Leaderboard

Nice timing, I'm actually working on this guy at the moment.

The new template is now available through User Files. Everything you need to know is included in the README file. Final download link is from my GoogleDrive. Let me know what you think. Improved F-16C Texture Template Additionally I also updated all the standard USAF Block 50 liveries with these new textures. F-16C Block 50 USAF Squadrons Skin Pack

I'm Norwegian and finally we get "a real" cold war map in Europe. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

The 96L6 radar can optionally be used with an S-350 battery. And of course the S-300 or S-400. But in this case I've made it for the S-350.

Last state of FAQ was September 2021 and it is false in a few pretty important points now. 1. Let's start with: "It is slated to leave Early Access as early through 2021 as is possible." - no comment here 2. There already are 3 campaigns included for the module (2 by HB, 1 by kaba). 3. Jester already can operate the LANTIRN. 4. We already can jump between seats in MP. 5. We already have TWS-A, AVIA, NAVGRID and EIG for F110. 6. I'd add some notes about the current Tomcat compatibility with SC. 7. Since the Stennis got updated to SC level (features depending on module ownership) the note "The free version of the USS Forrestal will have feature parity with the USS Stennis at minimum once complete. " can be misleading. Also we already got Forrestal. 8. Please put a note on a planned Jester 2.0 update. 9. Link to the AIM-54 white paper is no longer valid or applicable. 10. We already have pilot/RIO body in cockpit. 11. Some parts of dynamic cockpit are already there. 12. Please change Tomcat Tutorials link to the first post: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/224050-f-14-how-to-and-tutorial-links/ 13. Same with paintkit: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/200988-f14-skinners-thread-paintkit-in-1st-post/ 14. There are much more DLC Tomcat campaigns now. 15. HB store is not working currently. 16. Proper redeem HB license link: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/189443-how-to-redeem-your-heatblurcom-purchase/ Thanks

Mal ein kleines Update: Uns gibt es immer noch! Die OFS hatte vor Kurzem den 6. Geburtstag. 5 Gruppen A-10CII Ausbildung und 11 (!) Gruppen F/A-18C Ausbildung. Grob geschätzt haben wir jetzt 40 Schüler in Ausbildung. Und da sind die 1on1 Trainings im WW2 Bereich durch Knauf und die wöchentlichen F-14 & Helikopter Trainings nicht mit eingerechnet. Die Vorbereitungen für eine F-16C Kursserie laufen im Hintergrund schon. Das wird aber noch etwas dauern.

Yeah, "no MFDs, no IHADSS, no hook, dinosaurs' age avionics" are all firmly on the + side for me

The F-14s RWR simulation is afaik the only one in DCS thats actually accurate? Way more complex than any other ive seen, at least. And IIRC theyre also building up an entire library of RWR sounds.

We've adjusted the yaw damper and now only the most extreme levels of turbulence (selected in ME) generate some jittering in it.

Flyingscotsman so you have a good understanding of what some of us have been through but it was all worth it. Enjoyed every moment of it. Made me who I am today. Good Afternoon Everyone! OnReTach has granted me early access to test out the Suez Canal depths. I can tell you all that it's a very beautiful map with a lot of great detail. You all will enjoy flying around it. I can see some great missions will be created throughout the map. I'm not a flyer so I can't tell you much about the bases and airports but I can tell you there are quite a few they have added. The map is very beautiful at night with all the lights. Some areas in the channel are completely dark. I'm testing out ships' lighting now so you can at least see them transit the canal at night. My perspective of the Suez Canal. I get a clear picture of how long it takes these large ships to transit the canal. Each of the Cargo/Container/Tanker vessels takes quite a while to transit the canal at speeds no more than 15 kt. Something I learned today is that if you set the ships on a path. Be sure not to have any other ships near them or they will run aground and stop all traffic through the canal. Wonderful Map! They are still hard at work on it so what I see is not the finished product. The Alexandria, Egypt, and the Haifa. Israel harbors brought back memories of when I was there back in the early 90s onboard the USS Bowen FF-1079. This map will be my new playground to test out long-range missiles. I'm finishing up most of the AI DCS Commercial vessels for the Suez Canal. I'm hoping to release a hand full of them soon. Below are some of the many snapshots I have taken of the channel and the map. I have more but I don't want to flood the forum with photos. Thanks, OnReTech for granting me early access to the Map. I really appreciate it. Your Team has done a wonderful job of creating another wonderful Map to be used as a Playing field for all to enjoy!! Thanks so much!

I certainly hope so! Ya have to thank Currenthill for bringing life to DCS World! Currenthill is by far the best mod creator for DCS World and I thank Him! Timex 3

Hello Bignewy, There are still lots of missing issues with normal, stored and in-flight INS alignment procedures and how the INS system benefits from GPS. Since I cannot see any additional work regarding to INS listed here, I am asking. I will not go through every bit of the procedure in here. Currently what we have now is quite simplified. For example, when you move your aircraft from one location to another, then try re-aligning, the jet will not read its location from GPS. This is an EGI (Embeddded GPS/INS) block 50. You can refer to sections 1-273 and 1-322 of the document called -34. I can open a separate topic if you need.

One thing to make it different from the other maps is that there is no night during summer and no day during winter.

Yes, the 3D model is done and we are seeing how to implement the pod itself.

Okay, so today I tried the F-5E. I actually don´t know if I should laugh or cry after seeing that the radar is not stabilized to the artificial horizon of the aircraft but to the actual (!) horizon. I am basically speechless. Who had the bright idea to actually code it this way? And yeah, I know what it is written in the real life manual but this does refer to the ADI of the jet, of course! Like in every other jet in this world, by the way. You would find the exact same passage concerning the way the radar is stabilized in the technical description for the Cyrano IVM, for example but of course the ADI is meant. No one in his sane mind would actually stabilize the radar to the actual horizon which would mean if I climb 20 degrees nose up my radar would then be looking 20 degrees down. This is hilarious to say the least. Somebody must have interpreted this completely wrong in the rl manual when this module was developed. I think this has to be thoroughly reviewed.

Here are my favorite examples of why I thought this mod was essential.

Wow, I'm impressed, looks amazing!

Thanks! It's hard to find actual reference pictures of a lot of the stuff I make. I just tried both the Type 26 and Type 45. I had no issue firing their artillery gun at max range, which is around 12 nm.

Thanks, NRG-Vampire! Yes, it is still true. The last time I checked the smoke wasn't visible while playing in MT. It works well in ST. I will be removing the smoke from the Warship Stacks as we call them here in the US. I would rather the smoke be clear just like the exhaust from Jets because most Warships have Gas Turbine Engines.

When we are 100% sure of the date we will let you all know. thank you for your patience.

To finish with RuAF, there are 2 other planes of high interest: 1) IL-80 Airborne Command Post; 2) IL-20M (ISR). See photos below.

Hi, I've been testing it and it seems like our fix for the multiplayer issue has also fixed this.

Hi all, just to keep you all updated the team are making adjustments and the fuel issue is being addressed. thank you

Aviron Kfir

What? You've got it all wrong! Here:

Hey Guys, here is my Video about a few Features of the upcoming Gazelle. Have Fun _________________________________________________________________________________________ Hey Leute, hier mein Video über ein paar neue Features über die "neue" Gazelle. Viel Spaß

I've never understood why DCS replay system is different than other sims. I've flown flight sims for decades, and even going back to the early aught's, I could record a flight and play it back in other simulations. I couldn't jump in and 'take-over' the flight, like you can here when replaying - but that's never, ever why I would 'record' a flight. I record it to watch it and evaluate, not to take back over and fly it again. I have felt, for a long time, that they'd have been better off to create a system that simply records position information and aircraft status at regular intervals and interpolates the steps for a smooth video replay from different angles, rather than try to directly track control inputs, just like many sims have done before. It may not be elegant, but it would work. I can respect that they wanted to try something innovative - but not all innovation works out.

I thought he was being sarcastic towards ED since he said "nobody needs such an improvement". It's pretty funny either way.

The Kola region is an excellent location because of its size, terrain, military importance, history, and layout. The landmass is fairly large which good by itself, but then when considering the vast sea around it, the map bounds could potentially be very large (I know they've given us a boundary, but if there is water beyond those bounds then the map can be considered even bigger). This will be the map for realistic carrier and naval battles since the Black Sea can't support carriers in real life and Hormuz as modeled is one sided in terms of naval warfare and wouldn't feature carriers naturally (vs Iran). Syria's waters are carrier accessible but not really the place to expect large naval battles. The surrounding sea also means that threats can potentially be omnidirectional realistically. While there is a clear red and blue side on land, the seas could be more easily contested or used as a way around land based defenses. This is good for mission and campaign design. The region is also a good location for historical and modern scenarios. While the Cold War did not go hot, there was a large military presence there. That is still true today and with some imagination it's easy to come up with a situation where tensions escalate into conflict. Or the map could just be used for lower intensity saber rattling, things like bomber intercepts and border intrusions.

They've already said they are doing that.

It will be released this Friday… know how I know; I am on a 5 day business trip starting early Friday morning so of course it will be released and I’ll have to wait to get back home

Хотелось бы улучшения радиопереговоров ботов. В синглплеере если летаешь в крупной миссии с большим количеством ЛА, такое впечатление что сидишь в некой эхо-камере. Четыре почти одинаковых и накладывающихся друг на друга сообщения подряд , сказанные одним голосом вызывают не лучшие впечатления.

Yes, I can handle a soldering iron. I have so far hidden all the buttons inside the base, not the most elegant solution, but it works. A little bit later I'll think about where and what to cut in/install. There is nothing more permanent than temporary Thanks for your help)

posts merged, fix is coming. thanks

Forgot to tell you that soviet variant was not only voice GCI, but also had воздух-1 command system. This means it could have been allocated a target from ground, thus some computer was in the aircraft, but not what we understand today. As for multiple launch, this was probably not possible against multiple targets. E.g. Mig-25 that took out FA-18 was armed with 2xR-40RD missiles and it fired only one which practically disintegrated hornet. If I remember correctly this engagement took place in night conditions. Pilot considered attacking second FA-18, but got GCI order to return. It is worth to note that another Mig-25 got shotdown by FA-18, when it actually went into close air combat. Book describes accounts from both side, since author made great effort to collect feedback from both sides. His books tend not to be single side propaganda fairy-tales. Reading this book made me rethink the way I fight in a flanker (used to be full load, now I carry 2-4 missiles, and this results in drastically different aircraft performance). You could say that I fight the Mig-25 way (above Mach 2 when attacking) and do not pull lot's of G. This means that I do not bleed energy when turning away to escape superior ARH missiles. I found out that this tactic works actually pretty well on the average, even in the modern environment. The additional benefit for co-fliers is that usually large number of missiles get launched (everyone see one large PK circle, that suddenly starts shrinking). Flying Mig-25 would require you to be aware of your fuel state, and be realistic on what you can attempt to do (attack from distance but not on direct path) and what not (do not come close). I do believe it would be fun to fly aircraft capable of reaching Mach 2.8+ in DCS.

Yes, very questionable right side.

FLIR and possibility to map knobs to the rheostats is all I need to feel complete with this module.

I am looking forward to the SuperCarrier with the F-14 Tomcat, eventually the F-4, and A-6.

+1 looking very much forward to this. since reflected and baltic dragon are making campaigns for it.

It's a complete module, however as it's been heavily reworked to meet AdA requirements, some of the training and campaign missions still need to be updated. IMHO although it's not the most competitive for PvP, it's one of the best DCS modules available.

ED had the following to say in their Newsletter from January 13th, 2023: "Radar Update. In parallel with refactoring the Flight Model and FCS, a refactoring of the Hornet radar is well underway. Key elements to address are improving the look-down, PRF, scan azimuth and more in order to offer improved detection and target tracking simulation." So, ED said it is "well underway." Then again, ED went completely radio silent on this topic. Same goes for the promised white paper regarding radar performance. I would also like to hear where we currently stand with the progress made on the radar. Any official statement on this? Any news to share would be very much appreciated... Thank you. Link to said Newsletter January 13th, 2023:

no, its accurate. The P-42, had an heavily modified airframe (No Pylons, Shortened Vertical Stabs removed, specific antennas and the OLS removed, modified air intakes and the "Stinger" in the back was also missing. The drag the plane produced was way lower, compared to what the Su-27S would produce. You may be able to get the Thrust:Weight ratio to be as close as possible, but aerodynamics still matter a lot. It is true that you cant remove the pylons and its stupid, as it only requires the same line 8 times in the Plane's lua (one on each pylon). Once again I put out the request to ED here: Unencrypt the FC3 planes's lua files. The Full Fidelity planes, the A-10A and the J-11A are all (unencrypted) in the CoreMods folder, giving people the ability to make amazing mods for those planes. Sure people could modify their files then, but they already can with a bunch of planes and Integrity Check is there to regulate it. So please ED, unlock the locked up files for the F-15C, MiG-29s, the Su-25s and the two russian flanker. Or tell us why they have been locked up.

I would buy IL-28 I'd like to see '50 in DCS alive. My best regards

This mod made the game playable. It is very immersion breaking in VR without it. Every modeler at ED is brain dead stupid. This mod isn't even needed. The modelers need to be sat in front of a piece of glass. I don't know if they don't have glass where they're from but their interpretation of it is completely wrong. The game is ruined until this can pass IC.

Dear RAZBAM team, make the topic f-15 module roadmap so that we can clearly understand what systems and types of weapons you will implement ... we are tired of learning everything from gossip... I would like to see If you did everything according to the standard as ED it would be the most logical. It has long been necessary to make mandatory standardization for all third-party developers so that there are no differences in informing and other issues. As an example, I show the f-16 roadmap

Well, given the fact that ED have just announced a "Maverick Legacy" sale until Juno 2nd, and that they seldom run competing sales, I doubt that either will be available before the 2nd of June, so yeah, two weeks is again what it is

So I've decided to make a set of posts here that are a bit different, educational, if you will. First will be a post explaining the fairly straightforward process someone would go through to correct the performance of this module. (in simple steps) Second will be a post explaining how you would go about profiling the performance of this aircraft entirely by yourself. As a note, this is as much about HOW it would be done as it is about the ORDER in which it SHOULD be done. (if anything the order is the most important part as doing it in some messed up order would make it more difficult) I'm not going to talk about what the flight model parameters actually look like or how the devs themselves would go about fixing it. Just general strokes of "correct this after checking this" So how would we start fixing the performance? Well first, torque calibration should be noted. The torque gauge in the huey was not perfectly accurate, and gave different readings in each huey IRL. However, each aircraft was provided with an engine data plate, this plate included plenty of data, but the one piece we are looking for is the torque calibration factor. How they measured this was fairly simple. What did the torque gauge read at 1125ft/lbs of shaft torque? That's it. Now, if at 1125ft-lbs of engine torque, the torque gauge reads 61.4449346228909 PSI, it would actually be perfectly calibrated. In an ideal world, all hueys would have their torque gauge read this way, but they don't. However this is a simulator. Some huey torque gauges DID read that way. So, calibrating ours to read that way would be a great first step to simplifying the process to fixing the performance. TLDR 1125ft-lbs of shaft torque at 61.4449346228909 PSI of gauge torque would make our huey's power per torque line up with all of the performance metrics. This makes everything easier. So where do we go from there? Next would be correcting the amount of power provided at different engine throttle settings. This graph. After that, we get into the fun stuff. The next step would be correcting the tail rotor. You might be wondering what effect the tail rotor has on the overall performance. In terms of authenticity and accuracy? Quite a lot. The huey's tail rotor can draw upward of 170+SHP at full left pedal. This would change the torque gauge by 8PSI. Yeah, think back to the other graphs and how much 8PSI changes things. First we need to understand how the tail rotor would be set up. How it would be rigged, if you will. It is different for every aircraft, some have less total travel, others have more, but overall the balance should be the same. Blade travel range is what you are looking at here, Pedal full left, provides a blade pitch of -17.5 degrees Pedal full right, provides a blade pitch of +8.9 degrees, yes you read that correctly, PLUS 8.9. Pushing the right pedal all the way in should actually cause the tail rotor to push the nose to the right faster than torque alone can. However, before EVEN THAT, we need to correct something else. The gear ratios. For whatever reason, in DCS the tail rotor to main rotor gear ratio is actually 5.5:1, you can test this yourself easily, the gear ratio doesn't change with RPM. Go hop in a huey, set it to third person, and press the starter Watch how many times the tail rotor rotates in the time it takes the main rotor to rotate once. Fix the gear ratio, then rig the tail rotor. Currently in the DCS huey, the full right position on the pedals actually draws the least power from the engine, this is incorrect. The pedals should be neutralized (producing no thrust, thus drawing the least power) 66% from full left. IE to the right of the center position, but not all the way right. From there the next step would be tweaking how much power the tail rotor draws. 170shp at full left should be sufficient. Additionally, you would correct how much thrust the tail rotor provides in the same way we are about to correct the main rotor thrust, however the tail rotor seemingly doesn't actually produce thrust in DCS, only the relevant torque and anti torque forces. After this would be correcting the lift generated by the main rotor at different power (collective) settings. You might think this would be a difficult metric to determine, however, we have the exact data we need to make this an extremely simple affair. This graph is a performance profiling of the huey in an OGE hover. Out of ground effect means that the performance benefits of being near the ground are not a factor as the hover altitude is high enough that they do not affect the aircraft anymore. This means exactly what you think it does. It means that the amount of thrust generated by the rotor is exactly the same as the mass of the aircraft. A huey at 7700lbs hovering out of ground effect would be producing, you guessed it, 7700lbs of total net downward thrust. This means the chart even takes into account the amount of downward force generated by the rotor pushing air against the body of the aircraft. This graph is an EXACT representation of how much effective thrust the rotor generates for any given power setting. It also includes the position the pedals would need to be in as well. But how do we read this chart? Well, with a little math, of course. I know, don't worry, the math is fairly basic. I know, I know, the symbols look scary, but don't worry, they're just variables like A B C D. Here they are. Allow me to write it out for you. Power Coefficient = ((SHAFT HORSEPOWER*550)/((0.02289013*PRESSURE INHG/(TEMPERATURE C +273.15))*1809.56*(((ROTOR RPM*2π)/60)*24)^3))*10^5 Thrust Coefficient = (TOTAL THRUST IN LBS/((0.02289013*PRESSURE INHG/(TEMPERATURE C +273.15))*1809.56*(((ROTOR RPM*2π)/60)*24)^2))*10^4 As a reminder, our atmospheric test variables are normalized to 15C and 29.921255347142inHg, and the huey tends to spin its rotor at 324rpm. So, in these conditions, a total thrust of 7700lbs would produce a thrust coefficient of 26.99843261, and 780shp would produce a power coefficient of 18.47226921 Check those values on the graph, congratulations, you can now read the graph. From there, it would be adjusting flight model parameters until the out of ground effect performance matched the graph. The rotor would then be producing the right amount of thrust for any given power setting. Then the ground effect parameters would be tweaked so that they could match their respective graphs as well. All 3 graphs are combined on this one. Things get more complicated after this, and I apologize, but I am going to speed up at this point and make it even simpler. With the rotor producing the correct amount of thrust while the aircraft is stationary, next comes correcting the amount of thrust while the aircraft is moving. This is far more complicated as it not only involves dynamic airflow, but also drag. As the helicopter gains speed, the rotor begins to produce more thrust for any given power setting. At 60knots true airspeed the rotor is the most efficient, it takes the least amount of power to keep the aircraft flying at this speed. Effectively, correcting this would just be adjusting the parameters that determine aircraft drag and the amount of thrust gained from forward flight. However, this is not something easily detailed. It is also effectively impossible to profile in DCS as an end user. While, for the hover chart, we could assume that the thrust coefficient was equal to the total weight of the aircraft. This is not the case for forward flight. In forward flight, the thrust coefficient involves an unknown variable we can not reliably obtain, cable tension. In the hover chart, this variable was easily predicted to be zero, however forward flight requires more thrust than the total weight of the aircraft. We cannot determine that in a simple manner. However, the developers should be able to. From there would be correcting the rate of climb per horsepower, however, with all the other parameters corrected, this SHOULD fall into place on its own. Lastly would be correcting the performance at different altitudes, however at this point, you get the idea. Check the data, compare it to how it performs in DCS, adjust the parameters until it's correct. I'm going to take a break and come back at some point with a post about how you can profile all these parameters yourself where possible to the exact same degree that I have done for this thread. Potentially even higher.