Leaderboard

COMING SOON In this DCS: F-16C Viper video, we’ll discuss the basic operation of the AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod, or ATP in this video. While we’ve had a targeting pod for our Viper for quite some time, it has inaccuracies and was more a mash-up of LANTIRN and Litening pods that we’ll continue to offer with our Viper. The ATP, however, is quite accurate and based on a US Viper circa 2007. While much of the ATP will have commonality with the existing targeting pod, it has distinct differences like Multi-Target Track, TV and infrared camera picture in picture, extended range image processing, an infrared pointer, and more advanced air-to-air features. In later videos, we’ll review these more advanced features. Please note that all HOTAS commands can be found using the SEARCH command in the Input Manager based on the input names used in the video. NOTE 1: Upon completing a couple more Viper and F/A-18C videos, general DCS update videos will continue. NOTE 2: This targeting pod has a much common name, but it is trademarked. NOTE 3: Point track doesn't require a long press of TMS Forward, rather I find it works best for me. When you press TMS Forward, it will enter AREA track while held; and then upon release of TMS Forward, regardless of duration of press, the pod will attempt to establish a POINT track but may stay in AREA if POINT isn't possible. NOTE 4: Until recently, there was an issue where if MIDS was enabled before the GPS had fully initialized and gained timing signals (GPS SYSTEM displayed on the TIME DED page), the MIDS wouldn't select GPS time automatically for its timing reference so it could achieve FINE sync. However, we have changed it so that the DLNK selects GPS by default now as soon as GPS time is available, so it doesn't matter. So, you can now enable GPS and MIDS immediately after getting on engine power, and the MIDS will self-initialize as needed when the INS is aligned and GPS timing is achieved. NOTE 5: DTOS is not valid for Snowplow, only CCRP and LADD for the bombing modes. Full video Text:

I've got no beef with RAZBAM.

@Hammer1-1 & @Timghetta You guys can take this to DM and figure it out, please. Discussion of Microsoft FS and products related to it are not for discussion either, neither are drama from those products, we have plenty of drama we can talk about here already. Thanks.

What? You made this up and I am suppose to prove you wrong? Are you serious? LMAO Doesn't work that way, you made the accusations, the burden of proof falls on you.

he abandoned all his projects in MS FSX and P3D, left his customers hanging. He blamed microsoft for his products failings, so the fact that he's doing this again doesnt really...tell YOU anything? say whatever you want, but its not like those of us who've been around havent been paying attention to who's who in this business and can attest to this simple fact for you. theres a difference between being optimistic and being realistic, and realistically Zambrano ditched another group...and for what? dont let the simple thought of Razbam making a comeback to finish the job stop you from thinking he wont do this again.

i was impressed watching the video. the images from the STP looks great. good job ED.

Finally! Great info! This month?

Ah. "Yoyo mk2". "it's right because it is physics and that is unquestionable". Argument over. You based your argument on data which is physics so it's unquestionable. Ive got some news for you. You built your premise on an assumption, that the physics model is being used all the time. See those routines AI performs... See how they follow patterns...see how they snap together so neatly... or maybe you aren't looking. Let me tell you something you apparently don't know or have ever seen. it will come as a shock. Ai doesn't use physical models during all aspects of flight. Have you even watched AI forming up and suddenly braking in the air 50 knots suddenly stopping like a car crash? Have you seen AI brake on the runway? Have you seen the points of the SFM curve when the AI gets stuck between two drag coefficients and snaps between them causing it to flip and jerk. Have you seen the AI warbirds flying around with no engine floating at cruising speed, not losing altitude? Have you seen the AI in this game perform something that is not physically possible, despite apparently using a model that is physically sound? I think you don't play this game! You don't need to be Sir Isaac Newton to know an apple falls down, it doesn't float. Physics is not the problem here. You are arguing about physics when the topic is software, where magic is possible and under that illusion is this game. You talk models but have assumed it's being used, at least all the time. I'm here to tell you they aren't, much like the people who think little 'mitochondria' come out of the nose of aircraft with radar...they don't either, it's software. I don't want to hear about models that are not applying to this simulation, it is a worthless and impractical spend of my time when every year I report some strange behaviour where it might be the most accurate nasa supercomputer model using quantum mechanics for all I care but if a plane is floating upside down or even if it's just got the attributes of a rocket or a snail, no one cares, it's wrong, end of conversation.

Hey YoYo, just wanted to give you a huge thank you. There's not too many people in this world who would so selflessly give their time to give something back to a hobbyist community such as this. I'm just super impressed by you.

The feel, the visual model, the features, this one is special. I think the Corsair is the best warbird yet to be released for DCS! Amazing work.

@Lidozin In all fairness, your forum account isn't exactly mature, how long have you been playing DCS, if I may ask. Because you are aware that you sort of come off as a troll? Especially when you start this thread and give yourself the solution. That's just bad standards. Let's just all hope that the GFM will be released soon, or as someone claims. The CPU hit isn't that great even if AI were to use real time data. Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

R-77 is not planned sorry

Hello Currenthill, hello everyone. Can you hope after finishing the Chinese active pack, a French active pack, please ?

CSAR is something we have on our wish list to do, we would like more taskings for helo pilots, its something for the future. Its not we are ignoring it, we just have much higher priority issues and tasks ahead of it.

Hi, thanks a lot for taking the time to share your feedback! I totally understand if the campaign didn’t click with you, humor is always a matter of taste, and it’s absolutely fine if it wasn’t for you. To clarify: the whole “Köttbullar” or food-related banter actually makes up only about 2–3% of the dialogue across the entire campaign. These lighter moments are deliberately placed outside of combat zones and not during mission-critical phases. My intention as mission designer was to use that kind of dialogue to break up longer transfer or transit phases, and to add a bit of personality and contrast to the otherwise grim, fictional war setting. Even in real conflicts, some degree of human or dark humor is not uncommon among soldiers under pressure. That said, I completely respect if that tone doesn't work for you. Again, taste differs. For future, I’ll definitely consider adding an option to disable non-essential dialogue for players who prefer a stricter tone. Thanks again. Yes, Sweden and Finland

In the real world, constant trim is the reality. However, unless you are going to be steady state for a bit, its better to just hold the control pressure instead of adjusting trim during maneuvering flight. The only exception is the elevator axis, as the control forces can vary greatly and sometimes you will need to trim during maneuvering flight. So, hold the rudder pressure required unless you are in steady state climb, cruise or descent. It sounds like the Corsair is actually moving away from the "flies like a jet" Warbird standard we have endured for decades.

Wags is working on a video for the release of the AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod, as soon as we are ready we will share more.

Hi there, please have a look at the keybindings, at the moment it is very inconsistent: some switches toggle irrespective if I click left or right mouse button. Even some three way switches toggle through the three states with any mouse click. Also some dials I can mouse drag them (e.g. when setting the altimeter) and that works fine in 2D and in VR (I have mouse disabled in VR, and use my head movements as a mouse controller), however other dials, like the lighting don't work with click and drag in VR when using head movement. To summarise my wish: 1. All switches that go down, should be left click 2. All switches that go up, should be right click. 3. Rotary switches, like the fuel tank selector: left-click should turn it anti-clockwise, right-click should turn it clockwise. 4. All dials, like altimeter setting and lighting should be able to click and drag in VR with mouse disabled 5. All dials as in point 4 should also work using mouse scroll wheel 6. Include keybinds for all switches, please include a bind for each state, and a bind for toggling a state. E.g. there is no keybind to show/hide the pilot body. Please also make gear and hook as toggle buttons as well. I think something like the master arm only has one possible state at the moment. Many hardware users need ON/ELSE or OFF/ELSE type key binds as well. (Look at the Hornet for example, the "special" cases). Thanks in advance! Fresh

Nah! I checked my system and I get pilot bodies in external views, but not when I am in the cockpit. Strange - Maybe there is not enough room for 3 of us in the cockpit.

Cheers Rudel

yes.

Q2 was, indeed, our best estimate. Check out this week's newsletter; estimates might be firming up now.

We've seen them in the other beyond videos, so that doesn't mean much. Just think they didn't have any new clips to show off, and showed off more eurofighter instead. Hoggit post with Cobra response alludes to a summer dev update with intruder news. fingers crossed

Neither did the nukes on the MiG-21 and we have them anyway Realistic does not mean "exactly as the reality", but that could perfectly fit into reality. Giving us the R-27EA for the MiG-29A would be absolutely realistic and plenty of more joy and choices for players and editors. If someone still do not agree, we will have some funny discussions when capabilities of F-35A FF are fully revealed and someone may talk about "realistic things"

A/EA variant was developed for a while in the 80s (ARH seeker, basically), but at some point further work was abandoned in the late 80s as they focused on the more promising R-77 design.

Because the -ER (-ET) entered service. The -AE did not.

It is the nature of the beast, we have lots of things on the go and want to do more, but we only have so many devs and so much time in the day. We continue to develop and bring new things to DCS, it has come a long way in what is well over 16 years now. thank you

Another problem is that most co-era adversaries of the F4 in DCS (e.g. Mirage F1, Mig 21 etc) have 'imaginative' radar modeling and capabilities, and that puts the F4, which realistically simulates a pulse radar, at a great disadvantage and voids the benefit of its relative BVR superiority. Of course, I can't imagine a practical solution to this problem other than ED setting ground rules for at least FF modules somehow, but even that could be a practice in futility. So, best to stay away from multiplayer with the F4, at least until other modules come closer to reality in their systems modeling.

Hi Mate Recently finished This F4U-1 of El Salvador Air Force (Fuerza Aérea Salvadoreña) Soccer War 1969. Built by Goodyear under the designation FG-1D in 1957. DOWNLOAD HERE: F4U-1D Corsair El Salvador_ FAS 1967

I totally agree with @Pikey in every point he makes.

Absolutely agree with the above post. Rudder trim should be used judiciously; much better to get used to using your feet a lot when you fly a high-powered prop aircraft. When flying a relatively high-powered single in a bush-flying environment, I never used rudder trim at all. The central position was about right for cruising and it was no labour to apply a bit of foot pressure on climbs and descents, although admittedly we never flew higher than 10,000 feet. We’d also quite often be using short-ish airstrips which were sometimes wet/soft, so you’d need to approach at a slower than normal speed, which meant you were on the back side of the drag curve and hence speed-unstable. This in turn meant that you’d frequently be making large power adjustments to keep both the speed right and on the glide path - and that meant rapid and significant rudder inputs, especially in hot and gusty conditions. So it was important that the rudder trim was central. It’s also easy to get way out of whack with trim when you also have aileron trim - there was a case in WW2 of a Halifax bomber declared ‘rogue’ by its inexperienced pilot because it wouldn’t fly straight. The station commander was suspicious, saw that the pilot had full rudder trim one way and full aileron the other, wound them both back to neutral and found the aeroplane flew perfectly.

That's how it works. Same in the F-5.

I recommend this video to all Crystal Super beginners: It significantly improved performance for me. Without these settings, I had 70-80 FPS in F4 Free Flight Israel (with reduced graphics in DCS!). With the measures described, I get 90 FPS with maximum graphics settings (!!!). However, this is also due to the fact that the foveated rendering area has been greatly reduced. This doesn't look so good in the above flight in the evening, because the lights outside the FR area become blurred. If I enlarge the area significantly, I still get 80 FPS, despite maximum graphics settings. However, there was some stutters during low-level flight. I will try to optimise this next, but unfortunately I won't be able to do so until Sunday...

Yes dry grass shouldn’t have that effect: I have first hand experience with it too. But judging by some YouTube videos I saw, the effect is still quite *under*done in the desert, though.

I play Campaigns because I prefer flying by myself, the mp server scene is too toxic for me so no interest on looking at servers, I just purchase whatever map strikes my interest, no need to care if other people have the same maps or not.

I hope we can share a more definite date with you all soon, and then we will try our best to get it on steam store also. thank you

Cheers Scoobs, just reposting that to save you having to chop it out to add more

What would have been the optimum duration for it to have gone on for?

The facts are there regarding Razbam and Ron's "mothodology", you just chose to ignore them... they say lightening never strikes twice, but it's not the case when Razbam are involved, people who have been around for a few years will have noticed a pattern when it comes to Razbam.. People wouldn't bash on Ron if he wasn't so arrogant and hot headed, you don't have to personally know someone to know their charcteristics and mannerisms.

Update: We're close to having the Zero dialed in. I've got it to the point that the Corsair can now extend away from the Zero as it should, and AI Corsairs can actually shoot them down. We've fixed quite a few issues so far: Engine displacement was too high. Corrected the gearbox ratio. Propeller diameter was too small. Manifold pressures were too high (it was pulling 67in MAP at WEP!). Removed ADI (a system that to my knowledge was only ever installed on the A6M6, and never actually saw combat). Sea Level speed was too high (there's some debate over whether this actually affects AI performance or not, but this was the real key for me when I tested it). Roll rate has been corrected to tested values (max roll rate is 56deg/s at 150mph tas and falling from there). We're still looking at the other aerodynamic data. If anyone has info for the A6M5a or could help with calculations it would be a big help.

I think it's absolutely a major factor. There's a YouTube channel I watch regularly, and EVERY time he flies a Mustang or P-47 I see the same sequence of events: Pulls up well inside convergence range, often even closer than 100 yards. Makes a snapshot. A couple rounds plink off the target's wing on either side of the fuselage. Complains about .50cal being "underpowered." His response when someone else suggested he's firing out of convergence was an indignant, "I used my rudder to walk the rounds across the target," which doesn't address the issue, and if anything only makes it worse by scattering his hits even further.

Over the English Channel south of I.O.W.

I'm always happy to surprise people. That said, why is a "Cold War gone hot" scenario on the Kola map surprising? It’s actually a natural fit if you think about it. Just look back at classics like EF2000 or Jane’s Combat Simulations. When I choose a map, I focus on what suits the scenario best, not necessarily what is the most commonly owned or flown. And with the latest updates from Orbx, the Kola map has really started to shine—it’s evolving into a beautiful and immersive environment. Of course, everyone is free to have their own opinion. But personally, I really like it—and I believe it’s a perfect match for the setting I’m going for. One last note: developing a campaign takes several months—often a year or more. When I started this project, there was no Germany Cold War map available. But rest assured the alternate 1985 story will eventually move into Germany as well.