Leaderboard

null

Crikey. ED get grief when they provide aircraft fixes ahead of core engine fixes. ED also get grief when they provide core engine fixes ahead of aircraft fixes. Lose-lose it seems. Of course some of you could actually be grateful you get ANY fixes at all....

bullet impact fix was a big one that we wanted to get in as soon as possible

Ok…I’m not saying the velocity for the 13mm is far too low. I’m ASKING if anyone else believes it is b/c it seems to be to me. so, I did an experiment. I put my aircraft about 200ft agl (220ft above sea level) looking down a runway. I placed a large building exactly 2600ft/800meters from my aircraft. The moment I start, I hit active pause (my aircraft shows 200km/h speed but for our distances, that is insignificant) I started with the Spitfire and fired at the building. 10 tests and Both the .303s and 20mm hit the building in 1 second (give or take a .10second depending on human stopwatch error….but generally, 1 second). That translates to a velocity of about 2500f/s or 750m/s. That matches the listed velocity of about 2400fps (740m/s) I then tried the .50 cal on the P-47 and it was a bit less than a second. Not TOO much faster than the .303 and 20mm but seems to be Around 3,000f/s or 900m/s. Again…matches the published velocity of 870m/s. Or is close Finally, I put in the Bf-109 and tried the MG-131 13mm. From the data I can find, this round has a published muzzle velocity of 2500f/s or 750m/s.….the rounds consistently took 1.5 seconds to travel that 800m and hit (again..10 tests).That translates into about 1750f/s or 530m/s. Regardless Of how precise the time keeping is, it seems clear that the 13mm has significantly lower velocity than the Spitfires .303 even though both have the same published muzzle velocities of 2400-2500f/s (740-750m/s) thoughts? (edit: I understand “muzzle velocity means just that: velocity at the muzzle. But we are talking 800meters. I don’t think a 750m/s round is losing so much velocity over 800meters that it averages 530m/s)

Patch notes discussion May 2023 Started May with a small fix patch DCS 2.8.4.39731 Open Beta DCS World MP. Added a real-time procedure for checking the required modules in mission loading MT. Triggered text doesn't appear at some multimonitor configs - fixed Radio messages move to the side in multi-monitor configuration - fixed MT. Bullet impacts create many craters and large FPS hit - fixed MP. DS. Crash seems to be related to fonts in overlay borders - fixed

Меж тем, в сегодняшнем небольшом обновлении в МТ версии пофиксены фризы от попаданий пушки! Теперь Кабан может спокойно хрюкать и даже смотреть контейнером туда, куда нахрюкал))). Благодарность ED!

The trial version should show full detail for Normandy 2.0 areas, we are looking into the issue. if you are on the trial and not seeing detailed areas outside of the old Normandy area please attach your dcs log thank you

Besides a better map, an option to restrict the use of "mark my exact location" would be great for historical servers.

In April of 2022 I purchased the F16 Throttle and Stick. I gave the setup a great review in this forum. Link here: It's been almost exactly one year since I made that purchase so I thought I'd come back and offer some insights to anyone considering buying a new WinWing HOTAS for themselves. SimAppPro is still awful software, but none of us buy WinWing products for the software, so I'll focus on the hardware. Both the stick and throttle still feel solid and smooth, and the buttons continue to function with very positive 'clicks'. The overall flight sim experience with these units is outstanding. But that's where the good things about WinWing stop. 2 weeks after the original 1 year warranty ended, the throttle failed. I worked with WinWing's customer service to confirm that the unit's axis for throttle control is completely dead. All of the buttons, sliders, and switches still work, but the throttle itself does not. Given that WinWing is a Chinese company and shipping goods back and forth is time consuming and expensive, I fully expected that they'd probably just mail me a part or two and ask me to fix it myself, which I would have been happy to do. But that is not how WinWing chose to handle it. Instead, they responded with this: "I have checked that your order has been over one year, in other words, your order is not covered by the warranty, so you need to pay the round-trip freight and maintenance costs. It's not very cheap. Maybe you can buy a new throttle base. It's up to you." Normally, you'd expect a video game controller that costs this much money to last many years. Since the unit failed just 2 weeks after the end of the original one year warranty, I asked them to reconsider. That request got shot-down (pun intended) The F16 Throttle replaced an old Saitek X52 that I'd used without problems for almost 6 years prior to getting the WinWing. I recently plugged the X52 back in and yep, it still works. The Saitek HOTAS cost me less than $125 and feels cheaply constructed. The WinWing HOTAS cost me way over $600 and feels well constructed. If we're being honest, the WinWing product just looks better too. WinWing is eye-candy for your flight sim setup, whereas the Saitek just looks like a toy. It's ironic that the uber-expensive WinWing failed while the uber-cheap Saitek still functions flawlessly. Eye-candy is great to look at, but if I actually want to *fly* the planes I purchase in DCS, I need a throttle that works... DCS is not a cheap game to play. Most of us invest a lot of time and money into our gear and planes. Aside from a strong PC, your controllers are the single most important element to having a good flight sim experience. A good experience is ultimately how you'll determine if the money you spend on DCS is worth it, or isn't. In the US, Chinese goods have always had a reputation of being poorly designed, poorly made, and poorly supported. WinWing was one of those companies that seemed to be an exception to that. I won't go so far as to say the WinWing HOTAS is poorly designed...But poorly made? Poorly supported? Yes, it does appear to be those things. Think twice before you invest in a WinWing HOTAS. Some of these setups cost well over $1000. In one year's time, do you want to have to repeat the purchase because your original one failed? If you're going to spend this much money on a controller, strongly consider Virpil or CH or TM as alternatives...If you want to save the expense all together, just get a Saitek. Odds are that it'll still be working after many years. But even if it isn't, replacing it will cost you a heckuva lot less than replacing the WinWing will. This really cool looking F16 throttle on my desk is basically a $600 paper weight now. Keep that in mind as you contemplate which HOTAS company to give your hard earned dollars to

wait for upload

it would be nice to have some anti ship missiles like the KH 35

As of the patch released today, 2.8.4.39731, this mod still passes IC.

The ability to make JTACs and other designation-capable units designate/target static buildings and map objects for other aircraft to attack would also be most useful (and not require a work around such as placing a vehicle or fortification in close proximity to the intended target and using triggers). And the ability to place an IR solid/flashing marker on a unit, so that unit (or group of units) is visible/identifiable under NVGs in low/no light conditions.

Absolutely this. The "but we've got an 1943 Spitfire, it's not fair" is male bovine excrement and irrelevant. The truth is the LFMk IX running 18lb and with the 2x20mm + 4x .303" armament was the most numerous variant in operation over France in the spring summer and autumn of 1944. Would I like an option for GGS equipped version? Meh. Not fussed, I don't find them beneficial personally, but they were historically available at time of the invasion. Would I like to see an option with the 'e' armament (2x 20mm + 2x .50cal)? Absolutely. 3 squadrons equipped as such were flying on with 2nd TAF over the invasion area on D-Day and thereafter. Would I like to see the broad chord rudder? Right now not particularly. It only becomes commonplace with the arrival of the MkXVI (that's '16' btw, not '14') in early 1945. Would I like to see the a +25lb version (150 octane fuel)? Right now, no. This argument has been done to death. At the time of D-Day 2 out of 39 Spitfire IX squadrons were using it. A smidge over 5%. Even as the Normandy campaign continues, those squadrons that are converted are all dedicated to Air Defence Great Britain and concerning themselves with the V-1 defence operations. As a Jagdwaffe pilot over Normandy, your percentage chance of encountering a Spitfire LF.IXc operating at +25lb boost is negligible. Should a West Wall map covering Belgium/Holland and the German Frontier in 1944-45 ever be forthcoming then I will change that opinion. The problem is, and had always been, that WE HAVE GERMAN FIGHTER AIRCRFAT MODELS THAT DO NOT BELONG WITH THE MAPS WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. This is why DCS needs a Bf 100G-6/14, and why DCS should seriously consider a West Wall map as a prototypical home for the Kurfurst and the Dora. These arguments all evaporate with these two developments.

That’s gonna be a very intersting part of my PTO campaigns. They just used a plotting board and followed their course closely. If you made it back close enough to the carrier you could pick up the YE-ZB signal

please include a short track replay example on Caucasus terrain and any evidence you may have to support the claim, we will take a look thank you

An uneven playing field when it came to spotting in multiplayer, due to exploiting the use of low resolution, is one of the main reason I've taken a long break from DCS. I know ED quality of life updates are glacial at best, and seeing those quotes from one of the developers explains a lot, but IMO spotting needs an improvement like this mod, and has needed it for years.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's a *game*, something you do for entertainment. You are supposed to have fun. Some have fun with challenges, others don't. If you have fun, fine. Don't tell others how to have fun. Example: Some play XCOM on max difficulty; others play normal difficulty or easy. The game developers put in multiple difficulty modes for a reason: to broaden appeal, to make the game more accessible, to allow more people to have fun. What's it to you if I play on easy? It doesn't in any way change the way you play, even though we both finish the game. Because you can finish XCOM on easy, no-one in earnest claims that you should not be able to complete the game unless they play on max difficulty. In games, there are always short-cuts. That's why they are called games. You may have noticed that in DCS you can fly a fighter jet without a valid medical, without wearing piddle-packs and gloves, and without holding a jet rating. Heck, I hear that they let people play DCS F/A-18 who don't have a complex rating, some players may not even have a pilot's license at all! Those are immense short cuts (no formal education in systems engineering, weather, flight dynamics, procedures, human factors, international law. Your body may not be suitable for air combat, and you may even be intoxicated while flying. Plus, you are likely not a member of a country's armed forces). So don't get picky about the small fry (accessibility) when you ignore the really big items. You are being handed the plane without the hard stuff. Don't pretend otherwise. You are playing a video game. Stop talking about "time and effort" unless you get paid.

Na, they simply have their own method of going about showing off the module. I imagine there's quite a bit they could show off right now but that would decrease the overall excitement for it later on. The F-15 release has pretty much lost hype over the course of time since it's getting shown off so often. It's like comparing a horse to a unicorn with the F-15 and F-4.

Yah, that section is a word salad. I found converting it to a schematic helpful.

Easy fix would be to have the unlimited ammo setting also enable unlimited countermeasures. For example, I find training with invulnerability and unlimited ammo to be very efficient, but limited countermeasures takes away from the training.

Oh, the heresy.

And proud of it! LEGO & playing outdoors in my youth - DCS and whiskey in my waning years. Don't tell me I got it wrong.

Hello, Not sure what I did to my settings - I did accidently reset everything and had to put it back - but even with with display setting at 256, I lose almost 50% of my FPS when the Vikrs fire and I'm looking at it closely on the display. When I had display setting at 1024 and fired two Vikrs at once, my FPS would drop from 40 to about 8. I'm not having this issue on other displays. In the Hornet I can watch the show on the MFD with no loss that I notice. Seems just the Vikrs, and to a lesser extent the Kh-25s, are killing my FPS. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Dambusting

Okay guys, after consideration with our SMEs we've decided to give you a couple more minutes before overheating occurs. Still, when AA refueling, please turn off the radar (in the future just put it on STBY), the tanker crew will be grateful

Yes, I've read everything you said, which is why I said that if you're a campaign designer, the single-player-only AAR skip does have merit. ----------------------- Since we keep arguing about various different AAR assists and they have vastly different consequences, Here's a list of all the proposed AAR assists: (which I saw mentioned so far) Each with some details. I'm trying to be objective in the advantage/disadvantage parts in all of those, but the whole list is ultimately based on my own opinions, and while I hope that many would agree with me, I obviously have no say in what gets or doesn't get implemented by ED. Note: For all of the following, with the exception of the last two, I assume that whatever options and mechanics are used in the implementation would also be available in multiplayer, and thus, I'm assuming that most of the popular servers will leave those enabled and up to people's preferences, and my opinions are based on that. AAR Autopilot: ..as in, a button that takes over the airplane and refuels for you, either before rejoin, after "ready precontact", or after a one successful plug Advantages: Easy to do Cinematic and immersive for the player Hands off (AFK time) Looks normal from third-person view Disadvantages: Cheap, requires no effort Cheaty Unrealistic in execution Doesn't help teaching AAR at all A slap in the face of everyone who spent hours practicing to do it manually opinion: this isn't ace combat. Hard NO Wireless AAR: ..as in, flying somewhere in the vicinity of the tanker would magically refill your tanks Advantages: Easy to do Still technically involves some flying Disadvantages: Very cheap and cheaty looking Very unrealistic Breaks immersion for the player AND people around Doesn't teach how to fly tight formations Even bigger slap in the face of people who spent hours practicing to do it manually Looks ugly from a third person view opinion: my least favourite, hard NO More forgiving refuel box: ..as in, longer boom, more telescopic boom, longer hose, bigger basket, etc. Advantages: Teaches formation flying Still somewhat realistic depending on how much the box size is increased If adjustable, could help people become progressively better Disadvantages: Looks ugly from third person view for people who don't have the same settings May look grotesque for the people who do have the same settings Doesn't teach proper position opinion: I'm not a big fan, but it's the least evil of the proposed ones so far Boom tanker lights screen overlay: ..as in, an overlay similar to the meatball overlay to better see the lights under the airforce tankers Advantages: Very non-intrusive Only fixing a graphics issue of hard-to-see lights Still involves fully manual refueling Disadvantages: If it's a square moving smoothly up and down like the meatball overlay does, it will allow people much higher precision than the 5-step lights under the tanker, thus slightly unrealistic Only applicable to boom tankers Only a minor help opinion: I'd prefer if the graphics glitches get fixed instead, but otherwise, no problem A button for quick curve preset change: ..as in, having the option to set two sets of axis-tune, ie. curves and saturations, for stick and throttle, and switch between them with a click of a button. One normal with full range for general flying, one precise with highly limited range of motion for AAR and formations Advantages: Could still be considered fully manual AAR Functionally equivalent to temporarily changing the curves in the settings Disadvantages: Could mess with people's muscle memory Throttle would have to be treated somewhat uniquely, treating the current throttle position as the new center of the axis, and then applying curve/saturation onto that. Sometimes you're refuelling with 20% throttle, other times in 70% throttle, so the range of the throttle would have to dynamically shrink around whatever position the throttle is in when the button to change the curve is pressed opinion: You can already do this fully by adjusting curves, so, it's technically just a quality of life thing. No problem Screen overlay showing hints: ..as in, an entirely new overlay that shows how far you are from an ideal position in each direction, and which way you're currently moving Advantages: Fairly non-intrusive, just an overlay Would help teaching refueling Disadvantages: Overlays look ugly on the screen People may focus on he overlay instead of the tanker too much opinion: no problem Better representation of small G-force changes ..as in, exaggerated head bob or some other screen effects that would show small changes of G-force Advantages: Very non-intrusive Actually realistic in terms of what information a real pilot would have, since it's substituting for seat-of-pants Disadvantages: Won't necessarily help refueling that much Depending on how it's represented, may look nonintuitive or ugly opinion..I'd welcome this change everywhere Depth perception substitute: ..as in, an approximate distance and closure readout of whatever's in the middle of the screen Advantages: Brings some of the advantage of VR onto pancake thus leveling the playing field Realistic in terms of what information a real pilot would have, as long as the measurements aren't too precise Disadvantages: Won't make refueling that much easier, may require some getting used to it May clutter the screen/look ugly opinion: no problem Progressive practice missions: ..as in, a series of strictly single-player missions for practicing formation with any sort of assists that progressively increase in difficulty Advantages: People learn AAR progressively Won't affect multiplayer Disadvantages: Won't make actual AAR any easier, it will only make the learning more approachable opinion: As long as the mechanics can't leak into multiplayer, no problem Single-player only built in AAR skip mechanics: ..give campaign designers a built-in way to skip AAR Advantages: Solves the single-player campaign issue Won't affect multiplayer Disadvantages: Won't teach people AAR at all opinion: As long as the mechanics can't leak into multiplayer, no problem Those are all I can think of that I've seen being talked about. Any other ideas?

I think you mean THICC

Updating the game probably overwrote your dots.fx. You need to re-add the mod file.

Merci!! beaucoup la nouvelle version : RAFALE PACK EVOLUTION II 2.8.1 contient une foule de nouveauté ( cockpit boutons cliquables supplémentaires, le cockpit en vue extérieur est identique a celui intérieur, améliorations du modèle de vol, armement plus fidèle encore au réel, les sons du M88 sont maintenant présent, des alarmes remplacent la voie de BETTY, corrections de certaines textures etc...) THANKS!! the new version: RAFALE PACK EVOLUTION II 2.8.1 contains a host of novelties (additional clickable cockpit buttons, the cockpit in exterior view is identical to the interior one, improvements to the flight model, armament even more faithful to reality, the sounds of the M88 are now present, alarms replace the way of BETTY, corrections of certain textures etc...)

Fwiw, I'm just gonna leave this here: Quote from @NineLine Link to original post

But then you’ve spent a lot of time and effort on something which then has no real use in the game. Which is the case anyways. Now that I’ve mastered AAR I hardly use it at all (funny though just like the afore mentioned bicycle you never forget how). Which is another reason why this topic is so puzzling. You don’t need AAR to play DCS. Even the gas guzzling fighter jets can fly for longer than most people are willing to play without a break. DLC campaigns all have work around for this or don’t require it. So who are these people who need to AAR so badly that it keeps them out of the game? And why are many people who apparently can AAR arguing for pages and pages on their behalf? ^ this hey sorry you worked so hard at this, now there an easy button!

This topic has gone very toxic, time for you all to wind your necks in and close it ....

The problem with this idea is that the player can’t see where this imaginary box is. If it’s too large then it doesn’t do much to train anyone. If it’s smaller they’ll get frustrated disconnecting for no apparent reason. @JCTherik ditto to everything you said. Yes this is a game but it’s a competitive game in many aspects and that means aids and assists need to be server/ mission settings and that divides up the player base. There are too many of these settings already for the small number of players here.

for players there is no change, but the fix prevents a crash situation from happening. thanks

We have had a quick look and all seems ok. Please note it is 13x64 shells we are using. The low power of the ammunition, combined with the large mass of the projectile, gave a low initial velocity, which ultimately had a strong effect on the ballistic characteristics of the weapon. The not very successful shape of the projectile contributed to the poor external ballistics of the weapon. All this led to the fact that after exiting the barrel, the projectile quickly lost speed.

Please refrain from describing what kind of DCS game is when you don't even know what simulation is. Same to you @markom. The simulation starts and stops at user's own discretion. The user decides where and when it takes place. The simulation already includes all the prerequisites for the pilot - how he got into the aircraft, his health, managing the Gs, all his training and qualifications. Now the actions you do as the pilot depend entirely on your inputs. You want to trap on a carrier - you need to do it properly - prepare the aircraft, stay on-speed, line up on the GS and be precise enough to hit the deck. You want to engage in BVR fight you have to know how to operate the radar, prepare the missiles and modes, and finally take a shot. You want to AAR - you have to find the tanker, make radio calls and fly precise enough to make a connection. Every thing you want to do in this game needs some time and effort to do. Some are harder but then no one advertises them as a first thing a rookie can jump right into. But also no one forbids them trying. Please also don't mistake simplified simulation or lack of simulated details with unrealistic game modes.

i wonder, how carrier based warbirds made it trough WWII. It is not, that you don't know the expected position of an carrier briefed in the preflight briefing. In modern Jets INS helps a lot, but in the old days classic navigation also worked. Guess what, every airplane has a stopwatch. Nobody says that this is an easy task, but makes clear, how much aviate and navigate is more important than the action itself. ICLS was also not known later that days. The old carriers hat just the paddles waving you down.

I have moved this to wish list, I know what you mean though, our maps are not great when lining up with the actual game map.

It doesn’t do this unless you get all outa control. Stay on station and it won’t do this. Lot of people wobble way too much to stay in station, because they get way too close before they're ready and try to plug. I always tell them, stay 100 meters behind, stop thinking about plugging, just follow the tanker in position, and if they can't even do that, to practice keeping one axis at a time still and in position. Until they can stay still on all 3 axes behind the wing in the position, it makes no sense even trying to plug. BUT NOOOOO, 3 seconds later you see them oscilating around the basket again, while making frustrated noises, while proclaiming that "they've got this". Obviously, in the futile attempt to forcefully keep themselves more still than they're ready for, they burn themselves out in frustration in 5 minutes, utter some expletives and give up.

i can believe its realistic and it may well be perfectly readable for you, i struggle with some of them and i think it just comes down to settings and the physical limitations of vr compared to real life, its more awkward to move freely in my seat with vr and the mouse is a pita to use while turning more than 90 deg off straight

Because, a lot of people don't care about metas and air quake.

Basket is already magnetic and indestructible... You know, speaking of shortcuts.

Hello @Snappy! Thank you very much for your detailed report. I've tracked it internally as AJS37-348. The team will look into it when able.

Nice flying! And love the RDAF display livery. Recently took the Norwegian one for a spin : This is my config, also have a small dead zone in DCS (2 in both axis) I utilize some of the extra button functions with: Pinky switch left: HSI mode switch ( to quickly swap navigation modes) Pinky switch right : Kneeboard on/off NWS button up: UHF coms menu NWS button down: VHF coms menu Trim hat depress: Recenter VR view

Three Ramstein birds from an early ‘80’s TAC meet, plus a couple other interesting schemes.

Ramstein full wrap camo. The ORIGINAL angry-birds!