Leaderboard

this time I congratulate you... usually there is a lack of communication and you never know anything and this always creates discomfort. updating users in this way is very functional and correct! so although as always waiting for the patch is unnerving, with this effective communication it is much easier... very good, thank you…bravi!

Open Beta Public testing build Current version number: DCS Open Beta 2.8.8.43704 Next update: To be announced. Dear all, we continue to prepare 2.9 internally and would like to thank our testers for their efforts testing 2.9 We will share a patch date with you all as soon as we are ready, however there will be no patch this week. Thank you again for your patience

Hey Tripod3. Thanks for asking. Sorry i been absent guys. I had a back procedure this past weekend so i have been down a bit. Next month i will go in for another back procedure in the hopes of getting some relief. Pain can get the best of you if you let it. So 3D Modding for DCS. One thing about 3d modeling. You HAVE TOO be able to concentrate on the model your working on. Any distractions will slow you down and take away your interest in modeling. It's not always easy to create models when your being nagged by pain so i do what i can when i can. The OSA Missile Boats are complete with the exception of livery flags for the countries that operate them. The OSA Boats are simple mods. Nothing really technical about about them other than declaring the Styx Missiles for it which I have the hang of now. The reason I have been slow to push out more mods is because I have been spending a lot of time in Substance Painter trying to create better textures for the mods. One thing about SP is you can create different textures and save them for future use and or use the textures that are provided. So i can use one texture set for the ships hulls and use it on all the AI Ship mods. The good thing is you can go back and tweak as needed. Below is an example of what can be accomplished in Substance Painter. Eventually i will get the hang of it. One main thing about modeling is being able to understand 3DS Max and Blender. I always use 3DS Max. I'm currently using 3ds Max 2023 at the moment. I learned Max on my own along with help from other modders which is how i got started and i'm still learning. Youtube can be your best friend when it comes to 3d moddling. So with regard to creating mods for DCS. There are a few things that are time consuming when it comes to creating AI Ship Mods for DCS. 1. Animating - Animating Missile cell hatches and weapons will take time and its one thing you have be motivated to do. It can take hours and hours to animate your mod for DCS. Its one thing you have to be focused on. 2. Textures - Creating texture are easy if you just want to apply textures to mod and release it which is what i have been doing but i want to change that. That's why i've taken the time to learn Substance Painter. However, texturing can take a lot of time because you want to make sure the textures are at least presentable. 3. Coding - Coding is the most important part of creating mods. No matter how long it takes to animate a mod for gaming. If the mod isn't coded properly for weapons, props, radars and so forth the mod will not work properly. Coding takes time because you have to make sure the codes are 100% correct otherwise the mod won't appear in DCS or your animations won't work properly. 4. Testing - The DCS Game Engine will determine whether your coding is scripted properly. If it isn't DCS Game Engine will let you know right away something is wrong. I spend hours and hours in and out of DCS to make sure the mod is operating properly. No matter how good you are at moddling you will always miss something. That's why i always send the mods out for another opinion. 4 eyes is always better than two. These are just some of things you have to do to successfully create a mod for DCS. This is the reason ED has a team to create their mods. If i'm focused and motivated to create a mod. I can easily create a mod in three weeks or less. It's not hard anymore but as mentioned you have to be motivated. Have to be. Sometimes it gets frustrating when you can't get something to work properly but no matter what I always solve the issue. I hope this gives you all a somewhat clear picture of what it takes to create 3D Mods for DCS and the time it takes to create them. I do want to thank you all for your interest in the mods otherwise I probably would have stopped releasing them. I still have a lot of mods to release and that includes ai aircraft and armored vehicles as well. If you all have any questions about modding just shoot me a PM and i will get back to you. Stay tuned i will be releasing the OSA Boats by the weekend. Thanks again!

Hi @twistking, Some tasks can be delegated to the rear pilot, which can be useful in a combat situation. For example, the rear pilot can operate the radios, VOR and TACAN and the radar (as well as other things). The rear pilot can also change the countermeasure configuration, which in the single seaters is only possible on the ground. Cheers!

Devs will release information when they are ready to, I know it does not suit everyone but that is the way it is. Whatever you do be nice, they are working hard currently. thank you

3+ final version will depend on tweaks and ongoing testing

Folks talk about the the UH-1H performance changes here, if you want to moan about development it will be considered off topic and deleted. If you have added your thoughts already and data please just give us time. 1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.

@Oban I'm thinking about buying it for CH anyway in November or December. Thanks!

A thought out to the dev teams at this point. Merging what is likely to be a LOT of complex code releases, then trying to hammer out identified issues, all under the scrutiny of the pressure of trying to get it out the door. My thanks to all within ED. It’s a massive team effort so rarely thanked by actual users.

anything fbx or already in 3dsmax format. I'd have thought that adding them to your google drive and then sharing the link would be the best idea

I'm also considering buying some 3D models for Currenthill when I have some cash to spare. Once I buy some 3D model files, how do I transfer the files or usage rights (or something) to him, and what formats would be easiest to work with in general?

I'm sure that if you purchased it and donated it to CH, he'd happiliy oblige, but it's asking a lot to expect moddellers to pay for these models, and then give them away for free

That guy - VR FightSimGuy mmm. He starts out praising the image clarity, and then goes into critisizing it. And he says the 128 gb version has less Mura and better image clarity than the 512 Gb version. Ok... I would take his views with a grain of salt.

Thanks, FlyingscotsMan. I know the feeling. I can't sit, stand or even drive for extended lengths of time. My back usually tells me when enough is enough and believe me i listen. After I release the OSAs I will rest. Sometimes it's hard to pull away from what you love doing though.

There is a lack of infantry in many Country, France, Israel, Espagne ect... We are still waiting for the ED infantry with great impatience

LMAO right on schedule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2--gh-oPcRU

That would be a fantastic upgrade to the UH-1! A crewmember to finally call out enemies spotted and take some basic flying tasks (that includes holding a set heading) is very much needed.

Thank you! The Swedish version is based on the IRIS-T SLS (more or less the standard IRIS-T missile). I've had the IRIS-T SLM version on my list for a while, but there haven't been a lot of suitable 3d models available, as I also need a suitable radar. I'll look into it again. That is correct, I've mentioned it before. I will happily spend hundreds of hours making the assets, but all donations are very welcome as they go straight into the 3d model fund. Not counting the donations, I have spent several thousand dollars on models by now. Probably the issue mentioned by others on the forum (and in this thread). There are some mods that overwrites DCS standard sound configuration files (which I use in my assets) and will therefore create these issues. Start by disabling/removing all but my assets. I run all my 100+ assets simultaneous without any errors, conflicts or other issues. Before buying any 3d models I always encourage you to contact me by message or Discord (username Currenthill). There are a lot of pitfalls to avoid, and they may not be obvious for someone not buying models on a regular basis. In these more rare cases where someone transfers a 3d model to me, I usually provide a link to a protected upload area.

I think that’s me, sorry

I think the velocity vector flashes when it is outside the HUD field of view. I.e. during landing, if the VV is just below the HUD FOV when slow and high AOA Sent from my FP4 using Tapatalk

Will there be any use for the second seat in a combat environment? I assume the B was mostly developed as a training aircraft, but in case of need would it be flown by a crew of 2, or only with the pilot's seat occupied? Is there ordnance that requires or benefits from a crew of 2 (targeting pods, recce pods)? Is it designed so the second seat can assist with nav or radar in an efficient way?

i'll prophesise (though i'm probably stating the obvious) - within the next 48 hours will be another video of how vrflightsimguy has discovered a new setting that has improved things and now looks so much better, but it's still not the best yet, because there needs to be a reason to create another 10+ minute video after that........my thoughts after 1 month!........Is quest 3 still worth it in 2024?......

He's asking for climb rate with no forward velocity. Forward velocity reduces required engine power, the highest rate of climb velocity is when the engine uses the least amount of power for level flight. For the huey that's between 55-65 knots. @SMH This is the last time I reply to this argument. However vertical rate of climb has no data available due to how it is made irrelevant by forward velocity. What we do have, however, is thrust data. We can actually acquire vertical acceleration. The OGE hover chart stops recording at 45 Ct, which equates to 12,834.0783692lbs of thrust. Force = mass x acceleration ie acceleration = force/mass so we can get acceleration in Gs from thrust/mass so 12834.0783692/7500=1.7112104492266666666666666666667G subtract 1 G for the force of gravity 1 G = 1930.4429751599998FPM/S thus 0.7112104492266667G = 1372.95FPM/S meaning with that much thrust, the huey at 7500lbs should be able to accelerate vertically, to a rate of climb of 1372.95FPM within 1 second. However this does not provide us possible rate of climb, as the act of air rushing through the rotor vertically, changes things, and momentum exists as well, as does parasite drag. it's not a simple question. however, we can lazily estimate one working backward on the hover chart, we can see that at 9500lbs, (a Ct of 33.30975452) we have a Cp of about 22.9, ( 966.9629541shp) Thus hovering takes 966.9629541shp from the engine. So if we proceed up to a Cp of about 35.3 ( 1490.558615shp (yes that's above its rated 1400shp, it's complicated, one engine pushed 1900shp in testing, the power it is rated for is not the maximum power it can push as that changes with atmospherics etcetcetcetc)) 1490.558615-966.9629541=523.5956609 THUS, as per predicted vertical velocity = 523.5956609 x 33000 / 9500 1,818.8fpm at 9500lbs How about we do this for 7500lbs (a Ct of 26.29) thus a Cp of what looks to be about 17.7, a shp of 747.3905802. 1490.558615-747.3905802=743.1680348 thus 743.1680348 x 33000 / 7500=3,269.9fpm but we know that's wrong, because the increase in power creates an increase in torque, creates in increase in left pedal requirement, which creates an increase in the amount of power taken by the tail rotor, thus a decrease in the amount of power available to the main rotor. That is the Nm in the formula, mechanical efficiency which for the above formulas was assumed to be perfect, which it's not. Which is another thing to calculate, and EVEN IF WE HAD IT. OK SO LETS DO THE MOMENTUM ANALYSiS null OH BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO ANALYZE THE BLADES ENOUGH OF THIS That's enough. I'm not going any farther right now. There's a reason my next thread is taking so long, because it's about actual full on flight dynamics and each individual error's compounding effects on the whole flight model. Do I believe the rate of climb with no forward velocity is correct NO, I don't. Of course I don't. but it doesn't matter right now, because so many other things are wrong that trying to fix the rate of climb before then is literally just a waste of time and effort. The aircraft doesn't even perform properly in a hover. If it doesn't perform properly in a hover, of course it doesn't perform properly in a climb at ANY speed. Fixing rate of climb, first requires fixing hover. THEN when it starts climbing like a rocket because of the correct thrust values provided by the rotor, you fix the OTHER PROBLEMS that cause this. AS PER YOUR OWN WORDS How about you take your own advice. Realize that these things all compound into each other. Fixing ONE, requires FIXING MANY OTHER THINGS. Just because fixing one thing breaks something else, does not mean that fixing that one thing is the reason that second thing is broken. I'm not replying to this poorly thought out argument anymore. I have research to do. Mods, if you have to, lock this thread. Its point has long since been made. I'm just going to make another one the next time a rework happens anyway.

Aerges Mirage F-1BE

This is why we have open beta which is a public test build. What we may miss or can not test due to hardware or software configurations we will see happen in open beta. Then the goal will be to ensure 2.9 open beta is tweaked enough before any push to a stable DCS version update. thanks

Here are some early WIP images from a project I'm doing to expand on 1950s Korean war era aircraft we currently have. This will try to accurately replicate the F9F-2 early era Panther from the start of the Korean war. The aircraft will be capable of taking off and landing on capable carriers in the game. I'm hoping for a full fidelity module using the EFM with interactive cockpit physics and damage model. And able to use the common air to ground weapons found on the F9F-2 20mm cannons and up to two 1.000 pound bombs and unguided rockets for ground attack missions. See rest of this topic for regular updates!

That is an oversimplification of the problem at hand, but regardless it's something we want to do, and when we know more or for sure how that will look, you guys will be the first to know. Lets avoid this discussion, it really has nothing to do with anything. Its all guessing and not based in any facts. Talk about how much you want the MiG-29, and what you would like to see, but leave everything else alone, please and thank you.

The autopilot drift issue is reported:

If you want to report a bug, then yes it is a 'me' problem, because see I cannot report your bug unless you give me all the needed info. I know it's hard to see but there are just a few more active threads than this one and we require the extra info to streamline reporting. Again, I know, a 'me' problem. So understand that this is what we need for a proper bug report. It is totally your right not to report bugs if you do not want to follow our very simple guidelines. Thanks.

I think this is just muddying the waters. Modern restorations use updated instruments and avionics for a variety of reasons, but many still do incorporate original flying instruments. The crux of the issue is that the instrument simply isn't modelled correctly. It's supposed to incorporate pendulous vanes, that with sufficient vacuum pressure, would trend back to finding the horizon. It doesn't do this and it's not the only attitude indicator that seems to have been modelled this way by ED. Almost all the warbirds, but also more modern aircraft like the F-5 suffer from the same issue. Here's an excerpt from a description of the AN5736 (the gyro horizon in the p51) in its service manual: Nobody is saying that it shouldn't topple or develop errors if left uncaged during a dogfight. But even if it does, it should slowly return back to an accurate horizon due to the mechanism described above. This would also allow us to uncage said gyros on the ground, after the engine (with vacuum pump) is running, as per normal procedure. You could (and should) still use the occasional cage to quickly correct errors from extreme maneuvering or low suction pressure when running on the ground, but it would not be required in the way that it is now. As the instruments are currently modelled, you first have to get up in the air, then pick a reference straight & level attitude to uncage before you get accurate indications. This means, as an example, that you can't uncage it on the ground with the attitude nose-high while the aircraft sits on its tailwheel and have the instrument read accurately -- this is nonsense.

Hi Currenthill! Are you planning to make Russian infantry soon? There is a lack of proper infantry on the red side ^^

Yeah, not gonna do that, I'll live without the sounds.

Hi @=BoB= David This is a known issue, we're trying to solve it in future updates. Thanks for your patience.

In my opinion, this would be a very usefull feature for all DCS modules and support broader hardware (and DIY) compatibility. Perhaps in such way that it allows the user to determine and set the precise axis coordinates by a button, at which its (throttle) hardware position requires a detent to be. I reckon most likely for Afterburner for any model, and perhaps also for Idle. Perhaps as a part of the axis tune window? Can't wait for this feature to show up in the release list. Thread rated "5 stars" and set "to follow"

The instrument is named SIV-52 and it's not a night vision but a very raw analog IRST showing engine exhausts as blobs you can boresight missiles and even try hitting witha gun - it's really short range. WT got it all wrong.

Нет, не понятно. Вертолет может вращаться относительно 3х осей. X-крен, Y-направление, Z- тангаж. Везде есть угловая скорость. Ещё есть угловая скорость вращения несущего и рулевого винтов, есть угловая скорость перемещения педалей(темп перекладки), рцш(темп отклонения ручки) и ошнв(темп взятия шага). Темп перекладки педалей ограничивается гидродемпфером, если он находится во включенном положении. Темп взятия шага, перемещения ручки, угловая скорость разворота на висении ограничивается тем кто управляет. Угловая скорость разворота есть так же в установившемся вираже и может рассчитываться. Нужно рассчитать время разворота, а потом это время разделить на 360. Как рассчитать время разворота на 360, формулу я не помню, но вроде это можно сделать на НЛ-10. Есть другой способ. Рассчитываешь радиус разворота, можно по формуле R=V²/(g×tgY), где R-радиус разворота V-скорость Y- угол крена. Или можно рассчитать на НЛ-10. Зная радиус разворота, можно рассчитать длину окружности разворота L=2пR Зная длину окружности и скорость полёта, можно рассчитать время разворота. t=L:V Зная время разворота, можно вычислить угловую скорость разворота Угол разворота разделить на время разворота. Потом берёшь, запускаешь DCS, садишься в модуль Ми-24П, взлетаешь, встаёшь в координированный разворот (шарик в центре, крен, высота и скорость const), записываешь параметры и сравниваешь с расчетными. Вот даже для себя, лень этим заниматься. Вертолет разворачивается и разворачивается правильно. PS: если рассчитать параметры разворота, и проверить их в полете на настоящем вертолете, они совпадут с явной погрешностью.

A LOT of people would NOT be excited if they knew what an early Super Hornet really was and ED modeled one It's not what people usually have in mind asking for F/A-18E/F.

Tim has made the point: the FM isn't correct (enough) yet, and they are working on it. In a very comprehensive way imho. What more can we ask for? Let's move on.

what will you buy btw? just curious

I was worried about the fan before I bought my headset. But now I really appreciate it. I use the Aero for several hours at a time. It feels quite comfortable and does not get hot. (I adjust the wearing straps with about 1 to 2 mm breathing space on a partial part of the lower side of the headset. That way it feels better for me and I can easily put on and take off the Aero without any adjustments.) On the one side I would prefer a smaller and lighter headset at a distant point in the future, but I have to use prescription googles. A smaller headset would have to include the option for strong prescription lenses. There are no off the shelf add on lenses available for my eyes. I would not start wearing contact lenses again, although I used them for decades successfully. I will just stay with big enough headsets in the future.

To circulate air to help keep the headset temp cooler and in addition provides small amount of air on face ( barely feel) which helps keep cooler in the headset. Pretty neat feature actually. Also mine at least has never fogged up on me.

We're willing to give away our MiG-25RBT work to RAZBAM if they are interested in taking it, but that doesn't ensue a promise of any sort. It's purely up to them to negotiate and make a transaction of a deal for it.

Vulkan was always supported on WMR via SteamVR. This had worked for years. Whether the app uses OpenVR or OpenXR via SteamVR. The official plans for Vulkan support in OpenXR for WMR were scrapped during Microsoft layoffs etc. But you can use this: https://github.com/mbucchia/OpenXR-Vk-D3D12 This has been working with several games already, including BeamNG.drive. It should work with DCS once they support Vulkan (and if not it might just be a matter of a small Hotfix from me). Had we implemented Vulkan directly in the OpenXR for WMR code, this would have been the exact same implementation, which is ridiculously efficient as explained on the website

I can't hear the engines on the MATV or the LATV when driving them... What did I do wrong?

Well, I've been playing with the Quest 3 for the past couple of days, mainly getting used to the Quest interface, standalone mode, and a bit of DCS. I'm a newbie for both DCS and VR in general. My only previous headset was a Reverb G2, which I didn't use much. Too many little issues, the headset wasn't particularly comfortable, and the small sweetspot all turned me off VR in general and VR in flight sims. I do think that the Q3 is much better overall than the G2, and probably the best entry- to mid-level VR headset you can buy today, especially if you are in North America and cannot get a Pico officially. However, there seems to be a lot of hype as claiming that it is one of the best headsets out there. The Q3 is the literal definition of "Jack of all trades, master of none." It does a lot of things very well, but there are headsets that can beat it in one spec or another. One aspect I do find extremely useful, especially for a DCs newb like me, is the use of passthrough and remote display. I can pause the game, tap twice to enable passthrough mode, then browse Chuck's Guide to learn various modes of the aircraft I'm trying to learn on the remote display. Then go back into the game. I'd imagine that this can still be useful once I've learned the aircraft module. Now, you can use passthrough to read your phone or tablet, but the image, while readable, isn't great. It's still nice to have, though. I find the VR image sharp enough, with good enough resolution and the lenses have enough of a FOV, not to mention the clarity, that I'm satisfied with it. I might still end up getting the BSB in the future, especially if they develop a version 2, maybe with eye tracking, and can refine the lenses a bit more, but for now it's the Q3.

Thanks! I’m going to go over this once again in the coming weeks. Hopefully I can fix those small issues.

@Yogi8 - your throttles are looking fantastic, great integration into a simpit too. Did you consider using more stepper motors to drive the throttle levers themselves for the auto-throttle?

Крест означает, что ты уже ниже безопасной высоты сброса, но всем, как обычно, пофиг. Это к слову о качестве большинства гайдов.

My source is real world experience and hands-on use of what is actually possible, not a Google search of the internet. A lot of things change in the real world equipment from what is announced and what actually becomes reality. The A-10's SADL was supposed to be broadly fielded between the US Air Force and the US Army to enable direct communication with ground forces. It doesn't, because the Army decided not to field SADL after the fact. The Fire Support protocol was supposed to facilitate artillery fire missions via datalink, but it was depreciated and wasn't even functional, even though the option exists in the cockpit. Reality does not always conform to what can be searched for on the internet.