Leaderboard

Okay! Als Entschädigung für off topic hier meine Wittmundsche Discokugel:

we can not give specific release dates until we are 100% sure of them, you may not like that, but that is how it is. thanks

9-12 был самым легким и самым маневренным , да и самым красивым. Жаль что летал не далеко ))

DCS Version: DCS Standalone 2.9.3.51704 NO MODS Hello All. After talking with some friends we have discovered that the yaw/side slip angle in the Viper doesn't seem to be matching up to real life. So naturally I went on the hunt on the forums to see if there were any bugs reported about this issue and I was happy to report there was bug report about this issue but the issue seemed to be dismissed rather quickly and said it was correct-as-is. After further searching I was lead to another bug report that was listed as "Fixed" on January 9th, 2023. After jumping into DCS and confirming the issue is still there, I have decided to report this problem and put a little more pressure to see if it gets fixed. To describe the issue at hand when you go into knife edge flight typically around sea level you can maintain altitude no problem. We are of course talking about a clean F-16. When I tried this in DCS, I found that no matter what airspeed I was at I could not maintain altitude and the nose slowly sunk. In the previous post I refereed to above, it was stated to maintain altitude in knife edge flight you must be at 85 degrees of bank. So I went back and tested this out with no success. It stoked my curiosity so I went digging and found a Thunderbird HUD footage of them doing the same maneuver at around 10,000 feet. I noticed that the bore sight cross in the HUD was able to maintain 10 degrees of side slip angle. After looking back at the track I confirmed that the DCS F-16 bore sight cross barely even gets to 5 degrees side slip angle. I'm assuming there is something either in the FLCS laws that is preventing the yaw angle to get past 5 degrees or it could be not enough side lift on the body. I came to the conclusion it could not be the yaw rate limiter because the angle of attack is no where near where it begins to limit. There could be some false reading as-well causing the yaw rate to be limited. Either way it has been around 2 years since this bug was first reported and I hope the team takes a closer look at this. I have included a video side by side comparison as-well as the raw track file. Cheers, Panic VIDEO EVIDENCE LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WGqNw99EhY F-16_Side_Lift.trk

Let us be candid. Even if they released it today, the same people grumbling about a release date now would proclaim that HB missed their deadline. Those determined to be unhappy in life usually succeed. I’m determined to enjoy this module when it comes out, whether that’s 2024 or some other year in the future.

Heatblur (info for pre orders): Shipping in progress! Our office team has been working hard over the last few weeks and shipping DCS: F-4E pre-order bonus items worldwide. We hear some of you have already received your goodies! Unfortunately due to a slight delay in vinyl production and overwhelming numbers of pre-orders with physical items, shipping of some orders will extend into the beginning of March, our sincerest apologies for this delay. Note that we do not send you a shipping tracking number, however don't hesitate to get in touch if you have questions or concerns. Thank you for all of the support, it means the world to us. We hope you'll enjoy your new shirts and Of Ghosts and Thunder by Meteor!

I just realized the Mi-8MTV2 for DCS is a little over 10 years old. It is still my favorite module, having had it since early access. Here's to ED for bringing to life a phenomenal simulation of this mighty aircraft.

They've literally said it's ready bar performance optimisation, which is the current focus. I'm really not bothered if they don't give it to people to fly early to make videos. I found the whole F15E launch incredibly tedious seeing all these videos appear on my YouTube feed.

IronMike said on Discord that HB is currently right on track with their timeline. He also said if by any unforeseen circumstances they miss the said timeline they will give immediate notice to us. So any further speculation is completely pointless…let’s take the man by his word and see what happens.

Just to add to that, for AMD users the folder is: C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\AMD\DxCache

over exposure issue is reported I will chase it up thanks

A few more random tips from me: 1) In case of the probe and drogue system, after you connect, fly a little bit forward and a little higher and try to keep the aircraft there. Don't stay exactly where you connected, the hose will not have any slack and you'll have less room for error. 2) Keep practice sessions frequent but short. It's better to put in 10-15min every day (or however often you can) than 1h every once in a while. Practice for a few minutes and do something fun next. 3) When I was learning, a big milestone for me was being able to connect reliably every time, even if I lost connection quickly. I don't know if you're there yet? If connecting costs you a lot of time and stress, of course you're going to disconnect immediately afterwards, because you're all tense and worried you'll waste this opportunity. So a session where you don't manage to pick up any fuel but you successfully connect a few times is still useful training.

Several bug fixes were made to the mod. Weapon need more rework, waiting for upcoming major DCS update to start working on them. We Apologize for any inconvenience from that.

folks treat each other with respect and stay on topic. posts deleted thank you

you are welcome, thanks for being patient

bumped just to let here be at least one post in February, to support the team

BIGNEWY and I have reviewed and requested some tuning of the reflections, although they look more dynamic like our newer offerings they do seem too intense still. We have requested a review with the F/A-18C team. Thanks.

I try not to stare... It's weird

what about their probes ? lmao.

At airshows, they are governed by Public demonstration restrictions in altitude and maneuvers. in fact, the USAF F-22 demo team recently got in trouble for violating those restrictions. It was a fantastic show, but the restrictions are there for crowd safety. You cannot judge and aircraft's capabilities by an airshow tactical demonstration. I have seen all 3 F-35s as well as the F-22's current tactical demonstrations, as well as talk to pilots of both F-35Cs and F-22s daily. F-22 is more Agile Physically, but avionics were designed around old processors and system language which inhibits upgradability as well as battlefield connectivity. Couple that with the tooling still M.I.A. from the crates.. and we are down to what 182 flight capable units (I'll have to check to see how many were lost in the last storm). F-35 is a network hub w/ wings, that thing can connect to practically any battlefield system, pilots can literally see through their plane. yes, the Airforce airframe can pull 9Gs, but only in limited situations and configurations, (airshow configuration w/ no pylons and limited fuel being one of them.) Marines and Naval versions are limited to 7.5Gs globally. the F-22 can pull 9 G's in nearly every configuration. (except w/ external pylons attached, I believe they are limited to 7.5G) A single F-22 Pilot recently took out 6 F-15Es and 6 F-35s in an exercise, and not 1 pilot was able to get anywhere close to a firing solution on the F-22. The only negative things about the F-22A is the Processor core suite, System language, and the fact that production was halted in under 200 units w/ no chance of even ordering more or to develop an improved block w/ newer avionics. F-35 basically got handed it's job on a platter, congress decided to take money from the F-22 program and give it to the F-35 program. Super Hornet program was cut short for the Navy, and the Legacy hornet upgrade program was cancelled for the USMC. The only aircraft left that it was meant to replace is the F-16, it was designed to be a connected battlefield aircraft along side the F-15EX (and originally block III SH, but the navy has already decided to move to a pure F-35C Fleet in a few decades). The F-16s is like the Honda Civic of the export Fighter Aircraft market, there are endless variants and addon options . There's really 5 F-35 Variants, as some of the export versions have distinct changes that affect the flight envelope.

На форуме War Thunder. Как обычно.

some 727s

Now that right there is funny!

I'm a tanker guy. The holes all look the same to me

Excluding DCS folder, save games folder and DXCache ( C:\Users\Your name\AppData\LocalLow\NVIDIA\PerDriverVersion ) folder from "Windows Defender" helped my game run smooth with the F10 map and no over exposure anymore. Maybe something to try? ( Spudknocker video how to: )

Ever since BS1, it has been an inconvenience that the laser module gets repaired when it is considered 100% used up/damaged. Consider the following situation: I operate 50-100km away from my FARP/Airfield. I perform 3-4 sorties (sometimes more, sometimes less) before I know that the laser is practically used up. Now, requesting a repair, will not repair the laser module, as it is not considered 100% used up/damaged. Therefore, I take off, and perform my 5th sortie (or so), knowing that the laser will last me only a couple of ranging/designation bursts, before I have to RTB due to it not being operational any more (different armament not considered). If the last sortie then specifically demands precision strike (laser guidence), then flying towards the AO, expecting a short mission due to laser being expended, gives poor room for planning. Wanting to keep realism intact (service life frequency), I have three suggestions with regards to how to solve this: a) Allow for a laser repair at any laser lifetime value lower than x < 100%. This would allow to automatically repair the laser as soon as it has been used, at the discrection of the pilot. b) Allow for laser repair at any laser lifetime value lower than x < 50%. The idea is the same as in point (a), however here, you consider the logistics-side of the equation. Namely, the life-cycle requirements, before a component can be switched out. c) In the radio menu, make a separate "request laser repair"-function, which will allow for swapping out the laser module, which has a short life-cycle, instead of repairing the whole airframe. Of course, here you'd need to allow for a repair with 99% laser life, or less. It seems to coincide better with your upcoming mechanic for accruing airframe stress across separate missions.

The only person responsible for your expectations is yourself...

Yes things like focal point matter, we have passed on the feedback to the team so we could see improvement in the future as the technology (raytracing for example) in DCS improves. Thank you

Hi, If you hadn't done the rebinding after the BE update then the only possibility is a manual rebind, yes. If you were up to date, this update shouldn't have broken your keybinds. As I said, no major changes on our side so using the previous .cfg should be okay. Regarding the F-104, it is being developed with all the input options accounted for, so there shouldn't be any major remappings needed.

Geez F-22 and F-35 guys get along about as much as F-14 and Super Hornet Guys did in the 2000's.

The other thing to consider is whose hands final release is in. HB might have a release candidate that they could push out the door (and have it be a version that is worthy of first release), and ED still would have to pick it up and test and verify everything before final final release. So even if they complete it within their Winter 23/24 window, have it shipped to ED and in the same state as what the consumer ultimately grabs, I can already hear the cavalcade of comments saying THEY LIED!!! about releasing in winter, even if it were to drop on something like the 26th of March. They gave us a timeline, let's give them some faith (and some reasonable assumptions of wiggle room on that, too).

Do you realise that a few videos (even if some originate from Boeing itself ) with OSINT data, plus some guesswork is not nearly enough to make a full fidelity module for DCS? Plus , as you mentioned yourself, it’s radar is highly advanced and therefore surely equally highly classified. Like it or not, but the radar is one of the elemental systems of a modern fighter jet, so if that can’t reasonably simulated , why bother with rest, even if there was enough data for the rest. Which I‘m sure there is not.

Проведу одну параллель. Для милсима Арма спустя 10 лет вышел любительский инструмент, который позволяет делать карты на основе спутниковых снимков и автоматически расставляет объекты на месте зданий, лесов. Результат: вышли сотни дерьмовых поделий-карт с громкими названиями, с текстурами земли ультранизкого разрешения и неадекватной цветности, редкими объектами и так далее, будто сделано для игры 2001 года.

The real question should be, why do we even see them? I’ve never seen a real world photo of a carrier under power with these visible.

А там же пилоны без массы, поэтому никакой разницы нет. Там, кстати, есть ещё давний баг. Суть его в том, что вес топлива в подвесных баках не учитывается. И самолёт с подвесными баками виражит лучше где то до 2гр/сек чем без них Я писал ещё давно их ФМ-шику, но видать он так и не понял в чём проблема. Попробую написать ещё раз:

Keep up with what exactly? If we remove gaming, as the bulk of PC space isn't that, most end users don't do things that actually benefit from speeds faster than SATA. The random QD1-1T performance of most NVME SSDs is still below theoretical max of SATA. Queue depth 32 1 thread gets slightly above SATA capability (+150-250MBps). That is representative of how most client software behaves and has so for as long as SSDs have been an option. For gaming, Direct Storage comparisons exists and even they barely show a difference between NVME and SATA SSDs. So what she is describing (in 2012) could only be for extremely highly demanding situations or edge cases, and not the market as a whole. Not everything engineers gets excited about is as big as they make it sound at the ground level, because it takes forever for software to catch up. You didn't grasp context of her statement, and ignored that everyone else speaking were enterprise pros. SATA wasn't enough for the potential of NAND flash. See you clearly looked up this clip in an effort to prove me wrong. I actually understand what's being said. They are talking about high parallelism in 2012 when the highest end client CPUs were quad cores. NVME wasn't even really an option in client computers until 2015 (which still topped out at 4c/8t CPUs for consumers). There were some M.2 PCIe based SSDs that predate the NVME protocol. I had a Z97 board from 2014 with M.2 slot that wouldn't even know what to do with NVME. See you'd want to grow interest in things like this in the consumer space because it leads to mass production and cheaper prices. So many low-mid range end-user OEM computers between the inception of NVME until maybe 2 years ago still had HDDs as standard. You upgrade any one of those with less than 12 threads to an NVME SSD on a clean clean install, the CPU is pegged at 80-100% just setting it up and running Windows updates. So that argument doesn't add up with anyone that's been hands on with thousand of client computers. NVME drive costs only really started coming down when the real lowest common denominator needed them, Consoles. The PS5 having a user accessible M.2 slot has been the best thing for PC users with high-end desires. So late 2020 created the use case for the drives to start becoming more cost effective to be considered in lower end computers, which will have the knock on effect of more client software being written to properly address them. Yeah I guess your 2012 clip makes all the difference.

You should had gotten your answer as to just how unfeasible simulating the EX would be from one of those videos when they stated that "The F-15EX has one of the most ADVANCED warfare suites ever installed in a fighter"

^ It's all very interesting in its own right from technology development point of view (and I do mean it), but also getting quite irrelevant to topic originally discussed. Moreover it's certainly not a valid reason for this D-waving contest of who allegedly worked in IT on what and for how many years. What's the use of these 40 years if they result in superiority complex mixed with being stuck with single obsession while conveniently ignoring any different aspects and opinions? "Enjoying the chance to educate people"? Yeah.... rrrrright. Could you just please just not look at it from IT geek/nerd perspective for a moment and look at it from average flight simmer perspective for a change? At least if you don't mind getting off that high horse of yours. For average DCS player framerate IS be-all/end-all performance indicator, followed by stuttering or lack thereof and ending with mission load times maybe. Mind you, by "average player" I mean anyone who just fires up DCS client on his machine to do some short SP or MP flying, WITHOUT runnig dedicated server in the background, or live-streaming, or video processing, or crypto mining, or whatever else that would make storage solution (and the rest of his PC for that matter) more busy than usual. I know from my own experience that switching from two separate system & DCS drives to a single one didn't affect performance understood as above in any practical way. Framerate didn't change obviously, but neither did the other two factors, at least I couldn't see it. Who knows, maybe even got "improved" (so to speak) performance on average as that single SSD of a different brand I bought was theoretically somewhat faster than two smaller ones? I didn't know and didn't care, 'cause I didn't notice stuttering and/or load time changes one way or the other, and thus I never bothered to do any benchmarking. Not to say there were no changes - I suspect there probably was something out there, but anything single-digit-percentage is not worth attention. For the same reason buying two new bigger SSDs just to separate DCS from the system didn't make any sense either. It doesn't really matter if a disk costs 50 bucks or 50 cents, why should I throw money away? I tend to choose and buy my PC components as tools for the basic job, trimming off unnecessary glitter and gimmicks. Look, I understand that your're super passionate about storage solutions but whatever you mean by "technically superior" solution and performance, even if very important in previous professional applications you have experience with, here in DCS doesn't matter all that much and thus - well, nobody cares. Unless the person is in a small group of experts and enthusiasts who are crazy about minute details. It's almost like GPU geeks arguing over which new card is better when one card pulls 140 fps and the other pulls 150. C'mon, really? I get it, for them it must be life-or-death confrontation, but normal user is going to be like "Ummm... Yeah, whatever, I need 60". For average guy and not a tech nerd, alternative storage solution must be "practically" superior, not just "technically". Like in real gaming application, not in benchmarks or professional non-gaming applications. Like in not-so-old days of switching from HDD to SSD when even folks who knew nothing about PC/console internals noticed THAT performance increase immediately. Switching from combined OS/game SSD to two separate ones is just not comparable magnitude of change. In either case, OP specifically wrote in his first post that he does have his system and root DCS folder on separate drives, just like you strongly recommend, so what is this storm in a teacup about anyway?

Oh, no, I deleted wrong group, Ctrl+Z, there it is again.

It is to classified and there is not enough public data that can be used. Please be sure you are aware of our rules at the top of the page it will give you some idea of what information is considered unusable 1.16 Posting of screenshots, images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document has a limited distribution statement or it is classified. Limited distribution includes DoD Distribution Statement C, Distribution Statement D, Distribution Statement E, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controlled sources. When posting aircraft, sensor, or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document that demonstrates that it is 100% public and verified as not from a limited distribution source as listed. For the level of detail we have for our modules a lot of public data is required. thank you

Part Three – Conclusion: Here I will editorialize a bit. Without seeing the lift, drag, and thrust models used inside the flight model, it’s hard to tell if the incorrect CL curve and the incorrect turn-time curve are related. Either way, they both need to be fixed. In absolute terms the maximum lift is a bit too high, but that is not the problem I’m concerned about. The virtual pilot does not ‘feel’ it. What is immersion-breaking once you notice it is a jet with a small, low-aspect ratio wing generating peak lift at 15 degrees of AoA or less. Those are straight-wing propeller plane angles. Additionally, the way CL increases at low speed reduces the normal variation of AoA with speed. Practically speaking that will degrade the responsiveness of the aircraft when the pilot tries to control airspeed correctly with AoA, especially on landing approach. I think there is a reason so many DCS players struggle to make stabilized landing approaches in the -21. Likewise the steady turn rate being slightly too high is not the main problem. The main problem is the shape of the curve. On the real MiG-21, slowing down below M0.5 decreases performance. On the simulated MiG-21 right now it does not lose any performance, and experienced players know to hold AoA in the red and slow down to stall speed for maximum turn rate. This becomes almost a complete inversion of reality when thinking of tactics and flying technique. I don’t want to beat a dead horse much longer, but it’s worth saying again that there is not even one supersonic jet known to behave this way. There are too many diagrams to show here and many of them I am probably not allowed to post. Instead I will just list the fighters that we either see in DCS or know from public data do not turn faster at minimum speed, and leave finding the charts I am looking at as an exercise to the interested reader: MiG-19 MiG-23 MiG-29 Su-27 F-4 F-5 F-8 F-14 F-15 F-16 F-18 F-20 F-100 F-104 Mirage III Mirage F1, Mirage 2000 JF-17 Draken Viggen That is a long list, but alone does not mean the MiG-21 cannot have a second turn rate peak at its stall speed. What is does mean is that this behavior is only believable if specific data backs that up. The specific data we do have does not. Lift_uua_28_clean_2.trk Fishbed_sustained_7511_r3s.trk

Pretty excited to see that stick deflection strength feature, and equally excited to see it get back ported to the F-14. I’m a firm believer it was never supposed to be possible to tear the wings off in the first place due to the combo of eddy damper and bob weights.

I understand what you're saying. However, I don't think that excuses need to be made for why it's not accurate. This is something very simple to fix because of the way the paint kit is setup. The brightness and coloring should be fixed, and sounds like it is, so kudos to Lee1hy for taking that to heart. This is my rendition of Have Glass V. I felt like I got pretty close to the look. HG V isn't just a dark color it has a translucent/diffused finish in bright lighting. There is a common error of thinking that all the dark colored F-16s are HG. They are not. Some are just painted darker or lighter. Doesn't mean they have the HG treatment. You can also see the small amount of grit in the normal all over which adds to the effect. These were all made for the v57th. This is all the same HGV textures just in different lighting conditions or angles. 2 other people that have got the look right IMHO are Roughmaster and Texac.

At this point id rather wait for @currenthill to make all F-35 variants as AI assets, dont have to be flyable tbh

I got my T-shirt with a Parcel service today (Denmark).

The problem with software is it is too easy to update. It made dev houses greedy and developers lazy. How does this work? The accountants realized they can ship 50% of a product for 100% of the price and sell it 2 years earlier than if they waited for the thing to be developed properly. All they need to do is then promise future updates long enough to stop lawsuits. So that summarizes why modern software is the complete steaming pile that it is. There is also the problem that everyone wants everything yesterday. Short attention spans and self-entitlement are at the root of the problem.

If the wiki was fed from an open community database, it could maybe also include mission design best practices and tips for each unit. For example tips to deal with DCS AI quirks or "mini tutorials" on setting up a carrier group or how to setup WWII searchlights in a realistic manner... So basically a more open comment section for each unit , where users could share their findings...

There seems to be people who want something certain, or else. "If this map doesn't fit x criteria, then I don't want it." Green map, or else. Huge map, or else. Water, or else. Must fit a specific month/day/year in history, or else. No map is going to satisfy everyone. Can't we be happy that we are getting two maps soon that encompass two of the biggest wars of our lifetimes? If it doesn't have a specific base, is it really that huge of a deal that you don't buy it? Sure, all those bells/whistles would be nice, but I'm not going to refuse to buy the map because it lacks it. I'm going to buy the map because I enjoy flying, history, geography and exploring those areas will be nice. I'll make my own scenarios. Iraq is not a huge wasteland of nothing but sand/desert. Sure, it's super dry in the Summer. It's not North Carolina. But there are areas that are really nice, and in the North, there are some really unique mountain formations. Seasons would be really nice to illustrate. Example: It snows in the North quite a bit.

Please leave PC out of DCS, thanks.

Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2024.02.04 - 04.08.18.0125 - Trim1.mp4 Turret aim by mouse input, turret slewing works with headtrack and VR point of view and key input too. Animations will come after i got a few things sorted, like the boresight and maybe a ccip indicator. null