Yurgon

In der Hinsicht finde ich beide Muster sehr ähnlich. Beide sind 4th Generation Multirole Fighter, können dumme und gelenkte Waffen einsetzen, haben gute Luft-Luft-Fähigkeiten, sind in der Lage, Self-Escort-Einsätze durchzuführen und sich ihren Weg zum Ziel freizukämpfen, und in Sachen Komplexität nehmen sie sich nicht viel. Herausstechend bei der Hornet ist natürlich, dass es sich um ein Navy-Flugzeug handelt und man insofern definitiv den Supercarrier dazukaufen sollte, um ihr Potenzial richtig auszuschöpfen. Die ganzen Navy-Prozeduren rund um den Träger sind alleine ein ziemlicher Brocken - aber genau wie echte Navy-Piloten kann und sollte man erstmal vom Festland starten und das Lernen in verdaubaren Häppchen angehen. Bei der Bekämpfung von Seezielen liegt die Hornet vorne, dafür hat die Viper die besseren SEAD-Fähigkeiten. Aber das sind dann schon Spezialisierungen, die man sich nicht schon ganz am Anfang herauspicken muss. Da die Hornet länger in DCS vorhanden ist, gibt es dafür etwas mehr Content, aber die Viper hat ebenfalls so einiges an Kampagnen und mittelfristig sollte es da keine drastischen Unterschiede geben. Wenn dir eine der Maschinen aus irgendeinem Grund besser gefällt, dann machst du nichts falsch, dir diese zuzulegen. Und wie andere schon vorschlagen, du kannst beide Muster gratis ausprobieren. Beide kaufen, wenn ein Sale ist, würde ich unterschreiben. Beide auf einmal lernen, wenn (falls) man neu mit DCS anfängt, finde ich quatsch. Die Dinger sind zu komplex, um mal eben zwei Muster parallel zu lernen. Ich würde sehr stark dafür votieren, erstmal eine der Maschinen gut zu beherrschen und dann die andere anzuschauen; so sollte IMHO die Lernerfahrung sehr viel besser und zielgerichteter verlaufen.

Ich hatte es letztes Mal so gemacht: Von Gespeicherte Spiele\DCS\Config\Input ein Backup anlegen. Für den Fall der Fälle. Im Windows Explorer in Gespeicherte Spiele\DCS\Config\Input nach der USB-ID suchen, z.B. "BEEE8380-1B74-11ea-8001-444553540000" Den Namen der neuen Input-Datei mit aktualisierter USB-ID in die Zwischenablage kopieren, also z.B.: "MFG Crosswind V2 {BEEE8380-1B74-11ea-8001-123456789012}.diff.lua" Und dann in der Ergebnisliste einen Eintrag nach dem anderen mit der F2-Taste umbenennen, mit Enter bestätigen, nächster, und so weiter. Das Ganze dann ein paar Mal nacheinander, bis Joystick, Schubregler, Ruderpedale und ggf. weitere Hardware abgearbeitet sind. (Man könnte das garantiert noch mit ein bisschen Magie in der Kommandozeile oder in der PowerShell beschleunigen )

Ja, das sollte in der Tat funktionieren. Ja, da kommen schnell ein paar Byte zusammen. Ansonsten auch sehr praktisch, wenn man ab und zu mit Datenträgern hantiert: ein USB-Festplattendock, in das man ein oder zwei SATA-Platten steckt, die dann von Windows wie Wechsellaufwerke behandelt werden. Die meisten dieser Docks bringen noch die Option zum Löschen und zum Kopieren der Datenträger (ohne Anschluss an einen Computer) mit. Ob neuere Docks auch gleich Anschlüsse für M.2 haben weiß ich nicht, das wäre natürlich sehr praktisch. Aber für den Anfang tut es auch eine einfache externe USB-Festplatte und etwas Geduld. Berichte dann mal, ob das tatsächlich alles klappt. Ich bin sehr optimistisch und wüsste nicht, was da schiefgehen sollte, aber z.B. die USB-IDs in den .diff.lua hätte ich fast vergessen, das ist ja schon ein kleiner Stolperstein.

Nur zum Sichergehen, meinst du mit dem "ganzen DCS Ordner" das Installationsverzeichnis, oder meinst du "Gespeicherte Spiele\DCS"? Du kannst sogar den ganzen Installationsordner kopieren und müsstest gar nichts neu installieren, allerdings fehlen dann die Einträge im Startmenü, also neben dem DCS-Shortcut auch "DCS reparieren" und "DCS updaten". Wenn Bandbreite kein Problem ist, würde ich DCS ganz normal installieren. Den Ordner "Gespeicherte Spiele\DCS" kannst du in der Tat einfach so rüberkopieren, der muss nur am richtigen Ort liegen und wird dann von DCS automatisch genutzt. Die USB-IDs werden dann vermutlich neu vergeben und es kann sein, dass du in der Tat in "Gespeicherte Spiele\DCS\Config\Input" für alle Module alle .diff.lua auf die neue USB-ID umbenennen musst. Geht aber vermutlich deutlich schneller als alle Tasten und Achsen neu zu belegen.

By the time my buddies and I got a driver's license, we could finally go to the nearest town that actually had computer stores. Around '94ish, maybe '95, must have been when I got the Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS for 249 German Mark, roughly 125 Euros. As soon as I could afford it, I then got the F-16 TQS (Throttle Quadrant System) for the exact same price, followed a couple months later by the RCS (Rudder Control System, the last generation of rudder pedals without toe brakes), again priced the same as the FLCS if my memory is correct. Some of the big simulation titles of that era somehow escaped me, whereas the various X-Wing and TIE Fighter titles as well as the cinematic Wing Commander series (beginning with Wing Commander 3: The Heart of the Tiger) were just soooo much more enjoyable with stick and throttle compared to mouse and keyboard. Some of the sims of the time like ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighters) weren't that realistic, but every title offered something new and fresh. It wasn't until Falcon 4.0 though that I was getting really hooked on flight sims. It was the coolest thing ever. When we look back and talk about the golden age of flight sims in the 90s, we can debate market shares or sales numbers or revenue or simulation depth all day long. The thing is, that era offered the biggest variety in terms of products and companies for that genre ever. And with the year 2000, that golden age was simply over. For a couple of years, there was almost a void, with Falcon SuperPak and BMS rising from the ashes of Microprose, Il-2 and RoF keeping the combat-themed flightsim genre afloat, but it wasn't until DCS: Black Shark that a rejuvenation happened that I would argue benefits us all to this day, including people who never touch DCS. Advances in graphics, head-tracking, VR, weather simulation, coop or adversarial multiplayer, and then the absolutely stunning HOTAS and other peripherals that we can spend our money on - flight simming has never been as much fun as it is today, at least as far as I'm concerned. And of course DCS offers a variety of aircraft that, in this depth of simulation and fidelity, is simply unequaled: from WWII to modern day, props, jets, helicopters, single-engine, multi-engine, a flight model that doesn't just stop being a flight model beyond the normal flight envelope, and soon to come cargo aircraft... meanwhile the competitors don't sit idly by, they all have their strengths, the 2024 version of the big civilian flight sim looks really promising, BMS now supports VR, Il-2 is still going... I also find it noteworthy that DCS has long been open to third parties, and other sims are similarly open and inviting. Instead of having two dozen competing simulators, we may have only about a handful, but these offer a variety of aircraft that is simply unparalleled, and that is in no small part due to the amazing contributions of the various third parties. I'd argue this is actually the platinum age of flight simulations.

The mod is amazing! I'm sure you'll love it, it has some really nice features like paradrops and low altitude pallet drops, including spawning of the delivered vehicles/personnel/crates on the ground after successful delivery (requires loading of a Lua file; it's all described in the documentation that comes with the mod). The really, really great news is that the team behind the mod are working on a full fidelity DCS C-130J module: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1068-airplane-simulation-company/ (That's also the reason they stopped working on the mod) So I'd say DCS is getting a really nice addition with the C-130J and the CH-47, where logistics are going to become a lot more important in many missions and probably also on multiplayer servers.

Correct. The mod has not been updated in years and likely won't ever receive an update.

I'm also unsure what this refers to in this particular case. Anyway, SkateZilla is a forum member who provides a bunch of really useful tools for the community, and I doubt any of these tools would have an effect on the campaign. But I agree, when tools aren't even used, I'd also opt to simply remove them.

Excellent report! I'm not at my PC right now and will check later. Just to confirm: does this only happen when reloading weapons in the mission? And/or does it happen after loading/reloading the DSMS?

Klar, das ist kein Problem. Folge einfach den Anweisungen von Bignewy, die du in diesem Post findest:

I don't suppose you can record a short track to share with us? The TGP is ground stabilized, and in order to look anywhere other than straight ahead, the head has to rotate on 2 axes. There are limits to how much they can roll before getting tangled up. When the motion of the aircraft is too much for the TGP to handle and it reaches its limits, it'll usually show a "GIMBAL ROLL" message (or similar). Did this happen in your case? Next, the TGP has a kind of "blind spot" somewhere around 3.5 degrees below its horizon line; when the TGP is looking straight ahead and a little down and it passes through this spot, the head has to roll in order to resume tracking, and when this happens the TGP more often than not jumps and loses the spot it had been tracking before. At short slant ranges and/or high zoom levels, it'll be pretty difficult to find the original spot from where ever the TGP is looking now. Did you double check that the HUD reads MARK in the lower left corner, and did you command "Slave all to SPI" afterwards? TMS Right Long does not "make a SPI", it makes the last created markpoint SPI. Going by your description, that markpoint should be where ever the IFFCC calculated your last used weapon to have impacted the ground. Assuming that you hit the general area where the hostiles were located, it should be fairly straight forward to find them in the TGP from markpoint Z. Anyway, story time. It's pretty easy to lose situational awareness when you're focused on the soda straw view of the TGP in one of the MFCDs. Avoid that. Look out the window. Acquire your target visually, understand the lay of the land, find landmarks that will help you re-acquire the target after egress (and evasion, if you're getting shot at). This is really the most important advice. Don't limit yourself to staring at the screens, or you'll always have at best 10% of the SA you'd have by looking out the window. All that said, the jet can help you. Drop markpoints. As soon as you find a noteworthy target that you can't access through waypoints or through a quick slew from a waypoint, just hit TMS Right Short and you can easily come back to this markpoint at any time. Just make a quick mental note or even scribble something on a piece of paper to note down which markpoint is what. This totally applies to moving objects as well! Maybe a column is moving away from a markpoint and you lose them. Well, call up the markpoint, slave the TGP, and slew it in the direction the column was moving. You may even drop a series of markpoints and a quick glance at the TAD or in the HMCS may show a straight line A -> B -> C -> D and so on, allowing you to extrapolate the position of the column based on TAD/HMCS alone.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the case. Though in all likelihood you wouldn't have found an accurate F-104 sim back in the day when it was still brand new, even if home PCs and the simulation genre had existed back then - for lack of documentation and because of a shroud of secrecy surrounding the latest and greatest that the US Air Force had available. Speaking of the golden age of flight sims in the 90s, those sims certainly took some liberties. Then again, they had gameplay aspects going for them that aren't exactly the focus with DCS nowadays. Not saying either way is better, that's like comparing apples and oranges. I'm just saying, the level of detail and realism has certainly increased since then. And while the 90s saw the biggest variety of flight sim companies and products, I'd say we're now in the silver age (or maybe upgrade that to the platinum age?), with less variety in regards to companies, but still some strong competitors that are all pushing the boundaries of what's possible to simulate on a home PC. I mean, routinely flying two-seat attack helicopters on multiplayer servers with other air and ground assets, coordinating CAS with virtual JTACs using simulated radios in a changing weather environment - I can't say I really miss the opportunity to fly an F-22 or an F-35 or a newer tranche Eurofighter Typhoon. What we have is a pretty solid foundation, and just a couple of years ago the announcement of an AH-64, and a D model at that, would have made me cry tears of joy (which it did ).

Die Transition Altitude in den USA beträgt 18.000 Fuß. Sowas Modernes wie Hektopascal kennen die nicht, dort wird auf mittelalterliche 29,92 Zoll Quecksilbersäule gestellt. (Ist exakt das gleiche wie 1013,25 hPa, nur in einem anderen Einheitensystem) Ich hätte jetzt gesagt Platzrunde typischerweise auf 1000 Fuß über dem Platz und Overhead-Pattern (für den Overhead-Break) auf 1500 Fuß über dem Platz (lokale Abweichungen sind natürlich immer möglich).

a) I would qualify that as a change to the flight model, not a change to the controls-setup, which was the suggestion I responded to. b) Could you clarify in what way this affects the original poster, when he very unambiguously stated "This isn't just for the 64, it's all the helicopters in DCS. Just can't get them level."? In either case, OP hasn't logged in to the forum since he posted his opening message, and at this point anyone's guess seems to be as good as anyone else's as to the source of OP's issues.

I don't want to derail the topic, but just to add a different opinion, my configured controls tend to remain stable for years and years in almost every single module. Of course the flight model does change in an Early Access product like the Apache. That is to be expected and we are strongly encouraged to check the changelogs and keep our eyes out for announcements on the forums, on places like Discord or Youtube. Anyway, I don't think any flight model changes or controller setting changes are affecting OP, since he said this behavior was consistent across various helicopters in DCS.

Also check the game's options for "Game Flight Mode" and make sure it's not checked. Doesn't sound like this is your issue, but still worth making sure it doesn't interfere with realistic helicopter behavior. Earlier this year I got a short joyride in an actual, professional helicopter simulator for a Eurocopter. While my hovering was bad and I consistently used the collective the wrong way around because of the habit patterns I've developed at my home PC using a throttle as collective, all things considered I felt that flying helicopters in DCS had done a fantastic job of preparing me for it. A short track showcasing your problem would definitely be a big help to sort out the problem at hand.

LOL. Im Spanischen übrigens das gleiche, in allen anderen Sprachen scheint es okay zu sein (EN, IT, FR jeweils 23:59 GMT, RU kann ich keine Zeitangabe erkennen und CN scheint auf die dort vorherrschende Zeitzone lokalisiert zu sein).

Good to know it's working as intended now.

A squad buddy recently showed up to a CAS exercise with a single Mk-84 on his Hornet. This was after I'd submitted a CAS request a day prior that said nothing about leveling a medium sized warehouse. I felt the option actually lacked the finesse I had been aiming for. Eventually had him kill a (cold) Zu-23 with it, only to realize it was well within danger close distance for the dozen grunts some Hueys had dropped into the target area a few minutes earlier (The only casualty, though, was a grunt ignoring all the warnings about staying clear of tail rotors. And maybe the guys suffered a burst virtual eardrum or 24). I guess some people just can't get beyond the "go big or go home" mantra.

Can't you just hit "Save Track" after ending the mission, in the Debrief screen? Alternatively, you'll find the latest single player track here: C:\Users\{Your Windows Username}\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS.openbeta\LastMissionTrack.trk

It makes sense to carry LGBs when the jet is equipped with a TGP (not "TPOD" - this ain't no Hornet), but I believe during the shift to guided munitions it would not have been uncommon to bring a mix, so in this case maybe one GBU-12 and one Mk-82. But of course that depends on the mission. Against static and isolated targets, dumb bombs would work better than against moving targets or where collateral damage is going to be a factor. In CAS missions, I would always prefer guided munitions to mitigate the risk of blue-on-blue, but guided munitions also sometimes fail or miss. In the opening stages of the 2003 invasion, I assume many sorties were targeting ahead of friendly ground forces and operating in a non-CAS environment with less strict weaponeering restrictions. Going against these kinds of weapons could be CAS, but doesn't necessarily have to be CAS, as far as I understand the doctrine. Either way, it's your mission/scenario, so you can decide whatever you think works best.

What's that in reference to? I don't think anyone asked about the Mav being SOI or not. What do you mean by "standby" in this regard? Not sure I understand the description. Please record a short track of the problem and share it with us. Which version of DCS do you run (Stable or OpenBeta)? You'll find the full version number in the lower right corner of the DCS main screen.

Starts with S and ends in R, almost nailed that su...r.

In welchem Krieg/Konflikt hätte sowas stattfinden können? AFAIK haben deutsche Tornados lediglich in der ECR-Variante aktiv an Einsätzen teilgenommen, um Flugzeuge der Allianz zu schützen.

Are you sure you've actually selected the Maverick as the active weapon profile in all test cases? Does the MAV screen show "SEEKER" "SENSOR" in any of the test cases? Please record a short track of the problem and share it with us. Which version of DCS do you run (Stable or OpenBeta)? You'll find the full version number in the lower right corner of the DCS main screen.