Leaderboard

there is a new image of the corsair on the profile of -Rudel-

Thanks guys. To manage expectations. This is an AI asset, and there are some things that doesn't seem possible to achieve with a mod due to hard coded restrictions compared to in-game aircraft assets. For example: Having an EOS externally following the target only seem to work on ground, sea and fixed-wing assets (I have it turned on take-off to simulate activation). Having a trainable cannon only seem to work on ground and sea assets (I only have recoil and muzzle flash). Ejection only seem to work on fixed-wing assets (no known workaround, the pilots go down with the aircraft). Retractable landing gear only seem to work on fixed-wing assets (I simulate landing gear animation with workarounds, not perfect).

You need to actually point to some dots that are “gigantic”, yes. A single pixel — the smallest anything can possibly be — does not qualify. That aside, yes, that's a good illustration why the old system has to go and why the new one is far more promising and more realistic. And it is possible to make the game realistic in this regard, but remember how some people argued vehemently against any change in the spotting system because it was supposedly fine? Remember how they used the ability to see contacts at these ranges as an argument that actually, the problem with spotting was that people weren't looking closely enough? Fortunately, ED didn't listen to that, so here we are, with a much better system even in the first iteration. And there are quite a few posters in this thread saying that it should be removed completely. Your position here is getting a bit muddled, though. On the one hand, you have come back to the notion that the new spotting dot system has to go and we should just use the old system. One the other hand, you now come back with these screen shots, demonstrating and arguing that the old system is pretty darn horrible and actually provides the very “huge black dots” that you lambasted the new system for having. So which one is it?

Issue reported.

the mysteries of dcs!!! I'm talking about the 3d model to see how I made the animations while respecting the DCS arguments, a short demo video of my ka52 will follow.

I think that's the problem. I believe this issue doesn't exist on F-16C/A-10C, so it's probably not taking the burst height into account. Probably neither for the wind force of bomblets, as I've experienced bomblets shifting quite some distance after their parachutes are extended.

Thank you! But I should clarify that the issues mentioned above are not due to DCS 2.9, they are restrictions made by ED choice and design. Core modules and third party modules don't have these limitations. That said, there are still a lot of bugs introduced with 2.9 still present. Hopefully most of the vital ones will be solved in a patch or two.

This is just one of the many reasons I refuse to update DCS World 2.9. CH is without question doing his best to make his assets work properly! ED needs to fix these bugs that are in the 2.9 Version. I'm waiting for CH to give the okay to update DCS 2.9. I'm happy using 2.8 for as long as it takes! So if you want the best results, DON'T UPDATE DCS until CH gives the green light! CH is definitely not causing the issues in 2.9, it's a DCS World problem with 2.9 and they need to fix all these bugs! Just my opinion! I wish the DCS World Community the best, we all just need some patients, With Respect, Timex 3

Folks please keep the feedback constructive here and friendly, if you have already given feedback thanks, we are looking at all the feedback and considering options. It is clear VR dot spotting needs some work, with so many different resolutions and different eye sight considerations it does make it challenging to get a system that suits everyone. thanks

No, it’s not a beginer campaign, never was. Nor was entertainment ever its purpose. It’s a virtual history lesson. btw you can still navigate using the kneeboard marker function. also, you come here to say it has many bugs, when I keep my campaigns bug free after every update. BNBOB has zero bugs to my knowledge. If you found one, let me know so I can fix it. With details, screenshots and preferably a track.

The ability to set a mission to "random weather" selection from the currently available weather selections would add some nice emersion to the game, especially if it did a random selection each time the mission was run. Hopefully a simple bit of code and much easier than introducing dynamic or real time weather?

@PawlaczGMDFrom what I gathered so far and found in internet. Ka-50 at least 2 major versions of cockpit one without ABRIS and one with ABRIS. Additional sub-variants are possible including different SHKVAL screen (e.g. green vs brown). The main system navigation/attack system is called Rubikon K-041 and interacts with pretty much everything. The navigation part of the system in particular is called PNK-800 Radian and consist of several devices including INU. When entering coordinates through PVI-800 you are actually entering them into PNK-800 and Rubikon. Rubikon utilizes SHKVAL to perform the Fixpoint-based update. It can be assumed that Rubikon predates integration of the ABRIS, and that ABRIS was added later, as relatively simply upgrade (it caused the cockpit layout change). There are indications that the ABRIS was actually a product of Swedish company that specializes in civilian navigation. In addition you will notice the Garmin antenna on the 3D model of Black shark. So far the following information from Rubikon is displayed into ABRIS: navigation points fix points targets points azimuth and distance to the SHKVAL view point (this is sadly not accurate, but more later...) You will notice that in mission editor these values are exactly spot on with ABRIS equivalents of these points. This is because mission editor on load loads them into Rubikon with absolute precision. If this is the case the targets will be spot on when you slew the shkval to target points and ready to fire. Now following applies only to manual entry: PVI-800 allows you the entry in (D)DD MM.m format which will introduce relatively large error for latitude. This is roughly +-92,5m. You can calculate this yourself when you know that 1 degree of latitude has certain number of meters (I used one of the online values, and did not check how much it is actually in DCS ). The error of the longitude depends actually on the latitude (parallels are not equally sized) is typically lower than latitude errors. You can not expect to slew the Shkval to the target and immediately lock. In addition the Rubikon seems to be unaware of the altitude of target/navigation/fix points. Instead it, in DCS it will assume that point is at see level. As a consequence: - target points will be usable only at up to 100m altitude - SHKVAL indication in ABRIS will have usable indication of distance up to 100m altitude - in all other altitudes targets points from Rubikon and SHKVAL indication in ABRIS will be almost useless I did interact with ED developer and pointed out that: 1. targeting system that works only next to the see level is illogical, and that Rubikon must have some knowledge on e.g. target point altitude. He did propose that maybe they can assume the target altitude based on helicopter altitude above see. I proposed the algorithm based on the laser range finder of SHKVAL (basically starting with his proposal augmented with iteration along the azimuth until the coordinates roughly match). Still no feedback if they are going to do anything, but I gather they were busy with DLSS and damn spotting dots. 2. manual contains written text and pictures that indicate that PNK-800 has information on altitude of waypoints. I argued that there must be a way to enter those values in PVI-800. It should be noted that there is even a flag in ADI that shows direction of deviation of altitude compared to current waypoint). This flag actually works if you started with preloaded coordinates. So far I got the answer that manual contains errors. At the end I attached the PNG and SVG diagram of devices generated from ED's own code with graphviz. Once you download the SVG to your local storage, open it with web browser. SVG contains additional tooltip annotations. ka-50.svg

I agree! The FM is probably not totally finished yet. Controllers are important. My old MS FFB2, as I have discovered, has a huge horrendous hardware deadzone I didn't really notice until I added a short extension. Is very noticeable and has to be anticipated. As for ground effect. It's absolutely there. Is it realistic? I don't know, while a was making a video I flew a little too close to some wires, and as you are probably aware, one of the first things to break are the rotor blades. But I did have the speed and I made it halfway back to the FARP, but a hill prevented me! Sure was fun to try though! [emoji1] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

> Download <

How is it silly? You have never once managed to offer an actual argument for that stance. Possibly because, by your own admission, you have never actually read the research or bothered to understand what it even is or how it works. No. That is not how it works. Read the paper and look at the implementations No. That is not how it works. Read the paper and look at the implementations No. That is not how it works. Read the paper and look at the implementations I understand that you will once again go on one of your catastrophically ignorant and uninformed posting sprees about this topic but it would really help if you — just once — had actually read the paper, looked at any of the examples, understood its intent and end goals, and/or seen it in action in any of its multiple implementations. But since you actively, deliberately, expressly and obstinately refuse to do any of that, it will be fun to see what kind of laughably nonsensical fantasies you come up with this time to fill in the gaps (i.e. everything) in your understanding of the topic. If you want to disprove the usefulness and applicability of smart scaling, there is exactly one thing you should focus on: post your research. Or someone else's research. Anything, really, that has the same empirical and mathematical basis, and as many tests of different implementations, but which conclusively show that it doesn't work for some reason. Do that, and you might have a point. You won't, so you don't.

Anyone else find the repetetive musical tone kind of annoying in the engine sounds? It's hard to describe, but you can hear it in this file: DCS World\CoreMods\aircraft\F14\Sounds\Effects\Aircrafts\Engines\Overhauled\F14_Engine_Int_TF30_01.wav It's like three tones going from low to high. The Viggen has the same thing, and once I pay attention to it, it just drives me nuts Br, Mud

Hi There - almost 14 years ago I created the 2 Serpent missions included with the A-10C. I see they have been given some love with new Voice overs which is fantastic, but the New weather system has created issues for one of them. I've edited the Weather and Mission time on the Serpents Head mission to make it actually playable now, while retaining the Claustrophobic vibe originally intended. Attached is the updated mission. The Serpents Head.miz Nate

Hello. When having 4 different groups and each group is a singelship. Trying to get them to be in the same network as members, I would like to be able to rank them, (rearranging them). Example, if I add members to the first ship, let's call it Hornet1-1. Add the rest of the flight, Hornet1-2 (B), Hornet1-3(C), Hornet1-4(D). Hornet1-1 will be A, etc. ONLY Hornet1-1 will have the members, while the rest won't have members att all. Hornet1-2 won't be able to have ABCD to the same group. Trying to resolve this, I tried to open Hornet1-2 to add the members to that group too. Again singelship, the issue now is hornet1-2 Can't be B, since it's second in that group. It will only be A. LONG story short. We should be able to rearrange the ranking, right now we can't.

This is the same misconception that is perpetually repeated in the Mig 29 thread. It doesn’t matter if the information are already leaked (by documents or captured or acquired airframes). If a government still enforces restrictions, it will punish any (commercial) use of the information. (when it has the means to do so). And governments (east and west) simply couldn’t care less if that is logical or makes any sense to us.

GPS should not be active in a ‘95 mission for one, so the jet is INS only. I believe the date the Zeus set is for ‘98 or ‘99. For 2, radar is inherently problematic if trying to target for JDAM for multiple reasons.

This is an issue with foveat : The mask is applied on the viewport linked to eye rendering and not on the viewport linked to global rendering, That's why the mask follow eye tracking and we have a global "NVG" FoV, without capacity to look under NVG, because mask is on wrong viewport. I'll try to provide a screenshot from Varjo tool. But you can not reproduce if you don't have foveat...

Some shots, many of them with the lovely new S-3 Viking. Aren't they a nice couple? nullnull

You have to separate AI from human. They may seem like the same asset, but in configuration they are totally separate. Making a player controlled aircraft has its limitations, but you have a lot more wiggle room for workarounds since you can code around them. With AI you don't have much freedom at all, and with helicopters your freedom of configuration is tiny. But I don't really understand why ED has chosen to block some of these really basic features (like retractable gear) for helicopters, doesn't make much sense to me. Like for the EOS, it took me like a minute to get it working in the TB2 UCAV since it's a fixed wing aircraft, but the same feature seem to be blocked in helicopters. In ships or ground vehicles I can add weapon stations to my liking, but this does not apply to helicopters.

I like your examples here. Get the dots to start (Color) blending in with the horizon (Less contrast) at about 3-5 miles instead of 17 and it starts becoming more realistic. Or like I said, give the user the ability to adjust dot size and dot contrast to polish it off per user.

It really isn't. It's called “a challenge” and there are entire game genres — very popular ones at that — built on scratching that itch. It's also not unwitting. It's well-known and long-established that the game's spotting is horribly broken in ever which way. People have known about and been fine with that for ages, so how does it change now that the game is more enjoyable to him? It matters a great deal to you who gets what advantage; it doesn't matter to him (or many others). Not caring is not the same thing as not knowing. It really isn't. We've had to expand the number of servers we run to deal with the increased interest as ED have finally started to make headway with some of the game's biggest flaws and add new features that make missions — in MP or SP — much more interesting. Of course, I understand that what you wanted to say was PvP, not MP. Those are two very different things. Coincidentally, PvP isn't particularly broken either. At least not more so than it was with the old spotting system. It was just broken in your favour back then… That's not all that surprising. Remember, the old spotting system was broken. The new one is improved, not in the sense of “you can categorically see better” but in the sense of “they get rid of some of the silliness of the old system”. Being able to see contacts far too easily is one of those things that it is meant to address.

Yeah, no, it really isn't, nor should it be “obvious” that this misconception is true. At least not as far as “resolution” goes. You can dig out a 480p screen from the mid-80s and it will still be able to exceed what the human eye is capable of. It's not a matter of resolution but about pixel density and distance. Get a small enough a screen for any given resolution and place it far enough away (and neither of those two parameters end up being all that extreme), and you get the effect. We've already done the maths before, but let's do it again since the whole PPI thing keeps tripping you up. We are looking to go beyond the angular resolution of the eye — 1 arcminute or 0.0003 radians (i.e 0.3 mils). Let's punch in a fairly standard display, let's say 27" @ 2560×1440 in our trusty old PPI calculator. It comes out as 108.8 pixels per inch or 42.8 px/cm, or more usefully 0.2335 mm/pixel. Since we want that single pixel to occupy less than 0.3 mils, we simply divide the pixel size with the angle to get the radius (distance from the monitor) at which that pixel size equates to the desired angle. It comes out as 77.8 cm — about arm's length, which is how far away your monitor should be anyway. And if you stack up a bunch of keyboards and joysticks and table mounts and button boxes, in front of it, chances are it will be a bit farther away still. So no. Even at a pretty standard ergonomic distance from a regular monitor, it may already have beaten your eye in terms of how small details it can display compared to what the eye can perceive. Of course, if we mix colour differences and contrast into all of that, it can get easier still to trick the eye, although colour representation is one area where ye olde RGB spectrum doesn't cover the full gamut of what the eye is capable of (but that's more around the edges — even good old 24bit RGB does still allow for smaller differences in colour than the eye can resolve). But remember, if you have a larger monitor, that threshold moves further back. A nice big 4k TV becomes outright atrocious. For a reasonably standard 55" @ 3840×2160, the PPI drops to just 80 px/in — 26% lower than the humble 1440p monitor, and it thus needs to be placed that much farther — over a meter away — to make the pixels too small to see. Zoom isn't there to fix the issue of the level of detail a monitor can achieve. It's there to deal with the small coverage of that monitor — it's a field of view slider, after all — in combination with the fact that none of the distances mentioned are fixed. What is very tiny for you, where you need to zoom in, might not be the case for someone else, simply because of the physical position of exactly the same hardware. You ironically mentioned something about misinformation...?

Yes, 2d also needs tweaking, but note there are many different opinions here, including yours and it may not be possible to meet everyone's expectations. We will have to wait and see for now.

"Not before" as in the last patch, or as in with the 2.8 and earlier dots? Because contact loss was most definitely an issue before as it transitioned into fully using the 3D model. It may not have been as pronounced as it is now, with the VR contact dot being more apparent, making the transition from that dot to the smaller, less visible model be far more obvious and jarring.

The change affects targets viewed in low resolutions more than high resolutions. There's no account for screen resolution in the dot size, so pancake gets nicer dots (they are still dots and you can see them) but VR and 1080 gets big black holes of space stations. Again, its a setting implemented as a default, that enforces the setting before VR users can opt out and before server operators can enforce one way or another. It is absolutely back to front, objectively so. And more objectively, from a technical standpoint it has no effect inside 1.2 miles when you are in and out of that range in the circuit, and especially at the visual contact WVR when the dot flicks between on and off which makes it absolutely awful you can lose sight of a plane the CLOSER it gets. SO it affects you at the worst possible time, when you need to keep visual and has no benefit to anyone in the beyond 5miles range where you either a) can't shoot or B) have a radar - pick your 'either or'. So who does this actually benefit? Anyone thankful for this is obviously playing this sim in a completely different way that I cannot fathom.

Do you see the irony in your statement? VR users are vocal minority. Multiplayer PvPers are also vocal minority. For the people playing on monitors, on higher resolutions (yes, it's 2023 and people use something else than 1080p monitors these days) it was impossible to see something 2-3 miles away unless you actually knew where stuff was so you could focus there. Now, is the current system perfect, no, it's not. Is it better than it was previously? Depends who you ask. In VR, mostly people say no (don't have VR anymore so can't personally test and say my opinion). However in 2D I'd say hell yes. I can actually fly visual circuit without having to guess where people are or use zoom for basically 2-3 nmi bubble.

This is what happens when vocal minorities are listened to. This was nothing I ever wanted or asked for and its only made VR exceptionally bad by default. Watching dogfights from 20 miles removes the point of a radar, WW2 is now like watching a beehive tipped out, in modern combat people are now fox2 ambushing with radar off even more. How is this a good idea for the game when it changes the entire nature of multiple groups of players? The only people who benefit are offline players who can do what they like with the sims settings anyway. Multiplayer online group is stuck with enforced settings. This has basically made the change without giving the option first, its classic EDSA kneejerk.

I have reproduced and reported this. thank you

Hello, I don't think that the hornets DL should be able to make a tanker, in this case S3 a member, because trying to do so, the game crashes. To reproduce, airpspawn in the hornet and have a S3BT around and try to add it to members, you need to click it twice on the member.

I see. I was just wondering if it might have been on servers with generally older aircrraft that might not even be equipped with IFF interrogators (like the F1 itself). I don't know the Tempest server, but on BF80s most aircraft do have IFF interrogators, so there its definitely not the cause of you getting friendly fired. People are just too trigger happy way too often, but then blaming you for their mistakes is pretty wild tbh.

I've got it sorted now, thanks. Grim Reapers video helped.

I see the map as a kind of out-of-the-box experiment for DCS. As such, I was happy to support RB in the endeavour. But I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea. For me, I love the feel of it, and I have reasonable confidence the bugs will get sorted out.

Addyrazz didn't exactly help by not being explicit. [emoji6] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Am I dreaming? Somebody pinch me!

Setting aside that you've conveniently not framed them in such a way as to show that the circled contacts are what you're ranging, you should probably try comparing them side by side. You'll notice that the old “no dots” are actually more distinctly drawn, and darker than the supposedly less visible new ones…

i'm not aware of the "it's not realistic" debate, i guess i visit the forum far too rarely. Given proliferation of TrackIR and ability to check 6 while turning your head about 30 degrees, i don't see a point of such debate or lack of mentioned feature in VR.

When it comes down to it, the E just fits in far better with whatever environment compared to the navy Phantoms. I can have Turkish Phantoms in Syria, Iranian Phantoms in Persian Gulf, Israeli and Egyptian Phantoms in Sinai, and Japanese and American Phantoms on Marianas. You could probably fit other operators on those maps as well, and do whatever with Caucuses, but it still has more use than a navy bird for most missions. E model has played just as important of a role in its career as the navy Phantom has, even more so in some cases, so having that first is definitely preferable. I think most of us can deal with flying a land based Phantom for when you want to enjoy it and the Tomcat for anything naval based for a while. I have trust that HB will get a navy Phantom done, as it is a new module in itself compared to the early A model of the Tomcat, they probably would hold new module in priority while working on older ones on the side.

I will preface this with horses for courses, but my own personal opinion is different for what its worth. I have many hours in all 3 of the virtual planes dcs gives us you mention, but using your example of 4 different targets within a couple of miles, if you are set up already to use jdams in the Viper, all you have to do is move the tgp over each target, and press weapon release, no other button is needed. This is due to the SPI logic that is also present in the A-10, which i much prefer. I thought i wouldn't like the Mudhen because of the Hornet and same manufacturer, but i don't dislike the flow in the Mudhen anywhere near as much. I'm actually enjoying the Mudhen way more than I thought i would! Anyway, each to their own.

These are the same thing. Anyway, I really, really wish we could get some insight into what ED is trying to accomplish here. I was pleasantly surprised to see that spotting was mentioned in last weeks newsletter but in the end all they did was point out the new option. I can only speculate what their goal is, and everybody here (including myself) is judging this all based on completely arbitrary measures and assumed goals. The only clue we've got so far is that they recognize this current iteration doesn't work well in VR.

It would be nice to have a random weather selection option in the ME. Just some code that randomly selects from the many awesome selections that we currently have in the game. It certainly would not be as difficult as adding current or dynamic weather but it would add some nice emersion to the game, especially if the random selection happened with each time the mission was started. -Just some new guy....

@DD_Fenrir @Fred901 Experts need to stay, because... It is the opinion of users that evaluates the work and corrects the development vector. I want to remind you that thanks to users, we made adjustments to French airfields, thanks to you, English hangars and caponiers were made, and the French one was slightly changed. fr At the same time, the engine’s resources are not unlimited; we made sure that “London” and “Paris” differ not only in buildings but also in airfield infrastructure. We created products as close as possible to historical content, but the capabilities of the engine and large maps impose restrictions on the variety of objects - they have narrow time intervals for working in war. The map is constantly being developed, corrected and expanded. In the studio we compared screenshots of what was and what has become - amazing changes. We have now come to the point that we cannot focus only on 1944, primarily because when new airfields are added to the Normandy map, 1940 scenarios become available to users: Dunkirk Retreat Scenarios and Battle of Britain Scenarios. You once wrote to us that there is no need to limit yourself to a certain period, but now this moment has come: the map has expanded both in space and time. Therefore, experts, stay with us, keep your finger on the pulse. And we will do everything possible to take into account your opinion and your wishes in our work.

Not sure I understand this comment. Last week I spent most of the week on WWII bugs, no I didn't get them all as of yet, but I am working on them. Ancient threads being updated, while a nice idea would be a lot of work to do so. Generally reported is the last state we leave a thread in, from time to time we feel the need to reply something is fixed or other info but we cant always. General WWII progress is tough right now. The WWII team is very small and this year has been about some rather large core updates. Of all the teams this has hurt the WWII team the most. I will raise concerns with management but this is the basic reasoning why this year hasn't been a great year for WWII. I think most of you know I am a huge WWII guy so I feel your pain for sure on all these things. I know its not a great answer but right this very moment it is all I have.