Leaderboard

Model things correctly make me happy too, however I would have preferred a less drastic management of the situation, like: Leave current Litening TGP as it is. Add the Lantirn pod Speed up the Sniper pod development. Once the Sniper pod is ready and released, remove the Litening pod.

F-4E Phantom Development Report - DCS Newsletter 31/03/2023 The F-4E Phantom II is a 3rd generation multirole fighter aircraft, and formed the backbone of many air forces worldwide. Heatblur Simulations’ recreation of the Phantom aims to be as realistic as possible, and marries together a decade of development experience with a new, powerful next generation simulation framework created for all future Heatblur Simulations products. DCS: F-4E is now approaching completion and an unveiling in preparation for early access release. Full completion of the following systems has occurred or is imminent: Professional Flight Modeling (PFM) APQ-120 radar and associated systems, based on a next generation physically based radar model. Weapons Systems Flight control, trim feel and autopilot systems, accurately simulating pilot strength stick feel-dynamics, APR-46 RHAW radar warning receiver, a physically based analogue receiver with analogue sound synthesis Mass Dynamics Systems, providing far more accurate and realistic simulation of all movable and physical components of an aircraft. Persistence and Wear Systems …and much more Currently, the Heatblur team is focused on completing some of the last remaining major items of the Phantom II, including some of the more unique and complex features found in other Heatblur modules, such as JESTER AI. JESTER AI is Heatblur’s proprietary AI technology to provide an immersive and unique experience for multi-crew aircraft, currently available in the DCS: F-14. DCS: F-4E will debut JESTER v2, a ground-up rewrite of JESTER AI, providing a better foundation for future extensibility, improvements and a more immersive experience. JESTER v2 will also serve as the foundation for future Heatblur aircraft, such as DCS: A-6E. Stay tuned for a full unveiling of DCS: F-4E Phantom II as Heatblur Simulations reaches the end of the development process and dive deep into the aircraft, its systems and this release. Further DCS Newsletter topics touch on the current F-14 Development Progress and Eagle Dynamics' Free to Play Program. To read the recent DCS Newsletter on the ED Forums please click here. Sincerely, Team Heatblur Check out more development screenshots here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/ Feel free to also join the official Heatblur Simulations Discord and discuss with us there: https://discord.gg/heatblur-simulations

Heatblur develop update DCS Screenshots

I can't speak for other people but for me "no LSS Function, less zoom capability and a much worse image quality" kinda is "loosing a feature" for me. And I understand your points of ongoing development with new informations. But I, as a customer, expect ED as a developer to deliver the features on the modules that they advertise and promise. Everything else is false advertising imho. You can't advertise a red ferrari with 350hp and deliver a green lada niva with 16hp because you don't have the necessary informations available to develop the ferrari. Naturally, you will have to "change" a feature or a function when it is not working as intended or because you recieved "new" informations. I understand this, really. But just "pulling" a (core) feature, like in this case the lightning TGP from the features list completely is not a consumer friendly way of "changing functionalities with new informations". Sorry to say. This damages my trust in ED as a developer and for your early access modules in general. How am I supposed to buy my next module, for example the AH-64 when I can't be sure that you have the necessary informations / documentations to implement the Fire Control Radar as a core feature. Maybe you are pulling this from the feature List when you get "new" informations"? I guess ED has made it's point as a developer here and I have stated my opinion as a customer. I personally would love to see ED to overthink their way of "handling new informations" in this case and in future cases like this. Otherwise I am not sure if and how I will buy further modules in early acces development. Thanks.

Hi guys! just want to let you know that v1.1 it's been released, please check the UH60L discord (SH60B section) to download it ( https://discord.gg/5jyDRVeeD5 )

This is All I Needed To See to Put Me Over The Top!!!

We will go more into detail regarding the mentioned systems in future updates. Mass Dynamic Systems basically means that parts of the aircraft that move are also driven by mass, not only as a function executing a command. Think of stuff like flaps, or landing gear, etc. We will update on Jester v2 in the future, and more, following the unveil. Thank you for your kind patience.

LET'S TURN AND BURN Hi Everyone! Currently, the Heatblur team is undertaking a large effort to refine and finalise the flight modelling of the F-14 Tomcat. In the previous update, the changes delivered were exclusively for the F-14A; the TF-30 powered version of the aircraft. The overall goal of this tuning pass was to even more closely match published performance data and ensure that the F-14A performs as it did in reality. The Heatblur F-14A is now even more accurate in how it maintains energy states across the whole flight envelope, meaning more accurate performance while manoeuvring. Further refinements include an overhaul of some of the intrinsic behaviour of the aircraft, such as wing rock. Wing rock in the Tomcat is now more pronounced and accurate to reality, and associated buffeting has also been improved to be more in tune with the real aircraft. The flight modelling refinements for the F-14A are now practically complete and the team is focusing on the F-14B, the F110 engine powered variant of the Tomcat. We thus figured we’d write-up a full and detailed breakdown of the latest DCS: F-14 flight modelling changes, our assumptions, methodologies and some of the theory behind the why and how. F-14 Flight Model Tuning - Part I - click to read. We hope you enjoy! full link: https://heatblur.se/fmupdate/ We love to share and learn together as a community and enthusiasts, and considering these changes impact the way you fly and fight the F-14; why not have you be part of this last step of our development journey. We’ve spent a considerable amount of time recently perfecting and tuning the last parts of the flight model for our F-14. As mentioned above, we’ve focused entirely on the F-14A first; the TF-30 powered version of the aircraft. To give you a better overview of the how and why, let’s do a quick deep dive and give you some background (pls follow the link above). F-14 Flight Model Future With this process nearing completion, the F-14A flight model is nearly in a fully finished state. The journey has been long, initially focusing on handling qualities with our very dedicated pilot SME, Victory205. We wanted to get those out of the way first to make sure handling was correct, with extra time spent focusing on handling qualities around the boat to ensure a very authentic carrier trapping experience. In the near future we will update the following FM items: AOA buffet update to be more realistic (new checkbox option) - will be included in DCS Patch April 13th 2023 Finish performance tuning for F-14B - will be included in DCS Patch April 13th 2023 Improve ground handling Misc minor handling qualities and performance updates as needed Of course the biggest of the items above is to finish a similar pass to the above for the F-14B; also fine-tuning the performance to perfectly match the available data and plots. We’ll chime in with another flight modelling update focusing on the F-14B results once we’re ready! If you have questions or just want to leave your feedback or else discuss the new performance and FM changes, feel free to discuss here. As always, we're looking forward to your input! Thanks for reading, and for your support – we hope you enjoy this deep dive, especially as a precursor to similar articles for the DCS: F-4E, DCS: A-6E and Eurofighter aircraft. Sincerely, Team Heatblur EDIT April 13th, 2023: - Adding Performance and FM Changes to F-14B, inlcuding level flight acceleration, turn performance and top speed and access power across the flight envelope. Feel free to also join the official Heatblur Simulations Discord and discuss with us there: https://discord.gg/heatblur-simulations

Is it possible to elaborate on 'Mass Dynamic Systems" and the Jester v2 (how it's different/better?) Great update!

More like this: We currently have a modern TGP, which however is based on an old model and incorrect/missing data and thus modelled incorrectly. So ED decided to suddenly remove it and replace it with an older model that has less features but can be modelled correctly. But we will get the Sniper pod, which is still planned for "after early access"... which means 2024-5? I'm personally really happy with the decision to model things as accurately as possible and to change things if new info shows that it was implemented incorrectly before.

Uh, the visual effects for the Mk 77 firebomb as stated in the Roadmap for the DCS F/A-18C Hornet. This was a thread about a Vietnam map. The F-4 verifiably dropped napalm on missions during the Vietnam War as did many other aircraft. Are the effects on people who get hit horrible? Yes, they are and I'm not saying they aren't. I am in no way advocating for the continued real world use of napalm. I merely stated that I would like to see the effect completed for DCS. This is a combat flight sim. When we fly and shoot missiles, rockets, and guns or drop bombs, we kill pixels on a screen. Are the AI any worse off if they get hit by a cluster bomb or a 30mm cannon round than they would be if they were caught in a napalm strike? No. They are not real people suffering real world injuries and they most certainly can't feel pain or be maimed for life because again, they are not real and closing the mission kills them just as much as any virtual weapon.

Its always the same with the Viper and ED. Always a downgrade for the viper. No other airplane gets any realistic update. But the Viper gets it all. The Frankenstein Hornet HARM TOO (find emitters which are emitting for the first time in a millisecond with exact range and location) or MAV Alignment was mentioned so often but no one cares. If there are no data for the Hornet, well thats OK. If there are some wrong data for the viper, go fix it back to the <profanity>ty 1980 pod. Well nothing new so far, got used to...

Its been said that its a matter of when not if. We are waiting for our Terrain SDK to mature enough to do it properly and to the best ability. We are not going to announce it until its happening for obvious reasons. I cant imagine DCS World to never dip its toes in that region though for sure.

HELLO PILOTS Welcome to Digital Train Simulator We paid attention to the production of railway lines - this is not accidental, because railways are an important part of the infrastructure. During the war, the railroad accounted for most of the cargo turnover of the participating countries. Railway stations are important targets, landmarks, and train stations in London and Paris are real architectural treasures. London Victoria London Waterloo London Liverpool Street Paris-Est Paris-Nord Paris-Saint-Lazare Paris-Montparnasse

Wait what?!? Is this...dude, this is the legend himself! Robin Olds! Okay, if this is the actual level of attention to detail which we can expect, I think I should take a very long break from work once the F-4 goes public release. Damn HB, you blew me away. By the way, the gold/blue Pharewell F-4 really made me smile...! Have you actually been to Wittmund AB? ;-D

Thanks for the feedback! Firstly, the US MIM-104 assets are configured differently than the Swedish version. I've learnt a lot since I made the former, knowledge I implement in all new assets. For example, I'm working really hard trying to implement a more realistic approach to accuracy (Ph/Pk etc). This means a lot of calibrating and going back and forth with the settings. I try to look at all available open source intelligence to get a feel for the asset's performance and features. I then try to emulate those as best I can, with the limitations within DCS. For example, the Swedish LvS 103 version were too accurate. More or less a 100% Pkill. In real life, the PAC-3 MSE is a hit-to-kill missile with added titanium fragmentation (lethality enhancer) combined with a pretty short range radar. I think I've dialed in the Pkill at a reasonable level when it comes to non-ballistic missiles and aircraft. But as you point out, it seem to have made its anti-ballistic missile performance somewhat lackluster. In reality though, THAAD would be the better choice for anti-ballistic engagements. We've seen the PAC-3 MSE being used together with THAAD to fully make use of its kinetic performance. Short answer: this is no 'bug' as it's been configured this way consciously. But I might have to fine tune the performance a bit for the next release. Though, I'm pretty happy with its performance against non-ballistic missiles and aircraft, which is my main focus.

"Realism in mind"... Your right and I fully agree with you, but this has to be considered for all modules... what about the MAV aligment, bomb laser codes changable in flight, the accurate weapons for correct time frame (AGM62 in a F18 from 2005?) and many other things. All the things are implemented wrong in game, right? I did a couple postings about the much to high accuracy of the HARM TOO at first seconds of a sam which begins emitting. But there is no drive to deal with it. I dont want to be to strict but "realism in mind" proof it with all the modules and the hole game, please!

Yeah I don't think that's fair. If a feature is developed and new information comes to light then you can expect them to iterate. Heatblur did this with the Phoenix, Razbam did this with the loadout restrictions. They should be commended for wanting an accurate representation. If you have something to say about the Hornet you should create a thread in the Hornet forum. Everyone here got engaged with the product knowing that it's a simulator, that means by definition that items will be developed with realisim in mind.

I hope lightening pod remains option until sniper pod is available. Real potential here to ruin loyal DCS customers experience. If people would rather use lantirn and not lightening, let them make that choice.

The JAS-39 Gripen DCS mod has received a major update with many new features and improvements. The cockpit has been completely overhauled with new textures, animations, and lighting. The pilot model has been updated, and a new HMD has been added for all variants. There is now a new Within Visual Range (WVR) variant with HMD and weapon cueing. The cockpit now has additional functionalities, including interior lighting, autopilot, and radar controls. The mod has received many bug fixes and improvements, including new engine and APU sounds, fixed control schemes, and improved gamepad and keyboard support. However, there are still some known bugs, including issues with compatibility with some other mods and limitations with the SFM during ground handling and slow regimes. Overall, this update brings exciting new features and improvements to the JAS-39 Gripen mod.

Awesome stuff! And the Robin Olds pilot model is epic!

Hope you don't use Rockeyes, then.

No, that would require the WAR HUD (only on Block 40/42) and AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod.

Info on this is coming either today or tomorrow...

A better solution would be to release sniper first. As the version of the aircraft we have, 07 USAF/ANG viper uses sniper pretty much exclusively. Then go back and correct the legacy pod.

no, LANTIRN does not have TV mode. while im not opposed to have LANTIRN modelled correctly and therefore losing the TV mode, in the current state of the FLIR where static map structures etc are significantly brighter than a running vehicle on the FLIR, TV mode is the only one that is actually useful for finding stuff. Losing that before the FLIR is properly done on ground vehicles and objects (or the SNIPER pod is available as alternative) will not do the module any favors.

Already did this in the IL2 community, invited someone for a flight. April 5th we are having a tail chase dogfight simulation, anyone in Seattle area interested?

Yeah, all M3 sound are... meh. I really hope they'll change pace with the Corsair and do a overhaul for the Mig-21, it deserve it

Yes. Jester v2 means a general overhaul of the Jester AI - in steps and as applicable - across modules long term.

To not spill all the beans yet, we will go into more detail about all of this soon.

People dunk on DCS for lacking gameplay elements like the dynamic campaign engine and whatnot, but there's a lot less attention to the value of DCS from historical perspective. It kind of serves to commemorate the aircraft for posterity as an interactive digital construct that helps people experience it in a way they would hardly even hope to otherwise. It kind of applies to the maps too. And in this context it makes absolute sense to pay tribute to Robin Olds, and guess what, the Black Shark pilot looks pretty much like Dmitri Avtukhov, the IRL Black Shark test pilot. I wonder what La-7 and the Intruder pilot models will look like

@NineLine I understand technological reasons and reasons from a documentation side but from a customer experience I have to say that loosing main capabilities on a module, like the Lightning TGP for example, after they have been advertised as official features on the modules roadmap (for month), kinda feels wrong from a customer service side and throws a bad light on ED as a developer. Can't help myself but see this as a real bummer and makes me more hesitant to buy further modules in early access in the future. What do you want to trust on when the developer is not able to provide the advertised features on a product, which in the end you paid money for based on the details from the roadmap. Just my personal opinion on this topic.

Gimme a block 40 with the AN/AAQ-13 Nav pod + TFR and I will be happy

I would argue napalm is worse. Tho it's all about degrees of horror and suffering. It is however rather silly to care about the effects of napalm on a few polygons. I hope a Vietnam map will come before I'm too old and decrepit to fly DCS. But there is much more needed to be done besides the map. Huey needs a major update. Working embarking and disembarking troops from helicopters with models of troops in the back. Well made Vietnam infantry. Fixing splash damage on bullets, rockets and bombs. To name but a few.

Ja, das fände ich auch nicht schlecht. Ich rege mich recht oft über den ein oder anderen Deppen auf, der nicht damit klar kommt, dass „sein“ Modul nicht pünktlich zum Urlaub (oder in den meisten Fällen vermutlich zu den Ferien) rauskommt. Am besten sind dann die, die für Fragen nach dem Releasetermin (auf die es absolut niemals eine präzise Antwort gibt) einen extra Thread aufmachen…. Auf der anderen Seite allerdings: ich liebe diese Phase der Vorfreude . Es ist so unfassbar schön zu wissen, dass gerade an einem Tornado, einer Phantom und einem Eurofighter gearbeitet wird.

So if I correctly understand: We currently have a good TGP, which however is based on an old model and incorrect/missing data. So ED decided to suddenly remove it and replace it with an older model, with less features. But we will get the Sniper pod, which is still planned for "after early access"... which means 2024-5? This sucks so much it goes around and back again to suck again.

Eltam AB (el Gora) - in progress and 5 more that will help make the missions even more interesting. Oops, I think I said a lot...

Agreed. Then again, and not not put too fine a point on this: DCS is a game that squarely centers around destruction. Trying to exempt some civilian or religious objects seems a bit arbitrary if not hypocritical to me. I know and understand why it's done; yet I wonder: A long time ago, there was a game called 'Wolfenstein 3D'. People complained about the fact that in the course of this game, the player occasionally needed to shoot and kill dogs. These people argued that this aspect was needlessly cruel and an example for needlessly gratuitous violence. They completely overlooked the fact that in the game, the player regularly shot and killed humans. That, it seemed, posed no problem to them. Unreflected, self-important hypocrites. IMHO, the problem here are neither ED nor OnReTech. They are merely trying to avoid being implicated by the headlines when bigoted politicians and 'concerned citizens' feign outrage in order to garner a few votes or clicks. I feel that it should be OK (even if not a good look) if this kind of stuff was permitted in games, so some people could work out their issues if they really wanted to. As for the real world, I wish it wouldn't happen at all, fully knowing that unfortunately, and senselessly, it regularly does. But let's leave these darker waters and instead focus on the bright side: soon we'll be able to fly on a map that - from the looks of it - seems to be a serious contender for the top slot in terms of beauty and versatility (which IMHO is currently held by 'Syria').

Great work, thank you very much. Is it possible to get a MAN Truck without load or better with plant? Or as a semitrailer? thx

You really are not losing much in the way of functionality in the TGP switch. You will still have a very capable TGP, and then the Sniper will follow to add even more. I am sorry you feel it is wrong that we are doing this but this type of stuff will happen in Early Access. We get new information all the time and this may change how we are developing a module, and again you are not losing a feature as its only swapping pods. Thanks. I'm sorry this is not possible. It move the Viper forward replacing the pod and doing the work to finish the LANTIRN is needed. The longer the LITENING is left the hard it will be for people to let go. The Sniper is already going as fast as it can, but still has a decent amount of work to be done. Sorry.

3-й квартал закончился, а Ла-7 нет:( Что случилось?

Тут я наврал. Там стоит АКУ-170 - катапультная установка. Бага нет.

Maybe we should just stop using any kind of ordnance then, just fly around and enjoy the scenery... because any kind of weapon system an aircraft uses deals out death in many different horrific ways. Whether it's guns, missiles, bombs or rockets and napalm, they are all nasty bits of kit... but wait, I hope we don't hurt the pixel enemy too much!

These icons will only map on the Sinai map. Maybe other map developers will add them too, I don't know.

You seem to only read what is convenient for you to keep your naggin. This is in the road map: "It is also important to remember that all features of our Viper are in regard to a United States F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated in the 2007-time frame." They found out that the info for the pod they had was indeed for the LANTRIN and not Litening pod, so now they are correcting that misunderstanding, are they doing something wrong here?

I'd rather have correct stuff then imaginary stuff.

Wouldn't it make more sense to finish the litening with proper implementation then add lantirn and give the choice ? A lot of peeps did actually buy the 16 with the litening pod on the sales page seems a bit misleading to now suddenly take it away after 3 years for something with less capability and cause a new drama about nerfs and ED bad arguments.

I have added a TRK file and several screen shots. I have a column of tanks, apcs and trucks. The close up of the truck has clearly visible tryes irrespective of hot or cold start. The close up of the T-90 is virtually invisible irrespective of hot or colt start. With the wider view you can see 6 vehicles in TV mode but only 3 in FLIR. Having the hot start fixed in the next patch is going to be a big improvement.....but there is still the issue of some models. As I said a T-90 is almost invisilbe when cold....which is fair enough. Ural 375 has hot wheels.....whereas a Zil135 seems to show white hot instead of black hot. Then we have dust trails clearly visible....but only on wheeled vehicles and not tracked vehicles After 5 minutes running most tanks can barely be seen with just a little heat from the engine deck (far harder to see than a dust trail)....hot exhaust should sufely be immediately visible and more so than a dust trail. Even after 10 minutes it's hard to see the T-90 but it's becoming visible. These are all from the Harrier as it's got the clearest display but it's the same in the viper etc. I understand the ambition...but we need to have consistency. This should never have been rushed out for the Apache. I love DCS but this seems to sum up EDs decision making which seems to prioritise things which can be put on a You Tube video for the latest module and hell to what's actually good for the game and the old model is actually better then the current half implemented & inconsistent system. There appears to be no common sense applied. Tank engine firing up obviously gives out heat. A vehicle driving at 10mph isn't going to kick up dust visible from further away than the tank exhaust. Accuracy and realism is great...but consistency is more important. FLIR test.trk

Honestly, there are a lot of other F-16 variants you could model that aren't classified and that also won't be much work at all to implement. The good thing about the F-16 Block 40 and later blocks is that they all have pretty much the exact same software and avionics. ED could model a pre-CCIP Block 40 from the 1990-ish which also would give us a pre-CCIP Block 50 and a post-CCIP Block 40 for no extra work as all their systems are already modelled. With some minor changes to the external and engine model you could plop in a PW engine and you have the Block 42 and 52 as well. And with all these variants, you could even make a export HAF F-16C Block 50 or 50+ with conformal fuel tanks with very little added work. So basically, simply modelling the extra systems of a pre-CCIP Block 40 and a HAF Block 52+ this would allow us to simulate pretty much every F-16C 40/42/50/52/52+ operator on the entire earth from 1990 onwards to our current F-16CM-50 circa 2007 except when it comes to drag chutes and certain export weaponry. I think people would be very happy to pay even more than what the A-10C II upgrade cost for this as a single, huge upgrade package, and the workload for ED to actually implement this would be relatively small in comparison to what we get in the end. It would be interesting also to see a poll on how many of us would be interested in a F-16D. I sure know me and my community would be very interested in that.

Hi We have had this conversation many times on the ED forums, We would also like to see more female pilots in DCS, we already have female voice overs on the super carrier, wingman 4 on the AH-64D is a female voice ect. and hopefully in the future we will see a model. People seem to want to turn it into some PC issue or are against this line of thought, to make it clear our forums are not for political / social discussions so please bare it in mind before replying to this thread or it will end up being closed like the others in the past. thanks