Leaderboard

Razbam MiG-23

Screenshot dump with the new model...

Early WIP Will be equipped with original P-120 Malakhit antiship missiles. Second screenshot is just for fun. Added some rust to texture. I'm going to replace some old DCS ships with new models. But I will miss the old ugly units that have been with us for about 20 years.

posts merged, we do have a report for the team so thank you for your logs

The slow startup is global and it's been reported internally.

I think you may misunderstand as we have not set any timelines for our projects, our 2023 and beyond video and newsletter at the start of the year was showing what we are working on this year but not given completion dates, the work on some projects may continue into 2024. More than 50% of our team work on the core of DCS, its complex and it takes a lot of time. So please understand we may not meet your expectation of what you think is expectable for project timelines or bugs, the teams are constantly at work as you can see from our changelogs, and we will share news when we are ready to. thanks

Man, some people are really not suited to early access products....

I've spent more than twenty years operating aircraft, and my experience in jets (airliners, specifically Boeing 737 and 777's) is that the ECS is the overriding noise in cockpit. It'll be even worse in a fighter. In airliners you can barely hear the engines, and of course I can't comment on engine and especially afterburner noise in fighters, but the aircon noise is very realistic (it would be from the packs in an airliner, when they're on, as well as the recirculation fans, if all the cockpit vents are open it sounds like a hairdryer - and we don't wear helmets or ear pro). It actually stood out to me in the F15E module when I started it up for the first time, 'ah, somebody has made it sound like reality!' We have variable vents, and you can close them to reduce the noise a bit. I can only imagine that the ECS in the F15 needs to very potent in a glass bubble canopy aircraft that regularly operate in extremely hot environments. It's not like this hasn't been discussed before either! The PMDG B737NG for MSFS's 'old style standby altimeter vibrator noise' stands out to me, with people firstly driving themselves mad trying to find what was making the noise (it's a 'company option' to select between the old style physical altimeter and the new style ISFD), then wanting an option to turn it off or down. In reality, the thing is just as irritating, and crews will simply pull the circuit breaker for the vibrator *cough* not me of course *cough*. tl;dr They might make it optional, but it's not like there aren't enough options to change it now already.

why should there have to be a usecase for this maneuver? this is a sim. if something behaves (supposedly, i cant judge it) unrealistically, then its a bug. it doesnt matter that the activity is unusual IRL.

Long train of thought to follow, not aimed at anyome here specifically, I just feel like I have to share this based on some recent experience: I do understand why e.g. Labels should never be enforced. Or padlock. Everyone has different displays, gear, etc. And to a point, everyone should be able to customize the experience to their preference, I agree. but I get a feeling that these days people forget there is a limit. I mean how much can you expect a campaign, - which is basically a story - to be customizeable? I can’t AAR, so I don’t want to. I love AAR. I wanna start in the air because I’m busy. I want a full cold start. I want an easy campaign and lots of banter. I hate banter, I want a realistic experience. I’m a noob I want easy enemies. These enemies are not challenging enough. I wanna fly with a hooman friend. I don’t havee friends. I could go on. Damned if I’ll try to please everyone, because that’s impossible. Let’s be fair, when you buy a ticket to watch Titanic, you don’t complain that the director forced a sad ending on you, you would have preferred it to reach the USA safely and you’re entitled to your own preferred way of entertainment. It was a very extreme example but you get my point. some triggers count how many bombs you dropped. If you have unlimited weapons it’s all broken. Some missions are built in a way to force the player into a low fuel situation, otherwise the situation wouldn’t make sense at all. Easy comms make a complete mess of custom voice overs and custom atc because all of a sudden you can hear all freqs at once. Chaos. Civilian traffic can also mess with road targets because the player wouldn’t be able to tell which one is the real target and which one is a ghost. The F10 map is the only detailed map available in order to navigate by dead reckoning, if I see the icons there it’s all ruined. And yes it takes an extra bit of effort to find your way home like real pilots did, but according to user feedback this has given people more enjoyment and sense of accomplishment than the actual shooting down of enemy aircraft. Not to mention you can still locate yourself using the kneeboard marker. and none of these has absolutely anything to do with AI shortcomings or the user’s gear. I will definitely allow immortality though, because THAT can be a good workaround for the AI’s occasional lapse in judgement. But the rest? Please. If some people made as much effort to actually accept the challenge as they make fighting for things they think they’re entitled to, God forbid, they’d actually realize fun can be had slighty outside of their comfort zone. I mean we’re in a study sim where it took me over half a year to learn how to fly the Viper…and people complain they can’t fly back to England without F10 icons? Fly northwest, there will be some water, and then land again Congrats, you’re in England bottom line is, the more I try to please everyone at the same time, the deeper I get into a rabbit hole. I need to draw a line in the sand. Figure out what kind of story I want to tell, what kind of experience I want to build and stick to that. Then do it giving it a 110%. Then it’s everyone else’s right to decide whether they want to see ‘Jurassic Park’ or they’d rather enjoy a romantic comedy. I’m not doing this for the money and my aim is not to make every single DCS player buy my campaigns. There are absolutely no hard feelings if someone says it’s not their cup of tea. I can only hope there are a few like-minded people who’d enjoy the experiences I create. PS: if you read all of it, wow…thanks!

F-15 intentional tailslide. Doesn't go quite as planned. Not that planning makes a lot of difference when you do this. Given that (upright) intentional spins are prohibited in the F-15E, along with AoA over 30 units, and negative g for more than 10s, I'd be surprised if intentional tailslides were permitted other than for test flights. As speed drops to zero, so does control effectiveness in a non-vectored-thrust jet (aerobatic prop aircraft may have very limited control, due to propwash). If you've got pure vertical ascent, there is nothing to determine which way the aircraft will flip around. If you're lucky you'll just flip vertically downwards, oscillate a bit, and then recover. If not, you might spin, upright or inverted, or get into some sort of sustained deep stall. Regardless of what happens though, at the top you've put the aircraft into a situation that it isn't expected to operate in, with regard to both AoA and g, soon followed by rapid changes in pitch and quite possibly yaw, and engine cutouts would seem a distinct possibility.

Work is in progress and the team are working hard. June has been a busy month for the team, and we were also all away for a week of it for a team gathering, so you will need to be patient, as soon as we have more news to share we will share it. thanks

I would very much appreciate if we get an option to remove the MFD reflections like we have in the F16 and F18 special options.

Yeah... that's not really true, and I doubt designers overlooked something like that, as skywalker22 says there is absolutely no logic with current implementation. Computers back then would have no problem with RWR display, our Viper is from 2007 not from 1980. Even the F-5 can do it.

Exactly. You might say response=friendly therefore no response=hostile (this is the assumption typically made in DCS) but the reality is rather more complicated than that. Crucially, what the IFF transponder systems can never do is positively identify a hostile aircraft even though the name suggests that's what they do. Hence, there's no IFF symbology for hostiles. I'm going to go and add some civilian traffic in a 3rd faction to some of my missions so that people have to ID targets before they shoot down a civilian C130.

@Lord Vader Please consider two things in your video: Your off-boresight angle youre showing is not very high. So you have the MFD always in the corner of your eye. Also consider that the FOV of your "camera" is from a 2D monitor. The FOV is significantly less in VR (but also more realistic). So the issue is not too apparent the way you show it. I have made a replay right from my VR headset. Please note that the seeker takes some time to slew to its outer boundaries. If you look about 25 degrees off to one side, you cant glimpse at the MFD showing the maverick seeker to make sure that the seeker has reached its final position at the TD box, before pressing TMS up. If you wanted to look at the MFD you'd need to move your head, which would move the TD box away from where you'd want to assign it. By just looking at the target you'd have to guess when the maverick seeker has finished slewing to the TD box. If the estimated time was too little when pressing TMS up, you'll stop the Maverick LOS symbology on half the way to the TD box, which true location becomes visible only at once you press TMS up. At this point in your checklist you still need to be looking right on the target. You cant look on the MFD as this will move the (invisible) LOS of the Maverick away from the target. There is no way to verify that the LOS of the Maverick has reached the TD box. Also a real pilot as well as VR users need to hold their heads still (due to unintentional natural head movements) for a short amount of time before pressing TMS up, which can only be timed correctly when the LOS is visible catching up the TD box. As you can see in my video it takes some time, depending on where the seeker of the Maverick was previously looking. You can imagine that this seems highly unpractical in a fast paced combat environment. Not saying that this is wrong, it just does not seem plausible for an aircraft that is very pilot friendly in many other aspects of sensor usage. Also the "workaround" @Hobel suggests, which works like, when the seeker is locked to a target, will be unlocked going DGFT and then back to normal (->A-G) mode, brings the LOS symbology back to chasing the TD box. I dont show it in my video because this is not the issue I am reporting. But it shows that the functionality once was there already. Track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c6dwg30fdro5k15/mav LOS visible when stopped.trk?dl=0

70000lb. T/O. Set T/O trim. Full AB. At rotation speed, 155 kts give half stick for 1 sec. for 12 deg attitude. Nose wheel lift off at 170 kts. Lift off at 190 kts. Gear up, flaps up, trim fwd. From the RL manual. Works perfectly. ..

Please try to remember Eagle Dynamics saved the failed Kickstarter, dont go making silly comments. thanks

Both the Sinai and the F15E are the work of third parties, why do you believe they are taking resources away from improving the DCS core?

As dorian said, there's no reason for the HUD pitch-ladder to coincide with the horizon, as there's no VV in normal mode. It's just a fancy attitude-indicator and in terms of doing it's job it's working perfectly fine. You'll also find the HUD to be geared, btw: The 10° pitch line is nowhere near actual 10°from the horizon line, yet you'll be at 10° when your nose (boresight symbol) is aligned with the line. Don't look at the horizon, look at the horizon-reference line in the HUD. You're on instruments! There's got to be an engineering reason why it's the way it is, but as dorian also pointed out: Geared HUDs are (were) quite normal. My take on it is that if you're referencing the gun-line (which is about your true water-line), then you'd be running out of HUD-glass and windscreen on top. Hence you're just building a smaller sight with a depressed horizon. Once you stop thinking about it and just fly it, it stops being an issue. Just use it to ballpark set a pitch attitude and do the fine-tuning with the steam-gauges inside the cockpit. Don't chase the VSI, just reference the altimeter. It'll get to be second nature after a while. If you want a horizon line that's actually referencing the horizon, switch to Landing mode and you'll also get a simple VV. I never use that mode at all, as flying 10° AoA and normally referencing the runway (or PAPI/ VASI) will get you there as well. If you're on the ILS or an NPA, you're looking elsewhere most of the time anyway.

why should it? there is no reason for it. remember: this hud doesnt have flight path vector. so there is nothing to be gained by having the ladder matched to horizon. this is simply attitude indicator on collimated display, so you dont have to look down on an instrument all the time. this is actually how the jets of this era used to be, its normal. f-14a/b hud looks the same.

The upper CFT stations are not wired for data. They can physically carry JDAMs, but they cannot employ them. The max GBU-38 load is three per fuselage rack, one on centerline, and one on each wing pylon for nine total.

Well, that definitely did it. I had a couple old versions still in the add/remove programs, even with the older sound modules. I removed everything and just installed 2.6.7 and sound module 2.36, and now the F-15 is giving me kicks in the butt. Thanks @Bazz_Mulder!

I was not complaining, I just noticed something that surprised me and was wondering if other people also noticed it. I don't know however why you are still responding to this thread. First you didn't understand the topic and then you made abundantly clear that you don't have anything useful to contribute...

...on the other hand, it's not "updating" problem, because all of us updated just fine and we're already on the latest version. I'd rather put it in performance or general section, but it doesn't matter now. BigNewy keeps an eye on this thread and that's what matters.

Oh Lord, I am so sick of this conversation. People are actively propagandizing against the wish for better audible feedback. FFS WHY? BeCauSe IT is nOt auDiBLe in The ReaL cRaFT!!!!!11111111 Well guess, what - when you stomp it in the ground or get shot down, you can't just hop into the next jet and take off again. How about we introduce a mandatory break after each bail out for a couple of physical exams? Who in their right mind can deny, that we desk pilots lack A F$#K-TON of sensoric feedback? We just want a good sound engine to compensate for that. If anything else, THIS will ADD to a overall(!) realistic experience. Nobody is suggesting to tinker with actual performance numbers.

I would really like to see options included to limit the throttle range to mil power only except while holding a button, as the F18 and F16 modules do - this makes it much more akin to having physical detents to cross for those of us without those on our throttles.

Just found this and thought you F16 fans would enjoy it. Kudos to ED for modelling Nellis AFB so well. Instantly recogniseable.

I have already included them in my development, so yes, you can have that [emoji2957] Soon as I finish battling with the HUD data I’ll share the new version. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yeah, some of the control needed more granularity. It probably makes sense to neaten up more of them before this gets to a final state for the repository, but unless they are stopping something working well I’m reluctant to do so as people will have to update their SD profiles. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Almost impossible to proof. Just a common sense, if this is what separation would look like, then it's a complete nonsense having this button, would you agree on that? Why having it, if it does practically nothing. Check this out, I took these 2 images in a very populated PvP sever 20min ago: Based on this pic: I am really aware of what's infront of me (joking)... ok, I can use Priority button to show only 5 most dangerous threat, but still...

best make a new thread, I see also you are making other tweaks outside of DCS settings, this does complicate finding a reason for your issue, in my experience it is usually some obscure setting somewhere in the gpu settings or windows that is the reason, hopefully in your thread we can try to find it. thanks

To all who have downloaded my SD profile for F-15E. Thx to Trigati; the lua file has been updated massively, which now includes the fuel count and wrapping of text for UFC (Allowing bigger font size) the V 3.0 is out I have also updated the Icons Changelog: 1-Fuel Count has been added 1-All knobs now have unique labels allowing you to read what the switch is for even if the value range is not in place. 2- Major update on the UFC allowing wrapping the information, which results in bigger and more readable text. 3- The icon pack, which there is a link to download, has been updated 4- I have used some of the switches from a profile by "jonny415" as he has created some icons for the F15E; however, I do not have access to his icon packs, and I just copied the switches (you can find those in the ENG folder pilot seat) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331670/

I think I'd do them in order in which they were released, so original R1 first and then Dominant Fury. Also because RO:DF is more advanced and I think a bit more difficult.

Yeah not seeing any issue personally in VR with MT, frames have never been higher for me. But if people are seeing issues they should post dcs logs and dxdiags with tracks if applicable in the bugs section so we can take a look for clues.

I've noticed this too. The helmet visor is a great addition to counter this. I've found that modules and mods that have a dark cockpit/canopy frame (MB339 in particular) always suffer with whiteout while looking through the front of the canopy due to the HDR settings of the sim. Included Screenshots of inside v outside on Syria and Caucasus, it clearly shows the washed out textures while inside.

Yep, marketing purposes. But it was Ilya Shevchenko (AKA Luthier) the only actual responsible. Oleg wasn't even close, and Igor Tishin was included as ED director at the moment, I guess, but he did nothing with the kickstarter at all. Luthier also was selling Fw190D-9 and P-51 in the kickstarter as a part of his failed (or never meant) product but those were ED's, actually. Looking at it now it's all so surreal and unlikely, but it happened, sadly.

The kickstarter was Ilya all alone mate.

If anything, the release of the -E and how good it is makes people want the -C even more I know I do!

Hi, Air starts are setup as combat ready, so not a bug. thank you

I have DCS standalone, but in Steam I see this also with F1 23 (Formula 1 2023 from EA). This happens after the new Steam UI, so I guess it´s more an internal Steam issue rather than anything wrong with Your system.

You are not going to believe this. Scanning the drive found no issues, but on a hunch I did a full reformat of the drive, and the F-15 loads in no problem.

F-15E Stream deck XL profile (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

I have said multiple times that we are working on this.

Did you even read the original post? The question is not what the max ceiling for the F15 is but what the behavior during a 90 degree climb is once you run out of energy (spoiler alert: the engines will stall)

Once again thank you for your hard work, this is a beautiful piece of work. I definitely will donate beer to your account. I am a huge fan of Rusian and Chinese air defence systems. To give some info: 1. Crashing. DCS was constantly crashing, after I removed the mod that was previously installed in "DCS\Mods\tech" folder "SAMPack_S-300_Series", everything started to work fine. 2. Small antenna. Pantsir-S1 and Pantsir S2 in your MOD have a small antenna for the rocket introduction to the main PAA on the left side, but actually, it should be on the right side on the target and missile tracking radar station 1RS2: 3. Pantsir code names. There are a lot of mistakes when it comes to labelling the Pantsir air defence system. The Russians were not guided by any sound logic when they marked up Pantsir versions and we actually see now a lot of labelling mistakes. Most of the systems that are in use actually only have the designation Pantsir-S1, there is no Pantsir-S2. - Pantsir-S1, KAMAZ 6560, surveillance-acquisition radar with a one-sided phased array antenna. The version that was represented in the Russian army and in Syria is the Pantsir-S1 with a surveillance-acquisition radar with a one-sided phased array antenna. Officially it's Pantsir-S1. On the KAMAZ-6560 chassis. - Pantsir-S1, KAMAZ 6560, surveillance-acquisition radar with a double-sided phased array antenna. The next modification that is the most represented in the Russian army is actually Pantsir-S1 again (there is no such thing as Pantsir-S2 code), on the KAMAZ-6560 chassis but with a surveillance-acquisition radar with a double-sided phased array antenna, this is designated as Pantsir-S2 in this DSC mod. Officially on the website of the Russian Ministry of Defense, on the page for the export of military equipment, it can be seen that the Pantsir with a double-sided phased antenna array is actually marked as the Pantsir-S1. - Pantsir-S1M, KAMAZ-K 53958 Tornado, surveillance-acquisition radar with a double-sided phased array antenna. The new official modification of Pantsir is Pantsir-S1M. Where it was retained by the surveillance-acquisition radar with a double-sided phased array antenna, but the targeting radar was changed and all this was mounted on a new KAMAZ-K 53958 Tornado chassis. - Pantsir-SM, KAMAZ-K 53958 Tornado, surveillance-acquisition radar with a one-sided phased array antenna. Pantsir SM is the next official modification and so far the deepest modernization of the Pantsir system. A new term and designation Pantsir SM-BM (battle/combat machine) and Pantsir SM-TBM (transport-battle/combat machine) are introduced. Now it returns to the surveillance-acquisition radar with a single-sided phased array antenna, but the targeting radar has been changed and all this is mounted on the new KAMAZ-53958 Tornado chassis as in the Pantsir-S1M version, which is apparently a step between Pantsir-S1 and Pantsir-SM ( BM/TBM). Pantsir SM-BM (battle/combat machine) Pantsir SM-TBM (transport-battle/combat machine) Summary: Of course, they also have naval and artic versions and SV versions on the tracked chassis, but there is no need to expand the writing on them now. I apologize for this long post, but I wanted to share information and observations with the group. Thanks again for the mods and all the hard work.

Well, then we need them

CMS Left dispenses program 6, which can be programmed via the DED if necessary. My set-up: PRGM 1: Reactive RF countermeasures, a custom chaff program proven to defeat SA-3 and SA-6 PRGM 2: Reactive RF countermeasures, a custom chaff program proven to defeat SA-2, SA-8, SA-10, and SA-15 PRGM 3: Pre-emptive IR countermeasures (Light), provides light flare coverage for an attack run over a defended area. PRGM 4: Pre-emptive IR countermeasures (Heavy), provides heavy flare coverage for an attack run over a defended area. PRGM 5: ACM/defensive mix of PRGM 2 and PRGM 6 that allow me to kick out countermeasures of each type quickly PRGM 6: Reactive IR countermeasures, for observed IR missile launches I normally keep the CMDS mode in Semi, and switch the Manual program 1-4 knob based on situation, phase of the mission, or observed threat escalation on the RWR, while reserving the reactive flare program on PRGM 6 (CMS Left) and the quick reaction slap button. From testing, since the Auto mode responded to all observed threats by dispensing Auto program 1, regardless of the threat type (I'm guessing its logic is still WIP), I removed all countermeasures from the three Auto programs and just use CMS Aft/Right to manage my ECM separately of the CMDS. If I need to use the ECM in noise jammer mode I'll switch to Manual CMDS mode, but that isn't common, so I'm normally in Semi.