Leaderboard

As you might imagine I'm doing a lot of testing, especially units vs units. So I switch their faction around all the time. And I do it exactly as @Abburo, by using the 'Combined Joint Task Forces Blue' and 'Combined Joint Task Forces Red'. Every unit, no matter the configured country, will show up if you use these two. Another great advantage of using this method is that you don't risk messing up your DCS installation, we have enough of those issues already.

You gents do understand that whether you apply the astronomical, or meteorological definitions of the seasons, that the Heatblur statement of “F4 Phantom, coming in Winter 2024”, technically includes December, 2024? The only question is did they mean the whole month, or just the winter solstice to the 31st of December? We have a whole baseball and football season to wait.

I've been waiting for the Corsair since before the F4 was even a twinkle in the eye of Heatblur. And unlike the F4, the Corsair seems to always be close yet never getting close to release, If you wait for the Corsair, than all other modules are nothing compared to that(except possibly the Kiowa)

О пошла аргументация. Сейчас научат нас жизни и как и каким трудом надо деньги делать. А не вот это вот все.

Сути это не меняет. Да и дорожать видео карты как и автомобили начали гораздо раньше. Я помню дефицит видеокарт и как следствие рост стоимости, возникший на фоне майнинга. И как проклинали обычные геймеры всю эту движуху. И вообще тема не о этом.

Daily MiG-29 Polish Air Force MiG-29

I have made a small semi-realistic training mission for the HOT 3 missiles. You are a Cyprus Air Command Pilot tasked with performing a firepower demonstration at the RAF Akrotiri small arms range. The mission takes place at dusk, and can be carried out under NVGs or using the ambient twilight. Duration 30-40 minutes. No radio comms or needless voice chatter, just perform the task as briefed. Edit to state the obvious - Syria map required. null Cyprus HOT3 Training Exercise.miz

I must say I'm changing between team pitchfork and team "a fux it". Was totally hyped last winter, now I'm getting just frustrated, because I'm running out of lifetime. F4E is a dream forever for me and since VR is giving me quiet a immersion lately I just want to sit IN that darn thing, NOW.

Собрать домашний кокпит гораздо дороже, чем получить универсальный вариант погружения во все кокпиты. Ну а деньги, они конечно относятся к топику, но вопрос был "хотелось ли вернуться в 2д?" и на этот вопрос ни один VRщик не ответит "да" не кривя душою. 2д никогда не даст того уровня погружения, того чувства пятой точки и того ощущения вовлеченности в процесс, как VR. Единственным позывом вернуться в 2д является недостаточная производительность ПК. Именно поэтому я всегда говорю своим ещё не попробовавшим VR друзьям со слабым железом: "не лезь, ибо попробовав ты с этого уже не слезешь".

Well, there was a rather unpleasant discussion on Discord yesterday. So, Ironmike originally said that there will soon be an announcement regarding the release. However, a bit later Cobra stepped in and set this straight. Cobra said it will be more like a general announcement regarding things to come and expectations related to the module. NO release date as of yet. He made that very clear. Reading between the lines of that discussion you can pretty much say they seem to be uncertain whether they can meet the release window or not. But again, there is NO official statement yet so any speculation is still pointless…this is only a summary of what has been discussed yesterday evening and in a few days we will probably know more. Given the fact that that we still have not seen any raw and unedited gameplay we should probably not start the hype train yet. Just my two cents, of course…

002 has been released. Thank you again for the strong support of the authors such as King of Parrot Island, Current Hill and OrdinariPilot.

There is also the Sikorsky H-34, another solid one for MAC-SOG operations, SAR, and Cargo.

Absolutely need one of these bad boys to go with the OH-6A if you are going to do a heavy girl. It will compliment the Sandy when she comes out if you can manage to incorporate SAR capabilities on top of cargo. CH-53 Jolly Green or Sea Stallion

Another video of a dogfight. Using thrust-vectoring could provide you a very fast missile solution for the bandits but it would take out most of your speed.

we found a translator to translate CN to EN last year, but after two- three months, he said he had no time and quit, and we didnt see anything from him yet. still finding a new translator

Looks doubtful they'll make "winter" And that's just fine.

null

Our current Auto Flap Up FCS implementation is using sideslip feedback to control the rudder, which I consider as a bug, because the feedback is erroneously applied to the rudder rather than to the aileron and differential stabilators. The sideslip and sideslip rate feedback should be fed to the aileron and diff-stab above 20 deg AOA, as in FCC OFP v10.7 IRL. For now, I'm seeing rudders move with sideslip changes even if AOA < 20°. Test procedure: 1. Set an extremely turbulent weather. 2. Flaps to auto. 3. Press F4 to get a closer look at the rudder 4. Check if the rudder is moving with turbulence/sideslip changes. Use active pause so that there's no lateral acceleration and yaw rate interference to the rudder. Test with AOA below or above 20 degrees. References: 1. Park, David J., "Development of F/A-18 Spin Departure Demonstration Procedure with Departure Resistant Flight Control Computer Version 10.7. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2004. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2312 2. Mitchell, Eric John, "F/A-18A-D Flight Control Computer OFP Versions 10.6.1 and 10.7 Developmental Flight Testing: Out-of-Controlled Flight Test Program Yields Reduced Falling Leaf Departure Susceptibility and Enhanced Aircraft Maneuverability. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2004. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2372 3. Simulation Model of a Twin-Tail, High Performance Airplane, NASA TM 107601, including a set of FCC OFP v10.1 block diagrams (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920024293/downloads/19920024293.pdf) 4. NATOPS manual which is not quoted here but contains relevant info. According to the Directional Auto Flap Up CAS block diagram from reference 3, there's no sideslip or sideslip rate feedback in v10.1 as there was no sideslip measurements available to the aircraft. The feedbacks were only included in v10.6.1 (a test version of 10.7) and v10.7, together with the sideslip estimator. From reference 2 describing the sideslip estimator: From reference 1 describing the sideslip and sideslip rate feedback: Also from reference 1: Hronet rudder moves with sideslip.trk

Single player needs to have AI more realistic in performance. How about just a scalability function where things like plane performance can be dumbed down. I know this has been discussed to death, but it is a major weakness for those of us who fly in single player for many reasons. Perhaps just a set of performance parameters that can be input, say increase decrease by a percentage. Also setup an input for various failure rates on the AI craft for various mechanical issues. I believe that the war birds are probably second string, but it would be nice to make them less superman and more Clark Kent.

Unfortunately there is a bug in this updated version of Mission 1. You will get a fail mission when approaching the airfield. This has been fixed and the fix will be out in the next update. Apologies. Badger633

Yes, I've uploaded it to User Files, it's just awaiting approval.

Hello all, Today I tested this issue in detail, and I found that the aircraft that KB can't handle, is the SA342 Gazelle. I uninstalled it, and the utility started working again ... I imagine that this is in addition to the MB.339 but can't confirm as I don't have that aircraft yet: So, I will leave the Gazelle out of service for now, as at this moment maintaining my KB is more important to me.

Yeah, my intention was pretty much to let people know about the Discord discussion because not everyone is following that and this one is definitely quite a biggie, actually. But yeah, as you said it helps managing expectations to know what is cooking behind the scenes. And man…believe me, I am as hyped as you.

We all believe that. I think what we are experiencing now is a decided lack of communication on the side of ORT. IMHO, they are unnecessarily burning a lot of Karma and goodwill that hey had amassed with their great roadmap. That roadmap projected an update for late December. Since it was an early projection, and stuff happens, and the contents looks to be very, very juicy, people like me were very happy to see that. What now is a bit of a let-down is that ORT fumbled communications. Probably even the greatest optimist in the world would have been surprised if ORT delivered a patch on schedule. What many (me included) did expect to happen, though, was some kind of communication in lieu of a a patch - a status update. I don't think that any body here believes that ORT is holding back a patch to spite us - that would be silly. What is a bit disappointing is when someone who is held is such high regard fails to meet expectations. A simple note 'we are still working on it, progress is fine, we are looking at <warning: freely invented date following> easter" could have done wonders. I believe if you re-read the messages here it's not so much the fact that the map is incomplete and has bugs (which it is and it has), but most complaints seem to center around the fact that there has been quite some time since the initial release and no intermediate patch. We haven't even seen a 'low hanging fruit' update. Publishing updates can be expensive and fraught with risk, so to some extent I find this understandable. After some 8 months, I feel that ORT is approaching a point in time where it becomes increasingly difficult to explain even to their fans (I'm one of them) why we have to wait for so long for a patch or communications update. Either would be fine for me; I love the Sinai map, and have a couple of missions ready to release and just waiting for an update. Indeed. But that's more a comment on how far the community and flight simulation has come in general - rather than a reflection on the pros and cons of long release cycles. If I purchase a new VR set today and the experience was rotten, I would take offense if the vendor told me "sure it's bad, but just remember how far we have come since View-Master -- isn't that great?". So simply because it's been one hell of a ride since A2FS1 (my first flight sim ca. 1980) vendors do not get a free pass today. Not to be snarky, I think that is exactly what's happening, only different than you think. Many people look back and say "hey, that's 8 months since the release of one of the best maps ever, and we still haven't gotten a single patch". That does hurt a little bit, especially if we look at the incredible potential that this map has the great expectations that we have in ORT after doing such an awesome job.

Thank you very much Slippa, I too would have hoped that Ugra Media would have taken advantage of this... I would have done my best, too bad !

Would be cool to have Ouija Board.

Go into the file called "Database" in the country folder from CH, open the IFV, Navy or Vehicles folder, look for the item you'd like to change, find this line "GT.Countries = {"Germany","Ukraine"}", it's near the bottom of the lua file . Add three dashes in front of GT.Countries, like this ---GT, that will make the game ignore the countries listed, save the file. Alternatively you can add countries like this, GT.Countries = {"Finland","Germany","Ukraine"}. Doesn't have to be in alphabetical order unless you have OCD.

Tango you realise you’re travelling in the hype-train thread?

Aha... CH-53 and Herc, I've parachuted a number of times out of those two

I'd agree with @Turd Ferguson comments above, I installed the damper kit myself yesterday replacing the K-51 DIY damper mod

Предлагаю перестать делать неуместные отсылки На фоне происходящего, обсуждать какие то вонючие видеокарты просто позор. Особенно для людей увлекающихся боевой авиацией. Живем в тех реалиях что есть. С голоду никто пока не умер из присутствующих. Бывали времена и похуже, и без всяких событий.

Especially when flying helicopters against ground targets. When targets are shielded by trees and bushes, it's like they're inside a bunker. That + a ridiculous lack of splash damage + AI having X-ray vision to look through trees: destroys the idea of realism.

можно

The switches are worse than on my left-hand MongoosT-50CM from about five years ago, for that matter. I'm so annoyed by the garbage switches that I was going to return the Apache grip, but I decided that they would bother me less in practice than they do in principal (provided I don't try to use the push on most of the hats). @Vakarian, I kind of see what you mean, but the stems themselves can also be displaced a considerable distance from center before the actual switch engages. I hope your fix provides some improvement for you, but I fear that the bigger issue can only be solved with different switches. I wonder if we will see a design change in later iterations of this grip (in which case a retrofit might be possible). Probably wishful thinking...

Damper arrived today. Overall very impressed with it. I don't have my pedals mounted on the base, instead they're screwed through the carpet into the floorboards. Due to them being an inch or so lower than with the base attached installation was a bit tricky but only took 25-30 minutes. I made a mistake with the placement of the bracket so could only move the right pedal about half way. It was an easy fix but again tricky to get the 5mm hex key into such a tiny space to loosen it. I'd recommend only tightening it finger tight until the whole damper is mounted, then back it off until it moves freely along the shaft of the damper when you move the pedals. Push the right pedal to full deflection which will put the bracket in the correct location on the shaft then use the 5mm hex to tighten the bracket down keeping the right pedal fully deflected. Have used it for an hour or 2 this evening with the F-14 and it works extremely well. Damper is very smooth and it has eliminated that bounce in the middle that Virpil pedals have... I do use both spings though. Along with the counter balance kit Virpil's accessories so far this year are top notch.

Daily MiG-29 9.41 prototype especially painted for MAKS 2007

You can try the USER FILES on here and there may be some user made ones.

Apparently, you're one of the only ones interested! As you write, "it's a shame"! But there's nothing else I can do! I've offered my services to historically improve the map's airfields... If the team needs it, they've got what it takes, otherwise they'll move on and ignore the post... You mentioned DD Fenrir: maybe he's helping Ugra Media with a PM, I don't know... As for me, I'm done!

There's no release date yet. HB is working hard on the finalization of the module, ED will do its usual pre-release tests and when it's ready they will share their great results with us in the final release of the for sure beatuful EA F-4E Phantom II. Until then we will have to live with their last release info which was 'this winter' which gives many space for speculation or just the advice 'please be patient, we do what we can'. I'm team patience! Everything else may just end in bad feelings. Cheers Milan

Spot the Air force Cockpit doctrine pilot.

Yes you can: Make sure the little tank icon (show models) is ticked in the Mission Editor

Like I already said above: those are reflections 'seen' through a camera lens (without the usage of a polarizing filter). But that's not like the human eye and brain works that normally just shifts the focal point beyond the reflection. And as long as the DCS graphics engine can't handle true light rays (e.g. with the usage of ray- or even pathtracing algorithms) I would suggest not using them or at least tone them down a lot.

As a passionate photographer let me just add, that the picture above shows how a camera lens or video optic 'sees'. That's not exactly like the human eye view and brain works. Plus a real pilot would pull down its helmet visor (like seen above) to shield direct sun light influence and that helps with such reflections, too. So I think those kind of baked reflections have a lot of overdrive and since the DCS graphics engine can't handle raytraced reflections I would always deactivate them.

Ich bin da kein Experte. Simple Wege gibt es meines Wissens nicht, um das Ziel zu erreichen. Missionen In Missionen ist es im Prinzip denkbar, durch geschicktes Setzen von Triggern Einheiten zu aktivieren, zu deaktivieren oder zu zerstören und beispielsweise statt eines einzelnen Spielerflugzeugs mehrere Client-Slots zu platzieren, die in verschiedene Phasen der Mission starten; mit Triggerzonen wäre es vergleichsweise simpel, beim Spawn eines Client-Slots die Mission durch das Auslösen passender Trigger in einen entsprechenden Zustand zu versetzen. So könnte man Missionen in bestimmte Phasen einteilen und pro Phase einen Client-Slots platzieren, also etwa "Kaltstart", "Zielanflug", "1. Tasking (AAA)", "2. Tasking (HVT)", "3. Tasking (Überraschungsziel)", "Luftbetankung" und "Heimflug". Klar ist aber auch, dass man damit nicht exakt darauf reagieren kann, was ein Spieler am Anfang der Mission gemacht hat. Alle individuellen Einstellungen im Cockpit sind natürlich futsch, wenn man einen Airstart-Slot auswählt. Verschossene Waffen - weiß die Mission nichts von. Welche Ziele wurden zerstört? Weiß die Mission nicht exakt. Das wäre also ein Workaround, und auf Seiten des Missionserstellers ist das mit durchaus erheblichem Zusatzaufwand verbunden. Alternativ gibt es den Trigger "Load Mission". Damit kann man eine beliebige andere Mission laden; statt eine Mission mit mehreren Zuständen zu bauen, könnte man also auch mehrere einzelne Missionen bauen, die einzelne Zustände widerspiegeln. Vorteil: Pro Mission genügt dann wieder ein einzelner Player-Slot. Nachteil: Massiv erhöhter Pflegeaufwand, weil man Änderungen dann in jeder Mission vornehmen muss (Callsign, Skin, Briefing-Text, Wetter, Tageszeit - es gibt sooooo viel, was man nachträglich schnell mal ändern möchte, da ist es ein echter Krampf, wenn man jede kleine Änderung in 2, 3, 4 verschiedenen Versionen der gleichen Mission vornehmen und testen muss). Kampagnen Für Missionen innerhalb einer Kampagne gilt das gleiche wie oben bei Einzelmissionen (inkl. dem Trigger "Load Mission"). Grundsätzlich kann eine Kampagne am Ende einer jeden Mission einen Score von 0 bis 100 übermitteln und die Kampagne kann dann, abhängig vom vorher erzielten Score, eine individuelle Mission laden. Man könnte also soweit ich weiß für jede Kampagnenmission bis zu 100 Zustände kodieren und dann pro Zustand ein Mission bauen, die auf diesen jeweiligen Zustand zugeschnitten ist. Aber schon wenn man pro Mission nur 3 Zustände hätte, die dann in der Folgemission berücksichtigt werden (beispielsweise "Feinde zerstört, Freunde gerettet"/"Feinde nicht zerstört, Freunde gerettet"/"Feinde nicht zerstört, Freunde nicht gerettet") wäre man in der zweiten Iteration bei 9 Missionen, eine Stufe weiter bei 27, und so weiter und so fort. Das ist praktisch nicht handhabbar und treibt den Aufwand für die Missionserstellung und -pflege ins Unermessliche. Denkbares System Es gibt Leute mit Programmierkenntnissen, die ihre eigenen Tools schreiben, die sich in DCS einklinken und den Fortschritt einer laufenden Mission aus DCS auslesen. Mit externer Programmlogik können sie dann auf den Fortschritt einer Mission reagieren und darauf basierend anschließend neue Missionen dynamisch erstellen, in denen exakt die zerstörten Einheiten am Anfang gespawned und dann per Trigger explodiert werden, sodass die richtigen Wracks an der richtigen Stelle stehen. Einige dynamische MP-Kampagnen nutzen meines Wissens so ein System. Das ist extrem cool, weil es massive Freiheit erlaubt und das super aufwändige Platzieren von individuellen Einheiten im Missionseditor drastisch reduziert. Allerdings ist der Erstaufwand, um so ein System zu programmieren und um das Erzeugen von DCS-Missionen dynamisch hinzubekommen echt nicht ohne. Im Prinzip wäre damit auch ein Feature "Missionsfortschritt speichern"/"Mission an gespeicherter Position fortsetzen" möglich. Wenn man sich extrem viel Mühe gibt, könnte es sogar klappen, das Cockpit des Spielerflugzeugs nach dem Airspawn ungefähr wieder in den Zustand zu versetzen, in dem es vorher war (alle Schalter in der richtigen Position, korrekte Displays, korrekt ausgewählte Waffen, korrekt abgeworfene Waffen usw.). Leider wüsste ich nicht, dass sich jemand für Singleplayer schon diese Arbeit gemacht hätte. Und da "Fortschritt speichern"/"Mission fortsetzen" immer wieder auf den Wunschlisten an ED auftaucht, wäre auch die Frage, ob sich jetzt jemand die ganze Arbeit machen will, wenn ED so ein Feature jederzeit veröffentlichen könnte. Wenn es da was gibt, das ich nicht auf dem Schirm habe, würde ich mich natürlich auch freuen, wenn andere Teilnehmer noch gute Infos oder weiterführende Links haben.

Берите VKB/VPC. Всё таки у них выше качество/надежность и возможность настройки.

Excelent!!!

FWIW I dropped on the second tone, not the first one. AGM-154 is JSOW afaik, did you mean "for GB-6/LS-6"?

But also...