Leaderboard

In order not to drag this out too much, as this post is quite lengthy as it is, I'll get straight to the point. The DCS F-16C is not ready for full release. This thread is in response to a post by BIGNEWY saying that the Sniper XR is the last major item before the DCS F-16C is ready for full release. Below I've listed some of the reasons why the DCS F-16C is not ready to leave early access, even with the Sniper XR added, by describing the current state of this product. This post was written with the help and contributions of several community members, who I want to send my deepest thanks to; you know who you are. Lastly, this is not an all-inclusive list, but rather a summary of the major aspects which are currently missing or unfinished in the DCS F-16C (there are A LOT of smaller items remaining in addition to this, including quite a few bugs). It's quite lengthy though, so go get a bag of crisps, crack a beer, and lets get on with it: - Damage model: Practically nonexistent, with no real damage being simulated except fuel leaks and your wings getting blown off. I put this at the top of the list because I cannot see how you can have a digital combat simulator without combat damage being simulated. - Maintainance / Pilot Fault List: Practically nonexistent, still only shows a single message which is the "FLCS BIT FAIL" if the FLCS bit fails. This is the entire error reporting system of the F-16C and is therefore an essential system in order to keep tabs on the status of your aircraft, even when you haven't taken any combat damage. For example, if your L16 time isn't set, you should get a "LK16 TIME REQD" message to tell this to the pilot. At the moment, you will eventually notice that something is wrong with datalink, and then you have to figure out what the issue is on your own through troubleshooting, rather than just checking the PFLD and immediately knowing what's wrong. This is just one example of many where proper MFL and PFL messages would be incredibly helpful, and the reason why those systems exist in real life. - Steerpoints: Exists in a very limited state. Only supports regular steerpoints, markpoints, and a partial implementation of D/L steerpoints. Many types of steerpoints are completely missing, like pre-planned threats, geographical lines, SEAD steerpoints, a plethora of LINK 16 steerpoint types, etc. We're also still missing different CRUS TOS functionality, like having DES TOS reference HACK time instead of SYSTEM time, and also the ability to blank DES TOS times and have the CRUS TOS required velocity be calculated for a steerpoint without a DES TOS, based on the DES TOS of a later steerpoint; an incredibly useful feature for improved timekeeping. - Digital Terrain System: Completely missing including its subsystems like PGCAS, TRN, OW/C, DBTC & PR. An essential system from the earliest tapes of the F-16CM-50 where you load the terrain data of a 480x480 nautical mile area wherein the DTS has features both to avoid CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) which was the biggest cause of death in the USAF at the time, to providing various subsystems to facilitate safer low altitude operations including a kind of digital "terrain following radar" mode, to decreasing INS drift by comparing your radar altitude to the know terrain elevation in different parts of the map, and also to allow more accurate targeting without using active sensors. This is for example what makes high angle JHMCS markpoints accurate, as it can reference the known ground elevation of the location you're looking at. Without the Digital Terrain System implementation, the DCS F-16C has much higher risk of CFIT, much higher risk of flying into terrain/obstacles during low altitude operations, much lower targeting accuracy (especially at longer ranges and in uneven terrain), and higher INS drift over non-flat terrain than a real F-16C of our block and tape would. - ECM: Barely implemented. Currently only barrage jamming is kinda working, and even that is extremely ineffective most of the time. MODE 1 and MODE 2 self-protection jamming is wholly inefficient under all circumstances, as the ALQ-184 currently is seemingly incapable of breaking SAM radar locks. There's also no ability to choose which bands to jam, making it impossible to jam certain surface threats without jamming your own radar for A-A sanitizing. Neither MODE 1, 2 or 3 should inhibit your radar, but rather MODE 2 & 3 should reduce the effectiveness of your radar while actively jamming in the same band as your radar, and not impact the radar at all while jamming in other bands. The AN/ALQ-184 in DCS also has 360 degree coverage, whereas it would have roughly 120 degree cones fore and aft of the pod in real life, with diminshing effect closer to the outer limits of those cones. MODE 1 should only use the aft emitter to jam threats, while MODE 2 & 3 use both fore and aft emitters. It should also have high/low settings to angle the jamming emitters downwards for surface threats and upwards for higher altitude A-A threats, as well as cooperative jamming where multiple F-16C's in close formation boost jamming effectiveness. As an aside to this, chaff is completely useless against certain threats. You can drop 120 chaff in 1 second and you still will never be able to spoof an SA-5. This in combination with an inability to break locks during jamming, means that your only real defense once an SA-5 is locked on to you is to dive towards the ground and break line-of-sight. Other emitters have similar issues. - SEAD: This point encompasses a lot of different systems which are necessary for efficient SEAD, which after all is the primary role of the F-16CM-50 in the USAF. As mentioned, the AN/ALQ-184 is completely useless in self-protect mode (MODE 1 and MODE 2) as it cannot break locks, decreasing survivability, as using barrage mode will constantly transmit your location, and also disable all your active sensors as well as the HTS pod. Most importantly, the AN/ALQ-184 is unable to break locks, meaning it can only be used pre-emptively (not very good when employing wild weasel tactics). The AGM-88 has modes like TI/GS/DL which have not been implemented, limiting the AGM-88's effectiveness in the SEAD role. Also, many different AGM-88 HOTAS commands are completely missing. HAD priority targets are missing. The LINK 16 Special Channel net has a very rudimentary implementation. The ability to target/blank pre-planned threats is completely missing. The ability to store detected emitters as SEAD STPTs is completely absent, greatly decreasing your ability to engage SEAD threats as they will just disappear after going inactive for a while, and the only way currently to target these emitters once they go inactive is if you have a human wingman, because then you can send that emitter to him via L16, and then he can send it back to you. If you've got no human wingman, you're out of luck. The AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver is still incorrectly implemented, making it useless for any kind of high threat environment (the kinds of environments where SEAD is required) as it conveys no relative lethality of detected emitters but rather displays all threats as equally lethal, being especially useless for pop-up threats and active missile avoidance as you can never tell how much of a threat a detected emitter poses to you. In real life, the late cold war saw multiple datalink capable SAMs which don't give RWR warnings at all, increasing the need for the kind of relative lethality displaying of threats that the AN/ALR-56M does in real life, especially for SEAD operations. Currently, we don't have any datalink capable SAMs in DCS, but if it's ever added, the F-16CM-50 will be completely unable to operate in that kind of environment, unlike its real world counterpart. The AN/ALR-56M should also use data provided by the INS to update detected threat locations during maneuvering when emitters may end up in RWR blind spots, and even flip the symbology when rolling the aircraft upside down, so emitters are displayed in the correct direction under all circumstances. Having a functioning RWR is maybe the most important aspect of being combat effective in the SEAD role, and currently we don't have that. - AN/ALR-56M: Even though I mentioned the issues with the RWR just above, I'm still making this a separate point just to emphasize the importance of this system. If I could only pick a single thing that'd be fixed in the DCS F-16C, it'd be the AN/ALR-56M. Right now, the DCS F-16C is completely handicapped, not merely in SEAD, but in all combat situations, because the current RWR implementation is not merely incorrect, but it makes the RWR close to useless. The AN/ALR-56M was chosen as the new standard RWR for the USAF because of it's incredible capabilities and the added situational awareness it provided to its pilots, and this is also why it was rolled out so early on the F-16CJ/CM-50, the USAF's primary SEAD platform. However, in DCS, the AN/ALR-56M is the single least capable RWR in the whole modern US fighters lineup, and in many ways it's even inferior to the old 1980's SPO-15 mounted on the MiG-29A. If you get an AMRAAM fired at you, the SPO-15 (and the real life AN/ALR-56M) will indicate how quickly the missile is approaching and how close it is to impacting you, allowing you to plan your missile defence and perform last ditch maneuvers. With the DCS AN/ALR-56M, you have no indication of how far away a missile is except when it impacts your aircraft. This really, really, really, really needs to be fixed, especially for a SEAD platform like the F-16CM-50. - Air-to-air: This is also a collection of different things. AIM-120 is still missing many features, including target size options and not least the HPRF mode, greatly reducing the maximum effective range of the AIM-120 and making the bread and butter SKATE tactic non-viable against most threats, as you need to guide it all the way to MPRF mode, a.k.a "pitbull". The Uplook Search (ULS) radar mode is still completely missing. STT mode is extremely ineffective at long range, and even against a high aspect non-maneuvering target which is detectable in RWS/VSR, it will not be able to produce a stable lock. A-A, MRM and NAV master mode are also unable to have different CRM modes selected and retained. COAST mode is still missing, meaning that notching will immediately break your radar lock and the aircraft will not even attempt to reacquire the target. On the topic of notching, the current radar implementation is EXTREMELY suceptible to notching. You can be 5 nautical miles away from an enormous KC-135 in look-up conditions against a clear blue sky, and it will still notch you as it reaches 90 degrees aspect, even if it's only for a split second, which should be physically impossible with a modern radar like the AN/APG-68V(5). Even notching against ground clutter should be extremely ineffective unless the target is very close to the ground or has a big chaff cloud next to it. Auto range scaling in SAM/DTT modes still automatically decreases the range scale, which it shouldn't, making those modes useless for situational awareness as you should still be able to freely sanitize the airspace beyond your bugged tracks in those modes. Also the HAFUs are completely unreliable, making TWS especially useless as the art of upgrading tracks is a complete black box. Blanking LINK 16 symbology will often blank all the correlated bricks as well, meaning you cannot even see the things which you've detected with your own radar. You can lock them up though and launch missiles at them, you just cannot see them on the display. Contacts which start jamming will often get snapped to exactly 99.0 nm distance on your FCR, often forcibly rescaling your FCR and requiring you to reset the FCR range settings in the middle of combat, to be able and reaqcuire that same threat. HAFU identity is also very unreliable, with enemy threats often being displayed as green friendlies for no apparent reason. And when you're in ACM mode, the bore cross in the HUD and bore ellipse in the HMCS still do not show true radar line-of-sight like they do in real life, but are instead completely static paintings giving no information at all regarding where your radar is actually pointing. - Air-to-ground: Ground radar is still extremely janky and cumbersome. Ground maps will regularly instantly blank itself during maneuvering. When entering many different radar modes, rather than the radar moving quickly to it's starting angle and then sweeping to generate a map, it often moves really slowly to it's starting angle and just does nothing for a couple of seconds, and only then does it actually start mapping. GMT mode doesn't actually lock onto the target, but rather just the point on the ground your cursor happens to be over. Gain/Contrast/Level settings for the ground radar are not granular at all, and it is often very difficult/impossible to achieve a good balance between them. Changing these settings should also only apply for what is mapped after changing those settings, so if you raise gain in the middle of a sweep, the first half of the map will be low gain and the second half will be high gain. On some maps, like Persian Gulf, you seemingly cannot ground map terrain, only objects. JDAMs still cannot be programmed properly. JSOWs cannot be programmed properly. GBU-24 is there in spirit, but still hasn't had its guidance modes properly implemented, making it quite useless and unable to even reach the target when dropped at max range and high altitude. IFF interrogations are not possible in A-G mode, which they should be. There are also missing munitions, like the CBU-89/104's, various training munitions, possibly even the JASSM. - Lighting: Some things are completely missing, like the external IR emitters which our tape and block of DCS F-16C should have, being selectable through the COVERT modes to allow external lighting at night which isn't visible to the naked eye, and also to only illuminate the lights on top of your aircraft, to stop ground threats from spotting you. If you look at the the external lights through NVGs, you'll see that the green lights seem to be NVIS compatible, but the red lights will completely fry your retina. Cockpit flood lights have very low intensity even at the max setting, and also little to no light scattering, meaning they don't actually flood the cockpit. They're more like focused spotlights, leaving many parts of the cockpit completely in the dark, even at full intensity, including the new pilot body kneeboard which is completely unreadable at night even with every single internal light source set to maximum. On the topic of spotlights, the actual Cockpit Spotlights under the glareshield are completely inop. The Cockpit Spotlights are also the only light source in the entire aircraft which are usable purely with battery power, and are commonly used in real life to monitor engine instruments during startup at night. They are also used to illuminate the pilot body kneeboard when the pilot don't want to illuminate the entire cockpit with flood lights, in order to be more NVG friendly. In addition to these points, there are also issues with light intensities. Some lights like the left indexer or external formation lights, etc., usually go from slightly dim to quite bright between 0% and 5%, and then every setting above is just almost indistinguishable amounts of extreme brightness. With other lights, most notably the cockpit flood lights, you can barely see them at all between 0% and 50% intensity, and then they go up to kinda bright at 100%. This becomes even more troublesome because of the way light brightness works in the F-16C, because when the flood lights are set to high brightness, every other malfunction and indicator light in the cockpit will go to max brightness too. This means that we can't have a bit of flood lighting without getting completely blinded by every other light source. Some lights also don't seem to be NVIS compatible at all, especially the RWR panel which is extremely bright and will wash out your NVGs. The right indexer lights seem fully NVIS compatible and won't blind you even on max brightness, while the left indexer will wash out your entire NVGs at max brightness, and still be very bright at only a few percents intensity. - Textures: The default DCS F-16C textures (including those available in the texture template) are of incredibly low quality, with not merely bolts and screws missing, but entire panels. Also the textures themselves are just poor in quality compared to what you'll find in the DCS User Files section. ED should honestly just pay Roughmaster to make a new texture template for the DCS F-16C, and remake all the low-quality liveries which are currently available for the DCS F-16C, as Roughmasters liveries are of such incredibly high quality that it's almost incomprehensible. Cockpit textures are also missing textures for multiple things. - Tankers: When refueling at a KC-135, the boom still has no resistance and exerts no force on the aircraft. In real life, the boom will push back against the aircraft when connected, allowing the aircraft to "rest" and stabilize itself against the boom. This currently doesn't happen in DCS, making aerial refueling more difficult as you need to have more accurate thrust management than real pilots do in order to stay in position. Tankers in DCS also will never extend the boom farther than the halfway point when connecting even if the player is close to center and fully stabilized, so the player always has to move closer than the halfway point to connect, rather than like they do it in real life where the boom operator will extend the boom to meet the connecting aircraft. When it comes to tanker external lights, they will not turn on their position lights until the receiving aircraft is less than 1 nautical mile away, making night rejoins extremely difficult unless you want to fry the boom operator with an STT lock. Also, there are no external flood lights on the tankers, making them practically invisible while refueling at night, except for the fore/aft and up/down lights. Also, the background lighting on the fore/aft lights is very bright at night, making your fore/aft position incredibly hard to see. During daytime, the lights are very dim and the glass on the fore/aft and up/down lights is very reflective, with reflections often obscuring what the lights are indicating, especially when the sun is low in the sky. Lastly, tankers still do not transmit TACAN in A/A mode, but you have to use T/R mode instead as if they were a ground based station, meaning you also cannot see the tanker A/A TACAN distance on your DED/HUD. It would also be nice to have some basic boom operator functionality, like giving break-away calls and raising the boom if the player is to close/unstable (including an actual boom collision model), giving heads ups before entering turns, reading off the amount of transferred fuel at regular intervals, maybe even having the player be able to request a certain fuel amount via the radio menu. - DCS F-16C manual: This manual is still not up to date, and new features which are added to the DCS Stable branch still aren't updated in the manual, leading to a lot of unecessary threads on the forum as a lot of information about how systems work are lost to the sands of time in the Viper Mini-Updates thread, and usually have to be conveyed through word-of-mouth. For the things which are correct in the manual, the systems are in many cases bugged and not working according to the manual, leading to further confusion in the community when being referred to the manual. Honestly, everytime a feature is added or changed in the DCS F-16C, this should also be reflected in the manual, including a changelog of added/changed features in the manual itself. If systems are not functioning correctly, this should also be noted in the manual with a small notice in that section. After all, DCS is now a unified stable branch and then it'd make sense for every change to be in the documentation, since this isn't a beta build anymore. - The jealousy: Things which have been implemented in other ED modules, but not the DCS F-16C, even though they should be present for our block and tape. Things like the HSD Expanded Data, whose equivalents are present in the A-10C and F/A-18C, but which for some reason isn't planned to be implemented for the DCS F-16C even though it was present in the simulated block and tape IRL, greatly reducing situational awareness via datalink. Or the decision of ED to not implement the AN/ARC-210 radio which was already in active service for our block, tape and year of F-16 (confirmed by multiple ED active duty SMEs + non-ED active duty SME's + US DoD fiscal reports showing amount of quarterly AN/ARC-210 unit installations for USAF and ANG + the actual real world documentation for our tape of F-16CM-50 describing AN/ARC-210 functionality) because "it was more common later", leaving the DCS F-16C as the only modern US aircraft in DCS without the AN/ARC-210 (A-10C, AV-8B, F-15E, F/A-18C), and therefore it is the only modern US aircraft in DCS without the ability to tune multiple UHF frequencies and use a single radio for the entire UHF/VHF/FM range with HAVE QUICK capability, even though it could do this in real life during our tape and time. The AN/ARC-210 would be a very simple item to implement too as it requires no 3D modelling changes, but merely new DED pages, and seeing as this radio is already implemented in other ED modules like the A-10C and F/A-18C, it should be quite simple to port to the F-16C, making ED's resistance to implementing this radio even more of a question mark, seeing what an enormous improvement it'd be to the F-16's communications suite. There are also other things, like the HAVE QUICK page being available in the A-10C, allowing HQ functionality through SRS (SimpleRadio), however the HAVE QUICK page has not been implemented in the F-16C, making the F-16C unable to use HQ via SRS. The ability to choose Fighter/Mission Channels on LINK 16 is present in the F/A-18C, but not the F-16C forcing them to send D/L points to every F-16C on the server. Or the IFF page which has been implemented in the F/A-18C and allows setting Mode 1, 2, 3 and 4 codes, has not been implemented in the DCS F-16C, meaning we cannot set our squawk codes as you would IRL through the DED/ICP. We can only set Mode 3 via the analogue backup IFF panel. Also, the A-10C even has Mode 1 and Mode 4 timetable support, giving alerts at specific time intervals when the Mode 1 and Mode 4 codes change. The F-16C should have similar functionality where the aircraft will, instead of alerting, automatically disable/enable transponders, as well as change their transponder codes, based on certain time and position requirements. More importantly, none of these features require DTC as they can all be set from the cockpit. And even if DCS does not support HAVE QUICK and IFF functionality at this point in time, these things are supported through other softwares like SRS and LotAtc, and is as mentioned already present in other ED modules, so I don't see why we wouldn't get the same treatment in the F-16C? There are also some amazing features from non-ED modules like the Datalink Mission Assignment API in the M-2000C, which allows external sources (either AI GCI or a human via LotAtc) to send taskings via datalink to the aircraft and have them be viewed on the situational displays in the aircraft. The F-16CM-50 of our tape and year had that same kind of functionality via L16, where C2 assets can send a plethora of mission taskings which get received as a data messages, with the ability to view and accept/reject taskings via the HSD, and also send tasking completed/aborted messages to the C2 station. This would be a huge deal for human GCI/AWACS in DCS, especially with players speaking completely different languages, and it'd also open up a tonne of opportunities for mission creators to access this functionality via scripting. I'm not going to delve into why the DTC and its related functionalities are absolutely essential, as they're already in active development. Other systems like the IDM functionality and towed decoys are at least on the roadmap. For all the other points mentioned above, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. If these kinds of major systems are completely missing at a so-called "full release", that would set a new benchmark for what level of quality we can expect of DCS modules. In addition to all the essential features which are still missing, the amount of bugs which still remain is impossible to overlook, to the point where you cannot even cold start the DCS F-16C according to real life checklists, as there are several inaccuracies which would force you to abort the mission and put the jet into maintainance in real life. In regards to BIGNEWY's recent comment that the DCS F-16C "is complete in regards to what we intend for the module. Our modules are never intended to be a 100% replication of the real aircraft.", I would like to point out that we're not even remotely close to a 100% replication, and people aren't even asking for 100% replication at this point. Making a 100% replication would mean adding things like the need to cycle the flight controls before initiating the FLCS BIT to warm up the hydraulics and get rid of any air bubbles in the lines, as the FLCS BIT will otherwise most likely fail. It would mean adding things like accurately modelled startup sequencies for individual systems like the FCR, MIDS terminal and other systems, where they run their own internal bits and take time to power up before being available for use. Or maybe some realistically modelled magnetic drift of the HMCS, sometimes requiring re-alignment in the air. These types of things are available in other F-16C simulators available on the civilian market, and I think we all would've hoped that the DCS F-16C would reach at least a similar level of depth and, as ED themselves have said, the DCS F-16C would be "the most realistic simulation possible" and offer a "detailed simulation of the Viper’s engines, fuel, electrical, hydraulic, comms, lighting and emergency systems and many more". I don't know how you can claim that the DCS F-16C delivers on any of those promises in its current state. I realize that ED probably wants the DCS F-16C out of early access since it's been there for over four and a half years now, but it would be a huge mistake to do so at this point in time. For ED's own sake, for their own reputation, and the communities faith in their current and future products, they should never allow a module which is in the dire state of the DCS F-16C to be considered "full release". Full release means finished, irregardless of what your post-release plans are. You might add a feature or fix a bug later at your whim, but in the end, the full release is supposed to contain everything we customers paid for, a complete and stable product, and anything which is added to the product free of charge after full release is merely charitable work on the developers behalf. It is not the fulfillment of some obligation to their customers, but rather a completely voluntary act which goes beyond what the customer paid for, in order to increase customer satisfaction. And to say "here it is" and give us what have currently + the Sniper XR would be an incredible betrayal of trust, and I for one would never buy a DCS early access module again, if this is what I can expect from it. I'm happy to support ED and third-parties early in the development process even by purchasing pre-orders as long as they deliver a decent product upon full release, which is what has happened previously in my experience. But if the F-16C is pushed out like this, that'd be a turning point for DCS as a platform. And this is something I say as a long-time DCS customer, who has been flying DCS on a regular basis ever since the A-10C was released over a decade ago, and has spent so much time and money on DCS that I don't even want to attempt to add it all up due to fears of what I'll be faced with. Without mentioning any specifics, I think we can all agree that the current drama in the DCS community is testing the community's faith in ED and DCS as a product. Pushing the DCS F-16C out of early access in its current state would do nothing to improve that situation, but would rather risk pouring fuel on the fire, which I don't think neither ED nor the community wants at this point. DCS isn't a perfect product, but it has the most potential of any combat flight sim on the market, and has been making strides to become the best combat simulator on the market. Please cherish this and do not make any reckless decisions in order to meet internal deadlines, while alienating your own customers. All I ask for is that when the F-16C reaches full release, the level of quality will at least be the same as other ED modules. The DCS A-10C which was released a very, very long time ago when ED was a much smaller company, was an incredible product. It had practically all the systems modelled that it would've had in real life to an incredible depth, only excluding certain systems which couldn't be modelled due to classification and such. It also had very few bugs, making it an absolute joy to fly, which it still is to this day. That level of quality is what I expect of an ED product, based on the benchmark that ED themselves set. Not only would a DCS F-16C release in anything close to its current state be well below this benchmark, but it'd also not even live up to what ED themselves have claimed their goals are for this product on the DCS F-16C product page and in promotional videos and press materials. So my final words in this very long post is simply a plea to ED: Please do not push the DCS F-16C out of early access before it lives up to the level of quality and fidelity which the community has come to expect of ED products.

The reason for this "panic" will be clarified once you have the time to read the post. I'm also saddened to see my post be merged and buried into another thread which is already solved in what seems like a backhanded moderation move, presumably to make it harder for the community to find my post. I put a lot of effort into this post and think it deserves its own thread, so I would appreciate if it was unmerged back into its original thread. And if you or any other ED employee wants to discuss any of these points, I'd happy to converse with you.

Crosstail Studios, Pics by discord

That's a lot to read, and I will try and review it later, but leaving early access doesn't mean development is done. So I am not sure I get the panic, but I will try and review this and discuss with the team. Some of this stuff though might fall under not enough public data. But again, I will try and review.

Here's an overview of the current upcoming additions to the German asset pack.

The only true ballistic missile in DCS is the core game Scud. I will continue my work of creating missiles with ballistic trajectories in DCS, but only time will tell if I'll be successful.

For me it is totally fine. I fly vr. And don’t take screenshots. However, I do see people say it is heavy on their system. And I kind of noticed the same on a very few occasions. There are some oddities I hope they fix in order to get a smooth experience. for the poly counters, just stop it. Of course it could be better. You proved your point. But to me it is not a priority.

LOL another only passion user fix DCS free work Salute to the dcs community

It will be early access, not trying to make it to be anything else. If you do not like early access then waiting is the best option. For people that enjoy early access it will be great for them and they will have fun, give good feedback and report issues to us. Again, when we are ready to post videos we will. With tutorials you risk having to redo them during early access if they are done to early. So there will be instruction videos, but only once the functionality of the video topic is complete. So we will likely see cinematic videos first. thank you

IndiaFoxEcho G.91 Gina develop update https://discord.com/channels/671419332949180456/849563040907001876/1257400827967045773

Thanks, I will disable the link today, as it is not needed anymore. Not sure that would be enough, as the mission files identify each static object by both its "Name" and "ShapeName" attributes Anyway, it is still a great and valuable addition to the Sim and I'm making use of these assets on all my new Kola map missions, and I will update my older Static Templates on a "as-needed" basis .. the most useful items for me are the lighting equipment, like this: Greetings

This is just an example how the tail section textures should be uv-packed. This leads to an 33% increase in pixel resolution aka sharpness aka crispness on each surface. This is just puzzled together quickly with Photoshop...

It will be better than you can imagine.

This download contains all liveries and textures that were affected by a bug. Delete the old folders first. Compare the liveries to see if there are any others that are not included in the download. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/twixud8co0oova8lcodyz/Military-Aircraft-Mod.rar?rlkey=2k3eex99v11vxvxtom1vgibs9&st=4m4675iw&dl=0

Absolutely. Probably one of the most respectful and well thought out posts I've ever read on these forums, especially considering the topic and the climate currently in the community. Well done sir. I hope you get your thread back. It's eye opening and I was astounded by it.

Thank you so much for your post. Giving it a plus one and will give plus 5 for the mentioning the RWR and the viper being useless in the SEAD role. Not sure why the RWR function silently changed from the initial release of the module.

No wonder when i look at the cockpit textures. Each surface object needs 3 types of textures: color, roughness/metallic and normal map. Atm there is a huge waste of all that texture space with 12 texture maps in 4K resolution for 4 different cockpit instruments when they could be combined into just only 3 texture maps. As if everybody has a 4090 with 24GB VRAM.

Salut tout le monde comme vous voyez sur les screenshots d'Eric, on reussi maintenant a envoyé des torpilles et qui envoie les navires au paradis c'est jouissif on va faire une grosse mis a jour des avions du pacific IA ET PILOTABLE et on vous envoie tout ça enfin si vous êtes sages Hi everyone as you see on Eric's screenshots, we have now succeeded in sending torpedoes and sending the ships to paradise it's enjoyable we are going to do a big update of the AI AND PILOTABLE pacific planes and we will send you all that finally if you are good

The above post shows why the external model looks so bad and how much PC's 3D artist didn't care about the waste of texture space with bad UV packing. This is all loaded into RAM and VRAM. A huge number of pixels are unused and eating up memory. For comparison look at the F-4E. This is how it's done. To correct this, the whole texturing process would need to be redone from scratch.

90% A2A, 10% A2G. But I have a future project that is just the opposite

Adrift is absolutely correct. 5 and 9 (Chapter 5 is the limits chapter and Chapter 9 is the Emergency Procedure chapter) had to be memorized cold. Technically, non underlined emergency procedures are not required to be memorized, but it is one of those "highly desirable" things to do in the line units. Which translates "you will memorize them." This is in large part because if things do go wrong they go wrong and you will have multiple emergencies happening at any given time. So you really don't have time to be flipping back and forth. For example, if you have an engine fire, you don't just have an engine fire, you also have a single engine failure. So were really required to know those two chapters front to back. Normal Procedures you were required to use a checklist ALWAYS! The one exception to this is when you are doing traffic pattern work. Your first take off and landing you are required to use the checklist but subsequent take off and landings you can shoot from memory. Otherwise, you better pull the checklist out and go through it no matter how familiar you are with the aircraft or the regime of flight you are in. But I am pretty sure that is all of aviation now. When I did my fixed wing transition in the civilian world I had an instructor pilot who didn't use the checklist for landing and instead just used the acronym GUMPS. I though, oh, ok, too easy. Then when I went on my pre-solo checkride I did that and the instructor pilot checking me called me and my regular IP on it. So, again, pretty sure a checklist is required in all of aviation whether some people actually do or not. Snappy fact for you, the aviation checklist was born from the B-17. After a series of mishaps the Army Air Corps almost shut down the B-17 program as "it was too much aircraft" for pilots. Boeing came up with the checklist and the Army thought it such a great idea they went with the B-17 purchase and implemented it into Army Air Corp aviation en totale! EDIT: Oh, one more point I would like to throw out. The checklist actually used in the cockpit is usually very abbreviated compared to the actual Chapter 8 Normal Procedures chapter. For example, in the Chinook the overhead counsel has A LOT of stuff going on up there. If you look just at the old CH-47D operators manual on www.chinook-helicopter.com you will see the overhead counsel has the control panels for most of the major aircraft systems. The normal procedure chapter in the operators manual will break down each panel, and often times many of the individual switches and knobs in detail. But if you then look at the CH-47D checklist it says something along the lines of "OVERHEAD PANEL - SET" So I guess my point is, in a small way memorizing the checklist is required. But you are still required to use the checklist. What helps most with overcoming major checklist steps like that where there are multiple steps for a single checklist item is eitehr coming up with an acronym or a flow. Kind of the same way a musician remembers the notes on a sheet of music!

Cargo Cow Static Mod, can be slingloaded: unfortunately doesn't moo, no idea how the sounds work (let me know if you know how). install: put the attached file "entry.lua" in Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\CargoCow entry.lua

Very very rough outline. Finally found the missing texture it was buried in the B-29 subfolder... why didn't I think of that? I also fixed the description.lua's for the Tu-128 so they show the different numbers.

Good stuff, I've just spotted another Mudhen on GS, poor guy pushed negative G for too long and shut his engines off, wont name them, but just to be clear Budgie can't help with that sort of thing! I did the same a few minutes earlier so they're not alone.

It is complete in regards to what we intend for the module. Our modules are never intended to be 100% replication to the real aircraft. And as we've said, we'll still continue to work on the Viper even after it's out of EA Thank you

Hi ! For my part I can confirm that AA, AG and TFR works ! Thanks !

In the real world, aircraft carrier catapults have a lot of steam leaks, which looks very good when the plane takes off. The steam volume in the game is very low, and the visual effect of the game video is very poor. I hope to increase the steam volume of the super aircraft carrier

Hi, yes a lot of work to fix But a lot of good things to come

We're literally just guessing though. If it's light on features, then what's there might be relatively bug free....

Ive limited it to 17 for now, so that start/end is clearly visible and removed the distance-limit. Cheers

I cant comment on other aircraft, but the F4 RWR indicates PRF changes. There are several things to consider and SAM sites are not just a simple "search or track mode on/off". For example, they can also track you optically without going into some form of "track mode" on the radar. And even those would not necessarily mean a change in PRF that would be recognizable. Further, the RWR can not detect all bands. That said, we can have a look at your specific scenario to perhaps give further details of whats exactly happening. If you happen to have a very short SP track, that would make it a little bit simpler. Cheers.

ファントム無頼　６８０号機　神田＆栗原　 日本のファントム漫画です　XD

I like this idea. Sounds like a v2 effort. In the meantime I have enabled a little key flash when the button is clicked.

Update to the Kiowa MFK Overlay project. On the left you can see the background with the button click zones enabled. On the right is what you would see ingame. You can see that in the overlay there is a big blank spot where the switches were. What do you think would go well there? The only thing I can think of so far is a logo, haha.

Fly me to the moon ...

Our T-38A is NOT an official Eagle Dynamics or 3rd Party module. We initially referred to it as a 'Community Module' because it is a standalone aircraft, but we understand that this might have caused some confusion. So, it's a mod similar to the A-4E or the UH-60L and will not be within the official ED store or included in the core simulator.

About the "low poly model" - it's not bad, in fact the current state doesn't bother me at all. I would focus on other things.

That's not a valid argument. By that logic they may have as well just given us a 10km x 10km patch of low res forest as a starting point for "Early Access" and then it would be ok... because it's "Early Access". They advertised and released a product for people to buy. At the very least we would expect to see what was advertised on the development screenshots that were used for promoting the map and hence for people to buy it. I think it's a very valid question. Things generally improve after initial development screenshots, not get significantly worse like in the released version. So I would like to know why the later build looks worse than an earlier build. Early Access or not. It's fair enough that there are shortcomings for early access release obviously but not for areas which are already advertised beforehand and form a marketing foundation for the product and expectations by the consumer. You can't advertise one thing and sell another just because you stuck an "Early Access" at the end of the title.

This might depend on your graphics settings, but you have many other tools to line you up. If you use proper comms, LSO will tell you to line up left/right. The red/green light below the ramp indicates if you're lined up. Switch on ILS and it will also tell you this. You should also know the runway heading, it is BRC - 10 degrees. Use the zoom function to overcome rendering distance problems. I have it bound on HOTAS.

Доброго времени суток! В прошлом патче в DCS обновилась логика взрывателей. В связи с этим сначала короткий баг репорт: * одновременное использование разных взрывателей для одного типа бомб делает все бомбы данного типа не функциональными; * для бомб с тормозным устройством в меню можно выставить только high drag arm время взведения, хотя при использовании без тормозного устройства должно использоваться low drag; * при изменении задержки срабатывания взрывателя для FMU-139 подставляется валидное high drag arm время взведения неявно для пользователя (пары значений корректные, но логика неявного изменения для пользователя негативно влияет на UX); * бомба с задержкой срабатывания попавшая в движущийся объект или упавшая "на землю" не срабатывает никогда; * недоступны настройки взрывателей для GBU-10/12/16 на JF-17, хотя доступны для Mk-82; * для харриера доступны настройки для Mk-82 при условии подвески одной бомбы на один пилон, но недоступны для 2 и 3 бомб того же типа на одном пилоне. Кроме того пользовательский фидбек: 1. Первое и главное. Добавление новой фичи с которой пользователь неизбежно вынужден взаимодействовать должно быть задокументировано, либо в сам UI должны быть встроены подсказки для пользователя. Если нет возможности часто обновлять документацию для всех модулей, то хотелось бы как минимум видеть какой-то changelog или ссылку на развернутый комментарий. Возможно имеет смысл поднять wiki на сайте, где ответственные за доставку специалисты смогут оперативно публиковать информацию для игроков. Если такой информации нет, или не предполагается в рамках работы над фичей ее (информацию) публиковать - значит фича не должна попадать в релиз. Изменение с которым игрок не знает что делать, про которое негде узнать как им пользоваться и которое работает с множеством оговорок - очень токсичный опыт, который вредит восприятию продукта. Со стороны это ощущается так будто в патче у пользователя отняли то, что до патча работало. 2. Очень сильно упростила бы жизнь кнопка "применить ко всем" боеприпасам данного типа текущие настройки. По аналогии с лазерным кодом, но чтобы копировать типы взрывателей и их параметры. 3. Если одновременная поддержка разных взрывателей для одинаковых бомб не планируется, то для настроек взрывателей нужна валидация. Если настройки разные - нужно об этом сообщать до старта миссии, всплывающим окном, выделять точки подвески цветом и т.д. Выяснить над целью, что все бомбы - просто балласт из-за одного мисклика тоже очень токсичный опыт. 4. Для FMU-152 было бы лучше с точки зрения UX использовать три дропдауна с доступными параметрами. 5. Для FMU-139 было бы лучше с точки зрения UX использовать два дропдауна. Параметры high drag arm/delay также как и на реальном устройстве задавать одним дроп дауном. На low drag arm при этом имеет смысл добавить значение X. 6. В окно настроек взрывателя хорошо бы добавить краткое описание устройства и особенностей настройки конкретного взрывателя. 7. Для DSU-33 высота срабатывания просто не имеет смысла, подобные параметры стоило бы вынести в описание из п.6. 8.Субъективно некоторые поля в которых используется спинбокс с возможностью ввода с клавиатуры (например как скорость вращения на FZU-39) лучше настраивать через выпадающий список. Либо заблокировать возможность текстового ввода. Выбор одного из пяти параметров и неявная (не иницированная пользователем) замена введенного значения - UX который может фрустрировать пользователя. 9. В целом есть ощущение, что от более детального моделирования компонентов (как минимум электрической системы) бомбы на базовом уровне геймплей сильно выиграет. Например, если добавить вероятность отказа взрывателя как случайное значение обусловленное внешними факторами и типом взрывателя. Или научить электрические взрыватели расходовать конечный заряд полученный через Mk122... или чтобы FZU-48 вырабатывал электричество только при достаточной скорости... и обязательно логировать такие отказы в дебрифинге. Да, это уже скорее идеи для хотелок, но реализация не выглядит супер сложной, а игроки сразу заметят новый уровень детализации. Далее фидбек более субъективный... Новый уровень детализации бомб очень достойный. Работа эта определенно нужная и важная и определенно заслуживает признания. И я не скажу за всех, но в моем кругу общения именно последние изменения взрывателей подняли волну негатива. Очень хочется быть услышанным и понятым правильно. Лучше такие фичи доставлять "одним куском". Но нет ничего плохого в том, чтобы доставлять фичу по частям. Однако критически важно, чтобы каждая из частей была завершенной, цельной и не ломала то, что уже работало. По ощущениям с взрывателями этого не случилось и поэтому очень хочется привлечь внимание разработчиков к этому вопросу, в том числе чтобы избежать подобных проблем в будущих релизах. Более живой и детальный фидбек в этом видео (да, вот настолько наболело На этом у меня все, надеюсь на ваше понимание. И если я в чем-то ошибся, готов выслушать аргументированные возражения. Со всем уважением к команде разработки и пожеланием новых успехов.

An addictive flight model. With every update, it is on its way to become the best mod for su-30 enthusiasts. We are still at version 2.7, but developments have progressed a lot. I'm very curious what will happen in 2.8 and further. Thank you very much Codename team!

New and improved airshow display with thrust vectoring using the Su-30 mod:

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Option 2 has nothing to do with computing any bombing solutions, Jester wont automatically figure out anything. If you want to drop a LGB, you have to make sure that it ballistically is roughly in the right area. Therefore, drop it like any dumb bomb. You have many ways to do that, but all of them include using the Bombing Tool to figure out parameters. If you use the Pave Spike, TGT FIND is an excellent way of designating the target to attack. But that still requires you to input the data into the tool so that Jester can enter the right Drag Coefficient value into the computer. The laser should only be used on the final 10s before impact to ensure you are not accidentally screwing it up, since the Pave Spike is extremely sensitive to any aircraft movement and if you just touch your stick while lasing, the bombs will miss as they bleed all their energy chasing your jumping laser beam. Make sure you have actually set the correct laser code, remember that the ED weapon menu codes are not compatible yet (until the next patch) and you need to set the code via our Crew Chief menu instead). All in all, treat and drop them like dumb bombs. Go laser only shortly before impact, when you are stable and dont need to touch the stick anymore. Make sure you are actually activating the laser (both cues solid). Enter all data into the bombing tool and try to follow it at least roughly. If you are still having trouble, please send a short working SP track or a video, thank you :)

It's too modern and should reflect the period when most of the conflicts took place, the late 50s to late 70s. Cities and airfields are too modern for that period. And that's just my two cents worth.

For anyone not aware, Grimm released a script he originally developed for his RotorOps generator that includes Fat Cow functionality. It will be nice when ED has native support for this, but this script will work on launch day to give us a functioning Fat Cow. We use it all the time with a UH-60L as a stand-in for the Chinook for now.