace what's updating. I had minimized the files need to be replaced. I will add a remark to tell everybody no need to download on github again if they install your enhancement mod after you've merged it. I will also add a branch to indicate which version you are using. Feel free to tweak it and it would be great pleasure if you would create a pull request after you tweak the code so I can notice them FOR EVERYONE AS WELL ! if you cannot wait until nightstorm merge it to the enhancement mod. Install it yourself. AUTO THROTTLE MOD FOR F-22A Link: https://github.com/kingDevGit/DCS-F-22A-Auto-throttle-ATC Click Code->Download Zip Follow the installation instruction Features: Approach mode will keep the aircraft with AoA 12 degrees. With this AoA the aircraft could land with the posture very close to real life (Nose up, cushion landing with left right wheels first). So once you've engaged the ATC approach mode, slowly trim the plane pointing to the runway and the plane will keep an ON-SPEED AoA to land (around 150 knots in my test, 6 AARAM, 2 sidewinder, 610 gallons internal fuelcell). Your plane should be in a flare posture on the touch-down, slow your plane with the brake and slowing put your nose down. The FC3 mod have a bug on the nosewheel, you will find your nosewheel getting into the ground if you hit the brake too hard so kindly tap the brake to slow yourself down. Cruise mode will try to keep your existing true airspeed. Useful on AAR, cruise. The plane in this mod could accelerate very quickly so it could prevent the aircraft from draining fuels. Also because of the same reason (plane easy to go fast), ATC won't be useful on slow speed as even you pull the throttle all way down the plane can still keep the speed for quite a while or even accelerate if you point the nose downward. That's also why you need the speedbrake to maintain AoA in approach mode tho IRL F-22A do use the speedbrake while landing so it's close to realistic. Everybody, if you have any questions, suggestions or improvement works please don't be hesitate to comment. You may also create pull request in the repo above so we can all contribute. EDIT: I missed a file in the repo. Just uploaded the missing file. If you tried installing this addon in the past few hours please try again

A poll cant get a real module. Has the info available, SME and others.

Vietnam won't be a possibility until destructible trees are in the game. Otherwise it's going to be a major letdown when they can see through the trees, shoot through the trees, but your bombs hit a branch and the splash doesn't do anything

From Polychop discord:

VSR radar mode now in development.

the message interrupt utility

I'm sure at 79 degree angle radar will lose the lock very soon, I'm guessing what you have experienced is Target History setting at work. So the radar retains the lock on a known position of the target fo x amount of scan frames depending on the setting. I don't think you can scan for new targets at that angle. Well you can still fire the missile, it's not ideal tho, but if the target doesn't change direction it should reach it.

take it from some of us older people that have been through much more, there is nothing worth get worked up over. Be happy you are still able to have a hobby, a home, and a life... really...

The point of this thread escapes me. If it was planned to elicit a response from Heatblur, then well done, mission accomplished. Cobra categorically stated the Strike Eagle release will have no impact on the F-4. Any post thereafter is essentially engaging in a circle-jerk of escalating speculation and insinuations that he's wrong. The pointlessness of the previous 3 pages of this thread defies comprehension.