Leaderboard

Hello all, The Mirage F1 is one of the cold war modules I fly the most, however I had an issue with the textures as I felt that they were too flat and pixelated. thus I took it upon myself to redo the textures as best I can. this is still very WIP but the list of improvements and work left to do can be seen below. in the meantime here are a few WIP images. This work is done in a more general fashion then my usual liveries in the hopes that I can provide a template in the end for users to create their own liveries with the new textures, the camos and the lines are the same from the original template provided by Aergas but heavily modified, while the labels have not been modified. Enjoy~ List of Improvements: Entirely New Roughmets to give the aircraft depth and detail Entirely New Normal maps (possibly in 8k if storage space permits) to remove the pixelated lines and add, depth detail and realism Entirely New Weathering which includes oil leaks, panel wear, and paint wear integrated with the Roughmet Heavily modified Panels and rivets to remove the pixels around the panels and reduce the strength to something that is more comparable to real life List of WIP items that need to be completed: Removal of seams and other errors Underside weathering Horizantal stab. weathering + RMs Improve normals, especially on the fuselage Apply changes to other variants (EE, BE) Here are some images and comparison gifs: Comparison GIFs Ingame Screenshots:

Engine and Governor System is ready for release

I personally can't really elaborate on real world usage; however, I can summarize the modes quickly to give an overview. Lets start with the loft/toss modes. You got 4 of them: * LOFT - toss your bomb at a lower pull angle forward. * Timed Over The Shoulder - toss your bomb at a high pull angle (above 90°) * Toss - the same, high angle. But this time you designate the target by clicking Bomb Button right above it, instead of over the IP * TLADD - similar to Loft, but meant to be used from low level and with drogue weapons Next, we have a set of more basic modes: * Timed Level - you compute a timer for a preplanned alt/speed etc, fly over the IP, hit hit the button and the timer runs down. Keep flying straight and level, bombs go away. * Direct - you hit the button and bombs go away immediate, simple. Could also be used for manual mil-bombing * Offset - you enter the target on the computer by means of an offset to the IP. Once over the IP, press the button and the plane guides you towards the target and auto-releases. Last but not least, your bread and butter methods of accurate bomb delivery: Variations of Dive Toss: * Dive Toss - the classic. Dive, put nose on target, WSO "locks" the ground return. Pull up and auto-release * TGT FIND: same as Dive Toss, but the target is designated by the Pave Spike TGP. This is probably the most flexible way. Put the TGP on target, hold bomb button and auto-release as soon as there's is a solution. Pretty much like CCRP * DIVE LAYDOWN - like Dive Toss, but for high drag bombs. You pull out level and fly straight until ballistic solution * LAYDOWN - like Dive Laydown, but without the dive. also for high drags. You precompute a certain mil setting based on alt/speed. Fly that profile level. Once the target is under the pipper, press and hold bomb button and keep flying straight, auto-release Technically, with the Pave Spike, there is another backup bombing mode called "Release On Range". There, bombs release as soon as the measured slant range goes below a set range threshold. In practice, most people will likely use Dive Toss and TGT FIND (if they have a Pave Spike), and Dive Laydown for high drag bombs. The four toss modes are a lot of fun, but obviously fairly inaccurate. Offset can be interesting if you have very bad visibility on the target area. Timed Level can be good if you drop a whole trail of bombs or cluster ammunition, as it allows you to just release level from high altitude with no visibility (above clouds).

F-15 guy does F-16 liveires Currently working on E-007 (HAVE GLASS) E-006 (Standard/Dirt E-603 (which has 2 kill marks and is more purpleish from dirt)

Ok, you may have emptied my wallet a bit more as I checked out some of the videos on the Rhino and I have to say it looks very good May have to give it a try… Personally I justify all this money as I used to fly GA for real at a cost of well over $2000 per month, this is all cheap in comparison!

This is why I like Reflected's campaigns. The primary win condition of each mission is pretty much to survive and get back to base, just like real life. It doesn't matter how many planes you shoot down or if you hit the target or never even dropped your bombs. I'm looking forward to see what he does with the F-4 as he hinted at something to do with Paradise Lost, but said a full Vietnam campaign would have to wait for a Vietnam map.

Hello after recent changes to swedish RB24J, there are still some things off according to robotmuseum in sweden. They also provide closer information on seeker heads and its sensitivity in microns, iam sorry but its not easy to find charts for this but overall what i found out. Seekerhead of 2.3-2.9 microns cant really see anything besides hot parts of engine. That would mean, its current tracking angle of 120° (off tail - 30° into frontal hemisphere) in DCS is about double of what it should actually be. It cant really see IR signatures of planes images 3/4/5 are from this research https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/21/7726 Missile info from robot museum says 2.3-2.9 microns, it should be cooled PbS seeker like on 9Ps, i sadly dont have any closer documentation on aim-9P but even if promotional papers shows increased acquisition angles or improved, it really shouldnt go above 90° unless they changed seeker to InSb seekers. Max 90 might be possible if they cross into 3.0+ microns territory but certainly not frontal hemisphere. I already made a post for R13M that eventually includes R60 and in that chart, we can see Aim-9H angles, which is cooled PbS seekerhead and missile is limited to 60-70° off tail. Another issue is engine. Papers from robotmuseum are stating 17 000N for 3,5 seconds instead of 5sec with 11 020Ns like in DCS, its using SAO-109 propellant which is indeed reduced smoke (correct as is) - 9P3/5s engine might be wrong too, swedish engine is probably just license built SR116, they share same composition. report for R60/R13M with Aim-9H RB24J paper from robotmuseum (can be also found on their internet pages https://robotmuseum.se/robotar/rb-24j-sidewinder/) + SAO-109 reduced smoke confirmation nullnull

No, if your base is under that kind of threat then you probly shouldn’t be landing at it anyways. If you want to wait that late in the game to check your weight then just keep in mind that the fuel dump is at 900-1000 lbs per minute, so rough math you are only gonna be able to dump 2-3000 lbs of gas by the time you are 30 miles out. If that’s not enough to make you comfortable then you will be landing. basic aviation guidelines for your descent checks, or preparing to enter the landing environment start 10-15 minutes before you land, which is usually 100-150 miles out. Checking your gas and adjusting for these purposes is second nature and just part of learning how to fly this stuff IRL. also what do you think is safer, getting on the ground safely without risking damaging your aircraft in a single approach, or holding 10,000 extra pounds of gas for a “just in case” air engagement that you then have to spend 10-15 minutes orbiting to get rid of. that just in case fuel should have been part of your bingo calculation and assumption before you started the RTB, not after you have fenced out and are heading back. If this is something you are super concerned about then just plan your flight to include holding for 10 minutes over the airfield with your extra gas, perform a CAP in case anything shows up until you hit your landing fuel and then land. If you aren’t planning on doing that, then just get configured so you can land ASAP and out of the way of whatever is going on.

Thats... what a plan means... A plan does not necessarily mean they are activly working on it. Their plan could be that they finish feature X before they start working on feature Y.

On the real aircraft, the alternators are checked to be "ON" during the "After Entering Cabin" section of the Cold Start Procedure, but this section is most often overlooked on DCS. Here is my take on the Start-Up, following the procedure of the real aircraft as much as I could: Mirage F1EE - Normal Procedures.pdf

The F-4E will hardly be the most primitive DCS aircraft. People fly the F-5 without crying about the issues you're worrying about. Same for the Mig-21, although it cheats with CCIP. As long as the missions have realistic expectations on bombing accuracy (given weak DCS explosions), we will be fine.

Well, this is an interesting take on it. I had thought about it and is nice to see other people seeing this as well. As much as a legend the F-4E is, and deservedly so, it is a step back from the "teen series" of fighter aircraft. I believe Heatblur will deliver a great product, faithful to the last screw and rivet, but that may be a problem, because as legendary the F-4 is, it is not without its 3rd gen idiosyncrasies, and many people will be surprised by that.

Clemenceau Class Upadate Beta 1 download link in previous post Different deck options can be disabled/enabled in the ship lua by changing which line has the -- before it.

Dear all, After talking with lee1hy, we've decided that he'll be providing the requested skins, and quite a few more. He does fantastic work that I believe players will enjoy. In the end, we want to provide the best possible F-16C liveries to our customers. After a careful review of the F-16C user file skins, we believe that lee1hy provides outstanding F-16C skins that meet our needs. Further, by using a single source, it greatly streamlines the process. It was my mistake creating this topic prior to carefully reviewing the F-16C user files skins before making this decision. Kind regards, Matt

Viggen POWER

80% of the complexity was modeling the pilot’s “Olds” style mustache and its response to G effects. The F-14 pilot is clean shaven - that’s easy.

Hi All The latest update will come via your Auto Updater. Or is available at https://github.com/Penecruz/VAICOMPRO-Community/releases/tag/v2.9.3.0 This update adds another Chatter theme targeted for Navy flyers using the NTTR terrain. It was part of my learning journey into the construction of the Chatter Extension. Now that is complete, it will allow the addition of other themes to suit new terrains. Also, some work on the UI and databases. It completes the work to ensure Vaicom Pro remains compatible with future versions of Voice Attack (Gary, Thanks for the help!) Complete Net 7 compatibility assurance. Added option to delete only the Imported keywords from the database. Added new Chatter theme Fallon.(Navy range and ATC chatter, includes some BFM training chatter) Added all terrains to the Kneeboard time zone check. null

I recommended Roughmaster to the ED team and I think he will working for the European f-16 liveries. Got OK reply from ED team and he is working now I only make US airframes (because update the old f-16 skin it already exists) Don't feed strange rumors or posts. This project is only with passion

We created a forum section (which I know you know :D), but once there is more info on pre-orders or other such development news we will share.

Yeah, 2.3-2.9 is very much not in the traditional MWIR region (3-5 microns) associated with all aspect missiles. So undoubtedly a cooled PbS seeker head. And at least if I understand the 120 degree reference as being 120 degrees forward of the rear of the jet then there is little chance of the seeker seeing the tail from most aspects in any reliable fashion. Whatever data exists for the 9H seeker should be generally reliable for cooled PbS seeker heads and generic acquisition angles, though of course that's all actually geometry and image dependent on the specific aircraft and its nozzle configuration. The one IR101 comment about the paper listed above is that while MWIR seekers can see IR plumes centered around 4 microns (plume is predominantly hot CO2), plume is RAPIDLY absorbed in atmosphere (as you can see the transmittance is near 0 in that region). And this seeker if it can see from 2.3-2.9 microns it can't see anything at 4 microns. The major advantage of MWIR seekers (PbSe and InSb was to be able to see things like plume and cooler airframe components from all aspects) But even there plume is basically undetectable past about 10km due to atmospheric absorption. null

Fantastic, thanks! That was exactly the information I was looking for!

Thanks There is only one livery on this F-8FN. Also the Jet blast deflector hit the jet on runway start. There are also some cat alignment issues depending on where the plane starts it's taxi from. Check thread for "the other" F-8. that Hawkeye60 and toan have been working on. There is a more complete F-8 out there. I got this one from one of their posts and made some tweaks and updated the specs for use will the Clem/Foch. It is in no way meant to be a finished plane

2 player options!!!??? I literally just came back to this post to ask about this.. So cool. Any idea of timing to do that? I don't have any experience with the Mission Editor and I guess I was hoping to avoid having to editing your current missions (if that's even possible) I use your Viper Proficiency missions SOOOO much. Thank you again.

Oh I’m well acquainted with the ‘move saved games folder’ threads . I’ve had myself tied in knots a few times. Worked it out with some help from here, Rudel, MaxSenna, SilverDevil, Flappie, they’ve all stepped in as well as admin with a support ticket when I’ve got myself in a hole. A proper band of merry wizards they are too. I have my saved games folder on D, stable and beta installed on C. I’ll have another go at renaming and reinstalling later as if the training missions are repaired on beta I won’t need stable anyhow. Part of my problem is I’m a bit OCD when it comes to backups. On one of my external ssds, which is itself backed up, I have DCS saved games folders as well as a ‘DCS Drawer’. In the drawer there are older copies of saved games folders, inputs, liveries, mods and god knows what else. It all needs organising sensibly. Probably by somebody else . I’m a couple of years into DCS now and have more of an idea of what I’ll need backed up etc so can strip a lot of it out. I hadn’t thought the two versions would be merged so soon as in the next patch. That’ll give us all another 300 odd Gb so good to hear it’s soon. Saying that, when is the patch, two weeks away? . DCS is going on a diet then. I should probably just start a thread for advice as I have a bit of a complicated set up. Over-complicated by myself and my crazy mind half the time. Keeps everyone on their toes I s’pose? I’m running Windows on a partition of a Mac with Bootcamp. I could, if I wanted to, almost double my C drive by allocating more of the drive to windows. I have a pair of external ssds, 2tb T7s that are in their packaging ready for me to make a mess of. There are 1tb T7s almost full with DCS saved games and other bits and bobs too. I’ll have shedloads of drive space, I just have to organise it all better. Trouble is, when I switch it on I can either fly, or get my head stuck into folders within folders and scratch my head at the mess of double back ups. If I start really trying out some magic, like redirecting drives and reinstalling stuff, it could all go pear-shaped at any stage and I could be grounded. So I have a fly. I try not to think about the glowing red drives and I put it off. It’s no good though, I’ve got two maps installed and I own most if not all of em so something needs sorting. Cheers for the nod. I’ll see if I can fix beta up a bit.

The 'after entering cabin' part is included in the start-up tutorial, but I guess it isn't quite as thorough as in the actual aircraft and probably most virtual pilots won't bother with that anyway, but the ALT switches aren't mentioned in that either. I just wasn't sure if they were worth putting in my guide/kneeboard - I reckon I'll just put a check item in there, that should take care of it. btw - they are mentioned in the procedure listed in the dev's quick start guide - just not in the actual tutorial mission. Nice document, thanks I'm really enjoying this plane - I was looking for a module to concentrate on for a few months and I think I've found it in the Mirage F1 - much more my kind of thing.

Sounds convincing! It will be a consideration for the future, for sure. I looked this up as well and hope to make this a future project in a man cave or something. The FFSB stick in combination with the F-4 might just launch the next stage to this addiction. Dammit now why did you have to put that out into the universe, now I'm seriously considering it... Come to think of it, my membership to the gliding club was far more expensive than a Rhino FFB kit.

Thanks <3. both E-603 and E-006 are uploaded and are hopfully up by today. HAVE GLASS is still WIP https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335764/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335765/

Hi @Rudel_chw! Good document for a more complete start process. Just to clarify, both the incidence test switch and the flight control test panel are fully simulated now.

Much like already mentioned by the gents above, I generally sit at 2800 RPM and approximately +12lb of boost in combat. Now if it gets wild quick and I need energy, I will push RPM to 3000 and boost up to +16lb. I find that all i need to do is trade some altitude for speed initially at those combat power settings (3000 and 16lb) and I very quickly the energy I need to quickly create separation and then re-engage on better terms. I made the mistake of when I was first flying the Spit to push to combat power and dive then wonder why I couldn't pull it up easy. Generally I will only need to sit at those settings for a short period of time - perhaps a minute or two and I always find myself pulling the throttle back to +12lbs in combat, but keeping the RPM advanced at 3000 until I am sure I am clear and I wind it back to the 2800 range and boost of +8 to +12lbs. Watching the oil and radiator temp gauges give you a great idea of where you are sitting in your use of power and how hard you are pushing it and when you need to wind it back. It can be easy to forget about or not have time to look at in combat For me, playing the various campaigns like The Big Show where you have lots of channel crossing I conserve the engine/fuel wherever you can - 2000 RPM at +2lb boost is great for conserving fuel and will keep you at roughly 210 - 220 mph or so - but you can't climb with that power. I Climb at 2800 RPM and 12lbs of boost, particularly in that campaign where you go to some of the higher altitudes. I Combat Cruise at 2650 and +4 to +6lbs of boost, which works well for keeping energy up in enemy areas. Combat: 3000 RPM and +8 - 16lbs depending on what I need at that moment.

Yep, I’m not saying it’s a bad map per se, but one that could’ve been so much better. The assets we have available for it doesn’t really help either (the complete lack of Iranian naval assets is a pretty big omission IMO). As for the name, ironically that’s what it was called initially, IIRC the reason given for the change to Persian Gulf is due to players being unfamiliar with the Straits of Hormuz.

Not sure about the stick dead zones - I had to put them in (usually never did) because my stick(s) was tripping the AP off in the A-10C. This was an issue with the G940 and my current VPC T50 CM2. That was with the 'softer' set-up, though - I just switched to the stiff springs and cams and have yet to test it, but I suspect I can ditch the dead zones for X/Y again now. Was baffling me for months, why the AP was constantly disabling itself! PS - as for the topic title, I think it's a total non-issue. Who is going to buy a plane without knowing anything about it (at this price, too) and then whinge that it isn't up to 21st century spec? No-one with any kind of credibility, that's for sure.

Looking forward to these

Hi, can you please add to the F10 maps two different layers for airfield names and airfield icons? So we can hide the airfield names and still see the airfield icons. This way we could simulate different areas. Thanks!

It's gotten awfully quiet around DCS in general but man some of the questions sure are pointless.

It will be nice to recive it finally. Quite long from the last OB patch, the last was in the December’23.

AI in general needs lots of work, ground and air AI. I'd love to see SAMs shutting down when HARM is fired, that would make it much harder to kill. In fact you would need one capable AI wingman (if in single player) or human wingman to kill that SAM. Then they magically turn on when they know you are in range, how do they know. IADS is much needed. Same for AI in the air, they know who you are and where you are from miles and miles away even with no Datalink or Radar or any IFF. But I guess ED knows this and works on this, the thing is that AI is really hard work and their team is not that big so we will have to be very patient.

OK, it will break the bank, but considering how much money I spend on experiments (WH, VKB, MSFFB) I think it is reasonable priced, the Rhino FFB. I will never ever go back to anything else. The hardware is still a little on the hobby side (3D prints and wooden base) - very well done though and taking the maximum possible out of it, I guess, but the software really brings this stick alive. All the options for tuning you got, just great. Yes, I don't need to bring on 25kg of force (I know, not the correct measurement) but the around 5kg ish makes a totally different way of feeling and "flying" the DCS Mods. I almost exclusively use the F-14 and I think I have my profile tuned well. The g something function for example, raises the force you need to apply to the stick with the raise of G. Since then, yes, I need to fight the plane a little more, but no more Over G in yanking the stick, and the feedback is enough to really reproduce a given G thru feeling. No more force needed pinning you to the seat (even so, in reduced form for me, that would be the holy grail), to actually feel how you are doing. The extra effects like guns, control surfaces moving and stuff like that are that much toned down, so that in addition with the jet seat, gives me the best experience for a desktop pilot, without going x deg of freedom motion platform. Worth every penny

OK here is my latest updates to the Cuesta brothers Clemenceau Class Carrier. Both Clemenceau and Foch are included with two versions for each ship (same model, weapons changes only) Clemenceau 1961 8 Main Guns 5 Secondary No SAMs Foch 1963 8 Main Guns 5 Secondary No SAMs Clemenceau R98 4 Main Guns 5 Secondary 2 medium range SAMs "launchers" 16 missiles. (fires SAM from main turret barrel) Foch R99 0 Main Guns 5 Secondary 2 medium range SAMs "launchers" 16 missiles. (fires SAM from main turret barrel) 2 short range SAM launchers 12 missiles Weapons are all stock ED that are close in spec to the actual weapons Important All testing was done with groups of 2 for planes and 4 for helicopters Enjoy https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArIUQEKgEWp8gfZU-i8dogiWI1iNTg?e=CmYU7d

100%. I've raced in real race cars in the '80's and did reasonably well - won quite a few trophies. On a PC my racing is terrible. Always has been. I won one online race in over 20 years and these days I'm at the back of the field. IRL I didn't race by the numbers as many of my colleagues did - I raced using the things that are all missing on a PC.

And on second look, that is also my ejection seat and my MLU panels on the nose between main1 and main2. I hope you are not planning releasing these liveries with part of my work included. Feel free to PM me to discuss.

I like the map, but I have to agree. It should have maybe been named Strait of Hormuz instead.

Once Helios gets enabled while in VR (a bit tricky) it starts getting interesting. DCS treats the main and secondary monitor as a single display and inserts the viewports in it, so we get part of the animated cockpit as helios background. Static elements can be hidden by panels, but RWR and IFEI retain a transparent background and look a bit messy.

@Nealius This is from Mosquito manual Spitfire manual Even in British manuals it is always rpm control levers or speed control levers not pitch control. This is from DCS mosquito manual I don't know from where did you get this, because i can't find it neither in DCS or war time manuals. In every single manual it is depicted very clearly that P stands for propeller, every time it refers to speed control or propeller control or rpm not a single time i could find that manual states that moving this lever forward it increase pitch. Only in this mosquito it refers to pitch that it governs pitch from 3000 to 1800 rpm. I can only find only one in DCS spitfire during start tu procedure player is instructed to move pitch lever all the way forward, but still does not saying that increase pitch, only move pitch lever all the way forward. And spitfire pilot's notes are saying that this is propeller control. Till now i found only one spot where name changed, in any other instances lever is named properly. Hundreds instances where speed control / propeller control is used and single one case where someone made mistake and name lever in wrong way. And on top of that DCS manuals are not free from wrong data. Ofc someone can say set pitch for take off, climb , cruise but by no means this does not mean that moving this lever forward increases pitch actually it is quite opposite.

Small update. Im evaluating new info i could scavange on painting procedures of the dora. As established the junkers pre manufactured jumo engines came prepainted in a light blue rlm76 and rlm81 green on top having a very clean straight demarcation line. Upon assembly it is said that the power egg was oversprayed in the blue-green/beige version of rlm76 and topped off with brown rlm81. Same method was sort of applied to tail section as these came premade from another subcontractor. The joint then was overpainted in the saddle section. With the mimetall 500xxx series this was done with rlm 82 as previously discussed. Pictures somehow underline aforementioned procedure as the cowling often has a misalligned demarcation line most noticably on the right side where the demarcation line of the power egg is somewhat centered around the middle of the supercharger scoop and on the fuselage the demarcation line is higher around the strengthening spars. This methid was explicitly stated for the 5006xx series. However there seems to be a tripping stone... rlm81 green and rlm 81 brown look very identical on b/w. Nearly indistiguishable... Also, planes like the blue 12 of the same series also had the top front of the cowling sprayed in rlm82 light green... that strikes it pretty odd given the fact how much paint was used / wasted and lookin at the dire situations the luftwaffe was facing... Basically youd have rlm81g/rlm76b then rlm81b/rlm76bg and then a coat of rlm82.... overspray a green with brown to be resprayed with green?? Sorta odd... It sure would make a nice visual detail but the question about execution and time investment vs result arises... Anyway.. ive got some books incoming that might help hopefully... Theres few minor adjustmwnts and fixes bein done meanwhile along with slight color hue corrections. Unique serial nrs were made for brown 18 and 4, underside spray pattern of the elevators were fixed, nr "4" was fixed in shape and dimension. The droptanks were colored rlm65 as it seems this was the predominant color. Also theyll receive some dings in the normal.

RAZBAM Mig-23MLA https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/1196617030233751573/1206823664109092906

What's 100% likely is that they're just having fun. Why is this even a discussion?

This is a big topic of discussion within the DCS Hornet community. Over the years, there were many people that analyzed how this system behaves. Others above have explained it good enough in the previous posts. What Marlan and Hulk describe is the Sensor Fusion of the F-18. Many look at the F-18 with F-16 lens, but the Hornet was innovative when it came to how it processes information. Datalink, TGP, IFF, Radar, RWR, HARM are all CONTRIBUTORS to trackfiles. In the real thing you can target any trackfile from the SA page even with RDR off. The Hornet's biggest advantage of any other aircraft we have in DCS is MSI (Multi-Sensor Integration), which is not modeled AT ALL currently. We basically have a Hornet with the L16 of an F-16. Before launch and 3 years into EA, ED silently deleted MSI implementation from the roadmap claiming "lack of evidence". After countless discussions in the forums and discord, they backtracked and alluded to the possibility that we will get some kind of MSI functionality but nothing more concrete. Many years have gone by and we still don't know anything new about this topic.