Awger

Well, at least it's not just me. @Raven (Elysian Angel) I just looked at your system specs... I'm running a 5800X3D, RTX 3080ti, and a G2v2 with OpenXR, will have to give your settings a try.

I know the replays are dodgy, especially in an SP mission ... I was more interested in why #2 wiped out, as we both seemed to have a good touchdown. Just re-watched replay again (no cam changes) ... #2 touches down just ahead on right side of runway, immediately pops chute; I roll past on left side of runway and lose sight, pop chute, and roll to the end of the runway. Log shows #2 lands, followed by me landing, and then ai abort mission and #2 pilot and wso eject, then another ai abort mission. I was a little close to the centerline when I rolled past, but I wasn't that close... and the log didn't show any collision or damage. Tacview shows consistent 100-102ft separation on approach, shows me touching down first (separation 64ft), and minimum separation after #2 touches down of 59ft. I mostly fly F-86, and their AI is crap in the pattern -- they never do what they're told, and formation landings are nearly impossible. And, don't ever try to exit the runway at the first taxiway, you'll get run over. This is the first time I've flown an approach in the F-4 with an AI wingman, and it was by accident... I was just screwing around with the TACAN and decided to land because I wound up near enough to Nellis. In all honesty, I was positively gobsmacked when I saw #2 tuck in, drop gear, and then hang in my mirror all the way to the threshold (very cool). Dunno how much of this is default AI behavior vs F-4 specific behavior, but I'd like to better understand why this happened so that I can improve my interactions with the AI.

Still getting oriented in the F-4 ... flew a mission with an AI wingman, shot a MiG in the face with an AIM-7 and then ran down an Su-17, then RTB'ed to Nellis .... long approach (too low) and my wingman was right there with me until we were just about at the threshold, then he decided I was too low and did his own thing -- climbed up a bit and landed a little further up the runway from me. I touched down at the marks and Jester was impressed. Wingman wrecked his gear and wiped out. I didn't notice until I turned off at the end of the runway. I recorded the track. If I change to F2 camera and watch #2 during the approach, he never crashes -- but he does slow down to taxi speed and then cuts across the grass to the taxiway. If I don't watch him, then he wipes out. Is this DCS doing the replay-thing, or is there something up with the F-4 AI?

When I click the links I get "URL signature expired" ... looks like Facebook image hash links expire after some random amount of time (days to weeks). ref: https://developers.facebook.com/community/threads/2590554374560155/?_fb_noscript=1

I feel you ... irks me, too ... but I can also agree (somewhat) with the rationale for the way it is, and I (like others) spend a few weeks popping in and out of VR to get a new module setup. It's just part of the "fun." Also... we only know it sucks because we know better.... now. Throughout history, every aircraft manufacturer has had their own way of doing things. Compare North American to Grumman in the 40s -- erveything is different... but amongst the Grummans, things were mostly the same. Maybe they put some switch in the wrong place, but at least it was in the wrong place in all their airplanes. Same thing goes for the names of various controls... different manufacturers, different services, different names. Hell, the USAF and the USN can't even agree on what "aspect" means (AON vs AOT). So, there's two different and conflicting imperatives at play here -- accuracy to a specific aircraft, and ease (commonality) of use in DCS. For the average simmer, who has one stick and one throttle, they want a specific button on their throttle or stick to do the same thing on all the aircraft. Doesn't matter if it's "correct" or not, that's just how they play; because they generally play (fly) with multiple different aircraft depending on their mood. Having a specific button do three different things in five different aircraft is counterproductive to having fun. But having different switchology for every aircraft is necessary for purposes of realism because different aircraft have different systems and controls... which is where all the crazy flightsim freaks who only fly one plane and build their own pits to suit want it, because they have all the right switches in all the right places. It certainly doesn't help that, prior to the 1970s, precious little thought was given to the human factors of plane/pilot interactions ... and the 50/60s era aircraft were so much more complex than their 40/50s era counterparts that, it seems to me, controls were just stuck in the cockpit where they seemed to fit, or were convenient for the manufacturer. There is much more commonality of switchology between an F-16 and an F-18 compared to an F-4 and an F-100 or an F-105 ... meaning that there is going to be a lot more differentiation in controls between the older aircraft than the newer ones, even before taking into account the evolution (and standardization) of plane/pilot interface. I'll add that contemporary notions of what makes a "good" user interface have changed a lot... in my opinion, not always for the better. Yeah, there's a search function, but "just google it" is how the kids do it; us crotchety old bastards that grew up with dictionaries, the white & yellow pages, card catalogs, and Encyclopedia Britannica, know how to look things up "the right way." I don't know that there any way to reconcile the two, but I do believe there's some common ground to meet in the middle on. Regarding the notion that, "that's the way it is in the manual" -- I guess that depends on which manual you're looking at. I have in front of me NAVAIR 01-245FDD-1, the NATOPS flight manual for the F-4J. "Countermeasures," "flares," and "chaff" do not appear in the index... anywhere. Is that a USN vs USAF thing? I don't know... but it doesn't matter. The point is that referencing "the" manual assumes that there is one-and-only-one manual... which is obviously not the case.... so using "the manual" as explanation for why a particular approach is correct is kinda silly... unless you're referring to Heatblur's manual, in which case you're absolutely correct, but, in that case, Heatblur could call it whatever they want, eh? So, we're already dealing with a translation of "real world" crazy 50/60s vintage switchology to an extremely limited set of buttons and switches on our reformed / modernized throttles and sticks ... is it all that much more difficult to use a search function for a few minutes to figure out where the friggin' flare button is? Probably not ... but you're not winning any friends by making it any more difficult than it has to be... and it would be A LOT simpler if the controls were organized per common / contemporary expectation.

That stumped me for a bit, too ... there's a separate control profile for F-4E-WSO. When you jump into the back seat in-game it switches to the WSO profile. Now, if I could figure out why the glare shield won't toggle ...

I'm playing around with various failures during a mission ... I fail the primary hydraulics and generator in flight ... after landing the gauge shows primary hydraulics are dead, secondary are mostly dead, and utility is okay ... but I nosewheel steering is INOP. Brakes still work (thankfully). According to the DCS manual, NWS is pressurized by the utility hydraulics system... does killing the generator knock out something else that NWS is dependent on? Did some brief testing, I wasn't able to replicate by failing only hydraulics or generator. I like the effect, just curious as to the why.

Nota Bene: The "Mission Goals" set in the mission editor are only evaluated when the mission ends... the conditions aren't evaluated continuously like they would be for a trigger. If you have multiple events that effect scoring, I'd suggest setting flags as those events occur during the mission, and then setting mission goals that check the flag values and add up the points. This confused me for quite a while before I figured it out ... would be so much simpler if we could just set the score from a script.

I haven't tried that specific mission, but I have created many missions to test out formation flying and AI behavior. I have come to the conclusion that the AI behavior is insufficient for that purpose... even for itself... ie if I set up a lead flight (2-ship) and have a second flight (2-ship) follow the lead flight, even the AI loses the plot after a few minutes. If you'd like to setup a formation training mission for yourself, I can make the following suggestions: Your flight lead hates you. Probably not a fair statement, but the AI aircraft don't fly like player aircraft. They accelerate and decelerate faster than you, and the throttle positions reported in the moving map will not match the throttle position you'll need to match their speed. Speeds in the mission editor are GROUND SPEED, not INDICATED AIRSPEED. I've tried setting speeds as mach number, and maybe that helped, but it might just be in my head. Every turn the AI makes is a max-performance turn (I don't think I've ever seen the AI perform a standard-rate turn). This leads to heading overshoot after a waypoint, leading to another (shallow) turn to get back on course for the next waypoint. You can tune waypoint position to minimize this. There are two types of "turning" waypoints: "turning point" and "flyover point." The former is supposed to make the AI start the turn early and then pass through the waypoint, the latter holds the turn until the AI has passed through the waypoint. I haven't seen much difference vis-a-vis formation keeping. Setup your mission with two AIs (lead and wingman) and watch them fly the route, then set the wingman to player and see if you can follow the leader (match the AI wingman's performance). I haven't tried this (thinking about this now, I should try it this evening) but you may have better luck setting a waypoint to "Perform Task / Aerobatics / Turn." I don't know if that will get the AI to do a standard-rate turn, but it's worth a shot. I've attached one of my test missions... this is a flight of three 2-ships (F-86s) that takeoff, join up, separate, then land (trying to land with minimal separation between flights). Start the mission, jump into the "extra" F-86, and then watch the AI do its thing. If you don't have the F-86 (why not? it's awesome!) just change the extra F-86 to anything so you can jump into the cockpit while you watch. For comedic relief, watch each of the flights as they're approaching the coast when returning to the field. I recommend watching flight leads so you don't get sick. Additional note, underscores performance differences between AI and human planes: The AI F-86s don't fly the approach "properly." According to the -1 you leave the airbrakes out and engine RPM up to compensate for the slow spool time. Watch their airbrakes, and note how fast the AIs slow down once they touch down on the runway. Edited to add: Ops Center's awesome video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lsxDAAQ1vo PatternTest7.miz

Works for me -- launch VR portal, wake-up G2, launch DCS MT+VR (OpenXR / non-steam). Only issue I've noted is that head position sometimes gets lost switching from external view. Version issue? I'm running a 3080ti with 536.23 and OpenXR 113.2309.7002. Got DLSS and all the other bells and whistles. .

Looking great so far ... hopefully you won't have too much of an issue with rats+mice+etc ... had to clean several nests and detritus out of the T-37 ... it was a nasty mess.

If you're already running hydraulics for stick feedback, maybe not a lot of extra mess/effort (?) ... but otherwise I wouldn't bother. Seems like a lot of squeeze for not a lot of juice (I put cockpit motion in that same category). Also, guaranteed the cat is going to get caught up in it at some point. That's a plus if you don't like the cat, but it's still a mess to clean up. We had a customer that put a KC-97 nose section onto his house like an addition ... had a door in the house that looked like a small closet door ... step through and you're on the flight deck. Unfortuantely the windows leaked (I'm told that was a persistent problem on that bird), but I expect he's sorted that by now (no need to worry about pressurization).

So, when you're done, the front end will be sitting on nosewheel and the back end will be held up by a frame? Hope you have 12ft ceilings...

I know it was necessary, but... damn... looking at that grinder ... that hurt. Awesome LIDAR scans ... I've been playing with photogrammetry lately, results aren't as impressive. I've thought about getting a proper scanner but just can't justify the cost. Waiting for somebody other than Varjo to come up with a reasonable stereoscopic camera + VR for decent AR/MR (live chroma key) ... /sigh/ Nota bene, latest patch seems to have addressed several of the complaints re: F-86 gunnery.

Interesting... maybe I'm just unlucky? I understand about the randomness of hits vs damage -- no hit to the "exact same place" is going to do "exactly the same damage" every time (quotes are intentional, as nothing is exact, and no dynamic situation can be adequately replicated to achieve an identical result). My complaint is that the expected second-order result (damage resulting in loss of control / enemy out of the fight) seems to be incongruous with what I'm seeing (or not seeing). If reality is that I'm not hitting and damaging what I think I am (based on the visuals) then that's a different issue to the amount / type of damage to the part of the aircraft that I really did hit. At this point, I'm not sure if the majority of my confusion / disappointment is the former, the latter, or (likely) some combination of both ... but, bottom line, what I am seeing is damage indicators that suggest the aircraft I'm shooting at has sustained sufficient damage to render it uncontrollable .... and yet it seems to still be under control. I'm less interested in seeing massive chunks getting blown off of aircraft than I am the AI saying, "Fsck this, I'm outa here" when the aircraft controls / surfaces have been shredded. I've seen / read / heard plenty of anecdotes about aircraft that are still flying but probably shouldn't be, or aircraft that appear undamaged but auger in ( <-- heh ), but I consider those edge cases that should be rare (at least, in a sim). The "normal" case is (should be?) something along the lines of, "I blast the ever-loving hell out of my enemy, and he dies a very loud and violent death." Certainly there are "normalized" expectations for the actual manner of violence (ex: I would expect aircraft without self-sealing tanks being shot at with incendiary ammo to be more likely to burst into flames) but variations on that theme are welcome and expected. What is not expected is to light up a Zero with API, turn the center fuselage and wing root into swiss cheese, and have it fly away like nothing happened. Could it happen? Sure. Would it happen that way three out of five times? No way. OBOT: If you haven't, you should read Saburo Sakai's biography, Samurai! Corrollary: If I put one or more rounds of Mk108 30mm into the empanage of a P-51, there is VERY LITTLE chance (ie, approaching ZERO) that the pilot is maintaining control of that aircraft (whether it stays attached or not). Aside from shredding the skin (which is detrimental, but not necessarily fatal) there are counterweights, hinges, and control cables that will be (at a minimum) damaged -- and if the skin is intact enough to provide any aerodynamic load, that load will likely tear those parts off; and, if the skin isn't intact enough to tear those parts off, then it isn't intact enough to provide any aerodynamic affect that would provide any control to the pilot. Secondly: I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your DM takes into account shearing forces based on dynamic load and drag. A P-51 wing stalls from the tip in; at high AOA the lift disipates but the shear forces (drag, both normal and longitudinal) go waaaay up. Considering that the Mk108 round was designed to cause a critical failure in a B-17 wing spar, I find it highly unlikely that a P-51 wing spar could stay intact after being hit by one -- and certainly not under the dynamic (shear) loads created by a 3+ G turn. Interesting aside: the F8 Bearcat was originally designed with "safety tips" that would shear off at 9 Gs ... the idea was, with the wings "shortened," it couldn't generate enough G to exceed the ultimate design loading (13 G). Actual G-factor, of course, was directly related to aircraft weight at the moment of maneuver, but you get the idea. I don't have my F-51-1 at hand but, IIRC, design limits were something on the order of 8G @ 8,000 lbs. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that there's a ~50% margin from ultimate limit (catastrophic damage), meaning the airframe gives up at 12G @ 8,000 lbs (96K load). Also for the sake of argument, let's say that the P-51 is at a lower weight state (low fuel) and only weighs in at 7,000 lbs. At that weight, each wing is carrying 3,500 lbs -- when at a stable 1G attitude. At 3G, that's ~10,500 lbs per wing; not a problem when the wing is designed to carry a 48,000 lbs load. But... introduce a 30mm round ... *boom* -- how much of that load-carrying capability is left? 75%? 50%? 25%? And... what about load transfer -- if there's no structure transferring (sharing) load across the span, then the point load at the shear point is... +100%? +200%? Yes, I understand it's not a 1:1 relationship... but, neither is compression and shear load... or the additional load caused by skin deformation. I'm not necessarily expecting an exciting departure of large chunks of airframe... those usually only occur when something really goes *boom* (I'm thinking about gun camera footage of a Fw190 getting hit, and the 20mm magazine in the wing detonates, shearing off the wing at the root in spectacular fashion) but I do expect that parts will fly and the rest of the plane won't -- or, at a minimum, the pilot will get the hint and exit the aircraft. Additional aside: I was an eyewitness to the F-117 that crashed in Baltmore in 1997 ... I happened to be there with several test pilots ... there was a lof of interesting conversation about how high shear forces can get, just from control surface deflection. Feel free to read the official explanation and accept it as you will... but I have heard that particlar aircraft had a longstanding nickname of "The Wobbly Goblin." I'm trying out the gunsight fix on the F-86 tongiht, but I'll be jumping into the Koenig in short order. If there is some particular exercise or regimen you can recommend as an appropriate test, I'd be happy to indulge.

First impression: Aiming much improved, pipper seems accurate (getting hits at pipper center) at 175, 700, and 970 yards; lethality seems about the same (dead-6 fuselage shots are unimpressive). Oddity -- not sure I've noticed this before, but uncaged pipper was very flashy (blinking on/off, jumpy) when trying to track slow target low to ground (ground clutter?). Will be exercising it tonight. Early verdict: Second impression, after a couple of hours: YAHTZEE! Tracking shots with some aspect (2-3G @ 300-600 yards) wrecks a MiG-15 with 1-2 sec burst.

Have you tried Kroil? That stuff is magic.

Not complaining, just asking ... squeeky wheel, and all that. My all-time favorite aircraft is the F-86 ... my second favorite is the Bf-109. I suppose it's just coincidence that DCS gives both of them short shrift ... not that I'm personally feeling persecuted, but still... I have no idea what development process the devs use, but, could you at least confirm that there's an open ticket for this?

I set up a simple mission over the channel... AI planes with dead engines that ditch in the channel are reported as "emergency landing" but not counted as kills (not listed in aircraft loss count).

I've been re-acquainting myself with the Kurfurst of late, and was really disappointed in the performance of the Mk108 ... came to the forums and found this thread. I still call shenigans. I ran multiple tests last night (1v1 vs P-51, firing Mk108 HE/anti-bomber only), all fairly consistent in outcome. Replays cross-checked with TacView. I got video captures from multiple angles of the last fight, watched in slow motion for several hours. P-51 in fairly constant 2.5G right turn (mostly level) All stable tracking shots First burst (4 rounds) fired from 87m 3 misses (they scraped the paint) 1 hit to upper portion of vertical stab lots of shrapnel damage (hole stickers) to rudder, vertical stab, horizontal stab, elevator shrapnel damage to port wing no impact to combat effectiveness (elevator & rudder still functional, everything attached) Second burst (1 round followed by 2 rounds) fired from 76m first round hit starboard mid-wing 20mm - sized hole "size of a head" -- consistent with pic of Spitfire with 20mm hole in fuselage from video posted in this thread white smoke from radiator exhaust vent (fuel leak?) second round hit fuselage at base of vertical stab (at stab extension) shrapnel damage (holes) third round looks like it hit rudder, but port elevator got shredded empenage and all flight control surfaces still attached AI had enough at this point and bailed In my opnion, each one of those single hits should have blown massive chunks off of that airplane, ending the fight. Specifically: First hit (upper vertical stab) should have blown most of the vertical stab and rudder off the airplane. At 200 knots, full throttle and 2.5G there's no way that plane is maintaining controlled flight Second hit (starboard mid-wing) should have detonated the fuel tank and blown the starboard wing off I assume the white smoke from the radiator vent was fuel, because a P-51 has no coolant in the wing... so, either the game thinks I damaged a fuel tank in the wing and the only fuel-leak-damage-indicator is in the fuselage, or the game thinks a hit to the wing damaged the radiator. Either way, the damage model is screwed up. Third hit (fuselage at vertical stab extension) should have blown the entire tail clean off Fourth hit (rudder? elevator?) at a minimum should have blown control surfaces off I'm fine with the damage stickers not lining up 1-to-1 with actual damage, or location thereof, but these results are so far removed from expectation and common sense that something must be broken... and the simple explanation is that the 30mm ammo just isn't lethal enough. Tack file attached. N.B: I fly in VR, not external view... I don't know how the views got screwed up, but I probably messed up the original track file in the process of duping and resetting replays in all the various viewings. Mk108isWEAK_copy.trk

Spoke to Randy today. No joy on the MPC (his F-86's cockpit was already stripped and rebuilt when he got it) but he did give me a line on T-37 parts. There's a guy flying an FJ somewhere north of here, need to track him down.

Finally got an opportunity to speak to the curator about the FJ ... it has no instruments. They have -1s for FJ and F-86 (same ones available online, same info already posted) but no other maintenance manuals that reference the MPC. However... Randy is supposed to be around on Saturday, and he used to have an F-86; he may still have some manuals. Worst case, he knows people who know people who have stuff. The search continues...

#jealous Got enough BD-5s there?

Bummer. Thanks for the info. I'm not that knowledgable on DCS, and only heard of FC3 in passing, so I don't know what to expect with these mods. Also, haven't been in Germany since 1979, and my reading comphrension auf Deutsch ist scheisse.

I'm having some issues with the F-80 ... I fly in VR, and the mouse cursor seems to be inop (can't interact with anything in cockpit). Flight controls seem to work, but cold start is a no-go. Looks like the most current version is for DCS 2.5 (?) Is the mouse cursor / cockpit interaction supposed to work?