Leaderboard

Oida! Bist Du sicher im richtigem Forum? Wie kann man als Flugzeugbegeisteter sich so herablassend über die "Russenmühle" äussern? Das ist ein Stück Luftfahrtgeschichte und ein schönes noch dazu. Ok, Geschmäcker sind verschieden aber "Schrott"? Das einzige blöde an der 29 ist ihre mickrige Reichweite und der fehlende Rüssel. Als Version hätte ich natürlich gerne eine modernere, aber ne A ist besser als gar keine 29. Und wie bereits gesagt, haben wir zwar allerlei westliches Gerät, aber kaum etwas um die gähnende Leere des Ostblocks zu füllen und wenigstens ein bisschen Gleichgewicht herzustellen. "Röhrenfernseher..." Ich dreh jetzt ne Runde mit meinem fliegenden Gramophon (Bf-109), so schauts aus!

Was regst du dich darüber auf wenn dich die MiG-29A nicht interessierst? Fragst du dich das selbe auch weshalb wir eine F-4 Phantom bekommen, eine MiG-21bis haben oder einen Mi-8? Die MiG-29 als voll biedienbars Flugzeug wurde von vielen gewünscht und es ist ein schönes Zeichen wenn ED auf die Wünsche eingeht. Nicht alle sind scharf auf 4. und 5. Generation Muster. Wie manche nichts mit WW2 Flugzeigen anfangen können, oder solche aus der Kalten Krieg Ära. Für jeden ist etwas dabei und wird auch in Zukunft so sein. Das ist doch das gute an DCS.

Octopus-G christmas tree bags... appears a "Su-17" tail and a "Po-2" tail on the bag. Future plans, sure.

RAZBAM Discord

Oh man.... Gut, dass Du mit dieser Ansicht offensichtlich ziemlich allein da stehst.

Die MiG-29A wird die Lücke schließen (oder zumindest verkleinern) die derzeit bei den voll simulierten östlichen Fightern besteht, denn aktuell gibt es keinerlei russischen/sowjetischen Fighter der 4. Generation. Das wird die MiG-29A ändern und ist daher etwas worauf viele DCS-Fans schon lang sehnlichst warten. Und gerade aus deutscher Sicht ist das nochmal eine besonders gute Nachricht, denn die MiG-29A wurde sowohl vonn der NVA als auch von der Bundeswehr geflogen.

First teased in 2019, now that we are getting Fulcrum and Flogger it would be really nice if this unit - even as a static - comes with them.

Überlegene bzw. modernere Technik bedeutet ja nicht automatisch mehr Spielspaß. Deswegen hinkt der Vergleich mit einem realen Röhrenfernseher etwas.

and some more. Thanks to: Spino for the original mod Hawkeye for the updates Pedro Caparros for the orignial livery TeTeT for the USS Bon Homme Richard Toan and Citizen for the ideas To those I missed, my sincere apologies and a big Mahalo! Markings are mostly historical. AC Numbers are historically fictional. As TeTeT said the Crusader is a work in progress and has some limitations in both the mod and liveries. We hope you will still get some enjoyment out of it. seabat

That's the point. Alike you could say we already have Abrams in the game, so why making the new one, right? Yes generators are in game, but remember that some of us enjoy visual fidelity, not only for the game itself but also for the content making. Not all of the gamers are into MP air to air, and those who build missions pay attention to stuff like this, otherwise ED would not bother at all.

Vietnam War Vessels 0.3.0 is out: Thanks to the team for adding the F-8 primarily as an AI and static plane to the pack! While it can be flown as player, it's hardly tested and not very functional at the moment. Check the Limitations section in the README, listed here as well: Known Limitations ================= CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard - Player controlled helicopters slightly move forward on the flight deck F-8 Crusader - Aircraft is intended as static and for limited AI operations - Player control is experimental at best, but largely untested and unsupported - Carrier launch operations are not supported for player aircraft, only AI - Unknown how to drop bombs as player aircraft - Variable incidence wing is not enabled Excerpt from the Changelog since the last update: 2023-01-10 F-8 Crusader - Add no wing pylon version for French Navy - Various config fixes - New liveries by seabat - Model updates by Hawkeye60 Maddox - Add wake, thanks to toan 2023-12-30 F-8 Crusader - Initial release Maddox - Fix connects and sensor height Bon Homme Richard - Add wake, thanks to toan - Raise landing points to 17.2 meters - Use new parking positions by seabat 2023-12-26 - Prefix all mods directories with vwv Bon Homme Richard - Make damage args consecutive for DM table - Add Zabbie as tester to README - Change cat position slightly - Change height of cat connectors - Update screens with those from Sidekick65 The team is: @Hawkeye60 @seabat @toan @Citizen @TeTeT Enjoy the release, TeTeT

Not DCS related but rather relevant for current world affairs: A reputable Aerospace Company launched a tender to change the company logo to improve their image. Here's my suggestion to their marketing department: *runs away* null

DLSS on quality and crank up the resolution via OpenXR Toolkit from 3000 to 5000. Looks almost smooth as DLAA and runs better. 100x better than terrible jaggies and shimmering with 2xMSAA. DCS never looked and ran better.

It makes sense that HDD and HUD show the same information when you consider how it was developed. MiG-29 SEI-31 Fighter Unified Display System (SEI-31-01) is designed to display sighting, flight and navigation information on the ILS-31 windshield display and the IPV direct vision television display. The SEI includes: Windshield indicator (ILS-31), direct vision indicator (IPV), digital computer (DVM), character generator (CG), power supplies (BPN), interfacing and switching (BSK), digital processing (BCO). The digital computer and the blocks listed after it are located in the technical compartment of the aircraft. It was then further developed for the Sukhoi to improve on the information presented but not retrofitted into Fulcrum A.

Note: the Navy is not in control of the information the DoD is via ITARS, the only data that is an issue is the IRST systems. Iran's tomcats are already being retired, their AM program failed, as did their retrofit plans. A B/U would allow HB to use the current external and cockpit model (w/ some changes), vs retrofitting a new external model and cockpit (w/ digital displays) for the D. The Sparrowhawk HUD is leaps and bounds better than the A/B Minimal HUD (Closer to the Hornet HUD), the B/U also has the upgraded databus for a few newer weapons and stores. The D would also required a Flight Model re-work, as other than the Digital Radar and supporting systems, the Flight Control System was also changed. So if you break it down between B/U and D Model: B/U: Uses existing External Model. (A few tweaks to pylons data busses and appearance). Uses existing Cockpit Model. (Upgrading to a off the Shelf SparrowHawk HUD Unit and VDIG) Uses existing Flight Model and Engine Model Uses existing Radar and Supporting systems. Updates and Code revision for the upgraded Digital Data Bus. (And SparrowHawk VDIG). All Data is available (if they can find it, for the Digital Bus changes and SparrowHawk/VDIG Upgrades). D : Requires Adjustments to External Model (Adjustments to Control surfaces, wings, Chinpod, Intakes and a few other small changes) Requires Adjustments to the Cockpit Model (replacing all of the Radar Displays w/ Digital Displays, plus VDIG). Requires Updates and Code Revision for New Kaiser VDIG, Radar Displays, MFDs. Requires Updates and Code Revision for New Radar Requires Updates and Code Revision for New Flight Control System. (and Engine Management System). Requires Updates and Code Revision for new Digital Data Bus. Data for IRST and a few of the upgraded Digital Radar Systems are still blocked from public release through ITARS So Minimal Reworking for a B/U, Or A lot of Reworking for a partial D. Which one is more financially feasible from a business standpoint.... I wonder.. The Tomcat Module Honestly could have been separate Modules, F-14A (Early and Late) F-14B (B and B/U)

Oh man!!! Somebody tell to those people on ED that they must hire @Eight Ball before Microsoft hire him for MSFS!!! Come guys! It's still not too late!!

I would love to see damage model worthy of 21st century, like in GHPC (Gunner HEAT PC armed vehicles simulator) for example. Damage there is not based on a large hitboxes + scripted response/decals/animation but instead projectile and fragmentation paths are traced and damage to various components and personnel is checked. You can even review it afterwards: In DCS, at least in UH-1H Huey (which I love btw), damage model is very primitive. You can hit front of the chopper and after certain amount of "points" the main rotor or tail will fall off... Not a single paid model should act in this basic way in 2024. Edit: typo

We fixed it and will probably be included in next OB update.

ECM pods on the centerline is CAT I. They go CAT III when loaded onto the wing stations. Centerline tanks are also CAT I. However, if you do 3x tanks that is a CAT III. So for instance if you do 2x or 6x 9s and three tanks that is a CATIII configuration. TGPs and HTS pods are instant CAT III no matter what. But you will or should get a stores config caution with certain A2A loadouts as it is a reminder that if you shoot one off the rail on either side you are now asymetric which is a CAT III condition. Again, this goes with what I was saying about how it is the pilot's job to ensure he/she is in the correct CAT option as during flight your conditions can change. So know what is on your jet and you will be ok.

I'll add that low level stratus 4 preset back in and post an update. If you want to re-enable the default cirrus disable the mod in OVGME and delete the "enlight" folder in \Bazar\shaders in the mod path. Then re-enable. If not using OVGME restore \Bazar\shaders\enlight\cirrus.fx to its original. I originally tried to mod the default cirrus and improve the low res textures used. The problem is that I can't figure out any way to change the fade in/fade out behavior. I think it may be hard coded in the weather.dll as nothing I've tried in the cirrus.fx file seems to change it. I opted to try using the volumetric clouds for the cirrus layer in this update.

I already said, i find Fulcrum HARM intriguing, no need to sell it to me further. Joke aside, i think flawed, limited systems make for good DCS gameplay and immersion. When going up against SAMs in your Viper with HARMs, HTS and a capable human wingman, you are constantly reminded that DCS AI is rather dumb and that your mission lacks the operational complexity in which modern SEAD would even make sense. Fulcrum HARM DEAD against all odds seems more interesting imho.

I hope the second will be the Su-25A.

International MaxxPro Dash M1235

The X symbols let the crew know where they have fired a missile, so they can perform Battle Damage Assessmemt after the fact (which is why these locations are sent in a BDA report). It doen't mean targets at those locations are dead, it means that is a location at which BDA should be performed following a missile engagement. Again, these are all tools to provide the crew with information, so the crew can decide what to do because the FCR cannot determine such things. You can change the scan zone size, move the scan zone, change the priority scheme, use PFZ/NFZs, etc, if you want to isolate specific areas that you haven't engaged yet to avoid double-tapping the same area. But even so, if you see an X symbol underneath an FCR target after performing a subsequent scan, nothing is stopping you from pressing the NTS button to skip that target. The FCR is not a super-sensor. It cannot record a history of what has happened on the battlefield, it can only show the pilots what targets it has found on the most recent scan with an appropriate priority ranking. The crew must still use discretion and judgement before launching munitions.

Астанавитесь!

under the tree. Left bag have a Su-17 tail and right one seems to be a Po-2

For me the most interesting period for the Iraq map is the 80s and the Iraq Iran war. So many air battles happened in that war.

Hi Folks! Building on the lessons learned from my 3D printable F-5E/F-4E grip, I've been working on something new! Rough first print here, but once refined, files will be posted to my Cults3D page (in the coming weeks)!

That’s the odd thing about this module. It’s kinda already out in an alpha state. We can already play with it and get used to it. it’s certainly a pilots aircraft. It isn’t fly by wire, and will bite you in a hurry. I think the Tomcat crowd will love it. After full fidelity I just can’t do the FC3 jets anymore. Having my second favorite jet from LOMAC in full fidelity is going to be sweet.

I think DLSS quality is actually very good.

In DCS 2.9.2.49940 the DTT scan volume is not being centered on the secondary non-bugged target, it should behave per the following: In the attachments the track shows a scan volume centered about the FCR cursor (which is correct only for SAM). I have a screenshot below showing the incorrect scan volume centering aswell. EDIT: You guys might have different info based on new documentation, but it's really difficult since I don't know what info ED has which I don't. It isn't really transparent. DTT scan centering bugbug.trk

Thanks but really, Tobi did the majority of the work

Dude I can confirm to you that HDD and HUD show exactly the same picture, based on the Yugoslav manual. The reason for HDD was to ensure readability when the sun rays are too intense for HUD to be readable, and no this is not a waste. This display likely is the same one as in Su-27SK. Likely reason: component reuse and cost saving. Unlike more capable Su-27, Mig-29 was from the very first version developed to be guided by GCI for a limited amount of time, which meant it did not need more comprehensive SA, but rather help from GCI officer who had access on information about targets from multiple sensor sources. For this reason even in the earliest version, both automatic guidance (through Lazur) and verbal communication were provided. We do know that experience will be different than current FC3 Mig-29A, despite perhaps keeping similar flight model. The pilot will have to learn way more, and will have a higher work load. In some cases this will lead to better capabilities and in some to worse. At minimum: - Navigation system will be updated (I hope that ED integrates the ability to update it from ground at least) - EOS will be somewhat weaker - Helmet will be reworked, and finally will give you additional visual and audio information presently not available with our "green" circle. - RWR will have some advantages/disadvantages, compared to the current SPO-15LM - DL will have to be an integral part of the module. Just for the hint: it will also indicate redirection to alternative target, something we do not have at the moment which makes it very difficult to use AWACS calls under conditions of multiple maneuvering targets. Last but not least: even if you disagree with someone on a subject, please keep the communication civil and constructive. Next time people will be more forgiving in cases where you are proved wrong and forthcoming to help you in areas where you may not be so strong.

Hi All, a few more screenshots of the F-8 Crusader in action (AI only). Enjoy !

Вывод: не адский вес 16 Хелфаеров, которого нет, повлиял на то, что это редкий вариант реально применяемого варианта подвесок. Скорее, экономические причины и характер целей. Конец лабораторной работы

Well after going back and forth on this, I would have to say the new spotting dots ON mechanism is a joke, especially once you get used to spotting dots OFF. You have huge dots you can spot at long distances which are bigger than the previous minimal icons. You no longer need to use your sensors, radar, EW, SA page, just spot the "icon" and point your plane towards it. Spotting dots OFF is much more realistic IMHO, you can actually spot ACs at 10-15 nm if you pay attention, but it puts much more of a premium on using your sensors to spot other ACs. Seems to me spotting dots ON is just another form of ICONS which were created by the Devs for players who actually want to use ICONS since they cannot handle realistic spotting restrictions, but want to pretend they are not using ICONS. I would just remove the spotting dots ON/OFF toggle, leave spotting dots OFF as the default setting and move spotting dots ON to the ICON setting where it belongs.

X2...It can be so frustrating having to start a mission multiple times, just to get something positioned correctly.

аа, теперь понял - он имел ввиду модель повреждений от перенапряжения трансмиссии и перегрева двигателя))... Как работает в жизни: вертолеты Ми-24 (например) при боевых действиях в ЧР (и в ДРА тоже) напрягали и перенапрягали ПОСТОЯННО (думаю больше половины - точно). Но ничего не отваливалось. И уверен - ничего не "отвалится" на американском вертолете, если TQ выдерживать более разрешенного значения большее время, чем предписано даже в 2-3 раза.. На наших вертолетах "подгорает" не сцепление, а портится свободная турбина (СТ), а именно- ее лопатки. Думаю, что и на любых других тоже самое. Она оказывается подверженной наибольшим нагрузкам... Хотя конечно, без сомнения все узлы (от вала СТ до шестеренок в главном редукторе) от таких огромных моментов испытывают нелучшие минуты своего жизне-ресурса)). Двигатели просто "медленно" (в сравнении с продолжительностью одного полета) "умирают". Т.е. если через 600часов двигатель с таким-то весом вертолета и при такой-то температуре наружного воздуха ДОЛЖЕН был (при соблюдении ограничений) иметь температуру газов 780°С на висении "вне зоны влияния земли" (к примеру), то в условиях постоянного превышения ограничений он уже через 50часов имел температуру 830°С при тех же условиях (это пример). Ну и конечно максимальный вес для заданных условиях уже запросто мог не "дотягивать". Т.е. вертолет просто не хотел взлетать (условно), хотя по РЛЭ - должен. Но это я про вертолеты СССР (РФ)...Может американские "понежней"..)) Мое мнение, чтобы вертолет "сломать" по причине превышения TQ надо на максимальном режиме "молотить" 1.5 и более часов. и то, отказ какой-нибудь (связанный с трансмиссией или двигателями) будет происходить далеко не в 100% случаев, а с возрастающей по времени вероятностью. Но если у парней, что писали, есть конкретная статистика - будет оч.хорошо, это вполне можно сделать. Вся беда в том, что когда лет 7-8 назад подобное внедрили для DCS: UH-1H, пользователи-эксплуатанты наперебой уверяли, что такого никогда не происходило, не смотря ни на какие перегревы двигателя (трансмиссии). Мы там помнится сделали перегрев и деградацию двигателя в одном полете!)) Однако, если в DCS будет внедрено сохранение состояния "здоровья" (хотя бы на продолжительность одной кампании), тогда систему накопления деградации можно быстро внедрить, это не видится сложным, тем более, что уже так делали. ПС. а по ссылке в дискорде не пускает

That's a lot of crayons!

О блин, да чтож такое. Все втихаря хотят сломать нам симулятор. Глаз да глаз за ними))

As stated in this thread and several others, the AH-64D FCR (or any radar system for that matter) has no way of knowing what targets are dead or alive. The implication of such is outside reality. In addition, the radar system will not blank out sections of the battlefield simply because a munition has been fired into that location. This too is beyond reality and good sense. If I was a tank commander and started seeing my vehicles getting hit by missiles, I would just radio everyone to park next to tanks that have already been hit if I knew those areas would be inhibited from being fired on. Pilot's are not just button-pushers. They must have situational awareness of the battlefield and use all available sensors at their disposal, along with good judgement and training, to determine the appropriate course of action. There are many other tools onboard the AH-64D that are used in combat; the FCR is never used by itself to just "scan and spam" Hellfires. Nor do fighter pilots simply fire BVR missiles at every radar target that appears in front of them.

Be able to 3D view object and terrain on editor, so you do not need to run the mission to see if you have putted correct the ground unit.This will have a lot of time in mission editing.

The DCS F-16 Early Access User Guide page 238 "Dual Target Track (DTT). Dual Target Track is entered from SAM by bugging a second target.", which is what I did. No effect. Regarding the range hijack, I never flew the F-16C so can't say but it seems to me the programmer took the easy way of using the STT behavior for SAM and DTT. For Single Target Track (STT) the FCR control of display range makes sense, but for SAM not, as SAM shall allow stepping up to DTT, which can be at a different range to the SAM target. The solution is to do nothing for SAM and DTT, let the pilot manipulate range.

My impatience got the better of me so I contacted Virpil. They've said looking at the end of January for the first ones to go out.

Thought so. So they are featured in your missions, but not mandatory? If I may utter a humble wish - if you're ever going to build a follow up to this masterpiece. I would die for a similar civil (Coastguard?) mission-set for the Mi-8.