icuham

I think I might have worked around it by creating a new shortcut to launch DCS with "bin-mt\DCS.exe --force_enable_VR --force_OpenXR" instead of selecting options in the Steam launch window. Not sure what happened in the last patch to require me to do this to get things on OpenXR again but for now at least it's not crashing, still a black cursor but hopefully that gets fixed sometime I guess. Thanks for the note on the dedicated server, we were doing that previously. Might be time to start again.

@Flappie MT used to be very solid for me but since the last patch I too run ST all the time because there is now an extremely high chance in MT that at some point my VR feed goes black and never comes back. I much prefer MT, but in a 1 hour session I'm almost guaranteed to hit this at least once and I'm usually the game host, so I can't have that level of instability. Game is running fine, so everyone else can continue... but my VR somehow desync's is the best I can describe it. Only on MT, really hoping whatever was introduced in that patch goes back to normal later.

@Dscross It is useful in CSAR! You do you! We have it working in CTLD & CSAR, and we even have paratroops dropping by patching the BRONCO and adding another script. I'll drop my current lua script versions here, but be warned they are modified versions (in multiple ways) for use with squad Liberation missions. The patch to add paratroops to the loadout is too large to share directly in the forum. If you have questions send @ Hammer in the Split-Air discord and I can help you with issues. CSAR.lua CTLD.lua para-spawner.lua

Before I go trying each of these.... Do they all pass IC?

+1 Another vote for an option to change this in the settings

Can you share exactly what you did to change this please? I think a lot of us would like this change.

This approach seems completely different from Laidlaw's description of how they flew in Libya, but it certainly makes sense that different approaches would be used by different operators in different contexts. Night lighting in DCS isn't quite realistic yet, and I'm not sure using FLIR only would be a comfortable or enjoyable experience in VR for extended periods. Many of our friends will simply opt out of that rather than deal with the discomfort in game. ...If so many real Apache pilots also showed preference for NVGs with symbology, why would players prefer an experience without it? I'd rather have a workable solution that players enjoy in the game even if not all Apache pilots employed it. If that's not SDU, then either Laidlaw's solution of a single monocle or fixing the NVG FOV in VR seem like options that would make the experience more enjoyable for a player.

@TalonfoxThis sounds like a decent real life solution where you could see past the NVG edge by looking down, and didn't yet have an SDU available. It seems like IRL the FOV vertically of something like ANVIS should be about 40 degrees. In DCS VR the entire field of view is pretty much full of NVG (ie. >90 degrees in an HP Reverb G2) so with this filled we still have to raise the goggles in DCS to see the MPD video page right? Since you wouldn't have to lift the NVG in real life, the present NVGs in DCS aren't even a sufficient solution without the ability to see past them, imo. If we could see past them (as you can in the Gazelle) then this suggestion is a somewhat more workable solution, but even the US Army seems to have concluded that it could have been better... A note from the report attached above - there was a split opinion in RL pilots about ease of use looking under the NVGs and an overwhelming preference for NVGs with symbology (94.7%): "To further understand the use of MPD displayed flight symbology, pilots were asked to state the ease with which they could view the data while using ANVIS. Recall that pilots wearing the ANVIS system must look below/under the HMD to view the aircraft’s MPD. The responses were nearly evenly split between “Fairly easy,” 12 (31.6%), and “Fairly difficult,” 10 (26.3%). Of the remaining responses, 5 (13.2%) respondents report viewing is “Very easy,” 5 (13.2%) reported a “Neutral” response, 3 (7.9%) reported viewing is “Very difficult,” and 3 (7.9%) reported they did not use symbology, up from two reported on the previous survey question. figure 32 shows the complete results for this survey question." "The U.S. Army countered these problems by allowing the use of NVGs in the AH-64 cockpit while scheduling a modernization of the IHADSS’ infrared imaging system, in essence allowing the AH-64 pilot the “best of both worlds,” image intensification and infrared." <- Just like the 94.7% of pilots above I think most DCS players would like this solution too, especially given that the system was deployed. Might even help us avoid headaches from bright lights in one eye and darkness in the other in game too.

Presently, the AH-64 offers the IHADSS or night vision goggles but with NVGs on it's not possible to see any flight and targeting symbology while using the NVGs. The pilot is left with only IHADSS in a single eye, or must constantly switch back and forth between NVGs and IHADSS, which isn't ideal. In real life this has been overcome using a couple of options, at least one of these should be made available in DCS: Option 1: Single NVG monocle for left eye in addition to IHADSS in right eye. This solution is described in "Apaches Over Libya" by Will Laidlaw: "Over my left eye I brought down a single Night Vision Goggle (NVG) tube attached to my helmet. The left eye now had two jobs: look inside at the MPDs and look outside through the NVG. The right eye continued interpreting the HMD symbology with infrared video superimposed from the FLIR mounted on the nose of the aircraft..." This solution would be well implemented if it allows VR users to look 'underneath' the monocle as you can in the SA-342 so that your left eye can read the MFD in the lower view and see an NVG view in the predominant upper view. Option 2: Implement a dual-eye Symbology Display Unit (SDU) This solution is described in "USAARL Report No. 2007-05 Apache Aviator Evaluation of Dual-Technology Night Vision Systems in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Urban Combat (Master’s Thesis)" By J. Kevin Heinecke (UTSI) Clarence E. Rash (USAARL) Richard Ranaudo (UTSI) Keith L. Hiatt (OCS-FORSCOM) available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290612345_Dual-sensor_use_in_the_AH-64_crew_station_for_urban_combat_in_operation_Iraqi_freedom/link/5b79d098a6fdcc5f8b55a2c5/download "The U.S. Army has temporarily authorized the use of an improved version of NVGs modified for use with a symbology display unit (SDU). The SDU mounts to the pilot’s visor and provides the NVG wearer with full flight symbology representation identical to that provided by the IHADSS. An additional feature of the SDU design is that it allows for line-of-sight acquisition use of the aircraft’s onboard weapons system (U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, 2005). This system is only authorized for use by units operating in the combat theater and at the discretion of the individual commands." More info is required but this solution seems to offer a dual eye NVG system with the full IHADSS symbology overlaid on the right eye view which may minimize eye strain for VR users in DCS night missions. The same solution of offering a small space to look 'underneath' the goggles to see MFDs may work well here too. Perhaps these could be selected as cockpit options in the specials menu at some point. USAARLTR2008-05.pdf

When an AI AH-64 starts up at night on the Tarawa it's landing light comes on and can be seen reflecting on the water in front of the ship as well as off the deck in front of the helicopter. It should not be visible in front of the ship since the deck is in the way. ApacheLightThruTarawa.mp4

This has happened to me too. When I get stuck in the mud I use the reverse thrusters to rock it back and forth until I get enough momentum to get out. It sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not.

As @Rudel_chw mentioned, A-4 mod was the one I began messing with while trying to understand how to add them myself. The A-4 luas define the gunpod with what seems to be locations for the muzzle and shell ejection. The A-4 also requires a secondary arming panel for the gunpod beyond the "guns" switch so some additional complications there that might mean the HIPEG isn't a good base to start from... I stopped trying to modify things when I realized I would need to add the guns into the MFD logic and couldn't quickly sort out the connection from the MFD to the weapon. Wikipedia, for what it's worth suggests, the A-29 has been equipped with a GIAT M20A1 (The Gazelle in DCS uses a GAIT M621 which appears to the cannon encased in the M20A1 pod, but I couldn't get the CLSID from it's luas, let alone mod the appearance.) as well as M134's experimentally. The M134 can be mounted as an underwing option for the A-29 easily enough but I can't fire it without the MFD integration. I also thought about trying a UPK-23 because it seems like those might be everywhere and an easy test to stand-in for the M20A1 without the M621 CLSID. The MB-339 mod implements an AN-M3 and a DEFA 553 which might be another place to look. I'd be interested in contributing some time to help figure this out too, but I'm not sure where to start with the systems modeling and logic. Would need a hand starting out. UPDATE: I got the MB-339 pods added by importing the gun pod definitions to A-29.lua, allowing WPN_WEAPON_TYPE_IDS.AG_GUN in weapon_system.lua and making a few tweaks to include a mode of continuous fire based on a salvo... first steps.

Has anyone added gun pods to the A-29 yet? Would the MFD's SMS page need to be adapted to recognize/implement a gun pod? Anyone have experience with this?

Yeah, so with drag factored it looks like that's getting much more realistic than the current model.

I'm using this calculator for the trajectory: https://amesweb.info/Physics/Projectile-Motion-Calculator.aspx Trusting it's math... I used 2760 ft/s Vo (841m/s), 30* launch angle (based on this solution: https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html?vc=&vx=3000&vy=&va=90&vz=5000&vb=&angleunits=d&x=47&y=7), 0m initial altitude, 3000m final altitude, earths gravity. This results in a final velocity of 805m/s. (A vertical vector of 342m/s and a horizontal vector of 728m/s.) Flight time of 7.8s. If drag is slowing the shell further (considerably further) that may account for an discrepancy in both the velocity and time of flight, so while the range error is decreased the fuze accuracy is also decreased and a different calculation needs to account for drag induced deceleration to adjust my calculation. So I generally agree with the assessment, but I believe the shell velocity you should use is closer to 805m/s, not 420m/s, for this example (granting this may be affected by drag). I agree with the full range timing at 2.4 so this means the full variance should be +-805*2.4s = 1932m ( I used round numbers above to illustrate it more simply and arrived at 2000m). We can probably assume a normal distribution from there, so the final 50% value will also be wider, maybe closer to 200m on either side of the aircraft, but I'll leave that final detail to you Yo-Yo... It seems in principle we are in agreement.

Historical fuze timing variance for 88m is detailed in a report available here: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953461.pdf This report details a chart in Fig. 1A which gives tested variance between fuze setting and burst delay. A fuze setting near 0s yields an error of near 0s, but a fuze setting of 26s yields a variance in burst delay of >5s. After the shell has traveled 26s it's velocity will still be hundreds of meters per second dependent on angle of fire (say ~550m/s as an example calculated on a ~60* firing angle, with 2760ft/s initial velocity) . Thus, the placement of the burst could be anywhere along the line of trajectory within a range of 550m*5s = 2750m. We can establish a test of fuze timing accuracy in DCS.... At a distance of about 5.5-6km (3km altitude and 5km distance varying as the target flies) from the gun and an angle of ~30* the shell will take 7-8s to reach the target. it will be traveling 800m/s and it will have a fuze variance of (presumably) 2-3s depending on which initial shell velocity is modeled in DCS (less error for 2600ft/s and more for 2760ft/s from the report Fig 1A). That means, based on the report, we should see a range variance of 800m*2.5s or 2000m. Instead, in game we see the shell hit a highly predictable spot with a nearly exactly repeatable fuze delay shell after shell. The cadence of explosion is exactly the same, it seems, as the cadence of fire (a frequency of 1 explosion every 3s with error attributed to firing delay, not fuzing). This suggests there's no variance whatsoever in the shell's fuze and this seems to be an issue in the model which results in much higher longitudinal precision than a real world 88mm gun would have achieved. Attached are a few tracks representing this test. Upon replay most detonations follow the target high at the 9:00 or 8:00 position, predictably enough that you just need to turn your head left and look up to view most impacts. In reality, about half should explode before reaching the aircraft, half after, randomly. And the fuze variance should result in shells exploding at any distance from 1000m short to 1000m long, but almost all hit in a highly predictable & repeatable spot with what appears to be <100m in variance. We can conclude that the model likely doesn't factor in fuze variance at all, or that if it is modeled it is much too precise compared with the real world data presented. flaktest.trk flaktest2.trk flaktest3.trk flaktest4.trk

Additional track files for a comparison of ammunition types CM/HE/AG/No Tracer. Results showed explosions present in all ammo types despite most presumed ammunition loadout mixtures not having explosive ammunition. (Assumptions: CM - 1x Brandgranate (Leuchtspur?), 1x panzergranate (Leuchtspur?) presumed, HE - some mix of Pzgr. (L'Spur), Br. (L'Spur) with Sprenggranate (L'Spur), AG - Panzergranate & Pzgr. L'Spur possibly w/ Br. (L'Spur), No Tracer - Panzergranate, possibly with Brandgranate (both w/o L'Spur)) The assumption of CM including AP(-T) & API(-T) being based on standard loadouts in a 1944 gunnery instruction manual Des Jaegers Schiessfibel pg 32. : both "4 motorige Bomber" an "alle anderen Flugzeuge" to use "1 Brandgr. + 1 Panzergr." with MG131. Accounting for Wulf's disagreement above, the only time HE ammo should then be present at all is in an HE loadout assuming as well that this selection doesn't only add HE rounds to the MK108. However, explosions are still witnessed with CM, AG, and No tracer loads. Particular damage to pilot was reported with CM and No Tracer specifically, similar but not quite as pronounced as in the previous test (rounds directed to mid-fuselage but not directly to the pilot), but significantly harder to produce with HE and AG even when HE and AG were directed to the canopy itself to attempt to kill the pilot directly. Further track files included in following posts. target-CM-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-004359.trk target-notracer-2of2-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-013443.trk target-Notracer-1of2-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-012852.trk tracks.... target-HE-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-005739.trk target-AG-ctrlsurfaces-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-011033.trk tracks... target-AG-pilot-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-012004.trk shooter-no-tracer-2of2.trk tracks.... shooter-ag-pilot-server-20201228-001946.trk tracks... shooter-no-tracer1of2-server-20201228-002806.trk tracks... shooter-ag-ctrlsurfaces-server-20201228-000948.zip

So.... we'll stick with my numbers then, cool. Can you post your test tracks to help with the research please?

The comparison is between 13mm and 30mm. There's no need to confuse the issue. Compare HE to HE! I read your posts and the study, I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic as it relates to this bug report... You started by saying a 13mm gun is more similar to a 20mm gun than a 12.7mm gun based on the use of HE ammunition, but provide no quantification of the difference, just 'design'. So I quantified the difference in HE material to show you that a 30mm shell has delivers 50x more energy at the point of detonation. (Remember, this bug is about the 13mm causing damage to the pilot and control surface subsystems ...but not the engine... in a way that is similar to 30mm, NOT 12.7mm) Then you drag the discussion to a comparison between a 12.7x99 round and a 13x64 round rather than 30mm vs 13mm. I showed you that there's no substantial difference between a 12.7mm round and a 13mm round by supplying a study which tries to baseline and quantify damage produced by these two cartridges, and then directly compares them to HE damage in a 30mm shell. You ignore this point, but agree that 12.7mm API is 'quite equivalent' to 13mm HE but once again ignore the 30mm. So, I'm happy that we agree and I summarize the comparison between 13mm HE (or it's equivalent 12.7mm API) and 30mm HE to show once again that a 13mm HE shell has just 2% of the energy at detonation that a 30mm HE shell has based this new commonly accepted source of data for HE damage. ...And you bring it back, again, to API vs HE! That's NOT the point of this thread! It is completely irrelevant to the bug (though I'm starting to think it might warrant its own based on this new information I'm learning!). There's no 12.7mm being fired in the bug report, it's all 13mm and 30mm. Every source I've provided has quantification of explosives or the destructive quality of that explosive, or provides in-game evidence that the model doesn't seem to match the realistic amount of damage dealt by a 13mm round (...2% of a 30mm round). There's no point debating this further unless you share some real numbers regarding HE damage potential between 13mm and 30mm shells. The report provided is sufficient in that respect. ...The idea that a 34g shell with 2g of explosive would act anything even remotely similar to a 330g shell with 85g of explosive is a ridiculous comparison and I've shown this now in a couple of different ways. There's been no evidence offered which disputes this so far.

Perfect! So we've arrived at a common baseline to reference and we can leave these statistics for ED to consider. The 'dangerousness' of the 13mm HE ammo is clearly quantified in the paper and we can stop throwing subjective statements. Here was the conclusions of the paper, once again. Note the columns DAMAGE and ENERGY SCORE. Based on our mutually agreeable data source, a single 13mm HE should cause about 6% of the damage of a 30mm round (13mm AP should be <5%) while a single .50 bullet should cause about 8% of the damage of a 30mm round factoring in the combined kinetic + chemical energy. Considering ONLY explosive energy.... The blast energy of a 13mm HE round based on the author's method is 35% of the total damage (~7 in the damage column, 9 if you run the calculation yourself) compared to the 30mm blast energy of ~414 (580 * (250)/(100+(250)), where the shell is composed of 25% HE and this then increases the kinetic energy damage by +250%). So, a 13mm shell should cause 2% of the explosive damage of the 30mm. We arrive at the same conclusion as my first response.: CARTRIDGE TYPE ROUND WEIGHT MV M/SEC PROJECTILE WEIGHT GM % HEI CONTENT DAMAGE POWER 13x64B AP / HE 76 / 72 710 / 750 38.5 / 34 - / 3.5 27 / 34 3.2 12.7x99 API 112 890 43 2 46 4.6 30x90RB HE (M) 480 505 330 25 580 58 CALIBRE PROJECTILE TABLE 1 SCORE ENERGY SCORE ENERGY / TABLE 1 30 x 90RB HE (M) 12.61 23.03 1.83 13 x 64B HE 0.70 0.74 1.07 12.7 x 99 API 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 x 64B AP 0.70 0.44 0.64

Harmonization plays absolutely no role in whether or not a 13mm or .303 creates explosive damage effects.

Here’s an article which quantifies the energy to account for kinetic and chemical energy and compares directly: https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&file=print&kid=483&page=1 I still don’t see a substantial difference between 12.7x99 and 13x64.... So 1 MG131 is roughly equivalent to 1 M2.

The amount of explosive is an incredibly small fraction no matter how you try to position it. (Does the default DCS CM belt even have HE? The references above note an explosion at 700m, we don't witness this with 13mm do we?) It simply shouldn't create a similar effect to 30mm, yet the pilot of the target aircraft experiences this in the effects, particularly the pilot health model and control surfaces. The other tell tale sign is that the engine doesn't experience the same effect. It suffers much more damage from a 30mm shell than a 13mm. If 13mm HE was the explanation then how does that reconcile? To make this even more obvious, the Spitfire's .303 rounds ALSO cause explosive effects (sounds, etc). Surely that's not HE packed into a .303 round? This line of justification doesn't hold together at all for me.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of a MG151/15? The MG131 has even less kinetic energy than a Browning M2... It's HE shells aren't useful for much more than spotting... They have less than 1/10 of the explosive in a 15mm shell and 1/50 of the explosive in a 30mm. Do you think that will knock out a pilot or kill them in the explosion? The only thing smaller is the .303 rounds on the Spit (which also shouldn't explode): MG131: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_131_machine_gun "13 mm AP-T (Pzgr. L'Spur) - 710 m/s, projectile mass 38.5 grams (594 gr), muzzle energy 989 m/kg[2] 13 mm HE-T (Sprgr. L'Spur) - 710 m/s, projectile mass 34 grams (520 gr)[3] 13 mm HEI-T (Br. Sprgr. L'Spur) - 750 m/s, projectile mass 34 grams (520 gr) with 1.4 grams (22 gr) PETN + 0.3 grams (4.6 gr) thermite, muzzle energy 975 m/kg[4]" http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-am.html "1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl 1 Brandsprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl 1 Sprenggranatpatrone L'Spur Üb m. Zerl This load is a mixture of AP and HE/I with training ammunition (Übung) with self-destruct fuses! This was used in the MG 131 because it detonated after about 700m, and the flashes had a deterrent effect on attacking fighters. The relatively generous use of tracer and phosphorus ammunition in the MG 17 probably had a similar background." AN/M2 .50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning#Ammunition http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3055 "Further testing in the 1940’s by reducing the projectile weight from 750 grain to 710 grain increased the velocity to an incredible 2,810 (presumably f/s, 856m/s) So this ammo is nearly 20% heavier and flying 20% faster.... I assume then you are suggesting the 1.7g of high explosive is giving the 13mm round basically all of the effect? MG151/15 (yes this is a mini-cannon... It is also not on the 109): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151_cannon#Ammunition_specifications Minengeschosspatrone X 151 ohne L'Spur[13] HE 104 grams 25 g HE (Ha-41) 705 Nose fuze, no tracer

It is much weaker against the engine. It seems somewhat weaker against systems in so far as it doesn’t affect systems far from the impact zone, but seems significantly more damaging than other machine gun rounds to local systems. And the point of the bug report is primarily the impact to pilot health. The presence of explosion effects (sound/visual effect/pilot concussion effect) indicates the 13mm may be affecting the pilot specifically in a way that’s very different from other machine guns. What did you find upon testing this @amazingme? Did you witness explosions and concussions as a pilot in the target plane?