Leaderboard

Coming along well...

unfortunately I can’t talk about it, we are waiting for official news from ED Thanks for support!

nullnullPremiers 16th of May 21:00 BST (20:00Z) Enjoy!

I know, I know, Awfully Slow Warfare and all that. I think this could be an interesting and unique addition to DCS. It would open up a variety of new aircraft such as Viking, Orion, Seaking etc to the simulation, and a new angle on crewing etc. I also think that a multiplayer sub hunt would actually be quite challenging and dynamic. Just a thought, be interested to know what you all think.

Hi @ThorBrasil, sorry for delay answer. In EA in Israel there will be only those objects in Tel Aviv that are. We are working according to the plan, 2 phases have already been completed and they will be released in EA. But the 3rd phase will include the unique objects of Israel (Jerusalem) and Egypt (Alexandria). It is also planned to make Petra in Jordan. Аfter EA, I will try to describe in detail what will be in third phase of the Sinai map - this will be the release!

They still are and I don't see the problem with it. When somebody plans to deliver 'x', I don't see how it's in any way problematic or unexpected when 'x' ends up being delivered. Like it or not, "wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft" gives ED a clear end-state to the module. If not for that, where would you draw the line? And one has to be drawn, because otherwise it'll be very vulnberable to scope and feature creep, which would be particularly harmful to a module that's already taking years and years to finish, without needing to expand its scope. But APKWS is a 2016 and beyond weapon (that's when it was operational on F-16s), so you really mean 2016 threat environment. Surely there's a lot more to employing F-16s in a post 2016 threat environment than just a 2007-spec F-16 with APKWS available? For 2016, the F-16 also has things like LJDAM, JASSM, MALD and SDB (the first 3 would also apply to a 2012 F-16 and JASSM and MALD would substantially change how you could operate the F-16). We probably won't be getting any of those, so we'll still be fairly far away. Not only that, but I doubt you're going to be doing much in the way of a post-2012 A/G threat environment in DCS anyway, considering that the only REDFOR ground units we have that are post 2012 is the T-72B3 and ZTZ96B, everything else is earlier where a post 2012 threat-environment is just as much a mid 2000s or early 90s threat environment. As far as what stores are available, the DCS F-16CM Block 50 is pretty much as capable as a real one for the timeframe. The only omission I'm aware of is AIM-120C-7, which would also apply to a post 2012 F-16. Firstly, because we're having enough trouble (though granted far less trouble than the F/A-18C) getting the F-16 completed for items solely constrained to its narrow scope, without needing to expand it. Secondly, because the whole mission goal of the game is realism where possible. This would go against that goal. Yes, there are plenty of things that are unrealistic (sometimes on purpose - such as the MiG-21bis' completely fictional Kh-66 and RS-2US capability) even things that are very unrealistic. But how does merely 'x' being unrealistic, justify why 'y' should be made unrealistic?

Are you planning on doing the Australian version as well? Main differences between that, the Hunter class, and the Type 26 is the Australian designed CEAFAR radar and altered superstructure to accommodate that. Additionally, they will use only 32 Mk.41 VLS cells, likely loaded with a mix of ESSM and SM-2, as well as the SM-6 and Tomahawk both of which Australia has recently purchased. BAE have apparently proposed a version with up to 150 VLS cells to address the Australian Navy's lack of firepower, especially in terms of VLS's, however it's unlikely any decision will be made on that until Q3 this year when an independent naval review will be conducted on the RAN.

I know Razbam did what they could with it before control of weapons went to ED, but it seems to just have been thrown in a closet and forgotten about since the Harrier is the only aircraft that currently carries the AGM-122. A number of us have been discussing it in the AV-8B discord for some time, and came to the realization the reason the AGM-122 has never been fixed, is because nobody has reported just how inaccurate the current version of the missile is compared to the real missile. So I gathered a bit of things that had been mentioned in our conversations to post here. Hopefully more knowledgeable people can chime in on some of these that I list off. Although it may be unpopular to fix the missile. Based on how people currently use it, in a sense of it being a tiny HARM it needs to be properly fixed in comparison to all the other work done on other missiles in the sim. The AGM-122 is based off the very unsuccessful AIM-9C Sidewinder. The AGM-122 has a very limited range, limited usage window, and unique features that are missing from the missile even currently. The issues that should be addressed are some of the following; 1) Range: Currently the AGM-122 in DCS can be lofted to ranges of 20+nm. This is entirely inaccurate for this missile by a significant margin. This is based off the missile specifications as well as documentation of the missile being far less capable than it's being used currently. 2) Missing features of the missile. Self lofting feature of the missile is also missing. The AGM-122 was designed to be fired at very low altitudes. When the missile is fired at a certain altitude, it will, loft itself for a top down attack onto the targeted radar emitter. Also, a lesser documented option mode the Sidearm had, which allegedly was not used much if at all, was an automatic launch feature. 3) Limited Bandwith usage. I cannot speak to the this in great detail as I am not fully aware as to this specific limitation and how it’s put forward in DCS, but the AGM-122 has specific bandwith windows that have to be selected prior to take off for it to scan for in-mission. I know this feature isn’t available, but the scan range on what the 122 can engage I don’t believe is implemented either. It simply can be fired at any surface radar site, which is also allegedly inaccurate to the missile. Addressing the range issue which arguably is the largest issue with the missile currently. It is vastly out performing the real missile. Which is a short range, self defense ARM. The AGM-122 shares the entirety of the AIM-9C, except the seeker. The AGM-122/AIM-9C is equipped with a thermal battery that is powered off the exhaust gases when the missile is launched. Which stores heat to the battery and provides at a maximum, of 60 seconds of guidance time and a maximum range cited on paper of 18,044 yards, or about 9 nautical miles (8.9 and change). This is because of the thermal battery limitation. Once the 60 seconds is up, the missile is dead, as there is no longer guidance power. No more guidance, no more control surface control or detonation ability, it’s dead as a door nail. Therefore, lofting it 20+ nautical miles onto SAM sites is not possible with this missile. In numerous documents of use of the AGM-122 the paper cited range of 9nm is in best case scenario launched at high altitude. In typical launch at low altitude from helicopters or the Harrier, ranges were much lower, around 5-6nm at most. Again, it was a short range ARM. Documentation of the thermal battery guidance limit is noted in the NAVWEPS OP 3353 Declassified Document on the AIM-9C/Parent platform of the AGM-122. (which I wont link here for obvious reasons). It is publicly available. This article also cites the limited range of the AGM-122 being much lower than a cited 9nm. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12009/the-agm-122-sidearm-came-to-be-from-a-novel-missile-recycling-scheme Addressing the missing pop up feature. The missile was entirely designed to be launched from low altitudes aboard helicopters primarily and therefore, a “pop up” program was input into the programing of the Sidearm that if it was fired below a certain altitude it would pop up and attack the radar emitter in a top down attack. Similar to the Javelin missile. Currently the missile in DCS does not do this. If fired at low altitude the missile will nearly in all situations hit the ground or trees. This is precisely the reason why the missile was given the pop up feature in real life. The article cited above also describes this feature. As for the self launch feature. This I think “could” be left out given there’s not much documentation on it other than some tertiary sources from interviews talking about how pilots didn’t like that mode (link to an interview about that mode below), but it had it. But in this mode, if the missile picked up a threat on one of it’s 7 bands it would be set to prior to take off, if a threat passed in front of the seeker in range when the missiles were armed, the missile would automatically leave the aircraft and engage the site on it’s own. Addressing the limited bandwith the seeker could see. Coupling it with a considerably shorter range, the bandwith receiver on the missile had to be set on the ground prior to launch. Now we don’t have this feature in DCS. However, the limitations in what types of sites it can see I think should be implemented based on what bands it can see. The missile can detect and engage things like the ZSU-23 and other fixed site type emitting dishes/signals. However, given it's limited seeker, it had problems with rotating dishes, as anytime the radar beam pointed in a direction not in the cone of detection, the 122 would lose track of it. The missile based on sources is stated to be most effective against the ZSU-23 style radar and SA-8 sites. This has been discussed in detail in the discord by people that have a much better understanding of the restrictions in this category than I, but I wanted to at least mention it and anyone else who sees this can chime in on more detailed knowledge on the matter. The only other thing addressing the seeker on the 122 would be the fact of the limited seeker it was easily fooled by countermeasures.

There are ships waiting to enter the Suez. Is the map out yet? Just kidding. Getting close to finishing up the low-poly Commercial Vessels. I will release the High Poly Commercial Vessels shortly afterward. The larger ships are 400 meters or 1312 feet in length. Stay Tuned!

Hi, we tend to model aircraft for a particular year, this is for many reasons but mainly, it depends on public information of the aircraft, and setting a time frame prevents feature creep that can happen when aircraft cover more than one year. Other than our A-10C II we are not planning APKWS for any other aircraft. DCS is a entertainment product, but it is the most realistic we can legally make it. thanks

Small correction to the previous skin and new for 14. Staffel of IV/JG26 Whats next? 14. Staffel skin of IV/JG26 based off of Werner Zech´s black 8 and and Geschwader Stab skin based off of Josef Priller´s black 13/14. Then this 2nd pack gonna be pressed out, which will feature liveries for JG.2, 26, 54 and KG(J)27. Before and after

Yes, there is an intrest in ASW - this topic returns regularly, together with ASW connected full fidelity module like late Cold War declassified S-3 Viking, P-3 Orion or SH-60 Seahawk etc., but it would probably require some dedicated 3rd party to create ASW enviroment similar to e.g. Dangerous Waters ~18 years ago. Sound propagation with differnet bottom types, sound layers. Actual deep sea, different sound buoys, submarines AI and capabilities, a bit more detailed missiles and torpedoes etc. It didn't require any significant computing power, just a coding time. It has been done many times before in different simulators. It would be fantastic, but i doubt ED itself, without 3rd party/cooperation would have spare manpower to code ASW enviroment. But who knows. Hunting e.g. Soviet submarines north of Kola Peninsula would be exciting and engaging, but only with proper ASW enviroment.

I'd love some ASW. If I remember correctly, there were some sub-hunting missions in Dangerous Waters (with a Seahawk and Orion? I don't remember now) and they were one of the most interesting missions in that sim.

I absolutely would. However, the work you'd need to do to really do it justice is massive and would be something that could be an entire game's worth of functionality and content. For a brief (yes, brief) overview I'll mostly be copying a post I did on hoggit concerning the topic: Hydroacoustics/realistic sound propgation. Including things like sound velocity profile, thermoclines, surface ducts and convergence zones. You could also throw in ambient noise into this one too. Note - this is just scratching the surface. Sound velocity profiles depend namely on pressure (depth), but also temperature and salinity. Pressure would entail having at least semi-accurate bathymetry on maps - luckily this is mostly-ish the case, though the Caucasus is a notable exception. Temperature depends not only on surface temperature but also sea-state, as high sea-states can also mix hot and cold water, which may for instance, weaken or even prevent a surface duct from forming. Sounds might have to have a ray-traced-like set up, especially in cases where reflections are involved (such as surface ducts and bottom bounces), but perhaps these can be abstracted. Underwater sensors. Namely sonar (both active and passive) and magnetic anomaly detection (MAD). Both active and passive sonar would require the above and passive sonar would require each unit (or at least each class of unit) to have its own unique sound profile, which would need to change with speed (due to things like the blade-rate increasing/decreasing with propeller/screw RPM and engine noise). Underwater weapons. So far we have torpedoes and bombs. For the former we only have WWI-style straight-running torpedoes modelled (even for advanced, wire-guided, active/passive torpedoes like the Yu-6), though there are several schemes in the files and for the former, how bombs interact with the water needs some work (currently treated the same as land). The Hornet initially had the Mk 40 Destructor and Mk 63 Quickstrike mines (both bottom, influence mines converted from Mk 83s), but these were removed from the roadmap (the Mk 40 model is present in the files however). A more suitable submarine AI (think Cold Waters) - right now the only thing the AI does is follow waypoints and fire weapons, they won't manoeuvre defensively. Mission editor functionality - controlling things like the raising of various masts and antennas (so far the Kilo-class and the Type VIIC u-boat are the only submarines to have all their masts presents, while being separately animated). Submarine depth settings also seem to reference the geometric centroid of the unit, it should be depth below keel (especially important in shallow waters). Underwater effects like submerged explosions and cavitation. More submarines (we only have 4 and all of them are REDFOR and one of them is a variant of another). Then we get into things like much of the specific capabilities of certain systems being classified, requiring them to be abstracted - I would be okay with abstraction (it works fairly decently in Cold Waters and C:MO for instance), but even things like what the displays look like and what functions they have isn't publicly available information. It would be incredibly difficult to have a full-fidelity ASW platform modelled. EDIT: And then, before you consider any of that, bear in mind that the naval envionment solely concerning surface vessels is still very, very basic and the list of things either missing or lacking fidelity is also gigantic without involving ASW (and even this list isn't comprehensive).

F-14, like other modules, should respect the "show pilot body" setting in DCS > options > misc. but I heard it does not atm and starts with default on.

From a VR pilots perspective - if this is to be implemented can it please be done as an option and not as a permanent change. (I understand the OP's desire to do this, but for VR users this could greatly increase the risk of headaches or motion sickness). As far as simulations go - I'm not keen on having 'real' sickness (headaches or nausea) added to the experience of DCS and I'm fairly confident most other VR users wouldn't want this either.

You should really subscribe to my YT channel

JG 3 R2

Hello, I've been looking forward to the Kola map for quite some time as I anticipate that it will be one of the most used maps in my collection. As a long term DCS player I also have some feedback on the state and implementation of maps in DCS and I wanted to post these in the hope that it will help future map developers provide the best product possible. This was written months ago, but this forum was closed at the time: Kola is one of the upcoming modules that I'm most excited about and I plan to spend a lot of time with it in the mission editor. As a long time DCS user I have a lot of opinions about maps and the ME and I'd like to share some with Orbx for consideration with goal of maximizing the value and usability of the map. From the announcement, we know that the map will be highly detailed and feature important military targets. This is great to hear as it is exactly how DCS maps should be designed. However there is a bit of a disconnect with regards to the mission editor. It is usually difficult to find specific buildings and locations without knowing their approximate positions ahead of time. Please take this into considering when designing the GUI side of the map. It would be very helpful to have important/unique locations labeled from a zoomed out perspective. This way the most interest features of the map aren't hidden away, but readily visible for mission planners. I've outlined a similar idea in the following thread: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/307296-combat-oriented-display-options-for-mission-editor/#comment-5032281 An alternative to map icons could be what was done on the NTTR map where the different areas of the training range are outlined and named. Another issue I've run into with DCS maps is the limitations that AI have in operating from certain airports. The most significant problem is with airports that don't have full runway length taxiways that reach both ends of the runway. With this type of runway, the AI will tend to enter the runway from somewhere in the middle and then slowly taxi to the end of the runway to takeoff. They will do this one at a time, and it can take many minutes to launch a full flight of 4 aircraft. Ideally this will be fixed when DCS gets improvements to ATC, but in the meantime it can be mitigated with parking spots added to the ends of runways. These spaces would get around the taxi issue and allow for rapid takeoffs of full groups of planes. They would also make very nice spots for fighters set to interceptors that need to scramble quickly. See this thread for some more discussion: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/286131-allow-entire-flight-to-line-up-on-runway-for-takeoff/#comment-4815757 A second issue with airports is parking space size. Some spots that seem large enough to hold big fighters like the Su-27 won't accept these planes on other maps. For the sake of gameplay I think it might be worth it to slightly oversize parking spaces if this is going to be an issue. It might also be helpful to including the maximum airplane size in the parking space name (ie 9S for parking space 9 small fighter maximum, 10L for parking space 10 large fighter maximum, and 11T for parking space 11 transport sized plane maximum). Examples of the parking issue here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/295191-still-having-that-parking-problem/ https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308140-b52-has-no-parking-options-on-the-syria-map/ Finally, while Kola looks to be fairly large in size as is, it can't be understated the value that size brings to maps in DCS. Having airbases spread out across the map can really increase the replay value and can also make campaigns feel a lot more dynamic as you change locations through a conflict. Even if an airbase falls outside of the high detail area of the map I think it's worth including. Along with this, the ME GUI should be as unrestrictive as possible. Letting us zoom out far, even if it goes beyond the map image in the ME is totally fine because it makes utilizing the edges of the map easier. As much of the edges of Kola will be water, I imagine this will be very useful. I'm sure others have ideas as well since I'm far from the only dedicated DCS player here. I don't know how early the map is in development, but I hope it's not too late to take feedback like this into account. I'm greatly looking forward to the end product.

A user on Razbam's Discord asked to see how the map looks with the terrain textures set to Low. So I went and made a few comparison screens. Posting it here in case someone else might find it useful. Left = HIGH, Right = LOW:

In STT, the NWS/Undesignate button will drop the lock and return-to-search (RTS) to the previous search mode. In RWS, the NWS/Undesignate button will step the L&S designation through all valid trackfiles (provided no DT2 is present, otherwise will swap L&S/DT2). In TWS, the NWS/Undesignate button will perform the same function as RWS, except TWS demands an L&S is always present, and will set the highest ranked trackfile as L&S automatically when TWS is entered, provided no L&S is already present (this cannot be removed unless no valid trackfiles are present). To remove an L&S designation in RWS, press the RSET button on the ATTK (PB14) or AZ/EL (PB17) formats.

To assist others, as well as myself, to use this very useful program, I created my own personal User Guide. I do not claim that it covers all possible use conditions. Note that V1.08 renamed Context to Modding Hub and Target Locations to Channel. First download and install Open Mod Manger. Then.... In the main Open Mod Manager (OMM) menu File\New\Modding Hub (IMO a more descriptive term would be Target Program you want to modify). Enter the path to the game/program to be modified, i.e. receive the mods. Select the desired Modding Hub from the title block below the OMM menu. OMM main menu Edit\Channel\Properties: Create a Channel (path) to one or more folders within the Target Program (Modding Hub) that will be modded; AND specify the Destination Library folder (where the mod packages you will create for the Channel will be stored). IMPORTANT. Organize the mods you want OMM to install. You will have to specify within OMM the path to the Target Program folders you wish to modify in one of two ways: 1. The Channels you create can include the path, or 2. Include the path in the folder on your PC where you organize the mod files. EXAMPLE: To add a vehicle to DCS Open Beta, create Channel "Saved Games\DCS.openbeta" then create a folder anywhere on your PC "MyMods\Mods\Tech\VehicleModFolder" where the folder MyMods contains the DCS.Openbeta path to the folder where the "VehicleModFiles" will be installed. Note that the Tech folder can contain multiple individual mod folders, several different vehicles for example. The Mods\Tech path could also have been included in the Channel definition instead of the MyMods folder. The MyMods folder can be archived in a .zip file if desired. After completing these steps for a given program you should rarely need to repeat or alter them. You can then create OMM mod packages whenever you need them. Under the Library tab select the desired Target Program Channel/folder that you want to modify. Under Tools menu select Package Editor. If the PC mod folder (MyMods) has not been zipped, select radio button Create from folder content, then navigate to the MyMods folder using the Browse window. If the MyMods folder is zipped, select Edit/Create from existing package. Name the mod package whatever you want. All the files in the MyMods folder will display in the Package Content window. Verify the path is correct. Now the tricky part. The Destination folder is Destination Library where the Package being created will be stored (NOT the Target Program installation location). This folder was specified when creating the Channel. If desired select a Mod Category and enter a description. Save the package BEFORE closing. It will display in the large package window, if created successfully. Maybe others can find this useful and/or improve on it.

Don't bring data then, don't get any changes. It's literally that simple. Developers do a lot of complex work, yes, they can miss some stuff. If you want to bring it up, do it in a way that is difficult to question. The developers can't be going off checking stuff with every 'I don't feel this is right' comment, aerodynamics are tedious. Same thing with the g-loc thing ... there are studies for this, and air force standards. So say it's 'obvious' all you like, but you have nothing to show for it so ... it's obvious based on what exactly? If you find all of this tiring, maybe stop doing things that are tiring? Just be aware that the consequences of not backing up your feelings with solid facts is that your feelings are going to be very low on the 'let's check on this' priority list.

Sure, it's been a minute for him probably - but the only point I want to make, is what should be well known at this point that if one wants ED to make changes, one must provide fairly solid data, not anecdotes. The goal isn't to impugn any member of the community or any current or ex-pilot, but rather to remind that people saying things doesn't go very far when actual data is available. @Blue Giant and @DummyCatz have the right idea. If you want to show something's off, this is the way.

Will be a first day buy for me.

Yes, you do. Again, no. Human memory sucks, it is very perishable. And yes it's certainly possible to retain details but your blanket statement is incorrect - you simply don't know if one has or has not retained this memory. The hornet is irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, all those things and more affect g-tolerance (for example, has the pilot practiced or trained their AGSM recently?), and one of the important functions of the g-warmup is for the pilot to figure out how well he'll be performing. Citation needed. I would tend to give weight to real GLOC research instead and not one individual's account, who may well be very exceptional.

Я после QP стал ещё пессимистичнее относиться к очкам с высоким разрешением. Для нас это сильно большое будущее, а QP уже сейчас позволяет гонять с нормальными настройками и картинкой кайфовее реверба.

Here is a knife edge flight without altitude loss: As can be clearly seen from the video, to maintain horizontal flight in knife edge at this alt/speed the pilot must create a beta angle of approximately 10 deg. I have tried in simulator the maneuver in similar alt/speed conditions. Pressing the rudder pedal fully, the beta angle that can be generated in no more than about 5 deg. The lift produced is insufficient and altitude is quickly lost.

I'll share an example using the above equation Ps = dh/dt + (V/g)(dV/dt) Given that the aircraft is bleeding its speed from 400 KTAS to 396 KTAS in a 1-sec time span, with a pretty constant bleed rate, and a tiny altitude loss of 5 ft. Then we can dial in all the elements we need: dh = -5ft dV = -4KTAS = -6.75ft/s V = 398KTAS = 671.75ft/s (took the average) g = 32.174ft/s^2 dt = 1s The resulting Ps = -145.93 ft/s at the speed of 398KTAS.

I'm a little late to the party here but just read through all the posts... The DCS Viper currently has several issues that is affecting its performance... First, the joystick. I have my warthog set to that maximum roll deflection is at about half of the roll axis of the stick. Pitch is a little more at about 3/4 of the pitch axis of the stick. It makes it very sensitive and took a bit to get used to but the quicker inputs to full deflection clearly give me an advantage against someone who does not. Second, the performance or lack of concerning bleeding off speed and regaining energy. I don't need a chart to tell me that it is off, no I've never flown a Viper in real life and I take into consideration that former pilots on YT may have a slightly faded memory after awhile or have a difference of opinion based on their perceptions. Viper HUD videos also don't necessarily give you a certainty of which block they are flying as some models have better performance than others, although you can somewhat deduce that newer 4k videos are probably being flown in newer block jets. That being said, I do believe that it bleeds off speed too quickly and does not regain energy as quickly in a rate fight. How can I be certain? Well, even a Viper driver that hasn't been in the cockpit for 10 years as GGTharos said, may not be able to remember the EXACT FEEL of the aircraft but he will definitely remember the hard numbers that were drilled into him about what airspeeds give what performance at a given fuel weight, weapons loadout, altitude and airspeed and what those numbers need to be when flying against a particular jet. So when they say, this is off quite a bit, that still compensates for the "feel" memory loss of the pilot. But numerous pilots have already been quoted saying that it is off. What we don't know is whether the SME's are able to give the exact performance information and in fact ED should make some of them available for discussion so we can hear their side of the story. Another thing not to do with the Viper that people are griping about is that it can't beat the Hornet in DCS. That's because the Hornet is definitely overpowered and should not be able to rate like the Viper. Its strength is in its exceptional nose pointing ability at low speed which it gets from its fcs allowing it to pull way more AOA than the Viper, not its sustained turn rate. This is why you do not want to get into a slow speed phone booth fight in a Viper against the Hornet and the Hornet does not want to get into a rate fight with a Viper. I promise you will never hear a story from a real Hornet driver saying "I remember fighting this F-16 in a rate fight pulling 7.5G at corner while he was pulling 9g at his corner, we were on the spiral down toward the deck and I was just rating right around on him." The real Hornet bleeds energy like crazy and takes time to get it back, period. Its almost like they need to give swap certain parts of the flight models out between the 2 jets. Third, the FCS is off in the Viper more than likely causing the lack of performance. I can say for certain that in CATIII mode, the roll rate is not reduced after 90 degrees of roll. It should give up to 324 degrees per second roll rate for the first 90 degrees of roll regardless of CATI or CATIII and at that point if it is in CATIII should reduce the roll rate by a certain percentage. Ours just keeps on spinning around. I certainly don't envy ED for having to model all of these things correctly with all the performance numbers matching up. Fourth, the blackout model is not accurate. Why this hasn't been changed is beyond me. We have been knowing it is not accurate for a decade or more with no changes other than adding G warmups to the blackout model. And yes, you do know that if you pull max G with no G warm up (I believe its 10 seconds at above 5g?) you will black out much quicker in all planes. Of course the ability to pull G varies greatly between individuals and a pilot that can pull 9g for 30 plus seconds one day might not have gotten a good night of sleep, ate properly or had been going through something stressful that day or the day before would only pull 9g for 10-15 seconds or GLOC from rapid G onset quicker. Knowing all of this, once G warmup has been accomplished we should be able to at least sustain 9g for 20 seconds to average it out. I have posted numerous times about the Lockheed Martin online magazine called Code One that had an excellent series on the F-16. Of course that was many years ago and certain things may or may not have changed since then but the author went into detail about pulling G and claimed he could hold 9G for 45 seconds and would be happy to prove it to anyone. Considering he was one of the test pilots of the early models, I would tend to give weight to his statement and call him a subject matter expert. Either that or ED needs to sell an addon that weighs you, takes a blood test and monitors your heart rate and blood pressure then uses those numbers to give you a variable G resistance every time you fly. Your triglyceride levels are too high, you ain't pulling much G today lol. Fifth, as discussed in this topic already. People need to learn the complicated skill of dogfighting and all of the nuances that come with it. Learn to maintain corner speed but know when you need to be at a different speed. Use the vertical, out of plane maneuvering etc. It takes so much practice to recognize the energy states and sight pictures to know when to do what effectively.

This is not proof, he stated he felt he had control issues that could have been part of the issue, as well we have reached out to him to discuss. If there are issues we are missing we will be happy to revisit, right now the F-16 is performing to the docs we have.

Would the Type 26 come with several different variants (Hunter, City, CSC)? Just with different weapon loadouts like you did for your Modern US Naval vessels?

A real F-16 pilot who hasn't flown the jet for 10 years. He didn't say the bleed rate is garbage; he's also at 12000', so the speed will bleed. There's no magical 4th gen jet that will bleed speed nice and slow at that altitude. That doesn't mean anything ... Like come on yes it can and yes it does. It also doesn't say 'if I remember right', or 'disclaimer'. Now, does anyone have energy bleed data for the Viper? I don't know (Although you can infer the bleed rate to some degree from the sustained and instantaneous graphs). But I do know that ED gets help from real operators to build the FM, so what is it about the youtube guys that you believe more than the guys ED asked to test the FM? Finally, if it 'bleeds too much', how much should it bleed? How many g's for a 1kt/s bleed at a given altitude? How about a 5kt/s bleed?

The AI take-off priority is pretty easy to figure out. For multiple groups the order is based on the taxi distance of the flight lead from the start of the runway. Then each group will taxi based on that order. For example in the screenshot below the top aircraft is closer to the runway, but has a longer taxi distance to get there. In this instance the aircraft with the blue path will taxi first. Additional wingmen add an extra rule, but it is still straight forward. Within a given flight the taxi order is always based on the flight member with it being 1, 2, 3, 4 regardless of location. The next flight will wait until the last wingman of the current flight begins to taxi and is closer to the runway. Using the screenshot again imagine if the blue path AI has a wingman at parking number 5, lets call it "blue 2". The red path AI will taxi almost at the same time as blue 2 because the path of blue 2 is still shorter than the red path AI, and it won't need to wait. It gets annoying if blue 2 is parked someplace further away from the flight lead. In one instance lets say blue 2 is at parking 120. The blue path flight lead will taxi, once it passes 120 then blue 2 will start to taxi, and then red path AI will taxi with little delay. Likewise if you put blue 2 way up in the north eastern corner of the base it will taxi at the same time as its flight lead, but the red path AI will wait until blue 2 is closer to the runway than itself. That said there are plenty of other nuances to AI taxiing behavior that are partly down to general AI rules and even how airbases themselves are setup. You can create a empty mission, slap some AI down, set the wind, and you can easily experiment with how unit placement impacts take-off order.

Whoa! Just read through unread posts in this thread! The communication this team is simply super, and I will definitely, as already planned, get this map on day one! [emoji1319] Cheers! Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

I use the mini stick on my TM Warthog throttle as a mouse. I have used both Joystick Gremlin and Joy2Key in the past. If this is all you want to do I would recommend Joy2Key. In my view it is simpler for this task and doesn’t require installing vjoy which is just another thing to run which isn’t needed in this case.

I hope that day is friday the 16.05.2023

Man the expectation is building up!! This map looks sick, can't wait for its release. I'm guessing no news yet, right?

A headset is like a monitor with VSync ON. If you can't maintain the rated refresh rate of the display, you get stutters.

If they are accurate enough to score direct hits on a row of tanks, think of being able to plink 12 or more in a single pass, vs say 5 or 6 very close to eachother with a single GBU-28, which is unlikely to have as much effect in open air since most of its mass is in the penetrator to survive going 100ft underground and only has about 675lbs of explosive. That explosive effect has much more power under ground since shockwaves travel faster through earth than air plus there's the cavern effect. Its good for taking down structures. SDBs, especially the II variant with its laser guided/multi sensor capability, are a force multiplier for wiping out vehicles in the field. Smaller leaner meaner keener.

Most of the mentioned bindings have been added by now, and the remaining are added soon. Thanks

Yes, please do that ED. Or just introduce a special options menu checkmark that makes people that don't have the force sensing hardware fly the jet and not PIO/ APC themselves all across the sky.

I think the variability of DCS will keep VR a relatively niche area for the foreseeable future. People can post their performance optimizations (speed-of-heat did fantastic work with his guide, which even if not following verbatim did provide useful tips) but ultimately individual users have to decide which trade-offs they find acceptable and what their scenarios are to find their own sweet spot. Some users are entirely multiplayer and fly on Caucuses all the time, and what suits them might be very different to someone who does lots of Liberation campaigns on the Syria map for example. Ultimately DCS (like other flight sims which are similarly cursed) is not designed as a VR title, it's a flat screen title you can play in VR, and so there are always going to be compromises even with the best of hardware. I'd probably rather ED spend their time getting features in to the engine that will help VR users (DLSS/DLAA, Vulkan, ongoing MT work) than spending time on creating a moving feast of VR presets which will ultimately keep nobody happy.

Currenthill already has a Type 45 mod - this is the Type 26 destroyer built by BAE Systems for the Royal Navy. There are plans to build derivatives of them for the Canadian and Australian navies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate

I tweaked the config a bit more. Maybe we are getting there. I made a video that i hope makes it clear what i am looking for with a good suspension physics. @JupiterJoe I tried the EXTD/KNEEL with my config and the plane went up and down so i m not sure what didn't work with you. Maybe you can try my new config file. I think its already quite good. Maybe i can do tomorrow more testing as i don't have too much time at the moment. Config.lua

What part of ''text edit'' was misunderstood? It is literally extremely easy, and you could tweak the MiG's handling yourself by modifying the numbers. If I can do it, they can do it. Because of a lack of will, not ability. Don't mythologise this stuff into some monumental task. MANY things ARE complex, but not ALL. Period, full stop. I'm a fanboi, too, but I draw the line at candy coated bull<profanity> excuses. They pass it off as ''we have a perfect fix planned and don't like half measures'' which is bs and how <profanity> like the MiG's bs gets neglected for ten years. Low priority? Sure. Better fix planned for unspecified future? Great! That has f all to do with why a ''good enough'' tweak wasn't implemented years ago when it has been easy to do all along. For Christ's sake, WWII planes still have JET SOUNDS and it's also been near ten years. That's not likely a simple fix, but it's not TEN YEARS complex either.

New short video:

In this DCS: AH-64D video, we’ll delve into the ability of the AH-64D to search for, acquire, and track a laser designation that is not from our own aircraft. This could be another aircraft, a UAV, or a Joint Terminal Attack Controller, or JTAC. Laser Spot Tracking, or LST, is a useful feature when you have an offboard designation source at your disposal. As you might imagine, we first need to determine what laser code the LST will search for. This is done by selecting the WPN page and then CODE sub-page. From there, select the SET LST and pick the channel to search for A to L. Valid LST frequencies range from 1111 to 1788. LST operations are conducted from the CP/G seat with the right handgrip. Specifically, the Laser Tracker Mode Switch. It has three positions: When set forward to A for Automatic, commands the TADS to inhibit the LRFD from firing and conducts a 4-bar LST scan along the azimuth of the TADS line of sight. If the set LST code is detected in the scan, the TADS line of sight will slave to it. If the LST track is lost, the TADS will revert to the 4-bar raster scan. If set to the center, off, position, LST is disabled and the LRFD can fire. The aft, manual, position enables LST and disables the LRFD while allowing you to manually steer the LST search area. Once a matching LST code is detected, the TADS line of sight will slave to it. Let’s try this in operation now based on a JTAC designation. First, I’ll select LST from Code and select channel R, 1788, as my LST channel to search for. Back on the Weapons page, you can see that I have my LST window set as R. I’ll set my TADS as the sight and place its line of sight in the general area of the target. I’ll then press forward on the Laser Tracker switch to enter automatic mode. If you select the Slave button, the TADS will be slaved to the acquisition source and cease an LST search or track. You can use the LST while tracking a target using the IAT and MTT functions, but the LST functions overrides those of the IAT. The TADS will continue to maintain an image auto-track on all primary and secondary MTT tracks while performing LST functions, but if those tracks remain outside the TADS field-of-view for too long, they may be dropped. However, if the LST loses the laser spot it was tracking while in manual mode or the LST is switched to Off, the TADS will slave back to the IAT primary track if it was able to maintain an auto-track on it.