Leaderboard

I'll have to pass. Luckily HB's got me covered: null

For a while now I've felt like the mil power performance of the F-16 was a little low, though I chalked it up to the DCS version being Blk 50 as the GE engines favor AB over dry thrust. However I did finally get around to do some testing and it looks like there is a lack of thrust/overprediction in fuel flow even taking into account the F110's. I have tracks attached, though due to forum rules I am not posting the source info. I can send it via message. Summary of the issue: Testing at DI 102 at 34015 lbs weight to compare to data at DI 100 at 34000 lbs weight DCS shows increased Delta between speeds when accelerating under full mil power. This not only impacts acceleration, but climb and cruise, so the F-16 has a harder time getting to optimum altitude and uses too much fuel when cruising. DCS fuel burn at 510 knots is approximately 4200 PPH while the actual value should be just under 3900 PPH. Ideally some more testing is needed to see if this is more of an engine issue or drag issue, and it should be tested at more speeds, altitudes, and weights, but the condition that I did test is an important one as it's relevant to the F-16 in a CAP role. F-16CFuelFlow_35000FT_102DI.trk F-16CMilAccel_30000FT_102DI.trk

That may be your expectation, but it does not imply monthly updates. You need to be patient, if that is not something you are good with it may be best not to use early access and wait for a full release. thank you

@f4l0If there is anything we can do to mitigate this, please let me know.

On my opinion, ED is one of the fairest software simulation companies around ... the 50% new user discount is almost the same as the Sale discount on most modules, you only benefited from using it on any given date. Now you can just wait a couple of weeks, until the next DCS sale (the Spring one) and then purchase the F-5 and some maps with the same 50% discount.

Am I the only one that feels the Anton is feeling old and out dated? I really hope she gets some rework soon!

Since we're all waiting very 'patiently'...I thought I'd share this video I took of ZK-COR, the only flying Corsair in New Zealand johnny_frs.1_9b2e353b06984acc89f4b72037c36deb.mp4

Hi CrimzN! -- I´m updating some models and will be a medical tent (with a vientam style) -- about the VAB medical vehicle can you provide me a reference picture of it?

A little hobby of mine in recent years has been recreating US Tacital Demonstrations. This one being the Navy's Rhino Demo Team, flying the F/A-18F Super Hornet. This one was challenging given that the CJS Super Hornet uses the ED Hornet's FM, so we had to get creative with some of the maneuvers. I hope you enjoy!!

These were horrible and I always disabled them. They didn't gave the feel of being enveloped by a transparent composite bubble but instead like being inside a illustrated candy plastic wrapper. Dynamic reflections are functionally better, but with the current hardware they cannot be as sharp as pre baked "pseudo reflections". That's where the blur comes into play. In 3D there is also the binocular aspect and eases much more the visual impact of the reflections existence on clear day conditions. If they are made super sharp as some are asking, the distraction element will be much worse. They are moving and dynamic and are not static. IMO, there could be a slider from OFF to 100% opacity to these visual elements on options....or even a resolution option under "caution" advisory on changing the default value. Options and liberty to chose always triumph over restrictions and constraint.

You are hopefully aware that the F-4E FAQ section clearly states what exactly their definition of „winter“ is, right? In the FAQ section HB clearly says the F-4E is slated to release into Early Access during the winter period of 2023/2024, right? So why do you come up with that December 2024 stuff? Makes no sense and is not helpful at all. Furthermore, HB yesterday expanded a bit on the March 2024 release window. They did this on Discord by the way. They said they actually plan with the entire month of March so March 20th, 2024 is not their actual deadline to deliver the module. This is obviously new info. HB also reassured people yesterday that they still think they are right on track for a timely release as of now. So, since this might be a bit confusing with previous perceptions of their statements we should, as always, apply the good old rule „things are subject to change“…

Yeah, but your choice of helmet is going to create problems when you close the canopy!

When the F6F was shown in the 2023 and beyond. I joked that the Hellcat would come before the Corsair. I was joking because Mag3 had said they were working on the damage modeling and that was the last thing to do before being handed over to ED. So I honestly thought the Corsair would come out sometime after summer 2023. I'm not joking anymore, a high chance now the F6F will come before the F4U.

Version 2.1.0 - Update 20240307 In the end, it only took two lines. But the difference is major, and the potential has multiplied. It took me quite some time, and a lot of engineering to arrive at a solution that I feel up to the standards of DML: Shared persistence. What this means is that now, when you use DML, one mission can share data with other missions. This release only shows off that ability in one module: scribe. But you can see just how useful this is when you look at the trio (well, duo since I haven't yet released the third one) of 'Rescue Sandbox" missions "Angels". When you run these missions, all player achievements carry over between missions. Rescue eight people in Batumi, and when you then take the stick of your Hip in Cairo, your first successful mission completes your ninth rescue. More importantly, adding this ability only adds a single, easy to understand attribute to scribe's config zone, and you decide which module should share data and with which other missions: it's easy to share different sets of data -- just by supplying a different name. Most importantly, this new ability is 100% backward compatible with all your missions that already use persistence, and you decide if and when you want to support this. What's the bottom line? This feature allows you to create more and better cohesion between missions; it makes it easier to make separate missions feel being part of a bigger picture. This update also contains a small but important update to a surprisingly popular script I wrote some time ago: stopGap. It's a small fix that mostly affects helicopters: there was a chance that if a player respawned in the same helicopter that they just crashed, that helicopter could crash as well (yeah, DCS can be strange). Well, no more. All changes in Detail: Manual Main - Persistence: shared persistence - rvb RED and rvb BLUE demo documentation - various small additions Quick Ref - various small corrections and updates Demos - rvb RED (new) - rvb BLUE (new) Modules - cargoSuper 1.1.2 - fixed a bug for resetting cargo weight - csarManager 3.2.2 - commsRange attribute when mission times out - reset helicopter weight on birth - hardened communications for accidental multi-user player groups - factoryZone 3.1.1 - fixed a bug with persistence - objectSpawnZones 2.1.0 - added autoTurn option - ownedZones 2.2.0 - added excludeTypes option - persistence 3.0.0 - now supports shared data save and restore - scribe 1.1.0 - now can share data via the new sharedData attribute - stopGap 1.1.0 - fixed a rare issue with re-spawning player helicopters Enjoy, -ch

Classic DHL + Federal Express + UPS 727s are out now as Freighters skinpack 1 ! https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336188/ "Boeing 727 Common Normal map / RoughMet Textures pack" is also updated to Rev 4 with those F/C variants' shared files.

Came home from a long flight and thought... why not? I was low on fuel. About 1500 Lbs -already doing Mach 1.7. I couldnt really loose the two AIM-120s at the time but went for it anyway. Anyone else had a go?

Hatte heute eine Überraschung von Heatblur im Briefkasten

Honestly... not the way to talk to paying customers, you know :-). Especially the ones who are not too unreasonable. I even called out a specific bug that remains unfixed since... well... the actual release. It's not an obscure or invisible one. It's a very tangible one. Not cool, man. Not. Cool.

We have no plans to add the PL-12 to the J-11A, it would not be correct for the version in DCS. You will need to accept that.

Far from spring here in Finland any way

The solution proposed in the video is not good enough honestly. Adding some "proper" light objects is not that much effort for ED and would really help mission designers. Not just lights for FARPs, but all kinds of light source objects. DCS WWII would also really benefit from some era appropriate illumination.

Since a lot of the lesser used missiles and assets (such as bombs) have been receiving model updates and soon color options, I'd like to request the AIM-9M and X (to an extent the L as well) to receive the same treatment. Most impotantly the color of the current -9 M model and the Block I 9X we have is simply wrong and should follow the same color and marking scheme as the AMRAAM and 7F/M/P Sparrow. Mainly FS 36375. As those missiles are some of the most commonly used missiles on the most widely used DCS modules/jets I think they are really overdue for an update as currently having the 70's and 80's style white Sidewinders on the 2000's grey jets really is out of place and sticks out like a sore thumb on the otherwise highly detailed airplane modern jet models. Should be an easy and quick task for ED given how much work and attention to detail they have invested into more exotic missiles like the Kh-29T and 25L. As for the 9L, there should basically be two version to pick from, high viz and low viz as well as several different motors for the L and M, all with different smoke intensity.

I've noticed that the symbology around the contact is changing when bugging a contact, is it a choice or is just a bug/wip thing? I mean: - sorting number disappearing - altitude changing format At this current state it's not very practical to deconflict errors in sorting; if my wingman bug/commit on the same contact i bugged i can't know because the number on top of it it's not showing. It's showing only if i un-bug that contact. Video and track for better explaining and visualizing. Best regards and thankyou. F-16_sorting_symbology change.trk

@BIGNEWY First post with an external link always makes my skin curl..... sorry if I'm wrong. @NineLine

Basically both schemes are needed, newer ones for the F/A-18, F-15E and the F-16. And current legacy ones for F-4, F-14, Tornado IDS, Mirage F.1, F-15C, A-7E etc.

To me 'early release' implies exactly that: a pre-mature (i.e. not fit for production) release, meaning that we (the customer) must expect that the product has (even major) flaws. The fact that it is an early release unfortunately does not imply anything about if, or when, there will be updates. Those are aspirational, and can be seen as a reward to those brave souls who trust the vendor and support them with their own funds and help them stay afloat until they can get to a full release. IMHO, there's no implied periodicity of updates with an early release - but that is where a vendor/developer can differentiate themselves, can gain a lot of goodwill and reputation. Lately, ORT seem to have dropped the ball a bit here. IMHO, these early releases are a reflection of today's changed market dynamics: the need for developers to cash in early to relieve the pressure to refinance their project - and (lets be honest) it's a disincentive to actually finish the project (the sales have been made), so only companies with a broader strategy and vision will/can deliver a steady stream of quality updates to their audience after an early release. I'm hoping that ORT have that vision and will release a product that delivers on the great promise that the early release has. That's the bet I made when I purchased Sinai in its currently unfinished state. I'm hoping that ORT prove themselves worthy of our trust. And I feel that some communication from ORT could go a long way to assuage many of our disenchantments over the long, long time between updates.

Since the latest Pimax update I don’t have to recalibrate eye tracking every time. It’s a highly welcomed upgrade

The latter. It’s a full fidelity module, not an improved FC3 one.

Als Ausblick für die Zukunft: Hier in diesem Newsletter wurde geschrieben, dass es eine Speichernfunktion als Core-Feature geben soll null

There wasn't an interchangeable seeker. I think however it had to be set for certain bands, most likely on the ground. IIRC there were 7 bands it could use or be set to (or combinations therof), but I'll have to look that up. Also, the more I think about the limitations of late 70's electronics I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was 7 pre-programmed "threats". Most likely SHORAD and AAA radars. ZSU-23, SA-8, SA-6 etc. "The receiver subassembly shall provide the capability to scan the entire frequency band of A to G in a sawtooth" (this is where the 7 bands comes from, A-G, and its also pretty clear it doesn't mean Radar band "A" or "G" its just a generic designation. Probably refering to 7 different slices of spectrum, which likely correspond to "threat" radars. My further guess is stuff like PRF etc is either pre-programmed or has to be set on the ground if you want a different "threat library" as the harrier tac man never mentions any sort of in-cockpit programming. Its also entirely possible the library is just fixed. Also the guidance life of the missile and or seeker sensitivity needs revisiting. People are using these like HARMS and hitting stuff 10s of miles away by firing them at 30k feet etc. Here we go. Dokumints. Original Credit to Beamscanner. MY COMMENTS IN BOLD @Chizh Most of the following information was found via MIL-G-85742 AGM-122 Receiver Info: -Made 1984 -Uses a Local Oscillator/mixer to down convert the received signals to IF -Can detect PRF, PW and Amplitude --This correlates to a superheterodyne Receiver-- -Scans between frequencies "A through G"(likely a unique band code, not referencing NATO band codes as a seeker that small wouldn't be able to track such low frequencies) -We know it can detect an SA-8 and a ZSU-23 radar, thus we know it can at least see signals roughly between 7 and 15 GHz. -Generates a tone for the pilot to hear that matches the signals PRF. "WGU-15(XCL-1)/B" Seeker info: -Conically scanned. 'Gyro speed.. between 7-20Hz' -'Unambiguous FOV>15 degrees' -"The system gain in each of the four quadrants" Implies a 4 quadrant array ---Of note, the seeker must be able to detect linearly polarized signals from any angle (given the missiles chance of spin), but also must be cheap given its purpose. Knowing this, the tracking technique, the rough size of the seeker, and the time of IOC, the missile likely used a small 4 spiral antenna array ---Spiral antennas are cheap, have wide bandwidths, and can see nearly all polarizations. The band width these antennas provide would indeed allow the seeker to see the SA-8 and the ZSU-23 from such a small aperture. ---Spiral antennas have wide beam widths, making for poor tracking. Though, using the sum of 4 spiral antennas can narrow your beam width and increase your tracking performance. It does not use a 4 spiral antenna, its a parabolic dish like the 9C used but not exactly the same (picture included) null Other: -Uses PN guidance -"The AGM-122 was less capable than newer antiradiation missiles like the AGM-88 HARM, but also substantially cheaper, and its lighter weight enabled it to be carried by combat helicopters as well as fighter aircraft and fighter bombers." -"While Sidearm is less capable than modern anti-radiation missiles (like AGM-88 HARM), it is still a cost-effective alternative against low-tech threats." Likely can't deal with more modern russian radar threats i.e. SA-10/11 etc -"it was proposed to build new missiles as improved AGM-122B. The AGM-122B was to receive a new guidance and control system using re-programmable EEPROM memory boards." supports the idea of a small fixed set of radars it could detect/target --The above implies that there were some short falls with the AGM-122 guidance against modern systems. This would make sense if the missile used a conical scan tracking system like I hypothesized, as multipath effects, jammers, decoys, and amplitude modulation could cause to seeker to guide off target. Based on the following -PN guidance -no INS unit -no target plotting -the use of conical scan tracking (also called 'lobe on receive') The missile was probably very ineffective against radars with a scanning antenna. I imagine shots were only made on radars who's beams were fixated (locked) on to the launching aircraft. Reason being that the seeker would lose the radar every time the beam spun around to the other direction, in which case it might home in on a reflection off an illuminated object (think of a flashlight spinning around). Broadly agree, its entirely possible it would only target actual tracking radars, though possibly it could use sidelobes. References: http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-2/page2.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-3/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-4/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-5/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742/index.html http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-122.html https://www.onwar.com/weapons/rocket/missiles/USA_AGM122.html

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.

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.

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

Input lag was fixed in the last patch but was not added to the patch notes, the team are happy with the results. thank you

We have no control over third party work or priorities, they are in the best position to know what they can and can not do. I can pass on your feedback, that is all, but I think you all need to continue to be patient, development can take time, when they are ready to share news they will. Thank you

Isn't DCS World a huge sandbox? And I, when I was a kid, used to sit in the sand and play with the toys that I got. Ten percent were in my hand and ninety percent happended in my imagination. So if there's a Phantom in DCS World and it's as close as possible to the real Weasel... well, I'll take it! This has nothing to do with false promises or even malicious advertising fraud.

This exactly. DCS doesn't have and likely never will have all the correct units to make most missions historically accurate, so it just blows my mind when people get so anal about historical accuracy. This entire game is just one big anachronistic mess, but we make do with it because there's really no other alternatives to DCS. I'll be flying the F-4E over the Marianas in pseudo-Vietnam scenarios despite the fact we don't have basically any correct units and because it's pretty much the only jungle we have in game. The SA-2 is an 80s variant, the MiG-21 and 19 are both the wrong version, the ships aren't there, early manpads aren't there, the F-4E we are getting isn't correct for Vietnam really either and I hold out some small hope that Heatblur gives us the option for the early strobe RWR since they are going to all the trouble to make one for the early F-14A. Luckily the MiG-17F, F-100D, and A-1H are all in the works and will be correct for this, but we still won't have a Vietnam map by then and probably not napalm either. Just to screw with the historical purists, here's a KC-135A refueling a B-52D(WIP). Oh, wait, it's a KC-135R and a B-52H painted up to look the part because the correct versions I need aren't in DCS or available as mods. GIMP and my rudimentary skin-making skills to the rescue, lol.

Do you really believe the video intended to be historically accurate? No, it's for building hype as you said. As such, they made up a fake mission, in a fake conflict to show off the SEAD capabilities of the F-4E. How is that false advertising? The F-4E is perfectly capable of the mission set as shown in the video, whether it would have been technically classified as a Wild Weasel mission 50 years ago or not. We aren't in the 60s, 70s, or 80s anymore and like it or not, Wild Weasel has become the common term the majority of people associate with the mission depicted in the video. So they used the terminology people in general are familiar with. In other words they catered to the majority of their audience who is paying them by buying their aircraft. It doesn't matter that this particular squadron never did this in real life because DCS is a game! It's not real life and neither is the mission depicted in the video. Most of DCS is historically inaccurate anyways, with made up missions and conflicts, AI units from the wrong time period that fly like UFOs and see through terrain and clouds, aircraft missing weapons because they haven't been added yet, etc. It's pretty laughable to expect a marketing video to be a perfectly historical representation of an aircraft because that's not the goal of marketing a game. Heatblur is simulating the F-4E the aircraft, not making a documentary film on its real life usage. You've made your point that you dislike the video based on the historical innaccracies. That's fine and you're entitled to your own opinion, but the video wasn't made for perfect historical accuracy, it was made to advertise the DCS: F-4E module and show it performing the SEAD role. It did what it was made to do perfectly.

@skypickle, one needs to realize that the real cyclic and pedals in the AH-64 have force gradients holding them in place when the force trim is not being pressed. Trying to hold the cyclic or pedals in a very precise position against the pressure of this force gradient is difficult, and over a period of time would become tiring, which is the entire reason for having the force trim release. I think many players, depending on their hardware, develop a false impression of how the force trim is used if their hardware isn't simulating this force gradient. I've seen many videos online of players flying the DCS AH-64D without using the force trim, with the force trim reference remaining at the original locations and never updating. I can infer that these players are using hardware that does not simulate the force gradient of the real AH-64 cyclic and pedals, or at the very least nowhere near the levels of resistance that exists in the real aircraft. If they did, it is highly unlikely those players would be playing for so long without pressing the force trim. As AlphaOneSix said, when the cyclic or pedals are moved, the force trim is almost always pressed at the onset of such movement. This practice is especially important when making large magnitude movements of the controls to avoid what is called "force trim overshoot". This occurs when the pilot has moved the controls a significant distance from their force trimmed state, and is applying pressure against the force gradient to hold the controls in place. When the force trim release is pressed, this force gradient is immediately removed, which may cause the pilot to inadvertently jerk the cyclic and pedals beyond the intended position when the resistance against the pilot's muscular tension is suddenly removed. This can cause the aircraft attitude to deviate in a somewhat violent manner, as would be the case any other time a sudden and aggressive input were applied to the flight controls. There are exceptions to this practice of course, in the case where the pilot intends to return the controls to the force trimmed state. The best example would be flying along a route at a constant airspeed and altitude, with the aircraft trimmed in straight and level flight. Without pressing the force trim, the pilot applies cyclic pressure against the force gradient to initiate a turn toward the next leg along the route. This cyclic input is applied and maintained against the force gradient throughout the turn, and then when the pilot intends to roll out on the intended heading, relaxes pressure on the cyclic and lets the force gradient return the cyclic back to the original location, which causes the aircraft to naturally return to the same straight and level flight condition prior to the turn. If one is properly using the force trim, SAS SATURATED should almost never occur. In real-life, about the only time this would happen is due to atmospheric changes such as sustained wind gusts that cause the aircraft SCAS to flight against unintended attitude or position changes.

They seem to be live, if I move the reflection updates, if I open the canopy, the reflection updates, if I move pilot arm or lean, the reflection of the pilot updates. it wouldn't make sense to make it 100% prerendered and static, that's no different then the old texture based reflection.

I don't care, I don't have a pitchfork or anything else I want to throw around, they can take as long as they like if it means it will be released in a good playable state... I'll still be waiting with open arms.

Of course not. Collective position within the axis has no bearing on the altitude hold engagement criteria, as described in the Early Access Guide location that I stated above.

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