Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/18/24 in all areas
-
Hello everyone, while searching in my photo archives I found images taken during my stay in Afghanistan in the Kapisa region on the Nijrab FOB. I stayed in the region from 2008 to 2009 for seven months. At the time there was a lot of movement on the FOB: CH-47, OH-58, UH-60 and AH-64. I was able to take some photos of the Apache in action, and I thank again a thousand times the pilots who provided us with support in all conditions and all weathers with great mastery and great professionalism without ever giving up.4 points
-
Long post, but it's important that we get this out of the way now. TLDR: If you get stuck and you think the triggers stopped firing, post a screenshot of the last few lines of the message history menu, and I'm happy to help figure out where it all went wrong. So just a few days after release, MIG Killers is shaping up to be a lot like the Speed & Angels campaign. And I take it as a compliment. It has had 2 kind of players: those who said it was the most realistic experience they had in a flight sim, and it taught them more about flying the Tomcat and military aviation in general than they could ever hope for, and otoh those who gave up after a few missions, blaming the triggers, the AI or the mission design for their poor performance. Just like Speed & Angels, MIG Killers was thoroughly tested by some players and none of them ever got stuck. Ever. You're not flying a Sopwith Camel over no man's land in 1917. I assume you bought MIG Killers because you want to experience what it was like to participate in the first Topgun course ever, in a study level environment. The word study entails paying attention, discipline, and learning. You either play along or you're not gonna have fun. I've already received a lot of suggestions that the mission design is too fragile, or unforgiving, so let me show you how "unforgiving" it is: When your instructor wants you to do an egg, he says: "OK, plug in the blowers and pull, let's point the nose straight up." I need to be able to rely upon you doing that. Straight up means 90 degrees of pitch, yet the next trigger will fire within a cone of 30 degrees of leeway. Surely I can expect you to be within that, you do have an attitude indicator in the cockpit with a large black dot indicating 90 degrees. Just put the thing on the thing. Or Nellis control will hand you off to Indian Springs Tower over nav point PIUTE. But I don't expect the player to overfly it exactly. You need to be within a 4 mile radius circle. That's an 8 mile wide zone. Surely you can hit that? It's not irrationally unforgiving is it? You think real life ATC would give you so much slack? BUT: Some players ignore explicit instructions, or choose to do a stored heading alignment, and due to the INS drift miss PIUTE by 6 miles, failing to double check using TACAN, or just feel like not turning on the landing light today. Everybody has a different 'meh I don't wanna do this', part, so at the end of the day I either make all 500 triggers per mission optional and skippable by introducing another 2000 in each, or you do what the mission tells you. Another example: Fam flight, loop: first the instructor tells you to start pulling up to 15 degrees of AoA. The second trigger fires when you're above 14 units of AoA or, as a failsafe, when you're over 80 degrees of pitch ( you should hit 15 units AoA before 40 degrees if you do it right). The instructor says: "Transition to 15 units of AoA, nice and smooth. Look back up to visually catch the horizon". Then, the next trigger fires as you go over the top, so pitch is between 0 and -60, and 6 seconds after the previous voice over in order not to overlap: Out of burner, let the g-s build up to 5 and keep it there. Then your instructor considers the loop finished 10 seconds after this voice over when you're flying straight and level again, less than 10 degrees pitch and bank. If you do it right, you feel like you have a real life instructor in the backseat coaching you through the maneuver. Very immersive. But if I cannot be sure you're gonna hit these very basic checkpoints throughout the maneuver, all I can do is tell you to go do a loop, and that's it. Not so much fun anymore, is it? Mission building is a very simple equation: the more things/ parameters the designer can assume, the more details they can introduce. The less things I can predict, the less triggers/ stuff I can set up. A free flight will never have so many voice overs because I wouldn't know if the player is doing loops over one place or bombing another. My campaigns are at the very end of this scale in favor of details. This campaign is full of extra "failsafe" triggers, in case the AI messes up, or something doesn't work out, to make sure it still progresses. But it does not, and will not have fail safes for the player ignoring explicit instructions. This campaign carefully explains what you need to do exactly, it has chalkboard drawings, and all the instructions are available in a pdf format under mods/campaigns/ MIG Killers/ doc. If you really must do something, a message will linger on your screen until you do just that. You either play along, or you don't, but it's your call what you make of this campaign. I realize it may have sounded like a rant, it's not. I'm 100% sure that this campaign will make everyone a better and more lethal F-4 pilot, and teach you tons about the Phantom and military aviation in general. I want you to succeed. But you need to do the work to get there, you won't get good by acting like a lawyer and negotiating why you didn't do anything wrong. Bottom line: post that screenshot, I'm here to help.3 points
-
Everything is in the key binding section. Everything you are asking about is actually listed in the screenshot I posted earlier. Everything. Toggling the sight, adjusting the sight, selecting smoke, EVERYTHING. Dont make me be the a$$hole here please, I dont like being that guy. Everything you are asking about is easily found if you look for it.3 points
-
3 points
-
Winter 2008 - 2009 You will notice that all refueling is done with the engines running.3 points
-
Amen. I’ve spent as much time messing about trying to get it working than I have flying it. I don’t think it’s anyones setup, or their particular settings. I’m sure it was that update and I’m sure ED will know what it was that was so special in it that’s given a lot of us a simulation of one of these.3 points
-
What I don't understand is why we, the customer, need to play PC forensics to diagnose and fix the game.3 points
-
These are the results of my testing. I7 8700K, 2080 ti, 64 GB RAM, M.2 500GB drive. All Stress tests are using the Mission Editor, the tests were to look at the Ratio of Ground units to AI Aircraft that my system can now cope with. There is a Large drop in the number of Ground units and AI Aircraft that can work without serious stuttering, Ships and or Static objects have a negligable performance impact AIRCRAFT VEHICLES PERFORMANCE ; 0 is terrible, 5 is Great 131 210 0 88 210 1 66 210 2 52 420 1 ( smaller than every mission , and completely un-flyable ) 24 420 3 27 357 3/4 39 231 3 51 198 4 51 130 4+ The performance is obviously subjective, based on the visable stuttering and spiking. Mission/ SERVER that prior to the update had approximately 700+ vehicles could be flown with 40 + AI aircraft Airborne. Something serious has happened to account for this BIG DROP in Performance. the Ratio of AI units has dropped dramatically. PIC 1 is Great , PIC 2 is a stuttering mess.3 points
-
3 points
-
I would classify evading incoming fire/the ground to save your aircraft as an Emergency.3 points
-
3 points
-
As everyone has said, bind a key to "Select Color". Then, you cycle through the colors and HE.3 points
-
I agree on your general conclusion. In a perfect scenario I would make the 9M723 more intelligent, it should be able to have waypoints and have more of a ballistic trajectory. Unfortunately DCS is what it is, especially for us modders. I'm glad that I managed to even get the 9M723 working again after the updates that broke all these missile types. Since I can't make the 9M723 better, my only option would be to make the SAM systems less good. And I don't want to make them too bad, since they have more target types than missiles. What I think I will do is this. In my asset packs I have now a very good mix of different era Patriot systems, from the old MPQ54 to the latest LTAMDS, from the old PAC-2 GEM to the newest PAC-3 MSE. I will try to differentiate the versions better from each other. Like in your opening statement "Patriot eat Iskander like piece of cake", you can't really just say Patriot because of the vast different in technology depending on which version of radar and missile you are using. I'm pretty sure a PAC-3 MSE combined with the LTAMDS radar would stand a much better chance of defeating an incoming missile than the old PAC-2 with the MPQ54 radar. I will take this into account in the next updates. In regards to your request of cluster munitions, unfortunately it's not that as easy as you think. If that were the case, I would already have done it. The Smerch MLRS uses a rocket weapon scheme and can't be guided. Using that would make an ever more worse Iskander missile. And since ED recently encrypted all weapon scheme files I can't really research new ways of implementing more modern weapons. We're stuck where we are now. We'll see, the ships are a lot of work, and I will try shorten the development time between releases. Otherwise it'll take me years to get through updates in all packs.3 points
-
Yes. Will display on the HSD in either Full Page or Half Page format. Will be located on the left side of the HSD, ie. 270/15. Will also display a wind barb on the HSD indicated where wind is coming from and what speed. See attached example from a flight I had the other day. Winds were a little spicy.... Not modeled yet in DCS though.3 points
-
Been wanting to cover this for a while to clear some things up. I am 47Driver on YouTube, some of you have been watching my videos on the DCS CH-47F, (I really appreciate that), and everybody wants to know about all these weird acronyms that I mention, along with many others. First of all I want to point out something in regards to the flight model. I see a ton of complaints about how unrealistic it is, etc. Yes, the FM is very WIP and that is what it is. Tandem Rotor physics are straight up wizardry. This is far and away the most complex flight model that ED has ever tried to replicate, and I can say that confidently as an actual Pilot of this aircraft and someone who understands a fair bit about aerodynamics. Tandem rotor helicopters are very weird, and what I'm seeing in the flight model so far indicates that the devs have done their research on how these helicopters behave when none of the things that are built in to help you fly are working, which is true in the module's current state. Please keep that in mind as you fly this thing. AFCS: Automated/Advanced Flight Control System. This alone is what makes the Chinook so easy to fly. Put your feet flat on the floor, don't touch the pedals, and fly all day long. Thanks Turn Coordination. She's very smooth, steady, coordinated, and controllable when this system is on. When the AFCS in DCS is fully fleshed out, it's gonna make a huge difference. DAFCS: Digital Advanced Flight Control System. Super cool autopilot(ish) functionality. Basically allows us to capture current Inertial Altitude or Radar Altitude, maintain low speed over the ground via TRC or Translational Rate Command, or capture current position over the ground via P-Hold. P-Hold + Altitude mode = perfect hands off hovering. We also have a full 4 axis autopilot via Flight Director for cruise/instrument flight. DASH: Differential Air Speed Hold. As you increase speed, the DASH, (a long tube in the flight controls with an actuator on each end) will decrease in length. You'll notice eventually when this is modeled that as you increase speed, you'll actually start moving cyclic backwards towards center and the aircraft will keep the speed. Pretty nice and allows us to fly with a more neutral cyclic position. LCT: Longitudinal Cyclic Trim (Actuators). As speed increases, the LCTs will extend, this will increase forward tilt in both the fwd and aft heads. Allows a more level fuselage at cruise and reduces stress on rotor system. You'll be flying at 140kts and the fuselage will be completely level with the horizon. No more staring at the ground 10deg nose low anymore. When you land, the LCTs drive to the GND position, allowing easier ground taxi. When you hover, they drive to the RET position to facilitate a level hover attitude. DCP: Differential Collective Pitch. This is mostly why the Thrust Lever is called the Thrust Lever and not a collective. DCP comes from longitudinal cyclic input. Forward cyclic increases collective pitch on the aft rotor system while decreasing collective pitch on the fwd, and vice versa. So basically, the cyclic is also a collective... Hope this clears some things up and helps you folks understand why the flight model feels so weird right now. With most of these things not being implemented yet, because I'd imagine they're all very hard to simulate, the Chinook is gonna fly a little weird. I'm still having a great time with the module and I'm very excited for more systems depth to be added, so I can continue to share with you guys. Thanks! 47Driver2 points
-
Since some updates a triggered radio transmission will start to produce a static noise on the radio frequency selected, as if the sender doesn't stop transmitting. It is not related to squelch settings. In the AH-64D the noise can't be stopped by pulling the knob (radio to off). Master Volume affects the static noise, but not individual radio volumes. Only if you switch the frequency the static noise stops (so I suspect it is related to the specific frequency used in the trigger).2 points
-
I found one of the coolest functions flying last night I have not seen anyone discuss, walking to each station in the Chinook as the Engineer. If you press right Ctrl + [ or }, the Engineer will walk to the hoist station or the ramp control/cabin lights station at the rear of the helo. Right now, in the options it looks like there are other stations he can walk to, but only 3 (including the default) are available for the time being. I was going to ask ED or Bignewy if the WASD keys were ever considered for a free walk around the Chinook, but to be honest, this works fantastic in VR. I plan on doing some more videos with the guys later over the Marianas. The below video demonstrates what I am talking about. It is a crazy feeling in VR when you are walking towards the pilots in flight. Good stuff!2 points
-
WIPs. Targeting to upload next week. Like my other skins I'll have configs for blank fuel tanks and ED's default tanks.2 points
-
Same for me. Huge stutters in f2 view while panning since 2 updates ago and constant stutters in cockpit with a very high end PC. Unplayable at present and amazed it got released through in this state to be honest, hopefully can be solved soon.2 points
-
2 points
-
'Best result' is subjective. For me the 'best result' is the moon at ~1/2º of diameter in the sky, measurable, and so on for other things yet to be improved. These old games/based on old visual tech have some things wrong based on the tech limitations and media at the time. Lower end monitors...etc. Things based on nature were often disregarded. The FOV setting present in the sim will affect how big the moon is. If FOV needs to be set high for peripheral vision distorting the moon size on the 2D plain of the screen (vr included, it is 2 screens) it is a limitation of the media/display philosophy/display ergonomics and the moon will appear smaller. All sims are a bundle of compromises, no exception. Make your adjustments via config files for your taste if that doesn't break IC for you and it is all good. I'd prefer DCS to remain with real values for these stuff out of the box while I manage my own setup limitations. The best reference in the game, and would be IRL as well, is the HUD. It projects on the infinity its symbology regardless of your FOV/zoom setting. If you were in a real plane IRL, that would be one of your best tools as well.2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
+1 to this. But in my case, usually the main page runs smothly at 90fps (I have modified sceneVR.lua to remove the background) but when I enter settings or mission menu the stutter appears and fps goes out ot the window2 points
-
Rene you’ve got more patience than I have with it. Well done on your testing, hope it helps someone. ED know what they included in the update a while back. I’m convinced it’s what caused this. As soon as it dropped all these threads started popping up where people were having trouble. I started calling it the carnage update on account of the various problems it introduced. I didn’t realise then just how bad it was. There’s been another two updates since that one and I can’t see either of them have improved performance. Though we do have a Chinook to frighten MPs away now. Come on ED, have a look at that carnage update. Not the last two but the one before those. You don’t have to do a lot of searching, this place is splattered with horror stories and a lot of us can’t use what we’ve paid for properly. Put down the shiny new project for a minute, whatever it may be, and fix this flick show for us please.2 points
-
2 points
-
Heya everyone. Flying helos with simulated "trim" is something I have never got used to, It just feels wrong. I prefer flying with dead-stick (like R44 with hydraulics) if no options. To solve this, I created a test solution to my old rig below with some 3d printing, 4 steel bars and some neodymium magnets: Long story short, amount of magnets define the resistance/clutch while lubricated steel bars slide on top of each other. Having two "dampers" pointing to corners of the pedestal reduces the uneven resistance, which is the common problem with e.g. Virpil and VKB bases/clutches. After ~1 month testing, works like a charm. If You want to replace the constant resistance with AFCS (like in Sikorsky helos), replace the magnets with 12v electromagnets (take power from one USB) and create one switch to Your cyclic that cuts the circuit. Tadaa, button trim. This is what I am building to my main rig currently. Really odd first post I hope this gives ideas to others. Fly safe.2 points
-
2 points
-
Version 1.8.7 is now live on the User Files. Basically this is an update of 1.8.5 with the F-15C PFM instead of the old broken SFM, fixed spawn issues, and redone MAWS fairing model. Still uses the F-15C cockpit for now, but should provide a good quality of life upgrade until I can get Version 2.0 out the door. I have encountered some issues with the AIM-260 missiles not alerting RWR properly, so I'm going to have to look into that, along with some other bugs that have cropped up during internal testing of 1.9, so the 2.0 release may be some time in the future sadly. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340119/2 points
-
2 points
-
Found this chart and adjusted QuadViews. If your eye normally only has full focus in about 18 degrees, then tried lowering the vertical and horizontal focus size to 25% down from 33%. Got about a 8-12fps increase and didn't notice any vision degradation when in eye tracking. Playing mostly in the 4YA WW2 server and don't really have any issues spotting planes (of course using VR Spyglass Zoom for distant spotting). Recommend trying anywhere between 18%-30% for focus size, 25% seemed to be my sweet spot.2 points
-
Yes. The moon is larger than 1º in BMS (?). Unless FOV distortion is taking part there. The image on the left, the moon is comically too big, sorry. Seems wrong from first sight. The hand test: You need to extend your arm to make a fair measurement and still I wouldn't trust VR hands to do it. The HUD is the best option to make measurements in sim. Your best option is to contact someone from ED dev team and figure it out the values they put it in and why.2 points
-
Yes, both are wrong. Go out, look in the sky! Don't look on pictures, thrust your eyes2 points
-
Seen the Ajax in the flesh at this years tank fest. There nearly as big as the Challenger 22 points
-
@NineLine Apologize for the ping, and my longwinded nature, but as opposed to making a bunch of bug reports I would like to combine several topics into a more wish-list like thread. Things it would be awesome if the DCS FM happened to mimic. A to be passed along to whomever kind of thing. Rotary wing aerodynamics, being akin to voodoo is a not well understood science. Tandem rotor aerodynamics is arguably much less understood, often even by those who've learned to harness it. This is meant as a collection of little understood phenomenon attributable to the tandem rotor configuration. Not an insult to anyone's intelligence, or assertion that these are the 100% factually accurate causes. These were the best explanations why the CH-47 did what it did. It would be nice if the flight model had some of the quirks the real aircraft does, and for that to be possible a thorough understanding of how tandem rotor differs from a conventional helicopter is necessary. Most if not all of these happen AFCS on or off, the only difference being who is counting the phenomenon, the pilot, the computer, or a blend of both? I can speak intelligently on the underlying aerodynamics, but your contemporary SMEs will have to speak on how the digital AFCS handles them from a pilot's perspective. The discussions will focus on AFCS off flight, and leave how the DAFCS handles, to your more qualified individuals. I hope only to fill in any gaps in institutional knowledge. Difference in angular tilt of the fore and aft Rotor heads. As mentioned in my other thread, the difference between the angular tilt of the fore and aft head causes any movement of the thrust to manifest in an immediate and linear pitch change. This linear change in pitch can be exasperated, as can any transient in a negatively stable system. Said another way, while the cause of this phenomenon is linear, if not reacted too quickly it can exasperate itself. One of the more noticeable regimes of flight this rears it's head is the roll on landing. AFCS off roll on landings often require the pilot to need forward cyclic during the flare portion when thrust is reduced. This is counter intuitive to most pilot's muscle memory, and is the primary hurdle to pulling off a decent AFCS off roll on. Another is doing precision hovering with significant changes in altitude, i.e. taking slack during a sling load or any vertical climb / descent such as masking. The chinook wants to drift forward when you pull thrust, and drift aft when you reduce thrust. It just does. The extent to which the newer AFCS compensates is what I can't speak to. Vortex Ring State / Mushing The CH-47 is one of a handful of aircraft that lightly loaded has enough power to pull itself out of VRS, theoretically. It will get into VRS, but it is not particularly prone to it like one might think. The dual rotor system tends to give the pilot a little more warning than in a single rotor helicopter, as the induced flow moves progressively from back to front, it engulfs the rear rotor first (assuming decelerating flight). The preferred method of recovery is lateral cyclic, as forward cyclic can aggravate the problem due to differential collective pitch increasing angle of incidence of the aft rotor system. In 15 years of flying chinooks I never encountered VRS, unless I was showing it to a student. Nor do I know of a single VRS accident in the community. A much less well known pitfall is the phenomenon akin to mushing where the AFT rotor head can achieve a Vortex Ring state during rapid decelerations. This manifests in the an abrupt nose up and transition to a sinking attitude of flight which if not recovered from quickly, for will result in a hard landing at the least. Of these, there have been a handful or more. This is the exact same phenomenon that is responsible for V-22 osprey crash(es). It happens to them in tight descending turns due to their horizontal tandem configuration. Transition to forward flight / Transverse flow effect When picturing how a Chinook reacts to transverse flow effect, it's useful to use a simplified understanding of fore and aft head, acting in unison and ignore the effects on each individual rotor system. Looking at it as an oversimplified combined rotor system, Transverse flow effect manifest to the pilot as a slight nose up while transitioning forward through ETL. The AFT rotor system ingests "dirty" air first resulting in a few degrees of pitch up, resulting from the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. The individual rotor systems are affected, but due to their counter rotation nature, the force created is a twisting, torsion force absorbed by the fuselage. The pilot feels the back end sag accelerating through ETL, and the reverse when slowing to a hover. Retreating Blade Stall / Blade compressibility The forward speed of a CH-47 is limited by one of two phenomenon, retreating blade stall, or the advancing blade approaching supersonic flight regimes, referred to for physics reasons as blade compressibility. If you again look at the CH-47s two rotor systems as a single system you will be able to predict the results. Retreating blade stall tends to be somewhat self correcting as it induces the aft head to lose lift first. Blade compressibility tends to self aggravate for the opposite reason. Either may or may not be accompanied by rolling transients. Dissymmetry of lift / LCTs Due to the tandem rotor having no inherent ability to cyclic feather, a system is needed to compensate for dissymmetry of lift. This system is of course the longitudinal cyclic trim system. Up until a certain airspeed, cyclic feathering is unnecessary. The system can compensate via blade flapping alone. But the direct result of blade flapping is rotor blowback, and beyond a certain point, you begin to put excess strain on the rotor heads and may encounter droop stop pounding in flight, or worse. The other often overlooked role of the LCTs is the level the 47's fuselage at a hover. This was a necessary change with the addition of the triple hook cargo system. The fuselage needed to be level for ground crews to reach fore and aft hooks. Prior iterations of the 47 hovered significantly nose higher, (I'm told). Weathervane effect a.k.a. the CH-47 Rodeo While I never experienced this personally, a CH-47 AFCS off will do a 180 degree turn, in cruise flight if you let the yaw get away from you. This is just a simple combination of whether vane effect and the subsequent induced yaw inertia. If you let the nose get between what I'd estimate is somewhere between 20 to 30 degrees, you will be going 100 knots in reverse before you know it. *** For anyone active in the CH-47 community - important *** Beyond the scope of a DCS discussion but for any active 47 people this is a phenomenon you need to be aware of. Any excess rearward flight, or significant tailwinds at a hover can trip your DECU temp mismatch logic causing you to suddenly be in dual reversionary FADEC mode. While this may sound fairly benign, it is a nasty little demon of the 714 engines that can kill you. If you haven't heard ever been made aware of this, you really need to know about and understand it. As the reversionary can't sense rate of thrust movement, it is designed to over/under program fuel, to mitigate rotor droop, or overspeeds during thrust changes, while operating in reversionary mode. If this happens, to you, you will get a master caution and dual FADEC failure indications, caused by the temp probe in the rear of the engine disagreeing with the one further inside. If you happen to be making a power change, this can very easily look like a dual engine runaway, or a dual engine power loss depending on which way the thrust was being moved. It can trick the pilot / crew into thinking they have an engine high side, and make the problem worse by pulling more power. Or if encountered when reducing thrust, be tricked into thinking both engines suddenly rolled to idle and auto rotate with two perfectly good engines. This phenomenon, has Induced at least one unnecessary autorotation, a crew who had this happen and believed both engines had rolled to idle. And I had the reverse, the high side experience once, and thought my engines were going to spin the blades completely off as the overspeed fuel control held the rotor RPM at 114, overriding the FADEC hell bent on killing us all. I'll leave it at this for now. If this is well received I can probably drudge up more. A pilot can often operate fine at an application level of knowledge. Meaning, if I know the nose pitches up when X happens, I don't necessarily need to know why. But with understanding comes the possibility to achieve the next step in learning correlation, or spontaneous learning. When you learn something new, on your own, because of the various things you took the time to "understand". It's when you have that epiphany moment and it all makes sense. A pilot who rests firmly in camp understanding, or even better to correlation, can anticipate. A pilot who only makes it to the application level, can only react.2 points
-
Yes, the 'Pilot Position' needs to be bound from the WSO seat mapping, otherwise it doesn't pick up the input. Controls like this (and other views) really should come under the UI layer, but hey.2 points
-
Nice find Devil, I was on about wanting this the other day . I wanna ride a quad bike off the ramp as well but we might have to wait a bit for that. S’pose I’ll be walking up and down it in a minute then, cheers. Ideally, I want a mess, a briefing room, transport out to my aircraft and I wanna stroll around doing my pre-flights. A quick chat with the ground crew, jump in, strap up and shoot off. 2 weeks.2 points
-
I wouldn't bet on it. Loopback makes it pretty clear in point 1 and 3. I'd honestly expect a J-10 sooner since, apparently, certain marks of it are using the same avionics as the JF-17.2 points
-
I'm still waiting for the passive aggressive posting booster to kick in, since I'd really love a MiG-21 update.2 points
-
Hello, The NVG will be available with the Mirage F1M since it's cockpit is NVG compatible. Targeting pod were only used on F1EQ-5 and EQ-6, to have an accurate EQ-5 it would need a overall of ALL the avionics with completly different stuff, also there is no known EQ documentation available publicly, aswell as any other Mirage F1 of that era with similar avionics. France is not the kind of sharing even older aircraft documentation.2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
Send me £50 and I will provide an excellent vibrating object to keep you happy !!!!!!!!!!!!2 points
-
And here it is... the long awaited CRV(T) replacement... the Ajax. It comes in three outfits: green, two tone and desert. I also added the two tone camouflage to the Boxer AFV in the German asset pack, which now emulates the British Boxer nicely. And I did the same with the M270 GMLRS. I even included the poor little guy getting replaced in the picture.2 points
-
Ah, therein lies the danger with mods. As wonderful as they are, (and I use lots of them), trying to keep up with ED's changes must be hell on earth for the guys making those mods, never mind the rest of us who just get to play with them. Enormous credit to CH and all the others for the effort, I'm not sure I could do it. BZ Boys ... BZ.2 points
-
Changelog for 08.15.2024 / 2.0.0.40 - Revision to module scan engine (added Manifest Variable for ST/MT manifests and detection). - Added launch Modelviewer to right click build menu (allows user to launch MV from a build other than selected build). - Updated CH-47F datablock. - Added Peacekeeper Lebanon datablock. (added Flying Cyking to filters list.) - Added Mig killer datablock. - Moved Build Scan function to a separate thread *( Resolves UI lock during scans when DCS Processes end, and when switching builds. ) As usual, zip file added to first post.2 points
-
No. You don't. FFBeast works on it's own. May be you are confused with grip connection. At the moment FFBeast controller supports natively only Thrustmaster grips. So you need to connect VKB or VPC grips to their original controllers. But things are changing. We cooperate with Virpil Controls on adding officially support for their grips. In next version (that will be available very soon) Mongoos, Alpha Prime R and FLNKR already will be supported. Other grips will come later.2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.