Leaderboard

Thank you for the confidence. I have deliberately stayed away from carriers since there have been other more interesting assets to make. But as a general rule, I don't stay away from assets because someone else has made them already. I spend a lot of time trying to calibrate the weapon systems so they make sense when put in the same simulations, this means I like to control the parameters for an asset myself. Might be interesting, will take a closer look! Thanks for the additional info! Yep, I don't scratch make the models. I've mentioned this before. I source them and modify/add/change whatever needs to be done (considering that just the modifications and rigging/animations/UV still takes a lot of time). But sometimes the source models aren't perfect, and I think it's worth more to actually release a working asset than spending a disproportionate amount of time fiddling with the model. I never make claims of every model being a perfect replicate of the real thing. I work by the Pareto principle (80/20), which allows me to keep a high release frequency with overall acceptable quality.

Razbam MiG-23

@Str][ker Near. perfect. post. These videos are of great help, if only the last one came with the DCS track, which is the first thing we ask for . Without the track, all that I can say is: "indeed, it's not visible on your PC". First, let me explain why I badly need tracks. Part of us -like myself- are benevolent testers. I for one don't land planes on carriers, because that's not what I'm into when playing DCS. I don't do AAR either. I don't like it, and I'm not paid to do it. Why would I bother? My favorite plane is the Viggen anyway. In the absence of user tracks regarding DCS tasks I'm not familiar with, I sometimes try to make one by myself: when it comes to AAR and carrier landing, it is executed very poorly, and devs are not happy, telling me such things as "you're not in the glide slope". You bet I'm not. I don't usually fly this thing! That's one of the reasons I keep asking for tracks: I need a hand from you guys to perfectly execute tasks you do on a weekly basis. If you accepted to provide a short DCS track, you'd give me the power to: See the problem with my own eyes on my own PC (the bug can now be tagged "reported") , Send it to devs so they can see it with their own eyes on they own PC (the bug gets acknowledged by devs and they can plan a fix), Test a fix for it with my own eyes on my own PC (the bug is fixed... or not - the videos you provided are very useful at this stage). If you don't, I wont be able to help on this one, sorry.

This is very interesting material from one of our user, or, I should say unofficial tester with great engineering experience. Just in case, to start interest I asked Chat GPT to translate the material here, diagrams for them one can see in the original place. The reasons here are obvious - the aircraft's armament has changed. In general, adjusting the machine guns on an aircraft is a rather interesting topic. But not in terms of the armament itself - that part is clear. It's a perfect example of how the internet influences the process of destroying human knowledge. In the past, in order to acquire reliable knowledge on a particular subject (or at least what was considered reliable at the time), one had to go to the library. Books (especially technical ones) were the result of human intellectual effort, and everything presented in them had been extensively tested, reviewed, and approved by specialists. The likelihood of obtaining unreliable knowledge was extremely low. Currently, books are no longer a source of knowledge. The source of knowledge nowadays is a line in any search engine, providing links to countless rambling articles written by people who have no understanding of the subject matter they write about, engaging in senseless information copying from one internet page to another, often with their own interpretation of well-known facts at a level accessible to their understanding. The paradox of the situation is that now it is easier than ever to obtain the necessary book on a particular subject. Not only can anyone sign up for scientific and technical libraries and the Russian State Library (formerly known as the Lenin Library), but also a multitude of books have been digitized and are freely accessible. However, no one reads them. I speak from personal experience - about ten years ago, I digitized and published excerpts from a book on aerial marksmanship theory on the internet. Among other things, it provided a detailed analysis of the principles of weapon alignment, and on various forums, I would say, "Look, this is how it is, and this is how it should be read and studied." What do we have now? We open the internet and observe a variety of nonsense about how the alignment distance of weapons depends on the individual characteristics of the pilot and should be adjusted independently. The mechanism of spreading this "knowledge" is evident - people take the path of least resistance. To understand a certain issue, one needs to exert certain (and sometimes quite significant) efforts. To follow "common sense logic," no effort is needed. From the perspective of "common sense logic," everything is extremely simple and understandable - bullets fly in an arc, and wing-mounted machine guns are also at a certain distance from each other, so in order to hit an aerial target, the trajectories of bullets and the aiming line must intersect; such intersection is only possible at a certain distance, so you should shoot at that distance, otherwise, you will miss. And since this distance depends on the individual style of aerial combat - it should be adjusted individually. Many go even further and talk about how important it is to accurately determine the distance to the target during aerial combat - it's all so logical that only a fool would object. At one point, they even bothered veterans with questions like, "At what distance were the machine guns aligned in your regiment?" Interestingly, "common sense logic" explains the world around us not just "a little bit wrong," but completely opposite! According to common sense logic, the sun revolves around the earth - in the real world, it's the opposite. According to common sense logic, a synchronizer interrupter of a machine gun delays the shot when the propeller blade passes the barrel - in the real world, it's the opposite. According to common sense logic, an airborne gunner with zero dispersion machine guns (they even came up with a special term: "laser guns") would hit a squirrel in the eye from a kilometer away - in the real world, it's the opposite: the probability of hitting the target would be zero. The same applies to the alignment of machine guns. Machine gun alignment is not done **************************************************** We can see that zeroing the wing machine guns at a distance of 400 meters provides continuous engagement space in the range of 85 to 520 meters from the aircraft. In other words, by aiming the sights at the center of the target and without making any adjustments for trajectory drop, the shooter will reliably hit a target located at any distance from the aircraft within the range of 85 to 520 meters. This applies, of course, to shooting head-on or in pursuit. Shooting at crossing courses requires the use of a circular sight, which is a topic for a separate discussion. It should be noted that these are the bullet flight trajectories for ground conditions. In the air, the bullet's initial velocity will increase due to the aircraft's own speed, and the air density will decrease. As a result, the bullet will fly higher and farther, and the point where its trajectory intersects the aiming line will shift forward by about a hundred meters. Therefore, zeroing at "400 meters" will become zeroing at "500 meters". It is interesting to consider whether proponents of "adjusting the sighting to individual combat style" take this into account. Furthermore, in the illustration shown above, we can observe another interesting feature: the vertical zeroing of the wing machine guns on the I-16 (the distance from the gun to the sight is 1 meter, slightly more for the I-16: 1070 cm, but this difference can be neglected) at 400 meters is identical to zeroing at 200 meters; it's just that at 200 meters, the bullet's trajectory intersects with the aiming line in its ascending part, while at 400 meters, it intersects in the descending part. What will happen if the machine guns are zeroed at 600 meters? Nothing good: in the engagement space at medium distances, there will be a "gap" where bullets will fly above the upper dimension of the target, resulting in a guaranteed miss. ******************* eroing at 100 meters? Not any better. And that's on the ground! In the air, the bullet trajectory will be higher, and the upper machine guns at medium distances will also shoot past the target. Additionally, in the illustration, the upper machine guns are positioned 0.5 meters below the sight, and in the case of the modeled I-16 Type 24 in this simulator, they are positioned 0.2 meters below the sight, which means the trajectory is even higher. ******************* From all of this, we can conclude that the zeroing of the machine guns on the ground should be such that the bullet trajectory at its highest point is slightly below the upper limit of the target (0.5 meters above the sight line). Therefore, for the I-16 with its "two-tier" armament arrangement, the optimal option is 200 meters (in the illustration, the upper machine guns are positioned 0.5 meters below the sight, and in the case of the I-16 Type 24, they are positioned 0.2 meters below the sight: the trajectory will be slightly higher, but there is a margin). We can relax the criterion for target engagement in the horizontal plane and consider the critical zone to be 1.5 meters wide instead of 1 meter (as aircraft are generally wider horizontally than vertically). In that case, for the I-16 Type 5, the horizontal engagement area would start at 200 meters and end at 600 meters. The overall engagement area is the intersection of the vertical and horizontal engagement areas. Additionally, I would like to remind you that all the diagrams mentioned above are for ground shooting. In the air, the trajectories will be higher and farther, and the exact calculations would depend on the changes in air density and aircraft speed for each specific case. Therefore, we can conclude that the zeroing of the I-16 Type 5 aircraft (as described in 1937) ensured target engagement at relatively long distances: 200-600 meters. Shooting at "rivets" would be pointless. The two wing-mounted machine guns, spaced a significant distance apart, provided sufficient depth of engagement only at longer distances. Zeroing the wing-mounted machine guns at 300 meters would reduce the vertical engagement area. Zeroing the wing-mounted machine guns at 200 meters for the vertical plane is equivalent to zeroing at 400 meters, but in the horizontal plane, it would significantly reduce the engagement area to a range of 100-300 meters. Therefore, the choice of a 400-meter zeroing distance is evident for the I-16 Type 5. The need to enhance the armament by adding synchronized machine guns was also evident, and it was implemented later. What changed after adding two synchronized machine guns to the I-16? In the vertical plane: Zeroing the high-mounted synchronized machine guns (with a slight offset of 0.2 meters between the gun and the sight) at 400 meters is not desirable. Even on the ground and at medium distances, the bullet will pass close to the upper profile of the target. In the air, the bullet's speed will increase by the aircraft's own speed. The influence of the aircraft's speed of 150 m/s (540 km/h) is as follows: I have come across statements on the internet like "The sight is calibrated for a specific distance," and from there, people often draw the conclusion, using common logic, that in order to hit the target accurately, one must approach the enemy at that particular distance. In this regard, I would like to clarify the following: Ring sights are not designed for shooting at a specific distance! They are intended for shooting at any distance in effective aerial combat. The notion that "the sight is calibrated for a specific distance" obviously arises in people's minds after reading a phrase from the sight description, such as "the large ring of the sight is calibrated for a target speed of 300 km/h and a distance of 400 m at a 4/4 aspect angle." Indeed, the ring is calibrated for a distance of 400 m, but the sight itself is not! When aiming at the ring calibrated for 400 meters, the sight allows for guaranteed hits on targets at any distance from 0 to 600 meters! This can be explained as follows: If we take the extreme case and assume that the target is flying perpendicular to the shooter's course and accurately calculate the lead necessary to hit the target at various distances, we obtain a curve (dashed line in the diagram). The ballistics of Soviet ammunition were such that this curved line can be approximated by a straight line passing through the point calculated for a distance of 400 meters (hence the significance of these "sacred" 400 meters!). As a result, the bullet deviation at any distance from 0 to 600 meters does not exceed the dimensions of the same critical area of a hypothetical target measuring 1m x 1m, and the target will be hit. Indeed, the most important (and practically the only) thing a pilot needs to know about a ring sight is not "400 meters" but the speed for which the ring is calibrated! This greatly simplifies the shooter's task. It is sufficient to estimate the speed and aspect angle of the target and mentally adjust the size of the ring proportionally to the speed and aspect angle. As long as the distance to the target does not exceed 600 meters, it will be hit (assuming the estimation is done correctly, which can be challenging). The pilot doesn't need to worry about the exact distance to the target (as long as it is within 600 meters). That's the essence of aiming with ring sights. There was a topic and research conducted on this matter. In brief, the essence of these findings is as follows: Zero dispersion for aerial shooting means zero probability of hitting the target. This statement may seem strange to many, but it is important to understand that aerial shooting is fundamentally different from shooting, for example, with a sniper rifle. For a sniper, who takes a single shot, low dispersion is desirable, ideally aiming for zero dispersion. However, in aerial shooting, both the target and the shooter are in continuous motion. Therefore, aerial shooting is more akin to shooting at ducks with a shotgun, where the pellets are not fired simultaneously but sequentially. If we imagine hypothetically that an aerial shooter is using a weapon with zero dispersion and the target is not extremely close, where missing is impossible, the shooter will never hit the target with the first burst. This is because there will always be some error in aiming, and the burst will pass by without the shooter knowing which way to correct since without tracers, it is not visible, and even with tracers, it is not straightforward because they show the ascending branch of the bullet's trajectory, which does not coincide with the direction of the potential hit point. If the targeted aircraft, assuming it's not foolish, notices that it is being fired upon, it will start maneuvering, making it even more challenging to hit. Likewise, the probability of hitting the target with a weapon with significant dispersion is also zero. It is evident that if the bullets fly in all directions, hitting the target becomes impossible. From these observations, a logical conclusion was drawn: there exists an optimal dispersion level between zero and infinity, where the probability of hitting the target is maximized. Practical shooting tests were conducted, and the results helped determine the approximate boundaries of this optimal dispersion, which turned out to be several times greater than the inherent dispersion of the aviation machine guns and cannons available at the time. Another logical inference was made: it would be beneficial to vary the dispersion during shooting! Corresponding mechanized mounts were developed, tested, and their results obtained. However, at that moment, the weapon designers quickly reconsidered their approach. This was because it did not make much sense to install devices in an aircraft that artificially increased dispersion when the pilot could easily control dispersion by himself! Indeed, with a burst, the pilot can simply adjust the dispersion by slightly pressing the pedal, and there you have it – dispersion is achieved! Additionally, any defensive burst can be seen as a burst with dispersion. Instead of considering it as a flock of bullets flying one after another towards an approaching aircraft, it can be viewed as a stationary aircraft in the sky with a series of trajectories converging towards it at some interval – that's dispersion! Moreover, increasing the number of wing-mounted machine guns for the British and American pilots allowed for a decent dispersion without any mechanisms. Many have likely seen images like the one provided. Here, the area of engagement is expanded by adjusting the sighting distances for different groups of machine guns. It's not a panacea, but still quite effective. Knowing the width and height of the total dispersion, it is easy to obtain its probable deviation in the lateral and vertical directions (in the case of circular distribution, they will be the same) – it is 1/8 of the total dispersion value. In this case, the probable deviation will be 1 mil. This is a very small value. For example, in the Soviet Union, the probable linear deviation of technical dispersion (in meters) was considered to be 1.5t, where t is the bullet flight time. For ShKAS (referring to the I-16 Type 24 sighting table), the bullet flight time at a distance of 300 meters and an altitude of 4,000 is 0.35 seconds. Consequently, the linear value of technical dispersion for ballistic calculations at this distance is 1.5 * 0.35 = 0.525 meters. In angular terms, this is 0.525 / 300 * 1,000 = 1.2 mils. From this, it can be concluded that the influence of wing vibration on the dispersion of weapons installed in the wing, at least for the Americans, was not particularly significant – it was not even considered in the calculations. The "multi-level" sighting played a much larger role. In this regard, it is interesting to see how the Germans approached this issue. Looking at the Focke-Wulf sighting card, it immediately catches the eye that they consider the critical zone target size not as 1 meter or 1.5 meters, but as 1.2 meters! That's what German precision means! Another interesting point is that in their sighting calculations, they use data on the technical dispersion of the weapon, and they determine the depth of the hit zone not based on the intersection of the "ideal" bullet trajectory with the target size, but based on the intersection of the inner edge of the dispersion ellipse with the target size (vertical dotted lines on the diagram) – the calculated hit zone is thus enlarged. And they conduct sighting not at 400 meters or 200 meters, but at 300 meters – well, they decided that it would work better with their ballistics. So, what about the probable deviation of technical dispersion for them? It is specific to each weapon model (figures on the right side of the diagram in percentages). "Waffenstreuung" is the width of the band in the dispersion ellipse that contains 50% of the best hits. The probable deviation is half the width of this band. For MG 17 and MG 151: 0.25%. Therefore, the lateral probable deviation is 1,000 * 0.25 / 100 / 2 = 1.25 mils. Practically the same as in the USSR. It is also worth noting the significantly smaller technical dispersion of the wing-mounted MG FF: 0.125% – not even a hint of considering any consequences of vibration!

Here's the trailer for Version 1.7. I don't have a definite release date for you, but it should tentatively be within the next month.

Hi all, HUD data repeating is taking me longer than I expected...it doesn't help that I've not used this plane and have little clue on how it changes with use....I literally have only taken it off the end of the runway once. I know some of you are waiting on the improved UFC displays and the separate fuel/engine data exports (with and without labels) so rather than make you wait till Friday night here is an interim release. So if you cannot wait or want a head start...or just need a better UFC display then here you go: -- version 0.6 -- Fixed Left/Right Fuel Counters reading an extra 1000 lbs when < 100 lbs from next thousand - needed new function RoundDP() -- Setup Export IDs for each data elements of the Fuel Display - THIS MEANS THE COMBINED DISPLAY HAS CHANGED DCSID from 8383 to 83830 -- Setup Export IDs for each of the data elements of the Engine Management Display NOTE: Export IDs starting 7 has labels, starting 8 has none. Actual numbers are based on the standard MainPanel data element number. -- Moved UFC Display to Functions and re-formatted strings to fit better in single tile, this was a big job and needs much testing - I don;t know if I've tried everything yet so please report any issues. F-15ESE.lua

We are currently testing a fix internally and hopefully if it looks good have it in a future update. thank you

@BIGNEWY / @Lord Vader thanks for looking into this. i struggle with understanding the feature in the following part: Good. but then: Now my struggle with this is: when I dms down to make the wpn page SOI without prior designation, I can slew the mav. Is that now Slew mode or Slave? Because I am clearly slewing the weapon around however no LOS circle shows. I can understand the behavior if VIS mode is active, the TD box has not been moved and is sat on the FPM. Then it makes sense to be slaved and not having the missile LOS as to not cramp too many things over eachother on the FPM making it hard to see through. but moving the TD box with HUD (TDC slew) or with HMCS entered by pressing TMS Fwd Long, we are now clearly slewing the TD box. We can clearly see the maverick seeker move around on the WPN page too -> the missile seeker is therefore slewing. So if the LOS is shown when Slewing OR Tracking, it should show up, regardless of a designation has yet been made, as described by you and by manuals that mention LOS to show when slewing or tracking. edit: this generally brings me to the question of „what does it mean when it says ‚is slaved to the hud td box‘?“ does it mean the missile will try to match los with the td box at all times also while slewing? is „slaved to“ and „slewing“ in this context mutually exclusive or do they co-exist? as in: If i slew the TD box and the missile is SLAVED to that box, does the missile, which is moving around when the TD box moves due to trying to match LOS, in fact SLEW? Or is that not considered slewing?

UPDATE Version 1.07 (June 28, 2023) DOWNLOAD LINK: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331710/ I have updated the missions to make it less likely your wingman will be shot down. I encourage everyone to update to the new version!

Yes, we were also partners with VEAO, and we took our lumps with that, as we are partners with each and every 3rd Party we sign a contract with in order to help them bring their vision and piece of DCS World to life. I suppose calling me by my old name is some form of frustration or attempt at insult, if that helps you work through this then I am here to take the lumps. The fact remains that Ilya was the lead on that project, the direction was his to make. He made some poor calls on things like offering the terrain editor to people, etc. This is all water under the bridge, we are trying to move forward and we tried to make the most of the Kickstarter that we could. The 262 is the only aircraft that hasn't made it. We are getting things more interesting in the grand scheme. When Igor passed management of ED also shifted, Nick is a big fan of WWII and has many many experiences with aircraft from that era, right as far as flying them. I trust his vision and decision on what we will see in DCS. Yeah, he loves the Hellcat, I am going to predict most DCS users, even those that never gave it much thought, will also love it one day. I won't talk again about the 262, I have said it enough times. I can't keep going in circles about this so I guess this is at a point where this thread needs to be closed until there is something new about the 262. I even talked to Nick about the 262 on our trip, and the thoughts I shared of the same. A G6, a Zero, a P-38.... I could go on about all the aircraft done at DCS level I want to see. The 262 is on hold, this is the news we have right now. You are welcome to continue this in DMs with me, I can pass messages on to management but this is where it is at right now. I am sorry as I know this upsets some of you. Thanks NineLine/Norm (Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN) Associate Producer Community Manager

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...

That's what we have, an AH-64D. The radar dish on top is the most visible difference, although it can be removed.

Further testing and I can provide some datas, if useful : T01 entered in the TSD at startup is : 37S BA 5490 2560 When arrived at my battle position, ACQ to T01 and as expected, it has drifted. The TADS slaves roughly to 5491 2562 (on the F-10 map) Repositionned the TADS to the intended target, designated a Lima and ACQ/slave the seeker. The missile was pointing at the offset. Launched a Lima and the missile tracked something and fell roughly at 5479 2557 (F-10 map) ----- Reseted both INU ------ ACQ T01 but now the TADS slaves to roughly 5496 2558 Realigned the TADS and designated a Lima, ACQ the seeker and the missile was again pointing at the offset point. Launched the missile and this one tracked and shacked its intended target (5490 2560) In both shots the Lima seeker was as expected pointing at the offset point, not the vehicule I just designated ; this seems logical since the Lima has an inertial guidance in LOAL for the first seconds of its flight. Conclusion : With a degraded INU the Lima is tracking something that is not there at all and after an INU reset (still off but less degraded I suppose), it tracks correctly and shack the intended target. Note that during all this I was having George maintening an hover at roughly 150ft. The only time the helicopter moved is when I reseted the second INU. The aircaft yawed a bit and stabilized (Thx George !!) Next time I'll wait for INU 1 to reset entirely before reseting INU 2 ... or land somewhere and reset both on the ground. For now it seems to work more like the Viper, meaning the GPS is not updating the INU at all time but only when you request an update (if I understood the Viper correctly) If I follow Casmo's words, it should be embed at all time. But I stand corrected since I never actually saw an Apache IRL ...

Just a quick sanity check.. (LOL...that's dangerous where I am concerned...but I digress....) When turning on a TACAN and selecting TACAN steering in the HSI, I still get the pointer (Heading Command Bug) in the HUD pointing to the selected Steerpoint NOT the TACAN. Is this CORRECT AS IS? OR did I forget some setting. I get all the TACAN steering information in the HUD DATA block and the TACAN location and either CDI or PLAN CRS line in the HSI, only the HUD indicator is pointing elsewhere. Thanks.. EDIT: OOPS!!! RTFM!! (this is in the ADI section, but I assume it applies to the HUD as well) P age 217

Shame I missed the 1 year anniversary of this bug report. Hopefully I'll make it for the 2 year anniversary. See y'all on April 4th next year! But seriously come on ED. Whoever marked this as 'Correct as is' needs to be made redundant.

Folks keep the feedback constructive please. As we have mentioned before MAC is in progress internally, we will share news when we are ready. Regarding FC3, we have no plans for any more FC3 aircraft. Any bugs or issues we find in FC3 continue to be worked on and fixed when time allows. Keep an eye on patch notes for work. thank you

We don't. Its an F-15E with a F-15I paintjob and turkey feathers reinstated and there is zero intention to do stuff that would genuinely make it a -I like model the avionics differences.

...a volte mi sembra di essere l'unico qui con mutui da pagare, figlie adolescenti, problemi lavorativi, moglie romp*******ni ecc... Ma perchè non utilizzate il vostro tempo libero simulando col modulo che più vi aggrada, nei tempi a voi più congeniali e con le modalità che preferite? ED e le terze parti non fanno volontariato; producono software secondo i loro standard e con le loro modalità. Se questo ci piace, acquistiamo i loro moduli; se non ci piace non lo facciamo. Perchè sentirsi in dovere di "riportare alla (nostra) realtà dei fatti" qualcuno che la pensa diversamente?

Could it be a 0g issue? Like in the A-10C where the engines shut down after x amount of seconds flying upside down. Flying straight up for and extended amount of time might cut of supply of something for the engine.

WHY IS THIS TAKING SO LONG? As always, Corona is to blame for this as well. Since Corona, I have had considerable difficulties concentrating over a longer period of time, and even small occasions and frustration have negatively affected my motivation. I suffer the most from it; not only have I been working on STORMFRONT for such a long time, but there are also other projects I would like to tackle. I hope you don't hold this against me and have some patience with me. The good news. Another UH-1 campaign that should have been released already can make your wait a little more interesting. POURQUOI CELA PREND-IL TANT DE TEMPS ? Comme toujours, c'est aussi la faute de Corona. Depuis Corona, j'ai beaucoup de mal à me concentrer sur une longue période et même les petites occasions et la frustration ont un effet négatif considérable sur ma motivation. C'est moi qui en souffre le plus, non seulement parce que je travaille sur STORMFRONT depuis si longtemps, mais aussi parce qu'il y a d'autres projets auxquels j'aimerais m'attaquer. J'espère que vous ne m'en voudrez pas et que vous ferez preuve de patience à mon égard. La bonne nouvelle. Une autre campagne UH-1 qui aurait déjà dû être publiée peut rendre votre attente un peu plus intéressante. WARUM DAUERT DAS SO LANGE? Wie immer ist auch daran Corona Schuld. Ich habe seit Corona erhebliche Schwierigkeiten mich über längere Zeit zu konzentrieren und auch kleine Anlässe und Frustration wirken sich erheblich negativ auf meine Motivation aus. Ich selbst leide selbst am meisten darunter, nicht nur dass ich schon so lange an STORMFRONT Arbeite, da sind auch weitere Projekte die ich gerne angehen möchte. Ich hoffe Ihr nehmt mir das nicht krumm und habt noch etwas Gedul mit mir. Die gute Nachricht. Eine ander UH-1 Campagne die eigentlich bereits hätte erscheinen sollen, kann euch die Wartezeit etwas interesanter gestallten.

Given there's no mention of NVG in the manual, nor any other keybind besides Visor/NVG toggle, I bet it's one of those missing basic features of the early access product.

Only matter in case the SAMs units become transportable and the physical model get inside the transport, such is not the case now in DCS. as all transportation in DCS is not physically inside the transport, then is not important a small difference in size.

I don’t understand why sea level and 1600’ can’t be adjusted independently..makes no sense

Many thanks for the track, @boerdi. I'm now able to see the striking difference with my own eyes and on my own PC. MT-only issue is now reported internally.

FF modules are all compatible with this. You never have to start them, let alone wait for INS. Most jets are HOTAS based so fiddling with switches shouldn't be common, and if you're not interested in using advanced systems, many can be ignored. DCS offers many ways to play, if you just want to jump into a dogfight, you can with any plane.

False The FC3 PFMs are definitely not 20 years old. the Flight Models 20 years ago were Pre AFM, on Rails. Every FC3 Aircraft has had an External Model Revamp, Professional Flight Model Made, and 3D Cockpit Models Made in the last 8 years. So the 20 Year old statement is false. Also, I seriously doubt Any DCS Aircraft you'd be able to study in 2 Afternoons.

Do we really? Honestly I find the full fidelity modules easier to use since they have clickable cockpits. A low fidelity modules still comes with a 100 page manual that’s too much for the console gamer types. FC3 isn’t necessarily “gamey” those modules still use advanced flight models, missiles and such. They aren’t “20 years old”

Especially for various light brightness. For flir for nvgs etc.

I noticed that there are a lot of rotary controls that I can’t bind with Axis controls, like HUD brightness or volume knobs. There should be more axis controls to bind to.

The R530 was considered useless. It got exactly 1 kill on an unsuspecting Mig-19 from behind, and the Israeli Mirage 3s hardly ever carried it. In fact the whole radar of the Mirage III was considered as dead weight and the Israelis requested its replacement with a simpler range-finder in the Mirage V (Nesher). Mirage III was considered a better fighter than the F-4E and was responsible for air defense and air superiority during Yom-Kippur. On the other hand the Phantom was hands down far superior striker, no question. Dany Shapira, Israel’s chief test pilot at the time, says in his book he used some personal connections to get a flight in a Phantom before they were even being considered to be sold to Israel. He was impressed, but when the American instructor asked him what he thought he answered tacktlessly “In a dogfight, I’d rather be in a Mirage”.

Quick update since I've been silent for a while. I've changed my mind and instead of first supporting the remaining aircraft, I've started the OpenXR port. Progress is good and it looks like everything will work just fine (with probably a few snags we'll have to live with). But it's still a lot of work, so it might take a few weeks until I can release it. Then IvyVR should work with just about any VR headset out there and will no longer require SteamVR to run (except if your headset requires it).

Hi, I have a magnificent button box from Totalcontrols.eu and it has a ton of rotary knobs, for things like volume, brightness, etc. I would like to be able to bind these to things like FLIR brightness and contrast. Please add some control bindings for such. Thanks in advance.

I don't know if it is correct or not, I found myself too in the same predicament. As a workaround, I turn on (put down) the pilot visor with LShift+N.

1. Crawl, walk, run. 2. You will not master this in five minutes. Flying and operating these aircraft is a full time job IRL, and only comes after many years of building foundation knowledge. 3. Don't be afraid to ask questions. 4. Use the included training missions. 5. Learn how to create simple missions to tailor your own training and practice reps. 6. Learning modules is like learning a new language, the more you already know, the easier subsequent ones are to learn. 7. Go do a flying lesson IRL. This will give you a real appreciation (although massively diluted) of the workload and physical forces acting on you during flight, and a greater understanding of key principles of flight than hundreds of hours of stick wiggling in a game will. 8. Don't read the manual start-to-finish. It is not a novel, it is a reference book. Pick the relevant sections for the new skills or procedures you are learning, and focus on that. See point 1. 9. You don't need to know everything to have fun. There is nothing wrong with an air-start, guns only engagement. Not every flight has to be a 3-hour, IMC slog with multiple AAR, complex attack profiles, strict comms etc. 10. You don't need expensive kit. I do a huge amount of my flying with a cleverly-mapped X-Box controller, and can still be 100% combat effective, and can AAR with button throttles and a thumbstick (not a boast, just a evidence that an expensive set up is not essential). That'll do for now.

DCS loads more than needed and does not unload when vram is full. We can all experience this especially in vr. Alt-tab can get performance back but it doesn't work so good anymore in the latest OB. (Takes long to recover).

It was listed as a known issue in the release notes that the currently shown aim point is high in both AA & AG modes.

Raises hand Dedicated RIO players exist.

habe es jetzt nochmal mit Kaltstart auf Sinai im SP probiert. Da war der Fehler tatsächlich der nicht programmierte Lasercode im TPOD. Nachdem ich das nun gemacht habe, hat es funktioniert. Das Problem in der Mission Artifical Reef besteht weiterhin. Wer sich das anschauen möchte, ob ich da vielleicht was anderes falsch mache: Aber so lange es jetzt mit Kaltstart funktioniert, bin ich zufrieden. Danke für die Hilfe!

@wowbagger you gave me an idea. I tried the new drawing tools to draw the flight plan on the F10 map - so even if you don't see your icons, you can still see the route and zoom in and out. Well, it doesn't look so good. I can draw the lines fine, but every textbox remains the same size as I zoom, so it looks pretty messy. I can contact ED to give us an option to automatically display the flight plan on the F10 map though. Like a native support. I think that would be best, rather than manually drawing lines in 80 missions. This is mainly for WW2, for modern day missions you don't really need this, you have INS, HSD, you name it. Easy.

up-dated!

I don't know why. I've heard lots of SMEs on youtube talk about how they pulled breakers to give themselves an edge. I think pulling breakers is part of the spirit and legend/lore of the Tomcat, and I wish HB would lean into that more. I'm sad that we never got a breaker for the main flaps.

No because the FF ones simply do more. They have more functionally in their systems and have more capabilities. Of course this requires a clickable cockpit to control it all. A FF F-15C would have to be a much more difficult adversary in the game than the simplified FC3 one, in the RW this thing has a 100:0 kill ratio whereas in the game it’s a chump.

Well then you’re probably out of luck here because afaik they won’t be making more of these for DCS. Only for MAC.

I understand your sentiment and i also like simpler aircrafts, but absolutely not purposely simplified, unrealistic, gamey 20 y.o. low fidelity FC3 standard. It would take all the fun out of DCS and make it closer to WT. That's why i would like to see the full fidelity A-10A - way simpler and easier to learn and remember than the A-10C. Full fidelity F-16A - way simpler than F-16C. Full fidelity F-15A/C - way simpler than F-15E. Or other full fidelity simple Cold War era aircrafts like MiG-29, Su-25, Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-25, A-1, AH-1 Cobra etc. Basically 1-2 afternoons and you already know how to operate them in full fidelity and you can focus on having fun. And you will not forget how to use them after not flying for a few weeks. In short, simpler aircrafts yes - but absolutely not lower fidelity, gamey, old FC3 standard.

Then it's time for me to get the Syria Map. Fortunately, the summer sale is currently on...

Hey Razbam, a way to make the crew chief deploy and stow the boarding ladder wold be a cool immersion feature. Any plans of implementing this? Cheers

With the old-school P-3 Orion, the ED default drones, your P-8 Poseidon and the RC-135 this RQ-4 would complete a nice US Armed Forces ISR aircraft lineup. Definitely interested in it!

Hey, @draconus. Yep, I tracked it internally as DCSF14-470 for the team to investigate when able. Thank you!

helipads are located according to data from OSM. We plan to diversify them, add more objects. Also make several types (now only one). The roadmap is almost ready, we will coordinate it with ED and publish it. Thanks for the feedback.

Таки да, но мы тут в виртуальной авиации и это две разные вещи. Или Вы всем предлагаете сдать на ИКАО 4 уровень английский перед тем как купить модуль ?