Leaderboard

I genuinely feel for you guys. Ran software development teams for near 20 years so did my fair share of expectation management. It sucks when outside influences disrupt projects and no amount of contingency can deal with issues like war and contagious viruses. I wish gaming communities understood a little better how these teams work, the distribution of skills, how pipelines work and how you just can't throw money at problems like this, that products like DCS have legacy code to navigate and peculiar undocumented quirks. When people used to ask me "just hire another developer" when we had issues with delivery I'd respond with "can 9 mothers make a baby in one month?".

Work in progress for the US pack update.

You know what isnt welcome around here? Incessant whining about things they cant control. How they do business is THEIR business much like how you do business is YOUR business. You go put out a 3rd party module and then maybe you have a right to criticize. But you are under no obligation to tell anyone how to run their business. Why are you still here?

Well, that was fun guys. Have a Corsair.

Yep, my current US asset pack contains a Flight III based on EDs Burke model, which actually hardly matches the configuration of most of the Flight IIA. So I'm updating my Flight III with a new model as well as an updated loadout and weapons configurations. I also plan to add a Flight IIA with an updated loadout and weapon configurations.

Good Afternoon Everyone. The Collision model for the USS Lewis Puller has been released in Ver 1.0.2. Currently, I'm playing around with texturing the Amazonas Class Offshore Patrol Vessel in Substance Painter. When you don't create the UVWs properly. it clearly shows but I will keep at it until I perfect it. The options you have in SP are endless. The Amazonas Class Offshore Patrol Vessels are currently operated by the Royal Navy, Royal Thai Navy, Royal Bahrain Naval Forces, and Brazil. The major differences I see amongst them all are deck weapons. WIP!! Stay posted. Honestly Beldin, I never knew about it. I will give it a try as well and compare FPS rates against Frame Rate. Thanks for sharing that information.

Eine Woche vor dem angepeilten Release, entscheidet man, daß man nicht 5-10% der Kunden als "Kollateralschaden" ignoriert, nur um ein Datum zu halten, wie es andere Software-Publisher regelmäßig praktizieren. Und Wochen vor der Entscheidung hat man den geplanten Puffer (der zum bsp. die Krankheitsausfälle kompensiert - ein Zeichen professioneller Projektplanung) genutzt, um das 5-10% betreffende Problem mehrfach zu fixen, um festzustellen, daß es immer wieder Auftritt, sobald neue Kombinationen auftreten. ( Ja, auch Heatblur hat nicht 5 Millionen Tester im Keller). Statt trotzdem zu Releasen, gehen sie den richtigen Weg und stoppen die offensichtlich nutzlosen Versuche dem Bug hinterher zu fixen, nehmen einen Recode in Angriff (der durch die Krankheitsausfälle tatsächlich etwas länger als eine Woche dauern könnte) und lassen sich einen Notfallpuffer bis Mai, falls was schief geht. Die bessere Alternative, wie ich finde.

это не физический круг , виртуальный. На КДП сидит специально обученный прапорщик и через бинокуляр записывает отклонения попадания от назначенной мишени. Потом начальник ВОТП это все переносит на ватман , где и нарисован этот круг и на разборе ты увидишь куда и на сколько улетел твой каждый НАР .

Die Logik von "Um noch schnell möglichst viel Geld zu verdienen, verkaufen wir unser Produkt jetzt erstmal noch nicht, sondern später" erschließt sich mir irgendwie nicht. Ich dachte immer wenn ich was verkaufen will, auch wenn es noch bugs hat schmeiß ich es halt mit den Fehlern auf den Markt, damit eben viele Leute es kaufen können... Oder glaubst du wirklich, daß ALLE potentiellen Kunden die F-4E Phantom II als pre-order kaufen und niemand erst den Release abwartet?

Promise, however though arranged for cinematic emphasis, all our footage in the trailers is taken and flown in game, as you would do yourself. So in a way it is actual gameplay footage, ofc minus say showing maps, overlays, etc etc... But everything else is recorded via gameplay, if you like, just cut, arranged and ofc complimented with additional footage etc to make it shine. That said, I of course know what you mean, and it will come before release, either done by ourselves or together with content creators.

Oh my....the sense of entitlement by some here...

Two points. One: the F-104 was initially just wired to carry AIM-9s on the wingtip stations. The Pakistani Air Force completed local modifications enabling AIM-9 carriage on inboard wing pylon stations, which was later adopted by other F-104 operators over time after the bugs were sorted out. In not sure if Spain was one of them. Incidentally, this modification resulted in the PAF F-104s losing out on a chance to shoot down an IAF MiG-21. A malfunction caused the F-104s AIM-9s to fail, resulting in two misfires. While under-belly (catamaran) and under intake fitments were trialed, few operators used them in practice due to excessive drag & deleterious impacts to fuel range + speed. Two, the F-104 was - and probably even now- an effective air superiority fighter. We must step back from the “Top Gun” images of airplanes WVR dancing and look at the statistics. Between 60% and 80% of air combat kills are ambushes- meaning the losing aircraft never even knew they were attacked until they got hit. No turns or “hit the brakes he’ll fly right by” aircraft jiu-jitsu, just a missile /gun pass on a totally unaware victim. People get hung up on E-M WVR chart dogfighting , but that regime is a minority of air combat engagements. When the F-104 was designed in the 50s, BVR was science fiction and infrared missiles were cutting edge tech. Kelly Johnson’s team designed the F-104 to be an air superiority fighter for the 60%-80% when you’d spot the bad guy from high altitude and just drop down to shoot them. As proven by the Operation Featherduster tests in the 1960s, the USAF F-104s were the deadliest fighters in the inventory. They even gave later F-15s fits. Today? With good CGI vectors, an F-104 would be a terrible opponent even for a modern Su-27 /Mig-29. Sure, those jets can do the visual fight jiu-jitsu better. But the F-104 is still hard to see, very fast, and clean has a better climb rate than the Soviet iron. Not that I expect Growling Sidewinder or other YT publishers to act accordingly.

Ich bezog das eher auf die Kollegen, die finanzielle Gründe wittern und schon über rechtliche Aspekte nachzudenken scheinen. Es verschiebt sich halt ein Liefertermin, und es geht nicht um Lebensnotwendige Medikamente, oder so. Warum die Kommunikation so ungünstig gelaufen ist, hatten sie ja auch detailliert erklärt. ...und hinterher wäre es immer besser gewesen etwas anders zu machen, das man vorher nicht wusste.

Zum einen wurde, neben dem technischen Grund, unter anderem auch der Grund genannt, warum die Kommunikation so spät erfolgte. Zum anderen muss man es nur lesen... Und vor allem verstehen "wollen". Den Refund haben sie nicht nur angeboten, sondern erweitert, indem du bei Meinungswechsel auch noch 14 Tage nach Release den Discount bekommen würdest, solltest du erneut kaufen, wenn das Feedback nach Release positiv ist. Ich persönlich finde den aktuellen Weg, deutlich(!) besser, als den Release auf Teufel komm raus zu halten und die 5-10% Kunde die von dem Problem betroffen wären auf "das kommende Update" zu vertrösten. DAS wäre in der Tat ein Indikator, daß Geld wichtiger ist, als das Produkt, wie wir es von den üblichen Premium-Titeln kennen, die dann am Release Day - gern zu Weihnachten - bei vielen unspielbar sind und im Januar einen Hotfix bekommen, um die Game breaking Bugs und Verbindungs-Probleme die "vorher bei 'Electronic A..holes' oder 'Übelsoft' keiner bemerkt haben will" zu fixen... Sorry, aber manch einer hier sollte vielleicht dringend seine Prioritäten im Leben überdenken.

Just a quick note to congratulate Polychop - because they decided to double down on support and updates for the Gazelle, they've made one more sale. It's my first paid DCS module. Although I've flown a fair bit in the sim over the years, I've only recently had time to dedicate myself to learning a platform properly. Between the included modules and the increasingly excellent community modules (if you haven't got the OV-10 Bronca, H-60 family or the outstanding A4 then you're missing out, they're brilliant!) I had plenty to keep me busy. However, the commitment shown by Polychop to support the Gazelle and the huge improvements they have made to it seemed worth celebrating. So, cheers PC, well done and keep it up! Tonker

H-FOV 120° V-FOV 102°

Heatblur haben in ihrem Statement eindeutig klar gestellt, dass man bis zuletzt einen pünktlichen Release noch für möglich gehalten, ja selbst als der Entschluss dann gefallen ist den Release zu verschieben war man sich laut dem Statement intern nicht einig ob das wirklich nötig sei. Das mag der ein oder andere hier vielleicht als unprofessionell erachten, aber was es definitiv nicht ist, ist unehrlich oder betrügerich. Wenn du nun unterstellst dass sie die Verschiebung schon länger geplant hätten, ist das ziemlich üble Nachrede!

There is nothing to change regarding sustained turn rate it is correct. G modelling is another topic and we have already said it will be improved. The team are currently testing it internally. thank you

Common courtesy to just let them get on with the job rather than deal with entitled moaners

Thank you admiral The delay problem of ESB-3 has been fixed, again, hats off!

Alles schön und gut.... bzw. recht und billig. Ich bin generell auch kein Freund von "Pre-Order" in der Gaming-Industrie und praktiziere es auch außerhalb von DCS nicht. Und hier tue ich es explizit deshalb, weil ich die Entwickler unterstützen und meinen Support zeigen will, und ich denke, dass viele (natürlich nicht alle) vermutlich die gleichen oder ähnliche Motive haben. Das Problem ist auch gar nicht, dass Enttäuschung oder gar Frust da ist und artikuliert wird, sondern vielmehr, dass manche dabei vollkommen über die Stränge schlagen und jedes Maß verlieren. Hier gibt es teilweise eine sehr crude Mischung aus Feindseligkeit und Blauäugigkeit, die - zumindest für mich - nicht mehr nachvollziehbar ist. In einer Softwareentwicklung kommt es Verzögerungen - Shocking! Klar, jeder darf seine Meinung äußern, muss dann aber eben auch mit Opposition rechnen. Und je aggressiver diese "Meinung" vorgetragen wird, desto heftiger fällt dann eben auch der Backlash aus.

I'm hoping that the release of the CH-47 and C130 is going to bring us a lot more in DCS when it comes to troops, logistics and mission progression in general. In particular I would love to see: Animation of actual troop embarking and disembarking Revisit to sling loading and hopefully fixing issues with physics that cause slingshotting. Introduction of the COW (mobile FARP) for refueling/rearming/repairing of other units. Dynamic Spawn point creation on the map / the ability to create new client/player spawn slots in real time. There is so much more potential for things other than combat that can be done in DCS. MOOSE, a variety of different script writers, server owners and mission designers have managed to graft in some of these abilities with some hacking - but for it to be fully functional and native to DCS would just be a dream. The ability to bring in non-combat players who fly 'the other civilian flight simulator' into an environment where they can contribute to a progressive multiplayer campaign without having to worry about combat operations - but where their flight has real impact on other people and not just flying virtual cargo on a MP server has the potential to reach out to a lot more people than combat alone does.

There is. He hid the links in his FAQ. You have to really read through all the questions in the FAQ because he hid the links so well. It's like a little puzzle but the reward for having spent the time reading in detail is well worth it.

Honestly, some people will always be d1cks and thankfully, most wont.....I was heavily involved in Falcon BMS and pre that Superpak for many years and that was a FREE software.....did not stop the bitching and whining about release dates and features and so on.........

USS Lewis B. Puller FPS Lag Update. USS Lewis B. Puller lag issue number #2 has been resolved. I had to break up the collision model into five parts. I guess the game engine reads large AI mod files differently. Honestly, not sure why it happens. Below is the FPS I received in the AH-64 after I updated the ESB collision model. FPS was 117 and higher as seen in the top right corner of the screen. Goetsch, I will send you the updated collision model for testing. Please share your results with the Forum. After, you share your results. I will release ESB Collision Model update 1.0.2. Thank you. If interested, I use an app called Frameview by Nvidia to test the FPS on my PC. The link is below. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/technologies/frameview/

We heard news a few years ago that a proper damage model would be added for jets but still nothing has changed. Is it a low priority task or has it just straight up been canceled?

This is a waste of time. I’m out

I use CH mods concurrently with the Massun Pack and have encountered no issues: So, most likely you have a different issue ... if you want you can attach your dcs.log file so we can take a look.

That part of the saga I see, well at least it was not repeated. In the mean time, I am going to enjoy what DCS currently has to offer.

One of the better comments I've seen here in a long time. Gotta love people discussing the advantages of a Hornet vs. a Viper in a dogfight in smallest detail and then ending up slinging AMRAAMs at each other all day long or finishing the fight slightly after tally with a -9x.

Das DFR und Fixed Foveated Rendering vom Toolkit sind sich in der Wirkweise beide sehr ähnlich. Sie setzen die Kantenberechnung und Details außhalb des "scharfen Sichtbereiches" herunter und sparen so (etwas) Rechenleistung. Beim "Dynamic Foveated Rendering" wandert der "scharfe Sichtbereich" mit der Augenblickrichtung (wofür man allerdings eine Brille mit Eyetracking benötigt), während beim "Fixed Foveated Rendering" des Toolkits der "scharfe Sichtbereich" immer fest in der Mitte der Brille liegt. Bei meinem Headset ist der Performancegewinn zwischen "Dynamic Foveated Rendering" und "Fixed Foveated Rendering" so gut wie nicht vorhanden. Woher auch? Es ist ja die gleiche Technik! Quadviews nutzt eine andere Technik und verwirklicht dadurch gegenüber DFR und FFR des Toolkits einen gewaltigen Performanceboost. Quadviews hat auch einen "scharfen Sichtbereich" in der Bildmitte. Aber im Gegensatz zu DFR und FFR verringert es die Pixelzahl ausserhalb des "scharfen Sichtbereiches", was wirklich massiv Rechenleistung einspart. Quadviews funktioniert aber nur mit einer potenten CPU, denn Quadviews verlagert Rechenarbeit von der GPU zur CPU. Deshalb braucht die CPU noch ordentlich Luft nach oben beim Einsatz von Quadviews. Um auf die Eingangsfrage zurückzukommen: Ja, Quadviews bringt gegenüber dem FFR aus dem Toolkit einen massiven Gewinn an Leistung. Eine FPS-Steigerung im Optimalfall von bis zu 40%-50% sind mit Quadviews drin gegenüber FFR. (Hängt natürlich auch maßgeblich von den Settings und der Hardware ab)

You can measure it in Tacview or try the "SustainedTurnRateMissionF16.miz". I uploaded it. Unfortunately the refresh rate is not too good, but it gives you a clue in the cockpit. As @MTM was very thankful in a PM about my track file dogfighting the Mig29 with 3000 lbs of fuel by not stubbornly trying to outrate it, using bursts of the full 9G and 21 degrees per second capability instead, I feel that it is necessary to answer these questions about out rating an opponent also with the advice that out rating is not the solution for all of the engagements you'll end up in the F16. In fact it mostly is not. That encouraged me to try the initial setup with 7000 lbs of fuel @MTM requested. Although it is not possible to outrate the Mig 29 you can defeat it with by bringing a lot of speed into the merge. Again, whats needed is the capability of the DCS pilot to sustain 9G for around 15 seconds. I was using 8+ G for 13 seconds and for 17 seconds in that engagement. And ended up in his control zone. Even with 7000 lbs of fuel. (track attached) So please ED @BIGNEWY. As even your demo for the sustained turn rate was with g effects off : Do us and yourself a favor and consider to adjust the G tolerance of the DCS pilot for the F16 soon. It makes it much easier in these arguments about the DCS F16 "performance in dogfights" if not only the F16 performance is correct as is, but also the performance of the DCS pilot meets real world requirements. SustainedTurnRateMissionF16.miz Mig 29 vs F16 7000 lbs fuel no sustained turning with no g modelling.trk

Maybe you have the ME historic filter enabled? its the clock thingy on the status bar, it is compatible only with official planes. +1 ... CH has developed dozens of assets, for me it would be impractical to keep track of which individual assets I'm using on each mission I make, so it makes sense to have them grouped.

From 2024 newsletter: Infantry Unit Improvements. We will be working on new infantry models and animations in 2024 along with more life-like behaviors. CH-47F coming with sling loading, by now, we dont know your features and fixes. No planed yet, but surely will coming more in the future. Dynamic Spawn point creation has on develop by ED, first on bases.

Hi all. I've sent this internally for analysis. Thanks.

Still broken? In general, my asset packs tend to have issues the first couple of days after a DCS update, since there is no way for me to get information about DCS changes until it's released. Just like everyone else. But I usually release fixes for anything broken within a couple of days. More or less all of the issues like the one you mention is on the user side. I test all my assets simultaneously to ensure they don't conflict. Check my FAQ: https://www.currenthill.com/faq. Especially the first one.

Ich kenne meine Prioritäten sehr genau - und Computerspiele und deren Releasedaten gehören sicher nicht dazu. Mir ging es, wie andere auch um „gute öffentliche Kommunikation“ - etwas von dem ich selbstbewusst behaupte, durchaus professionell Ahnung zu haben. Man kann gerne von mir aus alles rechtfertigen, entschuldigen usw. und dies auch glaubwürdig kommunizieren. Hier geht es v.a. darum, dass letztes Jahr sehr vollmundig und mit werbewirksamem Hypetrain ein kommendes Produkt im Vorverkauf beworben wurde und zudem mit einem Veröffentlichungsversprechen, das den Eindruck erweckt hat, es ginge nur noch um Polishing und die Freigabe seitens ED. Und eine Woche vor der angekündigten Veröffentlichungsfrist, fällt „plötzlich“ auf, dass schon kurz nach dem Start des Vorverkauf entscheidende Mitarbeiter durch Corona ausfallen und dann merkt man erst spät, dass wesentliche Teile der stark beworbenen Technik gar nicht zum Laufen gebracht und neu gedacht und gemacht werden müssen und da glaubt man trotzdem bis eine Woche vorher, dass der Termin noch gehalten werden kann, obwohl das Produkt bis da noch nicht einmal zur Freigabe bei ED eingereicht war? Ich entschuldige für eines meiner Hobbies wirklich viel. „Two (more) weeks“ ist ja mittlerweile auch Running Gag und Synonym für die Entwicklung. Trotzdem lass ich mich ungern für dumm verkaufen. Klar: es dauert bis es fertig ist. Und vermutlich ärgere ich (und viele andere) mich v.a. über mich selbst, dass ich mich wieder aus Enthusiasmus, Vorfreude usw. habe hinreißen lassen, in Vorschuss zu gehen. Ich hätte es besser wissen müssen. Und ich werde mir das merken - diesmal garantiert. Wenn das aber immer mehr so geht wie mir, der mittlerweile genug kaum genutztes Material im virtuellen Hangar stehen hat, um sich zwei Restleben damit zu beschäftigen, dann wird EDs Early Access Finanzmodell absehbar versiegen. Ob dann noch genug Finanzkraft dahinter steckt, das Produkt am Leben zu erhalten, sollten sich vllt. besonders die Verteidiger dieser Geschäftspraxis gut durchdenken und hoffen, dass sie absehbar die Mehrheit der zahlungswilligen Kunden darstellen. tl&dr: sh*t happens - lässt sich aber meist durch pro-aktive, offene und rechtzeitige Kommunikation einfangen, bevor es den berüchtigten „Fan“ trifft.

The graph provided is relevant for the La-5FN with the same wing. From reports, we know that this detrimental phenomenon has been reduced for the La-7, hence the decrease in the drop effect on the graph.

Update: Tried changing around the settings again to see what is causing the issue. The microphone test is now working with the following settings without needing to use Nvidia Broadcast as the microphone audio source. I can use the microphone input directly from my sound card. To fix this, I had to lower the microphone sample rate to 48000Hz. I also cannot set headphones to be the same audio output as the main audio out on my sound card. DCS main audio out through my sound card works fine. The root cause of DCS not detecting my microphone appears to be that DCS cannot handle audio input exceeding 48000Hz. My sound card supports up to 32Bit 96Khz on the microphone input and audio output.

Ok

It’s worth a pass over with lessons learned with the past year or so of this feature for developers to maybe take a look before final release. Also probably best before manual comes out, but I know that’s complex If anyone does want microswitches working in game like reality, I taped these to my pedals lol https://a.co/d/53pYra5

Pure Spekulation. Und nach der ausführlichen (und meines Erachtens glaubwürdigen) Erklärung, die HB abgegeben hat eher unwahrscheinlich. Das ist geht schon Richtung üble Unterstellung. Vollkommen aus dem Abseits wie ich finde. Ich muss mich schon fragen, warum manche Leute grundsätzlich böse Absichten oder Vorsatz unterstellen, obwohl Pech oder Fehleinschätzung generell viel wahrscheinlicher sind.

DCS isn't a modern air combat sim. It's a flight simulation sandbox, though ED has kept the standards high for aircraft fidelity. Sufficient information on the F-35 is simply not available, and it would probably require new modeling techniques to simulate the technology it brings like stealth or AESA radar. It might be OK as an AI aircraft, but as a player aircraft it would at the very least be extremely challenging to model with the fidelity of the F-16 or other teen fighters.

Go fast and low is always fun. New video posted on Youtube! ELYTRA went for a SEAD practice mission. Also demonstrated CCIP and HARM release. I'm quite satisfied with my CCIP logic, it can guide a iron bomb to a direct hit on a truck while releasing at 4k feets above target.

Yes, that's really annoying but it seems to be a problem with Windows as much as with DCS. I recommend the following to recover, assuming you still have a backup of your config\input folders from before you started having trouble. Backup your original input folders Make a copy of the backup. You will do some editing here in later steps. Delete the current input folders, then start up DCS and make some controller assignments for one module. You don't need to make a complete set. A few assignments for each device will do. Then exit DCS. You will now have new lua files in your config\input\<module name>\joystick folder. Look at the names of those files, and make a note of the new device numbers here. Edit the names of the lua files saved in step 2 so that the old devices have the new device identifiers. If you have a lot of modules this can be somewhat time consuming. But you can use cmd scripting to speed this up so that you don't have to rename each file manually. (A combination of the "for" and "rename" commands of the cmd command shell does the trick.) Edit any modifiers.lua files in the archive from step 2 to revise the device numbers for any modifiers that use those devices. If (like me) you use the same modifiers in all modules then you can do this once and then copy the modifiers.lua file to all of the other directories where a change might be needed. Copy the edited archive back to the original location in Saved Games. My understanding is that Windows assigns device IDs when it detects a "new" device. Unfortunately that might include an old device plugged into a new USB port, or some other hardware change. So to avoid these changes, try not to move your connected devices around.

Long post but bear with me. If a mission is set in the past few years, there's no justification for ED to downgrade red more than blue based on everything I've read. For context, my work involves extensive use of remote sensing and GPS in remote regions, though I am not involved in the design or deployment of positioning systems, or any military application of these technologies (I do agricultural and ecological research). At any rate, to the sources: "In the present study, the Signal-in-space range error (SISRE) computation method for different types of navigation satellites was presented. The differential code bias (DCB) correction method for BDS-3 new signals was deduced. Based on these, analysis and evaluation were done by adopting the actual measured data after the official launching of BDS-3. The results showed that BDS-3 performed better than the regional navigation satellite system (BDS-2) in terms of SISRE. Specifically, the SISRE of the BDS-3 medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites reached 0.52 m, slightly inferior compared to 0.4 m from Galileo, marginally better than 0.59 m from GPS, and significantly better than 2.33 m from GLONASS." (emphasis mine) Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-12012-y "Pakistan also signed a first-of-its-kind agreement with China in 2013 to install five BeiDou ground augmentation stations and one processing center, allowing greater accuracy in the country." Note: That's mostly just relevant to our own module and the Persian Gulf map. But there's more on a global scale: "When solely relying on a real-time fix from orbiting satellites, all four GNSS [i.e. GPS, Glonass, Beidou, Galileo] have roughly comparable performance, given that GLONASS is closing the performance gap." Source for both: https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2999161/beidou-chinas-gps-challenger-takes-its-place-on-the-world-stage/ "General Holmes, who leads the Air Force's Air Combat Command (ACC), was responding to a question about military communications system vulnerabilities at a conference in Washington, DC. And he opined that the Air Force should be able to use the wide variety of commercial communications paths available. 'My U-2 guys fly with a watch now that ties into GPS but also BeiDou and the Russian system and European system... so if someone jams GPS they still get the others,' Holmes said." Note: the article goes on to explain that General Holmes did not get his facts straight and the watch compares only GPS and Glonass, but it brings up a wider point; namely, the use of multiple GNSS in degraded situations. Chinese geoscientists have also done extensive research on hybrid systems and their accuracy, so this idea of combining and comparing is not news to them either. Source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/03/why-are-u-2-jet-pilots-wearing-garmin-satellite-navigation-smartwatches/ Bringing it back to the JF-17, the Minhasians conducted a cross-border strike into Iran in January. Some news agencies claimed they used a glide bomb similar to the in-game LS-6 but with a rocket range extender and the imprecise CEP of "less than 20m" with GPS and INS guidance. The targets--a Baluch separatist group--confirmed their people were hit (and unfortunately many reports confirmed civilian deaths as well). There are conflicting reports as to the distance from which the weapons were deployed. I haven' seen any confirmation from the Pakistani government as to the weapons used; just a confirmation from the official JF-17 website that the Minhasians were part of the strike. If the bomb is indeed GPS-guided, that could be an argument for degraded accuracy if flying against bluefor, but if they meant GNSS-guided with Beidou and just said GPS the way Americans say "kleenex" for all tissues, then we're back to the point about Beidou. But again, in this instance, whatever munitions they used hit the target, per their own enemies' public statements. Sources: https://newsguru.pk/pakistans-iran-strike-unveiling-the-weaponry-details/ https://jf-17.com/2024/01/18/jf-17-fighter-jets-take-charge-in-swift-response-launching-powerful-strikes-against-terrorists-inside-iran/ At any rate, based on research showing accuracy of the latest generation of Beidou equivalent to or slightly better than US GPS, as well as statements from US personnel and defense analysts above, I'm not sure what justification there can be for a biased GNSS default in DCS for any mission set in the past few years. Older than that, fair enough, but not since 3rd gen Beidou came out. Glonass is improving too, according to the NDU.

Panavia Tornado

Thanks for your feedback. This is a big problem. We urgently added this to the high priority bugs. We will try to fix this and check the entire Nile Delta so that it will be fixed in the upcoming update