Leaderboard

DCS 2.9.7.59263 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/stable/2.9.7.59263/ DCS World User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD related to animation of network client-phantom - fixed User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD triggered by aircraft unloading cargo - fixed Multiplayer text chat window not responsive until player spawns in aircraft cockpit - fixed Visual glitches if GUI scale set to more than 1 - fixed Using TAB key while Route Tool is active disables some other commands and input - fixed DCS: CH-47F by Eagle Dynamics User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD related to joining of multicrew client in CH-47F - fixed

This is an update for the La Fayette by damienntrix, You will need his mod installed. You can find it here https://forum.dcs.world/topic/263509-pack-8-helicos-ia-armee-francaise-diverses-structures-17-vehicules/ You will also need Admiral189's Normandie Frigate Mod installed. The update adds the correct SAM systems. The model is fitted out to reflect the ship's Surcouf and Guépratte current fit so I have added these 2 ships along with the original. New ships are named FS-FXXXX in ME list. La Fayette should be listed as before This is still a WIP progress but all weapons should be working. Know issues. The model has a few issues I can't fix. There is a minor problem with the gun animation and you may see a random flicker of the gun barrel. Small guns are currently coded as CIWS and need to be changed to 20/30mm auto cannons. This makes the ship a bit over powered for AA. Sensors are as originally coded. I will try and update. No liveries yet. I did try and remove the hull numbers but the stern numbers kept showing up Install Back up your original MOD install. Unzip update then copy contents to the mod folder and let them overwrite. (you did a backup right) Please PM me with any install issues. La Fayette Update.zip

Hola, estamos trabajando en ello y esperamos poder mostrar un vídeo con actualizaciones de los proyectos del F1 M y del F-104 pronto. Hi, we are working on it and we hope to show a video to update you about the F1 M and F-104 projects soon.

Just an opinion, but one that has been formed by 15 years of messing around with DCS, along the way using multiple computer systems, upgraded components, and endless tweaking of setups for multiple VR headsets: You can "tweak" and "adjust settings" until you are blue in the face. You can waste hours, days, weeks, months seeking smooth, high-FPS performance. The bottom line is that with some updates, they break the performance of the game, and you're beholden to ED diagnosing the issue and pushing an update to get real results. Many of the tweaks you're seeing are 100% dependant on the specific system being used, software interactions, hardware interactions, and on and on. Many are even just the placebo effect. The current update took performance backward in a big way. The solution is reducing the number of units in a given mission to very few; exactly how many might depend a bit on your system. The point is that no amount of diagnostic tools, tweaking, etc, is going to make the current version work "smoothly". We're waiting for ED to make a fix. Yes, it's a frustrating reality, but it is what it is.

Mig-17F Red Storm Update:

Hello all, I am sorry to be bringing up the same topic again as from months ago, however I feel it is still worth mentioning again and something that might help out a lot of people who are having issues since the latest few releases. As pointed out in a post in March 2023 by @Taz1004 a lot of the normal map, roughmet, and FLIR texture sizes in the game are absolutely huge. These texture files do not need to be this huge (22+MB and some reaching 64+MB) and are furthermore stored as uncompressed 32bit textures when they can easily be compressed without giving up any visual quality. The FLIR textures don't have to be 4K since all we ever see them through is our MFD's or similar sensors which do not have this resolution in the first place. The textures that are affected are mostly found in a lot of the newer modules but they are not exclusive to them. They are also not exclusive to player controlled modules or aircraft/helicopters. Ground units have the same issues. The issue also occurs with many off the addon modules not developed by ED themselves so perhaps a word from ED to the other developers to have a streamlined and standardized texture creation procedure could be considered? From what I can tell from some of the videos I have seen regarding the latest issues with stuttering many of us seem to be suffering from, it appears that DCS is trying to use as many cores as it can get to constantly load/unload textures between SSD->VRAM->RAM->page file leading to massive bottlenecks on the SSD side as the threads end up waiting on the SSD and thus each other. Perhaps one way to combat this issue would be to have the normal map, roughmet, and FLIR textures reduced in size which would, without sacrificing image quality; 1. Alleviate some of the bandwidth requirements between all these different components. 2. Reduce overall VRAM and RAM usage. 3. Reduce texture loading times. 4. Reduce the size of the sim itself (which stands at 861GB for me personally as I own nearly all modules and terrains). I totally understand the dev team is busy but if a modder can make these changes in a matter of a week or two it should be possible for the dev team to put someone on the task of hunting down these insane textures and make them a much more reasonable size. I implore you @BIGNEWY and @NineLine to please pass this message on to the responsible people and take another hard look at these texture files since this was first reported already over a year ago. As someone who has been using DCS since the days of LOMAC, please pass this on and take it seriously because I feel this could make the sim so much more enjoyable for many. Kind regards, Vincent van Veen

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!

This is a joke... 3 updates in 3 weeks. And the last one could have been done in the penultimate patch. I'm sick of being a beta tester for free. And still no performance fixes. I'll test Falcon BMS in the meantime. (I don't like helicopters, I only fly planes) Latest update: DCS World User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD related to ghost network client animation - fixed User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD triggered by unloading aircraft cargo - fixed Multiplayer text chat window unresponsive until player spawns in aircraft cockpit - fixed Visual glitches if GUI scale is set to more than 1 - fixed Using TAB while Route tool is active disables other controls and inputs - fixed DCS: CH-47F by Eagle Dynamics User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD related to multicrew client join in CH-47F - fixed

Unfortunately, I don’t think it can be done. Not until ED releases tools for implementing these kind of weapons (which they won’t). The current solution is the best available workaround. The alternative would be to remove them.

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.

Yep its getting old, its a shame we have all these jets and helos but no way to fly them anymore. To much focus on $ in my opinion. I could live with a game breaking patch if it happened once a year but it seems like its everyone now. I feel like a stranded starliner astronought. ED got us into orbit and here we sit.

DCS World User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD related to animation of network client-phantom - fixed User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD triggered by aircraft unloading cargo - fixed Multiplayer text chat window not responsive until player spawns in aircraft cockpit - fixed Visual glitches if GUI scale set to more than 1 - fixed Using TAB key while Route Tool is active disables some other commands and input - fixed DCS: CH-47F by Eagle Dynamics User Crash Reporting Tool. CTD related to joining of multicrew client in CH-47F - fixed

How’s that for service? Nice one. I’ll have a look at that too. Extra glass of wine and a chunk of cheese for you both .

LMAO Whatever. I didn't "lose" on anything. The chart I posted shows that very clearly. Simple: You stated CPU prices don't drop over time. I showed factual data that proves you're wrong. (Then of course, the usual ton of drivel trying to qualify you didn't say what the quotes prove you did say). If anyone "lost", well...lol it ain't me. And again, leave the personal insults out of it. Find one person I've done business with that isn't happy with what they got. Oh, wait...you can't Seriously, leave the personal attacks about me and my business out of it. Let's debate the issue on the merit of the facts. And the facts in this case (see the chart) show you're wrong. Incidentally, below is the same chart with some annotations; let's assume for a moment you're right (just for the sake of discussion). The red box indicates the area of what you call 'lunatic fringe' drop off. The orange box roughly illustrates - as a guess - where it seems you feel the CPU is 'obsolete' (since last year; around 18 months after release). Even if we exclude those two regions entirely, the price can still be seen decreasing in the time between the two. In fact, the blue oval shows where the biggest drop in price was - and it's not during either of the periods you exclude: It dropped by ~$100 a year after release (i.e. no 'lunatic fringe') and roughly a full year before the 14500 was ever released. Way before anyone would call it obsolete (although maybe you can find an authoritative reference showing a 12700k was obsolete in winter 22/23). In fact, during the time since the 14500 was released, it's more or less hit and stayed at $240, while the 12700k has dropped even further, to less than $200 at times (purple box). So, $190 for a CPU that performs better (and doesn't possibly destroy itself)...or 26% more for one that performs less (and who knows lol)? Now I'll quote myself: And, well...it does.

Here's something close... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338365/

Stable Version Current version number: DCS 2.9.7.59074 Next planned update: 20th August 2024 - fix patch

The boxes will be ticked when DCS detects your headset is using quadviews or eye tracking. It is just an indication they are working correctly.

MiG-17F update The team is working hard and continously with the current focus being on the MiG-17F systems and texturing. For this reason, today we would like to talk about one of those systems, the Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) Sirena 2 (SPO-2 / CPO-2) of the MiG-17F. The MiG-17F was equipped with an early RWR system that could only detect radar signals from the rear hemisphere. The RWR receiver is mounted on top of the tail fin assembly. Technical data: Range: 5 – 6000 meters Beamwidth: 50° vertical, 80° horizontal The RWR Sirena-2 gave the pilot an audio warning signal that the airplane was being painted by a radar (from the rear); the audio signals varied according to the distance of the radar impulses that hit the antenna (the distance of the radar behind the MiG-17F). Audio signals: 4 - 6 km: high-pitched, continuous sound 2 - 4 km: rising and falling howling tone 0 – 2 km: humming tone Control of the Sirena 2 is managed by the main circuit breaker on the right side wall, while the control panel is located on top of the main instrument panel, to the left of the ASP-4N gunsight. The control panel consists of a two-position power switch and two lights. The right light (red), indicated that the system was switched off. The left light (green), indicated that the system was on and operational. We also have some pictures for you of the latest texture work. As always, everything you see is Work In Progress. Enjoy, and thank you for your continuous support! Bye Phant

While I really appreciate users sharing what’s fixing the issues for them (and I really do… please keep sharing solutions), the fact that this problem isn’t occurring with other settings in earlier versions of DCS bit is on the latest concerns me, as something has changed within DCS that is having a negative impact. If unresolved/unidentified I fear this has the potential to compound until we reach a situation where no amount of tweaking will fix the issue for us after a few more updates. Going from 1,200 units down to 300 units is also a big concern. With increasing tech we should be going the other way, and be able to handle more units, not less.

ZOOM is for target sorting when several target symbols are clustered together and it is difficult to distinguish between them. It works the same in GTM and RMAP, so it won't have terrain video underlay.

Vlamgat266

I got the Layette reworked over the week. It will require the Admiral's Normandie frigate mod for the Exocet missiles. I hope to post in a separate thread later tonight

It falls under your own paradox. It is a light recon chopper that flies excellent without any vices. Better armed than Gazelle, it is by far the best chopper to fly online with Campaigns will come. If your into transport only this is not for you. If you like Gazelle you will love this. It is your loss not ours

Dear all, With the next DCS: AH-64D update, we will be releasing the RMAP mode for the Fire Control Radar (FCR). Due to illness and time limitations, I was unable to create an instruction video for it. My apologies, as it's a very interesting features that a lot of time has gone into. In the meantime, please find attached a section of the DCS: AH-64D Guide pertaining to this new feature. Kind regards, Wags DCS AH-64D FCR RMAP Mode.pdf

From FB: Welcome to another MiG-17F update. The team is working hard and continously with the current focus being on the MiG-17F systems and texturing. For this reason, today we would like to talk about one of those systems, the Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) Sirena 2 (SPO-2 / CPO-2) of the MiG-17F. The MiG-17F was equipped with an early RWR system that could only detect radar signals from the rear hemisphere. The RWR receiver is mounted on top of the tail fin assembly. Technical data: Range: 5 – 6000 meters Beamwidth: 50° vertical, 80° horizontal The RWR Sirena-2 gave the pilot an audio warning signal that the airplane was being painted by a radar (from the rear); the audio signals varied according to the distance of the radar impulses that hit the antenna (the distance of the radar behind the MiG-17F). Audio signals: 4 - 6 km: high-pitched, continuous sound 2 - 4 km: rising and falling howling tone 0 – 2 km: humming tone Control of the Sirena 2 is managed by the main circuit breaker on the right side wall, while the control panel is located on top of the main instrument panel, to the left of the ASP-4N gunsight. The control panel consists of a two-position power switch and two lights. The right light (red), indicated that the system was switched off. The left light (green), indicated that the system was on and operational. We also have some pictures for you of the latest texture work. As always, everything you see is Work In Progress. Enjoy, and thank you for your continuous support!

This post is an attempt to conclusively answer the question of which AMRAAM variants each applicable module in DCS should have access to. Several claims have been made in favor of adding new variants but I wanted to try and do the research to get a concrete answer that question. I believe I have succeeded here. All sources used are confirmed unclassified and either explicitly Distribution-A or available directly from their respective organization's website for download. Two main categories of sources were used: Director of Test & Evaluation reports and annual U.S. Air Force Budget documents. This post is very long. The intent was to be very thorough and use direct quotes from sources wherever possible. Direct quotes are in blue, italicized text while analysis/commentary is in default text. The proposal/recommendation section is at the bottom. EXPLANATION OF THE C-X DESIGNATION: "The AMRAAM program uses an acquisition strategy that improves missile capability through incremental software and hardware modifications that have been grouped into three pre-planned product improvement (P3I) phases. All are known as the AIM-120C. Phase 1 (AIM-120C-3) was developed in the mid-1990s and incorporated clipped wings to enable the F/A-22 to carry additional missiles in its internal weapons bays. This variant is compatible with all aircraft that carried earlier variants of the AIM-120. Phase 2 improvements incorporated a new warhead (AIM-120C-4), lengthened rocket motor (AIM-120C-5), and new target detection device (AIM-120C-6). All current production deliveries to U.S. forces are the Phase 2 configuration." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.253 AIM-120C-5/6/7 EXPLAINED: "AIM-120C-6 – Lots 13 and up. Implements improved fuzing via new Quadrant Target Detection Device (QTDD)" USAF Weapons File (Distribution A) 2003 P.17 "The Phase 3 missile is largely a new missile with distinct capabilities from previous variants of the AIM-120. In particular, there are significant hardware and software changes in the guidance section of the missile." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.254 Phase 3 of the AMRAAM P3I development program plans to improve weapons systems effectiveness and lethality and provide the system with the capability to deal with emerging threats. The Phase 3 missile, designated AIM-120C-7, includes new guidance section hardware and software. Raytheon incorporated the following key changes in the Phase 3 upgrade: • Upgraded antenna, receiver, and signal processing portions of the missile to satisfy operational requirements to counter new threats. • Smaller electronic components to create room for future system growth. • Re-hosting some elements of the existing software to a new higher-order programming language (C++). • Re-hosting and modifying some existing software to function with the new hardware. • Developing new software algorithms that will enable the system to deal with newly defined Phase 3 threats. DoT&E FY07 Annual Report P.253 DEVELOPMENT/OPERATIONAL TIMEFRAMES: AIM-120C-5 "AIM-120C-5 – Lot 12. Implements 5 inch longer enhanced Rocket Motor and shortened control section" USAF Weapons File (Distribution A) 2003 P.17 As will be shown below, the AIM-120C-5's delivery preceded that of the 15th lot and thus would have to have occurred some time prior to FY2002, the time frame of ED's F-18C. We don't actually have a proper AIM-120C-5, as will be proven later on in this write up. AIM-120C-6 Image Source: RDT&E Report Vol. 3 FY06 P.188 As you can see, lots 13, 14 and 15 were delivered prior to October of 2003. These lots are detailed below: "The Lot 13 program plan involves Air Force, Navy and FMS participants....The Processor Modernization program with a Higher Order Language Processor will replace 1970s vintage hardware with Commercial Off the Shelf components and modern more flexible programming languages." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY99 P.59. This is alone is not a very clear indicator that any missiles are being procured, much less what type. Page 61 of the same document reveals that the plan is to procure 180 new missiles with the funding provided (about $112,000,000) and that they will feature the aforementioned processor update as well as P3I Phase 2 implementation. This, along with the linked weapons file, supports the idea that these missiles are C-6s. "The Lot 14 program plan involves Air Force, Navy and FMS participants... This procurement is for 210 AIM-120C-6 missiles which incorporate increased kinematics and improved lethality developed under the P3I Phase 2 program." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY00 P.71 "The Lot 15 program is a continuing procurement of missiles for the AF, Navy, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants. The plan includes 204 AF AIM-120C-6 missiles and two Separation Test Vehicles funded under Program Element 0207590 for the Seek Eagle program." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY01 P.53 AIM-120C-7 Image Source: RDT&E Report Vol. 3 FY09 P.181 As you can see, Lots 16-19 were delivered by early January of 2008. These lots, in addition to Lot 20 (the Cut-In in procurement for the AIM-120D) are detailed below: "The Lot 16 program is the first procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 missiles. The plan includes 190 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY02 P.89 "Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy Lot 17. The plan is to procure 161 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY03 P.89 "Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy Lot 18. The plan is to procure 201 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY04 P.79 "Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the Air Force, Navy, and Army in Lot 19. The budget allows for the procurement of 202 AIM-120C-7 missiles for the Air Force. In addition, 46 AIM-120C-7s will be procured for the Navy ,and 6 AIM-120C-7s for the Army" USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY05 P.75 "Cut in the procurement of the AIM-120D missile with GPS-aided navigation capability, a two way datalink, and new guidance software updates for the Air Force and Navy in Lot 20. The budget allows for the procurement of 166 missiles for the Air Force. In addition, 101 missiles will be procured for the Navy, and 35 AIM-120C-7s for the Army. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 and/or start the procurement of AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY06 P.53 The history of the AIM-120C-7 is more complex than the C-5 and C-6. Initial mentions of the C-7 in these documents were very optimistic, expecting a release schedule not unlike the short timeframe between the C-5 and 6. This turned out not to be the case. Comparison of the C-7's development timeline with others is difficult due to this chart not being present in the relevant year's documents. Whatever the case, the USAF had received several hundred AIM-120C-7s by the time operational testing completed, very nearly the entire non-FMS production run of the variant. "The first Phase 2 AIM-120 C4 missile was delivered in Aug of FY99. The Phase 2 AIM-120 C5 missiles started delivery in Jul of FY00. The Phase 3 missile is the first major upgrade to the seeker hardware and software to meet performance requirements for the FY04 and out time-period. The Phase 3 Cost Plus Award Fee EMD contract was awarded in Oct FY99. This missile will begin deliveries in FY04" (RDT&E FY04 Vol. 2 P.136) "The latest version, the AIM-120C-7, completed operational testing in August 2007" DoT&E FY07 Annual Report P.185 These lots all mention "improved electronic protection" as the main feature of the missile. This in itself isn't very clear and fails to mention the other improvements, namely the guidance section hardware/software, antenna/receiver section and signal processing updates. The "AIM-120C-5/6/7 EXPLAINED" section contains a quote from 2007 that references these upgrades as having occurred but the lots themselves do not. This may raise questions as to whether or not the C-7 actually included these upgrades. Fortunately, that question can be answered by analyzing the contracts being funded during the C-7's development. In the USAF RDT&E Budget Request for FY00, the contract for the "advanced EP" also explicitly includes an improved seeker. The total expenditure for this contract was planned to be $120.5 million over fiscal years 99-01. This same document also mentions the improved fuzing contract, whose timeline lines up with the production of the AIM-120C-6. The USAF RDT&E Budget Request for FY05 also mentions a $12 million contract for software upgrades to the missile. Together, these contracts confirm the veracity of the 2007 quote. SUMMARY: The C-4, 5, 6 and 7 variants of the AIM-120 are all part of a family of upgrades known as P3I Phase 2 (or 3 in the case of the -7) and were incrementally developed between the late 90s and 2007. The C-4 had a new warhead (not to be confused with the target detection device), the C-5 featured a lengthened rocket motor and shortened control section module, the C-6 had a new proximity fuze and the C-7 brought increased lethality via a new seeker, enhanced signal processor and software developments. I have concluded based on the research that each variant has a tangible benefit over the previous, enough details are present to model them, and all 3 have a place in DCS' current teen-series aircraft lineup. WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN DCS? If you remember the AIM-120C being referred to as the AIM-120C-5 in the past, you are correct. At some point in the past few years Eagle Dynamics deliberately removed the -5 prefix from the missile and most things referencing it. It is however still referred to as the AIM-120C-5 in some of the in-game manuals, namely the F-16C's: Image Source: DCS F-16 Early Access Guide P.33 This is not an open-and-shut case. While researching for this writeup I concluded that we must have an earlier version because the missile length is the same as the AIM-120B's. This was an incorrect conclusion; the control section module was shortened 5 inches to maintain the missile's length. ED's AIM-120C model does not feature this change: Image Source: ModelViewer, AIM-120B above. ED made a conscious effort to differentiate the models of the two missiles by trimming the fins appropriately and changing the labels on each section. The decision not to change the length of the CSM is noteworthy. ED has made such errors in the past, so this by itself is not a guarantee that it was intentional. Another discrepancy can be found in the missile's respective lua files; The AIM_120.lua and AIM_120C.lua feature identical warheads. As previously stated, the AIM-120C-4 features an upgraded warhead. Therefore, again assuming ED knows this (which, as evidenced by the lack of mention of the new warhead in the aforementioned manual screenshot, they don't), the newest missile we could have is an AIM-120C-3. As the clipped wings were first featured as part of the AIM-120C-3, this lines up with the 3D model. The weapons file describes the AIM-120C as having slightly more (4.72kg/10.2 pounds) of fuel mass than the AIM-120B, which conversely is a sign that they are trying to model the AIM-120C-5. It is also a better missile in a number of areas, none of which clearly point to it being a C-5. There is a serious problem with the files however, first brought up to me by @DCS FIGHTER PILOT . The AIM-120B actually burns longer than the AIM-120C in DCS. Eagle Dynamics has given the AIM-120C a longer (6.5 seconds instead of 5) sustain motor burn time with an impulse of 234 instead of 227. At the same time though, they have entirely deleted the AIM-120C's boost section! As the 2003 USAF Weapons File states, all versions of the AMRAAM, at least up to that point (including the AIM-120C-5), had a boost AND sustain phase. The AIM-120B thus has 2.1 seconds of boost burn time with an impulse of 236 where the AIM-120C has nothing. It just goes straight to sustain. A crude comparison created by multiplying the burn times of the various stages by the impulse units assigned to them reveals that the C has 1521 total impulse units while the B has 1630.6, a difference of more than 7%. Consider also that the AIM-120C weighs 2.2% more than the B. At least in terms of raw power, the AIM-120B is likely the superior missile by a fairly wide margin. If the AIM-120C retained the AIM-120B's boost phase and added the more powerful, longer sustain phase (from the C-5's extended rocket motor) the total thrust units would be about 2016.6, an increase of more than 23%. Taking this new information into account, it is not possible to determine what AIM-120C ED is modeling. It's too messed up to be firmly decided upon. In terms of pure kinematics, the AIM-120B is probably the superior missile, something that does not make any sense at all. In summary, the missile has the clipped wings of the C-3, lacks the warhead of the C-4, has an incorrect implementation of the C-5's rocket motor and does not feature the appropriate external model changes. In conclusion: The missile's characteristics fit best with the AIM-120C-3, albeit missing part of its rocket motor and at least one key seeker mode (MPRF) MODULE-BY-MODULE VARIANT APPLICABILITY BREAKDOWN: F-15E: Image Source: Razbam Discord The base F-15E variant in DCS would not have the C-7, however it would likely have access to the C-6. The 2010 CTU would almost certainly have the C-7. There is a distinct possibility that the 2010 CTU could also carry the AIM-120D (Deliveries seem to have begun in FY09 if not earlier per one of the previously posted charts), however I am not under the illusion that we will or should receive it. F-16C: Image Source: Official ED F-16 Roadmap Firstly, it is important to note that at this time the Air Force was the only operator of the F-16C Block 50. The ANG would not receive the block until around 2012. The F-16C Block 50 was, at the time, one of the US' most lethal platforms and was stationed in Europe accordingly. It is now certain that our Viper's existence coincided with the existence of hundreds (700+) of AIM-120C-7s in the air force's inventory. If a war kicked off and our (war-oriented, again because our Viper's available stores point towards a war-fighting aircraft, not a peacetime one) Bl. 50 F-16 was to go, (which it would, considering that this was pre-F-35 and the '50 was the U.S.' premiere SEAD asset with a number stationed in Germany) it would likely be carrying C-7s. The question is, would an M4.2 F-16 be able to use an AIM-120C-7? Image Source: RDT&E Report FY06 Vol.3 P.131 Image Source: RDT&E Report FY09 Vol.3 P.138 Referring to the development of the AIM-120C-7: "The Air Force’s 53d Wing and the Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron NINE will conduct the Phase 3 FOT&E under the oversight of the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center and the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force starting in late 2004, and continuing through the end of 2005... During the FOT&E, ten missiles will be launched against threat-representative aerial targets operating in various demanding operationally realistic tactical scenarios. The evaluation will include integration of the missile on the F-15, F-16, F/A-18C/D, and F/A-18E/F aircraft." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.254 Based on the above, I believe the answer is yes. M4.2+ was an extensive upgrade to the F-16 and was in development for years along with the AIM-120C-7. The C-7's testing directly including integrating it to the F-16 and occurred years prior to the release of M4.2+. It seems quite unlikely that the update would exclude support for it. F-18C: Image Source: Official ED F/A-18C FAQ The AIM-120C-5 is a pretty safe bet for an F/A-18C in this timeframe. The C-6 is also probable. The C-7 is likely out of the question. CONCLUSION: It is clear from the evidence presented above that, especially for the F-15 and 16, the C-6 and C-7 are relevant in the sim and should be modeled. Exact data on improvements are not available publicly but we do know what was upgraded, that those upgrades would be tangible and which areas of the missile's performance these upgrades would affect. Data on aircraft systems integration is sparse but as the updates are evolutionary it is unlikely that there was any appreciable difference in the interface besides perhaps increased launch ranges. PROPOSAL: Model the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7: No missiles will require a new 3D model. Only minor texture updates (the lettering on the missile and location of panel lines) will be required. All other changes will likely be edits to copies of existing AIM-120C files. AIM-120C-4: -Same characteristics as the current AIM-120C but with an upgraded warhead and using the AIM-120B's propulsion characteristics AIM-120C-5: -Same as the AIM-120C-4 but with an appropriate increase in fuel mass along with remodeled panel lines for the rocket motor and control section module and an increased sustain burn time in addition to the AIM-120C-4's boost phase (which the AIM-120C currently lacks) AIM-120C-6: -Same as AIM-120C-5 but increase the proximity fuze radius from 9 to ~13 meters. (A kill is still reliably produced with a 15 meter PF per user testing) AIM-120C-7: -Same as AIM-120C-6 but: -reduce the missile's vulnerability to chaff and jamming -(if possible) reduce missile's vulnerability to notching by a noticeable amount (~20-30%) -Increase missile kinematic performance through guidance model optimizations. Add Them to Modules In The Sim: F-15E: -Current version receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 -Later versions also receive the AIM-120C-7 and (technically) AIM-120C-8 (also known as the AIM-120D) F-16C: -Receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7 F-18C: -Receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5 and AIM-120C-6 Thanks for reading.

if somebody has to change the color of a specific bolt...maybe those screenshots are of help to you (click on screenshot to enlarge). 01.jpg right side back 02.jpg right side front 03.jpg left side front 04.jpg left side back upper part of texture file ch-47f_tex04_grn It's not complete / I did not label all nuts/bolts, but it may safe some time to some people. Unfortunately, some bolts use the same texture part. That makes it impossible to use the correct color for all bolts with a complex livery.

https://aka.ms/vs/17/release/vc_redist.x64.exe Please make sure you have this redistributable on your machine. You will need to reboot the pc after you have it installed. Thank you

Beware the fruit flies.... Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Huh what?? Are you crazy? Would I recommend an Intel i7 12700K in 2024 for 200$, brand new? ...which works with Z690 and Z790 motherboards, both available for DDR5 and DDR4 RAM ? (i.e, you can reuse your older RAM!) ...which is faster most of the time than the newer AMD AM5 Ryzen 7700X, 7800X and 9700X, for considerably less money ? ...a 170W Intel "K" 12-core (8/16 P + 4 E) that also overclocks like a champ, even with a simple $40.00 dual-tower air cooler ? (TR Peerless Assassin, Phantom Spirit, etc) ...and hasn't any of this recent degradation BS ? Frak yeah, of course I do!!! a million times! Best processor for the money, by far and large (it's not even close!). This is coming from someone who has repeatedly done top builds with the ultra hyped 13900K, 13700K, 14700K, 5800X3D and 7800X3D, among others - the i7 12700K is an absolute gem, and the most overlooked and underrated CPU in this "yutuberzz-influencerzz" biased market. Makes the 5800X3D absolutely atrocious in price/performance. And similar can be said for the i9 12900K (another gem, though this one is still noticeably dearer than the i7 12700K). So much so that I put my money where my mouth is, and brought one last year for myself. (170$ from used market, and a Z690 TUF D4 for 140$) So good in fact that I don't really see any point worth in upgrading yet.

Personally I'd love a "No Mark" option. I have it set to dot right now (VR) and constantly mistake it for targets or wingmen.

That's awesome, thanks!

I cannot agree more, a tiny fraction of us might be looking forward to the Tornado as an example, bur THOUSANDS of us are exasperated, and pi##$d off by the what feels like a collapsing CORE of the Sim. Does not help putting lipstick on a pig of core...its still remains a pig. 7 days of testing now...and no closer to a definitive answer, except to say my Rigs ability to run missions has TANKED....AGAIN for the 2nd time in around 6 months, both after "Updates" Absolutely NUTS that we need to even consider this...but for now it looks like the only sane thing to do, Thanx for sharing

I do like Camembert and blue cheeses, hehehe

wheelie

Will be a small patch for some crash fixes. thank you

В том то и дело, что нужно уметь голову использовать. Если Вам не нравится, каждый раз после обновления чистить папки в ручную. Так и напишите в хотелках вместо "Добаьте кнопку чтоб не запускалось"(после которой каждый третий будет долбить поддержку "у меня игра не запускается"). На "Добавьте очистку папок и файлов, рекомендуемых разработчиком, после обновления игры". И если до сих пор разработчик не автоматизировал эти задачи, значит считает не существенными. Не думаю, что добавить строчку кода удаления папки, займёт много времени. P.s. И как отписавшиеся выше обновлялся также(до появления лаунчера). По двадцать (фигурально выражаясь) раз запускать выходить и заходить, чтобы очистить никогда не приходилось. Повторюсь Вы создаёте себе проблемы на пустом месте. И коль уж ты перешёл на "ТЫ", я тебе не хамил, а порекомендовал подумать головой.

У Вас уже есть такая кнопка-голова называется. Честно говоря после апдейта обычно ничего не чищу, и вроде всё работает. Вообще по моему Вы себе создаёте проблемы на пустом месте.

У каждого свой путь)

Hey there BoFrost, Super fired up to see you flying the campaign. I will tag onto what Mistermann said above as I am typically his wingman or copilot when flying these campaigns. Our aim of the campaign is to really bring the scout/recon experience to DCS and drive home the Coop mind set with 2 or more players. That being said, we wanted to also make it available to anyone's play style to include single player, allowing for a more unrealistic load out scenario to compensate for the lack of a second or third player. After listening to and reading books from former Kiowa pilots and even OH-6 crews, we discovered these aircraft were going into combat with limited ammo and were strongly focused on their role as scouts. This was to include objectives such as close air support, searching for high value targets, intel gathering flights, and assisting gunships such as Apache's or Cobras (Cayuse days) in Hunter Killer missions. We wanted the Kiowa to feel like it has a more role/platform specific objective with these mission's driving the pilots to make critical decisions to engage or avoid certain combat scenarios based on the limited ammo they are carrying. In M03, we wanted to simulate a QRF (Quick Reaction Force) responding to and attacking our SF team as they were trying to bug out. While under fire, in a situation like this, the Kiowa's objective would be to provide CAS if in the area so the SF team could get to the extract point. Eliminate every insurgent would be a risk to your aircraft and running out of ammo. In a real-world scenario, AAA (Kords in the Mission) would be a major concern to any extract helo coming in to pull the boys out. To keep the player on their toes, we made the AAA mobile, forcing the recon aspect of searching for and eliminating the AAA while still being able to knock down some of the QRF and forcing the pilot to maintain situational awareness. We want to be flexible for single players while still trying to keep the recon feel, which can be difficult at times. Flying 2 man is blast and really does change the tempo and increase the fun factor in my opinion. We have taken your feedback (appreciated) and will be making some modifications to add a "fat Cow" at the airport for refueling. I really look forward to your continued feedback on the campaign. I think you are going to dig the missions coming up.

There is a fix coming for the Dora engine, in my testing it seems fine now, if there is an issue with top speed based on MW-50 and source material its best to make a new post.

Adalla

Yeah, I totally agree with this. Additionally, in going to monthly updates, we now have to wait until ED sees fit to push out anything that could fix the problem. In my opinion, making changes that break the game in a meaningful way for a large group of users, then expecting that they wait until mid-September for a fix is unreasonable and borders on ridiculous. It is only a video game, I get it, but my guess is that across the aircraft modules, terrains, and campaigns that I own, I'm pushing $1,500 USD spent on software alone, not to mention the state of the art supercomputer I have to have to run the game, the peripherals, etc. Sorry, but it is definitely a major frustration.

Exactly. I know I'll buy it, its just a matter of time. And it will be my 1st chopter in DCS. So you can buy it without any hesitation @fapador as well, and I'm sure you will at least like, if not love it.

Me too

LUXURY_KIMO It ain't just a combat game.

So I finally figured out the majority of what you can do with the Engineer utilizing the cargo hook. Slightly longer video but I go through the key binds and process from start to finish hooking, transitioning, and dropping the cargo. All done in VR. Pretty trippy looking through the trapdoor in VR at your cargo swinging below. Looking forward to when ED implements the Coop so we can actually have someone flying and the other as the engineer.

Glad to hear it works. If there is an "Oxygen" message lingering on screen for 1000 seconds, it should raise suspicion that smth needs to be done there There are 3 switches: normal - normal - on. You need to check all 3. It's written down in your kneeboard cards too, all checklists are there, as well as in pdf format in the doc folder, why did I work so much on these if nobody is looking at them?