SloppyDog

I agree. Although I have to say that Sinai was improved, but it took very long to do so. Improved, not great as the maps by Ugra. So, I'll wait and see if OneReTech will make something better this time. What it means is that I'll wait one or two years after the release in order to decide to buy or not. It would be a real shame if this map is low quality. It would be a lost opportunity. Although I'm disappointed it is not being made by Ugra, I'm really glad that it is not being made by Orbx. Kola map is a shame, and the Orbx name was slapped on a really bad product.

@Renko sir, I think you've found something truly interesting. And I think it is modeled correctly in DCS (not a common occurence) My theory is this: the bombs are bursting open in a height below to what is set on them in the Mission Editor and in the cockpit because the FMU-140 sensor does not measure distance to the ground, but to the target. The FMU-140 fuze sensor information I took from this web page (https://navyaviation.tpub.com/14023/css/Fmu-140-B-Dispenser-Proximity-Fuze-32.htm). It states that the FMU-140 is a doppler radar. It does not show the radar pattern, but I believe it projects forward of the fuze, similar to the M20/M20A1 main lobe projection, forward of the bomb axis, as shown in the picture below, taken from the same web page. (see pictures below) So, my hypothesis is this: what the bomb fuze is seeing is the slant range to target, not the height above ground, as one would expect. Let's take the first example, HOF set at 1,500 feet. From the track, we gather that the bomb pitch angle is - 35 degrees at the moment of the burst. The burst altitude AGL is around 900 feet, as stated before. The bomb scheme can be simplified as a right triangle. The bomb pitch angle is -35º at the moment of the burst. Let's disregard the negative sign. So if the external angle to a right triangle is 35º, in order to both sum up 90º, the internal has to be 55º (let's call it Alpha). In order for the angles of a right triangle to sum 180º we have: 90º (from the right angle) + 55º (Alpha) + internal angle 2 (Beta) = 180º. Thus, the Internal angle 2 (Beta) is 35º. Using sine, we have that: sine of 35º is equal to the burst height h (ft AGL), divided by the hypotenuse, in this case, the HOF (same as the Slant Range). Adjusting the equation we end up with h = sin 35º x S.R. (Slant Range) Doing the math, we have: h = 0,57 x 1,500. Thus h = 855 ft. Which is consistent to the results we see on the tracks provided. For the other drop, with a HOF set at 3,000 ft, we can use the same logic: In this case, h = sin 44º x 3,000 . Thus h = 2,000 ft AGL. Again, consistent to what can be extracted from the track files. The solution? Either drop from a steeper angle, or from level flight at a higher altitude. I usually use CBU-99s with the FMU-140 from 10,000 feet with a HOF of 3,000 feet, and they work most of the time.

Damage effects of CBU-99s with FMU-140 are hit or miss...literally. I've been testing them for some time, and the best results I have are with CBU-99 with Mk 339 at low altitude. For FMU-140, as per ED's instructions on September 7th changelog, for DCS 2.9.20.15010, under the Weapons section it reads: Mk-20/CBU-99. Improved bombsight accuracy. Please note that using FMU-140 in low-altitude horizontal flight bombing runs will lead to poor accuracy - in these cases Mk 339 fuze must be used. FMU-140 should provide acceptable accuracy in dive bombing runs and, in specific conditions, in horizontal flight bombing runs (function altitude set to ca. 1/3 of release altitude and specific airspeed at release, e.g. function altitude - 3 kft, release altitude - 10 kft, TAS - 580 kts) Mk-20/CBU-99. Fixed Mk 339 fuze function delay being counted down after arming instead of after release In my testing, FMU-140 works best by flying level,dropping at 10,000 feet, with an airburst of 3,000 feet AGL, using AUTO mode. This way the bomblets have enough time to arm and spread. The spreadsheet below gives you an idea of various profiles for dropping these cluster munitions. (If you are asking yourself why would I spend too much time doing this and testing, the answer is: I'm a stubborn nerd). So, the end game is that you must allow time for the bombs to separate from the aircraft, open and, most important, arm. However, the bomblets do cause damage only when they directly hit the targets. Funnily enough, the result is that -99s are most effective against armored than against light targets. I blame that on the lack of a proper fragmentation model, but ED said they are working on it. From the July 23rd changelog: Weapons. Work in progress fixes for the following bombs explosive mass: M117, Mk-80 series, and WWII AN-M GP series. This also applies to Guided Bomb Units (GBU) that use the Mk-80 series of warheads. This is connected to the changes for SAMP bombs that we did in the previous patch and will be evaluated and finalized in future patches. Most rocket warhead families (at least Hydra/Zuni/FFAR, S-5/8/13/25, and SNEB-68) are already set up with parameters that match our available sources. Actual effect on targets is subject to change along with implementation of the fragmentation model. (We missed mentioning this in June 18’s update). Try to hit the same targets with Mark 82s, and better yet, Mark 84s. You don't need to hit light targets directly, they'll catch fire from the frag effect. P.S.: I forgot to mention that the -99s are falling short, either in AUTO or CCIP mode. CBU-99 Height of Function.xlsx

Thanks Zabuzard. For mission makers, the system will work greatly. When you have to take care of your aircraft as your own, you approach things in a very different way. More realistic, I would say.

This is interesting. Maybe what I'm about to say is not possible in DCS. Maybe this is not possible for the F-4. Maybe this is something you could try to implement in the future. That's a lot of maybes, but are you familiar with A2A Simulations wear and tear model? It's pretty good, the screen below was taken from their Bonanza in P3D v5. But they have a similar system in place for their Comanche and Aerostar in MSFS 2020 and 2024. (heck, the Aerostar even has dirty simulation on it, you can start with a new, clean aircraft and end up with a dirty one). So, A2A's system works in a way that if you damage or destroy some system, you can call up the mechanic shop menu and the screen below will appear. It gives the player a summary of the general state of the aircraft, and if some item needs fixing or replacement, you click on it and the item is fixed. Also, you can have the whole aircraft to be overhauled in a single click. This type of selective maintenance would be a great addition in HB products. I don't know if is possible or not, just a suggestion. I think it would be better than the total wear and tear of the aircraft and the only way of fixing the items is by doing an complete aircraft overhaul. null

I've been very critical of this map since the beginning. Coming from a company that is a household name in simulators like FSX and P3D, this map sure has been a big disappointment. Very bad textures, even in the areas they said it is in high definition. However, the last patch seemed to have a good effect overall. The textures still look very bad at ground level and at very low level, below 200 feet. But if you a little bit higher, they seem to be good. Not spectacular, but better than it was before. Also, it seems that the textures take a while to load. Like in the images below, some areas seem to be ok, others are still very blurred. I blame it on my computer, that is a old computer with a low end graphics card (i7-4770K with a RTX 3060, 32 GB RAM). As you can see, my graphics settings are shown on the screen below. In order to have performance in DCS, I have to lower all or turn off many of the graphics settings. Anyway, I don't see the same effect on other maps, only on Kola. On other maps, the textures seem to load before the game session starts, and I don't have the same problem. Maybe someone with a newer, more powerful machine can confirm if the same effect occurs, to determine if it is a problem with the Kola map or my computer.

Have you tried this?

Mk-20/CBU-99. Improved bombsight accuracy. Please note that using FMU-140 in low-altitude horizontal flight bombing runs will lead to poor accuracy - in these cases Mk 339 fuze must be used. FMU-140 should provide acceptable accuracy in dive bombing runs and, in specific conditions, in horizontal flight bombing runs (function altitude set to ca. 1/3 of release altitude and specific airspeed at release, e.g. function altitude - 3 kft, release altitude - 10 kft, TAS - 580 kts) Mk-20/CBU-99. Fixed Mk 339 fuze function delay being counted down after arming instead of after release Thanks ED for this. I am a cluster bomb fanatic. I've been testing and retesting cluster bombs in DCS, for their effects, best release and function parameters and so on. Regarding the Mk-20s and CBU-99s, my tests always showed that both bombs always worked very well with the Mk 339 fuzes. Always very effective. And, if you use the right time of function, you can get pretty good results. And if the default settings were used, the bombs were always very effective at 1,000 feet AGL in level flight. But, if using the FMU-140, the bombs were always ineffective. It didn't matter the profile. Thank you for addressing the issue and telling us how to properly set and use them in game. CBU-99 Height of Function.xlsx

This video talks abou the lights in the P-47. Regarding the instruments lights, they work as fluorescent lights. You set them to start, in order to send a high voltage pulse to the UV ligths, then you set them to the middle and or DIM position. You don't keep them at the start position, only for a couple of seconds then move the knob out of that zone. If you keep the knob on the Start position, the UV lights filaments will blow and the lights won't work anymore.

Prop planes tend to roll left while taking off. Large power engines, like those in the P-47, Spitfire, Mustang and Corsair will make the plane really roll to the left. I don't know your level of experience with flight sims, but the -47 is very different from your average Cessna. If you take a Cessna to take off, it will tend to roll left, but you compensate that with a little bit of right rudder. In trainer aircraft like a Cessna you can push full power for take off. It is docile and forgiving, it is a family car. On the other hand, think of WWII airplanes as sports cars, or even top fuel dragsters. You don't go full throttle on take off. If you do, the torque will be so high that a left roll during take off becomes irrecoverable. In the P-47, if you are "light", with only the main fuel tank full and machine guns ammunition, you do the following: 1) align with the runway 2) Prop pitch full forward 3) Press the brakes and bring manifold pressure to 30 inHg 4) Release the brakes and then slowly but surely bring the manifold to 46 inHg. That's it 5) as @kablamoman said, you accelerate in the runway and then let the plane take off by itself. No need to pull on the controls. However, be aware to input right rudder and right aileron to compensate for the torque roll. Once you get more experienced, you can try new weights and fuel combinations. A fully fueled P-47, with a central tank and two large bombs on the wings, will require 52 inHG or more to take off. But only then, since the aircraft weight will make the left roll tendency less noticeable. Otherwise, control your throttle and let the aircraft take off on its own.

The thing with DCS is that it is a Digital Cockpit Simulator. It'll give you a good experience inside the cockpit, but regarding the outside world, not so much. And that's it. ED has no focus on building a better AI, be it friendly or foe. No integrated air defense systems, no full on ATC experience. Unfortunately that real life like experience belongs to BMS. And it has been this way for the last 15 years. ED focus is on releasing module after module because that is where their expertise is at. Once I accepted this fact, I've learned to enjoy the game more for what it is, not for what I expect it to be. On the other hand, the thing that has been bothering me is the fact that lately DCS has become the "good enough" simulator. Where a module is released, and if it is good enough to fly and people have fun, ED will release it. The bare minimum today is acceptable. I remember when ED first released the A-10C, one of its main selling points, and something that ED would brag about, was that what we got on the sim corresponded to 90% of the real thing. ED cared. Cared about fidelity and details; today not so much. The Chinook was released in a pre-alpha state, with lots of basics features missing. Kola map, approved by ED, has the worst ground textures since FSX. And the Mosquito is celebrating its 4th anniversary without any further development. But hey, they are all flyable, people have fun with them, so why bother making them more detailed and faithful to the real thing. right? And don't even get me started on the whole Razbam situation. My trust is gone. Today I saw a video about the C-130 cold start procedure. All look great, but again, will it be released in an almost finished state? I don't trust it will. Latest releases have been plagued by bugs and unfinished features. In the end, I believe that who gonna save DCS is the community. If only ED would be so kind to give modders more flexibility and access to create new things, this would take DCS to new heights.

There's a lot of good info on those pages. I have tried to make a mission where you could fly as a Door Gunner while the AI automatically takes you around a circuit. But the Ai pilot instead prefers to do a NOE flight than flying at the set altitude. Meanwhile, other Huey set as transport flies at the set altitude until landing. Don't understand why this is happening. I'll investigate further. The mission I made is attached below. Huey Door Gunner Test Flight.miz

Cool tutorial! So, from what I could gather, you used the AI pilot. Did you start as door gunner and the AI did all the flight? I'll see what I can come up with.

@NineLine could you please take a look at this? Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt the PTO assets announcement party, but I have a question regarding the save mission scripting function. With the use of the "world.getPersistenceData(name)" function will it be possible to extract the state of the player aircraft from a saved mission file? From what i understood from the function description it will be possible to fly to a border of a map, save the mission, load a new mission in a nem map, recover the state of the aircraft and continue mission. If that's the case, it would be possible to make missions between adjoining maps. For mission creation, it would add a new layer of challenge and immersion. What are the parameters extracted from the persistance json? Fuel, armament, damage state?

Maybe the bomblets are not having time to arm. The canister may be opening but the bomblets are not arming in time. Depending on the altitude you are releasing the bombs, they need time to open and arm the submunitions. You cannot release the bombs from a high altitude and set the burst altitude too low, otherwise you are not giving enough time for the bomblets to arm. Refer to the following thread: Also, I attached a spreadsheet showing the calculated height above ground that the bomblets will armed. Line 36 of the spreadsheet refers to your first run. You released from 19,000 feet with a VT1 of 700 feet AGL. The problem with this setting, considering a standard ARM Delay of 1.2 seconds, is that the bomb will open 33.73 seconds after release and be armed at 34.93 seconds. It gives an altitude of -625.36 feet AGL, meaning that the bomblets will hit the ground before being armed. For the other bombing runs, with the burst setting at 2,200 feet AGL, it gives the bomblets enough time to arm, being able to arm at around 1,000 feet AGL over the target (lines 33 to 35 of the spreadsheet). However, the problem I noticed is that with CBU-99 you need to be right on the money when attacking the target. As precise as you should be using Mk-82s, for example. If you hit a little bit off, the bomblets won't have much effect, or none at all. And by releasing them from altitude, the bombs miss by a little and the bomblets cannot have an impact on target. See the attached track file. I make one run from altitude with no effect, and the another at low level, with much success. From my testing, CBU-99 and Mk20 work way better at low level, from 1,000 to max 5,000 feet over the target. CBU-99 Height of Function.xlsx F-18 - CBU 99 - FMU-140 High and Low.trk

Regarding the latest update 2.9.18.12722, I would like to confirm that the issue has been solved, as per the changelog: Fixed: CBU-99 with FMU-140 slightly short in AUTO in another pass CBU-99s are working as intended in AUTO mode. They do fall short in CCIP mode, but I understand that it was not the issue being corrected in this patch. Just for you to know. Regarding the effectiveness of the CBUs, be it Mk-20 or CBU-99...you must hit exactly over the target, almost with a Mk-82 precision. I know that in the patch is noted that ED is working on the warhead power and fragmentation effects, so I'll wait for that to be implemented. Right now, from my testing, when released at 10,000 feet, the best burst altitudes, with FMU-140, are between 2200 and 3000 feet AGL over the target. If the bombs are a bit off, they won't work. But, anyway, I can live with it, listening to pilots interviews is not always that a weapon works as intended. F-18 - CBU 99 - FMU-140 Effective.trk

In Triggers, in the Action Section, you can find a "SET INTERNAL CARGO" or "SET CARGO ON UNIT". Just create a condition to when you want the unit, in this case, the enemy AI, to add a load to it and use the action mentioned above.

It's been a very disappointing experience for me (one more to add to the DCS World disappointments). I regret buying this map, along with the Sinai. Low resolution textures, terrible loading times. Looks ok at a distance, looks really bad at low altitude. I bought it based on the Orbx name. I believe this Orbx is not the same as the one that developed for P3D.

The last update (July 1st 2025) shows that this issue has been adressed:

Take a look from this video by Reflected. The AI uses the WWII engine equivalent to "use afterburner to climb". They'll use the entire available power to climb, including War Emergency Power. You can get into the mission editor and turn off that option. See if this works.

Oh well. The LUA console is mentioned in the manual, but we don't have access to it. It's only for DCS developers. Unfortunately.

You can find the device_id, button_ID and which values they assume when clicked inside the file clickabledtata.lua. Every aircraft in DCS has this file, and normally it is inside the Cockpit folder. For the F-18 for instance is inside the DCS World>Mods>aircraft>FA-18C>Cockpit>Scripts folder.

The manual doesn't say anything about it, but I believe these are for when you have an external equipment that inserts data into the sim. Example, a GPS or data cartridge with data that was taken during a real flight. Then this data can be inserted into the sim to redo a flight in sim in order to review it for debriefing. I believe it is for the military contractors that use the military version of DCS for training purposes.

Yep. much much better for me as well. I always suffered through landings, but now it is easier, with no unpleasant surprises along the way, like a sudden loss of lift. And on speed, or slightly fast as I like, is much more controllable now, easier to maintain using trim and throttle.