Leaderboard

As previously mentioned, a separate development report is required to fully cover the system of wear, damage, and failures. However, I would like to address some points to clarify potential misunderstandings. Firstly, when we began the F-4E project, we decided to establish a stable foundation that could be shared across all Heatblur modules. As a result, we plan to transfer new features to older products, starting with the F-14. However, this process may take some time. Secondly, we aimed to create a flexible and extensible system that could be developed and maintained for several years. We even considered future potential base simulation platform development scenarios and ensured that we could utilize their full potential in our product. This means that there are some features that cannot be implemented in DCS currently but may become available later, even beyond the early access period. One of the key features is the ability to save and restore the state of each component and the entire aircraft at any point. Yes, this means that persistent airframes in various forms are technically possible. However, we need to better understand how to blend it with gameplay features for the best user experience before we can promise anything. Our aim with these systems was to create realistic, immersive, and entertaining experiences for all users, whether they are casual or hardcore. We considered all use cases, including those in the competitive scene, and welcome feedback to ensure our products are enjoyable for everyone. Each feature comes with various settings to allow you to adjust them to your liking. Now, let's move on to the technical details, which I have listed to make it easier to follow. We use general terms like 'wear', 'condition', 'property' and 'failure' to abstract information about the aircraft. Still, their precise meaning is interpreted at the level of each component individually. As mentioned in the trailer, the F-4E is a collection of thousands of components. Each component is unique and has its own set of properties. Two components at the same level of wear will be slightly different. Some examples of how those properties can manifest in the aircraft: two tachometer gauges may have different accuracy; two pumps may have somewhat different effectiveness; pressure at which a check valve opens and closes will be different from valve to valve; etc. Each component accumulates wear independently. The rate at which it wears out may depend on various factors, such as extreme forces or temperatures. Each component has an assigned condition/quality. This value represents the combined quality of manufacturing, materials used, and maintenance. Component properties are affected by wear and condition. Wear and condition can be assigned per airframe by the mission creator. Components may fail, and each component may fail in multiple spectacular ways. Failures are an additional layer to the wear layer. Wear and other factors, such as damage from weapons, extreme forces or temperatures, may impact the moment when a failure occurs. Failures can be gradual; for example, a seizing-up motor or actuator may, at first, require higher forces to move and eventually stop altogether. Failures are NOT rolling a dice every second. However, we take into account all available sources describing what is the rated lifetime and approved failure rates. The total number of already defined possible points of failure in the F-4E is counted in thousands. Last but not least, if, for any reason, you want to deactivate all of the above, you can select 'reference aircraft' in the mission editor. Your F-4E will have all properties standardized, factory-fresh and in perfect condition. In summary, we wanted to make the F-4E feel organic and unique each time you fly it, and we hope you'll enjoy all the new features.

Hi all, once more thank you so much for the overwhelming response, support and your purchases. My apologies for not having answered more in the meantime, we concentrated today to answer all your emails, help you with changes with your orders and refunds for those who are on steam etc. We're happy we managed to get through them all. We will of course continue tomorrow. I hope I can find some time to answer more of your questions here, too. Thank you again!

Razbam A-29 Super Tucano

It looks like we've reached the limit of 1 TB downloads once again. I'm happy that my assets are of interest to you all, but it's a bit annoying to hit the limit every other day. I've decided to add a secondary download link to help with this issue. The PRIMARY DOWNLOAD is the Dropbox link and the SECONDARY DOWNLOAD is Google Drive. Hopefully together they will provide enough transfer bandwidth.

Sorry, your picture was incomplete.

Вот бы про автомобили так ))

The system has multiple components and aspects to it. We will explain it in detail at a later point. A few points that I can mention today: all properties of the aircraft and each single component will slowly degrade while you fly, based on how you fly and a few other factors - how this will affect your experience mostly depends on the mission designer. dont just think about "engine max speed" here, also think about stuff like how well any of the many lamps in your pit can react to voltage changes. or how well positioned the lense in your targeting pod camera is. the system affects a lot. the "persistence" aspect does not accumulate in the way you describe it, but is rather an option for mission/campaign designers to allow for multi-mission scenarios in which you would fly a single aircraft without being able to repair it, especially dynamic campaigns. it also captures and simulates aspects such as factory quality and variance. not every motor produced in a factory does have the exact same properties and performs identical, they are rather produced within a certain acceptable range. as an example, some of the WW2 birds produced in the last years of the war have been produced with rather bad quality in comparison

Yes, we are almost finished with it.

You're not going to get any type of release window announcement from ED because this community is bi-polar. If anything is delayed due to game breaking bugs, has a stroke, and if it's released w/ them, they'll also have a stroke. With that being said, if you check off the things like MT, DLSS/DLAA, etc etc. The focus is likely on stabilizing those before adding another major change. MT and DLSS Being stable will only make Vulkan integration quicker and more stable.

Unser Komponenten-System für die F-4 haben wir ja nicht umsonst gebaut

Wives, girlfriends and significant others will love this feature. ” I thought you were spending the evening flying DCS” ” Jet’s broke.” The finest in realism.

I've looked in to this before, there is no easy and obvious solution. But I have some ideas.

Then show up with something more credible than the ‘The DCS C model does X…’. If you enjoy the C’s ability to sit at 45* CPU post stall maneuvering, then fly the crap out of it and enjoy it. Just don't expect someone to listen when that’s all you have to offer as information/data.

If you haven't noticed, I am ignoring your posts as its just drawn out nothing. I’ve said all I’m going to say about the matter. You have two choices, fly it or don’t. If you are expecting things to happen the way you want them to happen, you are going to be sadly disappointed for a very, very long time.

The Strike Eagle has a sun visor!

LOL, your response made me think of that movie line: "What are the chance of a guy like me and a girl like you ending up together? ... One out of a hundred?" "I'd say more like one in a million" "So you're telling me there's a chance!"

first person 3d models for the pilot's own body are a terrible idea, efforts of which should be refocused elsewhere. It is not just inconvenient but it breaks immersion.

I can confirm that the G-onset rate (aka pitch rate)of the F-16C has been noticably reduced, it was a lot more responsive before. Not sure why this was done, and I'm not gonna lie, kinda feels like 1 step forward and then 2 steps back.

i'm no DCS modder, but can you rip the rocket/warhead from the vanilla DCS M270 MLRS? it uses clusters

Will release an update in the next couple of days.

So, you might say you are modifying the game.

Есть планы определиться с рентабельностью делать кликабельные танки. Интерес к этому направлению имеется.

Hey guys a quick update on my current situation. (have previously been putting this under the DCS Forum) I will also be posting this in the VR forum as I spend so much time in there. My apologies to Mods if you have to remove it I understand but my wish would be for it to stay. I have many virtual friends that frequent that forum. Cancer has now spread, was in hospital last three days. They did MRI yesterday; it is now in many places including my spine. Cancer originated in my left lung with a tumor, and also had in 5 nodes in lung). While scan did not cover my head, I suspect based on my inability to think clearly and do things that should be second nature I am pretty sure it is also in brain now. When time comes if you see I have not posted in a week or longer in VR forum - that is where I spend bulk of my time - have a virtual toast for me, I know I will be in heaven with my family that preceded me - so yeah have a virtual toast remember good ole Don (dburne). Love you guys, and being a part of this forum since the original stand alone Black Shark has been a huge blessing for me. Thank you gang, it has been a true honor and brought me great enjoyment you all virtually. May God Bless you all!! I will hang in and continue my posting for as long as I can. Warmest Regards and Love, Don B. (dburne)

Just wondering if there are plans to include the Mirage F1 in the ED Trial program before it leaves early access? The module looks great and very well done, but cockpit workflow and operation is something I can only really understand and see if it "clicks" for me in a Trial. I never bought a DCS module without trialing first, and maybe that would drive sales for more people as well. Thank you.

Hello, Please consider adding the ability to place/adjust a unit or waypoint in the mission editor by typing in a coordinate vice having to move it with the mouse. Add a "location" property or tab that coordinates can be typed directly into. Thanks! Love the sim!

Sorry guys, ED has been busy however, they need to make an agreement with the NS430 developers for use with the CE2. It's currently working in the closed beta loop though. We'll let everyone know when that happens

presenting the new toy

I'm hoping to add some new things to the F-14 audio package from tricks I learned and new samples from the F-4.

Thanks! I get this question a lot, and this is the answer from the FAQ:

There's Counterpoints to all of those" Larger Engines -> Larger Airframe / Larger Drag Index Larger Fuel Capacity -> Larger Fuel Consumption due to larger airframe, heavier airframe, larger engines, larger drag index. IIRC, A/A42R-1 wasn't added to the OFP and Certified stores until Block II, and didn't actually get used in deployment until S-3B's began to sundown. Outside of Fleet Demonstrations at airshows, 330 GAL isn't enough, and any hornet carrying A/A42R-1 in the Tanker roles now, also carries 4 FPU/11 480 GAL Tanks on both inner and center wing pylons, and NOTHING else, no AIM9s, no Gun Rounds, as the weight and drag index of that configuration is already extremely high. Seeing how the community reacts to things, Developing and releasing a Block I Super Hornet with the same capabilities Limit as the Lot 20 w/ Less available weapons carriage, The community will gripe and complain about having to pay $xx.xx for a less capable version of the same jet they already have, despite Flight model and visual model differences. I've been with the community since the beginning of DCS, and that assumption on the reaction is accurate based on 20 years of reactions.

Полагаю, что про Ка-50. В Ми-8 электросистема полноценная. Полагаю, что речь идет вот про это: Это все в Ка-50 не работает. Один только тумблер под крышкой "ВМГ ГИДРО ЭКРАН". И да, Александр. Я бы обновленный Ми-8 купил бы еще раз

No you don't. This has been clarified multiple times already here on the forum, and in the comments on the YT videos linked above

@Flarpt sorry you do not like the flight model, but you cannot make demands to the team for change without evidence that something is wrong. Feelings just wont cut it when it comes to flight models. Unless you have evidence, and or real life experience with the helicopter you wont get far. The dev team spend a lot of time working on flight models and collecting and working with data, so if you think something is wrong you will need to be specific and have data to back the claims up. Best regards bignewy

Good morning, I don't believe all of the bug fixes have been released for missions 2 - 5 yet but they should be coming. In the meantime, if you are familiar or comfortable with the mission editor, @Rokkett and myself have posted videos/files that you can use to fix your missions to make them flyable. Rick

It all depends on your frame of reference. If all you've flown so far was a Viper or Hornet, then you'll be in for a world of pain. If you have "prepared" and started flying contemporary fighters (F1, F-5, MiG-19 and MiG-21) then you'll have a much easier transition and you'll probably have an idea of what you're doing and where to focus on to get better. It's one of the grudges I have with all the BFM-tutorial videos showing Vipers with HMS and AIM-9Xs. The F-4 has a pretty good package for it's time, but your SA will nonetheless be eroded down to a radar, the RWR and good ole Eyeball Mk.1* - better get used to that quick. ___ *Geeks may throw in the TISEO and Jester Mk 2. That brings up a question: Will TISEO only be available on the later E?

Прикидываем на глаз. У нас дистанционные взрыватели пока идеальные. Да, тут конечно вопрос. Сейчас мы работаем над осколочной системой поражения.

As with everything, it depends on what do you compare it against. Against what's generally called 4th gen, teen series etc, nah, it's not young to do well. Compare it to what we have/will have in future that fits its generation, F-4E with slats will be one of the best dogfighters imo. Yes, it's big, heavy, has reservations about this whole high AoA thing etc. So it'll be difficult to get the best out of I assume. But at the same time it has a crapload of power and speed, AND when managed right, its instantaneous turn rate is equal or better than anything in its gen, and the sustained turn rate is pretty much better than all AFAIK. Of course it'll depend on what you fight. Mirage F1, MiG-21Bis, F-5E are all close enough to you in performance and agility. MiG-19 and upcoming MiG-17 can turn better in a slow fight, but F-4 is way faster than either, so using the vertical plane and adopting a more hit/run kind of approach may be an option etc. At least these are my quasi-educated guesses, we'll see soon enough I guess

It’s not a matter of coefficient in this sense…. That equation has already been done be engineers at McDonnell Douglas. They use units because most pilots are not going to sit down and figure out a plethora of coefficients and math out drag indexes for every single varying loading they may take. The units are simply a simplification. Just like how some aircraft report AoA as an actual degree, and some aircraft report AoA as. “Unit” of alpha. I never said drag has anything to with weight. I’m simply saying that the cft’s installed add an additional 4400 lbs of weight to the airframe empty. you can use the “units” of drag in this case scenario BECAUSE the airframe is technically the same and the math works. That’s why I suggested using a C model with empty wing tanks and adding 5000 lbs more in fuel to “simulate” having CFT’s installed to let you do some research on how much it affects the airframe. Will it ever be a true like for like? No not at all. Could it get you in a reasonable ballpark? It could, if both flight models are made fairly accurately. it seems that there is either somewhat of a language barrier here, or you are in denial about a lot of facts that people are supplying. I’m all for testing, finding bugs, and making sure things are correct, however throwing out blanket statements with any amplifying detail or background research to support your argument won’t get you anywhere. That being said, I’ll go ahead in some free time and see how those to setups compare. It will never be apples to apples, but it could be interesting

Ну, русский можно и не дождаться! Там Разбам делает Миг-23. Но что будет за модель по части FM, тут большой вопрос. А летать хочется на хороших моделях. То что из комплекта "Горячие скалы" русское, уже как-то не то. Конечно это все индивидуально. Но для меня - не то. По этому я летаю на зарубежных самолетах и на нашем, просто изумительном Ми-24. Собственно Ми-24, наверное единственная "русская" модель, отвечающая современным требованиям. Во всяком случае - это так для меня.

@xrx it's clear you're just trolling now. If you have some hard data (docs, manuals) that F-15E FM is wrong please provide it to the devs - we all want it to be as true to life as possible. Otherwise drop it.

When an athlete sets the bar higher and breaks a World Record and you think it is insurmountable, another athlete sets it even higher and gets a new World Record..., but this is not that case..., because it is about the same athlete raising the bar over and over again. Heatblurd breaks its own records, creating new standards at the highest possible level, making other modules obsolete and forcing them to improve... as an Argentinian I can say that they are the Messi of simulation, it is a pleasure to live in these times where iconic planes are resurrected in simulation with one of the highest levels of realism and details to be enjoyed, such as the F-14 and now the F-4 Phantom... thank you for your great work and dedication.

this is the way…

It's a reported bug in 2.9. A search for "waypoint" reveals two threads where this has been discussed. https://forum.dcs.world/search/?q=waypoint&quick=1&type=forums_topic&nodes=780

The same issue. i7-13700K, RTX3080, 64GB RAM, 512GB SSD for DCS

Probably wouldn't go that far... The acquisition radars we have for it are completely wrong (Flat Face B (SA-3) and Tin Shield B (SA-10), instead of Tall King C + Odd Pair/Group). The guidance profiles it uses appear to either not be present or at least modelled incorrectly: For close targets (< 70-80 km), it should use proportional navigation as soon as the missile's flight control enable (0.45-0.85 s after launch), using a low-thrust profile for the sustainer* For distant targets (> 70-80 km), it should fly at a constant elevation angle (35°) and constant lead angle (0-15° in the horizontal plane) for 30 seconds using a maximum-thrust profile of the sustainer. The missile should then switch over to proportional navigation (this would cause the missile to loft higher than it does in DCS), though presumably the pitch and the onset of proportional navigation is gradually changed to preserve energy. Ausairpower also refers to a shallow profile and a steep profile, presumably these alter the thrust profile used, in order to keep kinetic heating below some threshold and minimise drag losses. In DCS, it seems to do a mix of both - it always seems to assume more of a lofted trajectory pretty much regardless of target parameters but the elevation angle isn't constant, it flies in more of an arc and seems to adjust for target range and altitude. For thrust profiles, the burn time seems to always be around ~63 s, regardless of which profile is appropriate for the target. The missile seems to do a hard (12 G) pitch down immediately after booster burn-out. *I'm not entirely confident on the specifics, the only thing I've found so far is that the sustainer can be throttled between 32 - 100 kN. Vestnik-PVO gives 3 profiles: Sustainer operates at maximum thrust until propellant is expended. Sustainer operates at maximum thrust, then decreases linearly to minimum. Sustainer operates at 82% maximum thrust, then decreases linearly to minimum. However, it then goes onto state that a combination of profiles can be used, but unfortunately it doesn't give specific examples. As it should - it's SARH. So far all sources I've found online state that proportional navigation is used (either in totality or after the mid-course phase). I'm not sure exactly what the maximum G of the missile is (in DCS, 12 is what the missile is capable of pulling, so far haven't found a figure for it) and I'm also not sure what you mean by a "9 G orthogonal roll defence".

As I just found out (thanks to @Kanelbolle and @sirrah) you can do this by exploiting an undocumented (let's be charitable) "feature" of the "immortal" command: If you put "immortal" as the first command in a group's Advanced waypoints, the entire group is invulnerable to both players and other AI if you put "immortal" as any other but first command in a group's Advanced waypoints, the entire group is invulnerable to AI, but can be killed by players. See here: