ACS_Dev

This post is an attempt to conclusively answer the question of which AMRAAM variants each applicable module in DCS should have access to. Several claims have been made in favor of adding new variants but I wanted to try and do the research to get a concrete answer that question. I believe I have succeeded here. All sources used are confirmed unclassified and either explicitly Distribution-A or available directly from their respective organization's website for download. Two main categories of sources were used: Director of Test & Evaluation reports and annual U.S. Air Force Budget documents. This post is very long. The intent was to be very thorough and use direct quotes from sources wherever possible. Direct quotes are in blue, italicized text while analysis/commentary is in default text. The proposal/recommendation section is at the bottom. EXPLANATION OF THE C-X DESIGNATION: "The AMRAAM program uses an acquisition strategy that improves missile capability through incremental software and hardware modifications that have been grouped into three pre-planned product improvement (P3I) phases. All are known as the AIM-120C. Phase 1 (AIM-120C-3) was developed in the mid-1990s and incorporated clipped wings to enable the F/A-22 to carry additional missiles in its internal weapons bays. This variant is compatible with all aircraft that carried earlier variants of the AIM-120. Phase 2 improvements incorporated a new warhead (AIM-120C-4), lengthened rocket motor (AIM-120C-5), and new target detection device (AIM-120C-6). All current production deliveries to U.S. forces are the Phase 2 configuration." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.253 AIM-120C-5/6/7 EXPLAINED: "AIM-120C-6 – Lots 13 and up. Implements improved fuzing via new Quadrant Target Detection Device (QTDD)" USAF Weapons File (Distribution A) 2003 P.17 "The Phase 3 missile is largely a new missile with distinct capabilities from previous variants of the AIM-120. In particular, there are significant hardware and software changes in the guidance section of the missile." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.254 Phase 3 of the AMRAAM P3I development program plans to improve weapons systems effectiveness and lethality and provide the system with the capability to deal with emerging threats. The Phase 3 missile, designated AIM-120C-7, includes new guidance section hardware and software. Raytheon incorporated the following key changes in the Phase 3 upgrade: • Upgraded antenna, receiver, and signal processing portions of the missile to satisfy operational requirements to counter new threats. • Smaller electronic components to create room for future system growth. • Re-hosting some elements of the existing software to a new higher-order programming language (C++). • Re-hosting and modifying some existing software to function with the new hardware. • Developing new software algorithms that will enable the system to deal with newly defined Phase 3 threats. DoT&E FY07 Annual Report P.253 DEVELOPMENT/OPERATIONAL TIMEFRAMES: AIM-120C-5 I don't have much to speak on the C-5 given that it is the earliest relevant variant for the Big 3 modern teen-series fighters (F-15, 16, 18). It is safe to say that it would be available for any of them. Sources referenced elsewhere in this write up state that deliveries began in FY00. AIM-120C-6 Image Source: RDT&E Report Vol. 3 FY06 P.188 As you can see, lots 13, 14 and 15 were delivered prior to October of 2003. These lots are detailed below: "The Lot 13 program plan involves Air Force, Navy and FMS participants....The Processor Modernization program with a Higher Order Language Processor will replace 1970s vintage hardware with Commercial Off the Shelf components and modern more flexible programming languages." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY99 P.59. This is alone is not a very clear indicator that any missiles are being procured, much less what type. Page 61 of the same document reveals that the plan is to procure 180 new missiles with the funding provided (about $112,000,000) and that they will feature the aforementioned processor update as well as P3I Phase 2 implementation. This, along with the linked weapons file, supports the idea that these missiles are C-6s. "The Lot 14 program plan involves Air Force, Navy and FMS participants... This procurement is for 210 AIM-120C-6 missiles which incorporate increased kinematics and improved lethality developed under the P3I Phase 2 program." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY00 P.71 "The Lot 15 program is a continuing procurement of missiles for the AF, Navy, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants. The plan includes 204 AF AIM-120C-6 missiles and two Separation Test Vehicles funded under Program Element 0207590 for the Seek Eagle program." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY01 P.53 AIM-120C-7 Image Source: RDT&E Report Vol. 3 FY09 P.181 As you can see, Lots 16-19 were delivered by early January of 2008. These lots, in addition to Lot 20 (the Cut-In in procurement for the AIM-120D) are detailed below: "The Lot 16 program is the first procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 missiles. The plan includes 190 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY02 P.89 "Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy Lot 17. The plan is to procure 161 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY03 P.89 "Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy Lot 18. The plan is to procure 201 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY04 P.79 "Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the Air Force, Navy, and Army in Lot 19. The budget allows for the procurement of 202 AIM-120C-7 missiles for the Air Force. In addition, 46 AIM-120C-7s will be procured for the Navy ,and 6 AIM-120C-7s for the Army" USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY05 P.75 "Cut in the procurement of the AIM-120D missile with GPS-aided navigation capability, a two way datalink, and new guidance software updates for the Air Force and Navy in Lot 20. The budget allows for the procurement of 166 missiles for the Air Force. In addition, 101 missiles will be procured for the Navy, and 35 AIM-120C-7s for the Army. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 and/or start the procurement of AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY06 P.53 The history of the AIM-120C-7 is more complex than the C-5 and C-6. Initial mentions of the C-7 in these documents were very optimistic, expecting a release schedule not unlike the short timeframe between the C-5 and 6. This turned out not to be the case. Comparison of the C-7's development timeline with others is difficult due to this chart not being present in the relevant year's documents. Whatever the case, the USAF had received several hundred AIM-120C-7s by the time operational testing completed, very nearly the entire non-FMS production run of the variant. "The first Phase 2 AIM-120 C4 missile was delivered in Aug of FY99. The Phase 2 AIM-120 C5 missiles started delivery in Jul of FY00. The Phase 3 missile is the first major upgrade to the seeker hardware and software to meet performance requirements for the FY04 and out time-period. The Phase 3 Cost Plus Award Fee EMD contract was awarded in Oct FY99. This missile will begin deliveries in FY04" (RDT&E FY04 Vol. 2 P.136) "The latest version, the AIM-120C-7, completed operational testing in August 2007" DoT&E FY07 Annual Report P.185 SUMMARY: The C-5,6 and 7 variants of the AIM-120 are all part of a family of upgrades known as P3I Phase 2 and were incrementally developed between the late 90s and 2007. The C-5, the most modern variant currently in DCS, featured a lengthened rocket motor. The C-6 had a new proximity fuze and the C-7 brought increased lethality via a new seeker, enhanced signal processor and software developments. I have concluded based on the research that each variant has a tangible benefit over the previous, enough details are present to model them, and all 3 have a place in DCS' current teen-series aircraft lineup. MODULE-BY-MODULE VARIANT APPLICABILITY BREAKDOWN: F-15E: Image Source: Razbam Discord The base F-15E variant in DCS would not have the C-7, however it would likely have access to the C-6. The 2010 CTU would almost certainly have the C-7. F-16C: Image Source: Official ED F-16 Roadmap It is now certain that our Viper's existence coincided with the existence of hundreds of AIM-120C-7s in the air force's inventory. If a war kicked off and our (war-oriented, again because our Viper's available stores point towards a war-fighting aircraft, not a peacetime one) Bl. 50 F-16 was to go, (which it would, considering that this was pre-F-35 and the '50 was the U.S.' premiere SEAD asset) it would likely be carrying C-7s. The question is, would an M4.2 F-16 be able to use an AIM-120C-7? Image Source: RDT&E Report FY06 Vol.3 P.131 Image Source: RDT&E Report FY09 Vol.3 P.138 Referring to the development of the AIM-120C-7: "The Air Force’s 53d Wing and the Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron NINE will conduct the Phase 3 FOT&E under the oversight of the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center and the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force starting in late 2004, and continuing through the end of 2005... During the FOT&E, ten missiles will be launched against threat-representative aerial targets operating in various demanding operationally realistic tactical scenarios. The evaluation will include integration of the missile on the F-15, F-16, F/A-18C/D, and F/A-18E/F aircraft." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.254 Based on the above, I believe the answer is yes. M4.2+ was an extensive upgrade to the F-16 and was in development for years along with the AIM-120C-7. The C-7's testing directly including integrating it to the F-16 and occurred years prior to the release of M4.2+. It seems quite unlikely that the update would exclude support for it. F-18C: Image Source: Official ED F/A-18C FAQ The AIM-120C-5 is a pretty safe bet for an F/A-18C in this timeframe. The C-6 is also probable. The C-7 is likely out of the question. CONCLUSION: It is clear from the evidence presented above that, especially for the F-15 and 16, the C-6 and C-7 are relevant in the sim and should be modeled. Exact data on improvements are not available publicly but we do know what was upgraded, that those upgrades would be tangible and which areas of the missile's performance these upgrades would affect. Data on aircraft systems integration is sparse but as the updates are evolutionary it is unlikely that there was any appreciable difference in the interface besides perhaps increased launch ranges. PROPOSAL: Model the AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7: Neither missile will require a new 3D model. Only minor texture updates (the lettering on the missile) will be required. All other changes will likely be edits to copies of existing AIM-120C files. AIM-120C-6: -Same as AIM-120C-5 but increase the proximity fuze radius from 9 to ~13 meters. (A kill is still reliably produced with a 15 meter PF per user testing) AIM-120C-7: -Same as AIM-120C-6 but: -reduce the missile's vulnerability to chaff and jamming -(if possible) reduce missile's vulnerability to notching by a noticeable amount (~20-30%) -Increase missile kinematic performance through guidance model optimizations. Add Them to Modules In The Sim: F-15E: -Current version receives the AIM-120C-6 -Later versions receive the AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7 F-16C: -Receives the AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7 F-18C: -Receives the AIM-120C-6 Thanks for reading.

Yes.

Hello, Lua datamines show that the current AIM-9M and AIM-9X damage values are different. Damage: 25 for AIM-9M, 21.25 for AIM-9X (refer to AIM_9.lua line 5 and AIM_9X.lua line 5, respectively) Explosive Mass: 10 for AIM-9M, 8.5 for AIM-9X (refer to AIM_9_Warhead.lua line 7 and AIM_9X_Warhead.lua line 7, respectively) Piercing mass: 2 for AIM-9M, 1.7 for AIM-9X (refer to AIM_9_Warhead.lua line 11 and AIM_9X_Warhead.lua line 11, respectively) I cannot claim to know how their real-life damage values (if quantifiable) translate to DCS, however they should be the same. My sources: "The missile retains the AIM-9M warhead, fuze, and rocket motor." AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missile, DOT&E Report (Unclassified) FY2002 P. 141 "AIM-9X is highly maneuverable, day/night capable, and includes the warhead, fuse, and rocket motor from the previous AIM-9M missile." AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missile, DOT&E Report (Unclassified) FY2007 P. 97 AIM_9.luaAIM_9X.luaAIM_9X_Warhead.luaAIM_9_Warhead.lua

We must have seen the same videos and decided we wanted to try hand tracking for the Q3 around the same time... I am on 64 and struggled to get it to work as well, took some tinkering. First, make sure you have "Developer Runtime Features" enabled under the "beta" tab of the Oculus software. That's the obvious solution and the one most people recommend off the bat, but I am going to assume you already tried and it still didn't allow you to track hands, which is what happened to me. I dug deeper and found this: https://communityforums.atmeta.com/t5/OpenXR-Development/OpenXR-hand-body-tracking-extensions-not-working-over-AirLink-in/m-p/1155017 Essentially the recommendation is to delete dbghelp.dll from your bin and bin-mt folders. Doing so gave me the ability to select hand tracking and it's working now. @13sq*Axe@TheDogBadger@dutchili@andyc

As part of several years of research towards my projects I have developed a sort of "wish list" of more modern Russian systems to oppose our ~2005-era modules. The S-300PS ("SA-10B") was a venerable system even at that time and more modern variations were in service with the Russian Military. It should not be the only representation of the diverse S-300 family within this game and I would like to propose the S-300PMU-2 as its modern alternative to be modeled in DCS. System Comparison The S-300PS is the first major variant of the S-300. Introduced in 1985, it was widely exported and is still in use today in some countries. In DCS it fires the 5V55R command-guided missile with a range of 45-75km.1 Most DCS players will be familiar with it thus I won't get into much more detail. The S-300PMU-2 is conversely the most modern variant of the S-300 (After which the S-400 came to be). It was introduced in 1997 and would be one of Russia's key AD assets in a peer conflict circa 2005. More than 10 years of development and improvements resulted in a complex that, though using the same basic structure format, is an entirely different beast than the S-300PS. As part of the S-300 family, both systems share the same types of components but the vehicles themselves are different. The S-300PS uses: 54K6E command post. 30N6 "Flap Lid" FCR (45km engagement range, can engage 6 targets by tracking 12 missiles) 64N6 "Big Bird" SR (260km detection range) 5P85D/S TELs (using a wired connection and thus needing to be located close to the radars in clusters of 3 due to smart/dumb TEL relationship) 5V55R missile (uses command guidance with a 45-75km range) The S-300PMU-2 uses: 54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post (w 30N6E2 "Tomb Stone" FCR (150km engagement range, can engage 36 targets and track 72 missiles) 96L6E SR (300km range) 5P58SE TELs (using datalink or wired, much looser co-location constraints and all "smart") 48N6E2 missile (uses Track Via Missile guidance with an alleged 200km range) 54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post 83M6E2 system command post (can also integrate command of other systems like SA-5 and SA-10B) 64N6E2 battalion SR (600km range) Can ED model this? The missile in question, the 48N6E2, has been in the game for a long time as part of the armament for one of the russian warships. So, to an extent, they already have. If modeling the 48N6E2 was out of the question I would have advocated for the SA-20A, which has more component commonality with the S-300PS, but this is not the case. The 48N6E2's younger brother, the 48N6E3, has already at least partially replaced it. Why would this system be useful? The S-300PMU-2 would be the cornerstone of a major IADS in a way that the S-300PS simply cannot. The S-300PS' much shorter range and positioning limitations make it less potent and also constrain the depth of any defense under its umbrella. A proper IADS would comprise of a long-range system covering medium and short range systems. With the SA-20B's greater range, this protected area and thus the physical depth of these layers would be greatly increased. Additionally, with the exponentially larger number of simultaneous possible engagements, the resilience of the system against massed attacks would force more creative thinking from mission planners. Finally, the new guidance method would be a thrilling twist for SEAD nerds like myself. Between the S-300PS and S-300PMU-2 we will have almost 30 years of Russian, Chinese and Iranian long-range air defense systems covered, spanning the timelines of most of ED's most popular modules. This, in addition to complementary systems like the SA-17 and SA-22, will fill out any needed AD network. Sources: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300PMU-1_(SA-20_Gargoyle)_Russian_Long-Range_Air_Defense_Missile_System https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300P_(SA-10_Grumble)_Russian_8x8_Long-Range_Surface-to-Air_Missile_System Thanks for reading.

Alright firstly, thank you to all who replied, this is very helpful. I understand the simply positional aspect of the coordinates system and am trying to move on to the orientation side of it. Unfortunately I do not yet know what I am doing but will need to learn in order to build the things I plan on building. As detective Calvin @cfrag says it can be used to determine things like heading and velocity vectors. That's exactly the kind of stuff I need to learn, and to learn it I need to understand this system and what it outputs. Fortunately the wiki has the functions I need for now but I may need more in the future.

Please develop a script function that will allow the user to create an emitter at a given set of coordinates. This emitter doesn't need to show up on RWR but it would preferably be viewable and target-able via HTS and HARM. I am unsure of the best way to implement this, however I would propose using an unused range of HARM codes (say 420-430) that could be set as the appropriate code for the emission source via function. The function would thus probably have 3 parameters: the coordinates of the emitter, the frequency on which it is emitting and, if needed, the HARM code used to target it. Adding this would allow mission creators to build new targets like EW systems, radio towers, command centers and the like for players to shoot at with their HARMs.

We absolutely need this. There is a near-infinite mountain of evidence that the current turn radius for tankers is very oversized. It is almost never this large, especially for fighters. To observe this for yourself go to adsb exchange at basically any time of any day and view the flight path of one of several KC-135s active at nearly any given time. You will find no shortage of examples. As OP stated, due to the forced unrealism within the simulator the vast majority of real-life patterns are unusable.

Bump.

Hi, I have read the documentation regarding vec3 coordinates many times, made a spreadsheet of vec3 readouts resulting from various aircraft orientations and searched both the forums and discords for a better understanding of the system but it still is not clicking for me. I understand that vec3 has 4 components, each with a table of 3 values. The P value makes perfect sense to me, it is the others that are confusing. I don't understand why each of the other 3 values is a table, also of 3 values. Why not only 1? I can't really comprehend how they interact either. Can anyone explain this better? I have been trying to wrap my head around this for days but so far have failed and it is extremely frustrating.

I maintain a library of dumps from select DCS files for every patch that I compare as new ones come out. Comparison of this patch and February's suggests that ED increased the proximity detonation distance of the AIM-120 from 7 to 9 meters, an increase of more than 25%. This was not in the official patch notes so I would take this with a grain of salt, however I am getting these dumps directly from system memory. I have attached the files from the last two updates, refer to line 367. AIM_120C_April.lua AIM120C_Feb.lua

Yes I understand that it may be difficult, very much so even. I won't pretend I know how to do it nor will I say they should just do anything. My goal from posting this is to either get the feature added or to be told by someone in the know why they can't add it. At least then I will finally get closure on the issue. As it stands I have many ideas and projects I want to work on in DCS that would be really cool but there is some technical shortcoming preventing me from completing them. It is very demoralizing because why would I want to work on something that I know I cannot finish?

With that many bugs fixed I hope the teams are running out and can switch to adding more new stuff soon. I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit disappointed in the lack of new stuff but as someone who develops stuff I understand and appreciate it nonetheless. Big thanks for fixing the F10 FoW bug for combined arms!

Please add mission scripting functions to get the state of a client cockpit argument. Functionality would be similar to that of getDrawArgumentValue except it would be able to access the arguments of clients in multiplayer servers. I understand that this would not work for AI and that each aircraft would have different arguments. I do not care, and can work around it myself. Why do we need this? Currently it is impossible to build multiplayer missions with the fidelity of singleplayer ones because we cannot see the arguments of client cockpits like we can those of players (there can only be one "player" aircraft per mission). As someone who has been working on and off on MP content for years now and who has been requesting this feature via DMs with ED CMs for over a year to no avail, this lack of capability is incredibly restrictive on what I can do for clients. I will use the F-16 as an example as that is what I am most familiar with: -I have built a custom crew chief module, however I cannot finish it. The F-16 doesn't seem to have an external argument for the brakes, which are checked as part of every startup at the unit I am representing. Because of this I need to read the state of the toe brake pedals in order to see that the player is attempting to check them. I cannot do this for clients so I cannot finish the script module. -I have worked on an ATC script module, however I cannot finish it. At the airfield I am working on the fighters will send a "flash" from their IFF to ident to departure/approach. This hinges on in-cockpit controls. I cannot see these for clients, so the script module is stuck. Any further functionality I attempt to create will likewise be impossible because I cannot see what clients are pressing in their cockpits. I have many ideas I would like to explore but can't because this functionality does not exist. We need this functionality if we are to make anything multiplayer on-level with what the established SP creators are doing. Can ED develop this?

No, thanks.

It is extremely well evidenced that F-16s start while in chocks. We have requested multiple times over many years. I am curious, why hasn't ED made them the default?

I am curious, there have been some good points here, has ED seen this thread and if so can they say anything regarding their plans for fixing this problem beyond 'we are working on it'? We did get some decent models for the SA-10 recently, and there have been other systems added in the 4 years that I have been playing. I have seen that many systems now have defined frequency operating ranges. Beyond that and tweaking values within the existing system, it seems little to no progress has been made. We already have a SEAD-focused platform (the F-16 Bl.50-ish) and will soon get another (the F-4). It will get fancy new seeker heads that only work on certain kinds of SAMS. SAMS that themselves seem to mostly, if not universally, use the same guidance method and absurdly simple logic. At the same time, the vast majority of the systems we do have are not befitting opponents to ED's flagship modules. It is impossible to currently build a realistic environment that even approaches peer warfare when the most potent system we have is the S-300PS (or SA-2, depending on who you ask), an extremely outdated system that is around 40 years old at this point. We do not have the capability to simulate EW in any meaningful manner and ED has yet to give us the tools to build simulations ourselves. This creates a particularly sad state of things, at least in my opinion. The brand-new Kola map will release at some point with a set of campaigns depicting (from what I have read) some sort of war between the west and east involving both of ED's flagship jets. A 2024 (hopefully) campaign by some of the best developers on a 2024 map featuring 2018 and 2019 modules, stuck with 1980s systems and 2000s code. It hasn't even released yet and we already know that the matchup will be completely nonsensical. Around 7 months ago I did pretty extensive research on the topic and came up with a few recommendations: -Give scripters the ability to read the cockpit arguments of client aircraft so that they can build systems dependent on things like ECM switches/buttons. -96K6 Pantsir-S1 SA-22 for short range air defence. Late 2000s system. Alternatively we could get the Tor M2, but I think it's a long shot. -9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2 SA-11 for medium-to-long-range. Late 90s/Early 2000s system, not the same as the Buk-M2 (SA-17) or M3 (SA-27) that you see more often these days. -S300 PMU-2 SA-20B for long range. Predecessor to the SA-21. Nothing came of it (yet).

I suppose "stealing" is a bit of a harsh way to put it, but I won't shy away from the fact that I learned a lot about how to make missions by picking apart what other people did before me. I strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Category:Functions, if you haven't already. The code file is packaged within the mission file itself, you will have to unzip the mission using the tool of your choice (I use 7zip) and browse to it. The two main things in the file are the radio menus and a little script that deletes the static unit when someone takes a client slot. Regarding documentation, I don't know a whole lot considering this is the first thing I put out there for the public to see. I haven't gotten many people to fill out the form but I have heard nothing but positive feedback so I guess it is enough. You have to keep yourself grounded in the mindset that you are making content for people who have never talked to you before and likely never will. They use your product to have fun. If it stops being fun they will stop using it. If it there is too big of a wall to understand how it works they may never start. I'd rather be a bit too thorough than skimp out, especially if a miscommunication or forced assumption means they end an hour-long session unable to finish their mission.

I don't consider any of the code, design or scripting of this mission proprietary, so if you want to crack it open and take a look, have at it! Stealing code is perhaps the best way to learn it. If I were to make this mission again I would have waited until I had the full documentation prepared before releasing it. It took about a week to research and write the PDF, working off of years of obtained sources, but it should hopefully eliminate much of the confusion new players might encounter. First impression was key and now, even just 2 months after release, the first version really looks rough in comparison.

No. To illustrate why, here is a brief description of what a friend and I did last night in the sandbox. last night a friend and I slotted into a pair of Su-25s and decided to patrol the MSR. We flew out there but my nav system was sour somehow so I had to rely on my wingman (for the rest of the mission he was flight lead). As we fly out we discuss the MiG-23 and how we will use it in the mission. We patrol for a bit at 5000m barometric because of the possibility of MANPADS. He spots a convoy below and, as we orbit high above it, he talks me on and gets me tally. We make a plan; he sweeps down low to VID the convoy while I take high cover and warn him of any incoming MANPADS. He does this and gets shot at, I see that it's green tracers from the lead vehicle and it looks like a technical. We engage the convoy, running in from the west and out to the east to avoid overflying the hostile towns to our south, notifying of each run to ensure we stay separated. Once we finish our attacks we climb again to altitude, join formation and head south. The above is simply not possible in a dynamic environment with AI, no matter who tries. No level of scripting will have an entirely dynamic, 100% natural voiced-acted, believable conversation with you while you fly to an AO. No level of scripting in the realm of practicality will allow an AI to talk you on to a target you can't see, especially if the target is one of potentially thousands and may or may not even spawn on a mission-to-mission basis. The AI doesn't care about engagement directions, it won't help you visually separate, it won't VID a convoy for you, it will just attack the enemy and probably die. If I did try to make this mission SP I would have to cut group sizes, delete essentially all of the mini-missions (because AI can't carry them out without hours of development per aircraft per sortie) and wrestle with the AI for weeks. With the prerequisite of multiplayer I can assume that entities flying the mission are humans and can simply be given a message brief for their mission. If there isn't a line-by-line directive for how it should be carried out (which an AI would require), they can think up a unique plan by themselves that is tailored to what they have available to support them. If they have a friend in a MiG-21 they can incorporate it into their plan. If they have a guy who can call in an artillery strike with combined arms, they can put that into their plan. AI can't. Is there a particular reason you don't want to try multiplayer? If you are really set on SP you can probably try YoYo's campaign (which looks pretty good to me).

He is a very loyal CPG for sure but perhaps he should take a break with the rest of the crew? The back seat is empty, yet he stays, eternally waiting for his pilot to come back. My configuration: -IC Pass -No Mods -MT latest OB IC and game state verification screenshot. Early morning at the FOB in Afghanistan. This is an AI Mi-24 set to "take off from ground" but has the "uncontrolled" box checked because I am using it as a static. The pilot is probably asleep yet Petrovich insists on never leaving the helicopter. Steps to replicate: -Place AI Mi-24 unit -Set to "take off from ground" or "take off from ramp" -Check the "uncontrolled" box OR: -Place a static Mi-24 When viewed in the mission the pilot is gone but the Petrovich stays. An example of a configuration that produces this issue. This is an issue for people trying to use uncontrolled AI as statics. Using a static does not allow for tail number customization or loadout editing. Even if I were to use a static it would have the same problem. As a result it is currently not possible to have an empty Mi-24P in this game. Somewhat immersion breaking when you want to have other Mi-24s on the ramp when you start up.

This patch was a bugfix and polishing update. The main feature is a new comprehensive documentation PDF containing the mission guide, information on how each aircraft was used in Afghanistan, realistic loadouts, tips, tutorials and links to relevant resources. The patch notes are below. PATCH NOTES: V2024_1 Bugfix/Polishing Patch 10/2/2024: Mission: -Extensive documentation PDF now available in the mission file. -The Insurgent MSR now has the possibility of Mujahideen roadblocks at major intersections. -The positions of several existing Mujahideen units have been adjusted for concealment and lethality. -Day version starts slightly later for more sunlight. -Added a Yak-52 slot at Adana Sakirpasa. Mi-24: -Engine remaining service life reduced from ~97% to ~80%* Mi-8: -Engine remaining service life reduced from ~97% to ~80%* -Transportation missions now depend on the side door, not the rear clamshell doors.** -Kord machine gun removed from payload options for Transport-coded helicopters. -Rear-facing PKT reinstated as a payload option for Transport-coded helicopters. -Mini-mission briefings for specific Mi-8s are now are only sent when a client has occupied the slot.*** Su-25: -S-25L reinstated as an available weapon due to new information corroborating its use in Afghanistan. -Default payload changed to 40X S-8KOM, 2X FAB-250, 2X S-24B based on found historical research. MiG-21Bis: -Default loadout changed to center tank + 2X FAB-250 based on found historical research. Mini-Missions: -Several mini-missions adjusted to have slightly lighter payloads. *Changed because, according to the DCS Mi-8MTV-2 User Manual, a value of 100 represents test stand power while 90 represents a brand new engine. Afghanistan was harsh on engines and most would be worn down significantly. Many served beyond their listed maximum service life. Refer to the documentation PDF for information on each helicopter's engine integrity. **Changed because the clamshell doors were actually not used frequently in Afghanistan for missions requiring rapid cargo transfer. They could allegedly take more than 10 minutes to fully cycle and required someone to stand outside and operate them. The side door, though significantly smaller, did not have these limitations and was preferred in most cases. The mission reads the state of these doors to determine mini-mission progress so they must not be occupied by guns. As the clamshell doors are now (mostly) unused they can be utilized to mount the rear PKT. The side doors however must now be unobstructed, barring the use of the Kord. These limitations only apply to the Mi-8s used in mini-missions. ***Previously if a client selected a mission involving a specific helicopter while not occupying it they would miss the briefing for that unit. Now it is possible to occupy the slot at any time after activating the mission and still receive the briefing message. Thanks for 100 downloads! Mission Download Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335222/

This patch was a bugfix and polishing update. The main feature is a new comprehensive documentation PDF containing the mission guide, information on how each aircraft was used in Afghanistan, realistic loadouts, tips, tutorials and links to relevant resources. The patch notes are below. PATCH NOTES: V2024_1 Bugfix/Polishing Patch 10/2/2024: Mission: -Extensive documentation PDF now available in the mission file. -The Insurgent MSR now has the possibility of Mujahideen roadblocks at major intersections. -The positions of several existing Mujahideen units have been adjusted for concealment and lethality. -Day version starts slightly later for more sunlight. -Added a Yak-52 slot at Adana Sakirpasa. Mi-24: -Engine remaining service life reduced from ~97% to ~80%* Mi-8: -Engine remaining service life reduced from ~97% to ~80%* -Transportation missions now depend on the side door, not the rear clamshell doors.** -Kord machine gun removed from payload options for Transport-coded helicopters. -Rear-facing PKT reinstated as a payload option for Transport-coded helicopters. -Mini-mission briefings for specific Mi-8s are now are only sent when a client has occupied the slot.*** Su-25: -S-25L reinstated as an available weapon due to new information corroborating its use in Afghanistan. -Default payload changed to 40X S-8KOM, 2X FAB-250, 2X S-24B based on found historical research. MiG-21Bis: -Default loadout changed to center tank + 2X FAB-250 based on found historical research. Mini-Missions: -Several mini-missions adjusted to have slightly lighter payloads. *Changed because, according to the DCS Mi-8MTV-2 User Manual, a value of 100 represents test stand power while 90 represents a brand new engine. Afghanistan was harsh on engines and most would be worn down significantly. Many served beyond their listed maximum service life. Refer to the documentation PDF for information on each helicopter's engine integrity. **Changed because the clamshell doors were actually not used frequently in Afghanistan for missions requiring rapid cargo transfer. They could allegedly take more than 10 minutes to fully cycle and required someone to stand outside and operate them. The side door, though significantly smaller, did not have these limitations and was preferred in most cases. The mission reads the state of these doors to determine mini-mission progress so they must not be occupied by guns. As the clamshell doors are now (mostly) unused they can be utilized to mount the rear PKT. The side doors however must now be unobstructed, barring the use of the Kord. These limitations only apply to the Mi-8s used in mini-missions. ***Previously if a client selected a mission involving a specific helicopter while not occupying it they would miss the briefing for that unit. Now it is possible to occupy the slot at any time after activating the mission and still receive the briefing message. Thanks for 100 downloads! Mission Download Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335222/

I had the Rift S before the Quest 2, I'd imagine it'd be night and day for you.

Thanks again to those who answered my questions earlier about this headset. They helped me make the choice on whether to get the Q3 or stick with my Q2. I now have my Q3 and have been messing with it for a couple of hours, so it is perhaps time for me to contribute as well. My Setup: CPU: Ryzen 5 5600x ~4.3GHz. GPU: MSI AMD 6900XT, left as is with no intentional overclock Ram: 32gb Trident Z ~3000mhz. Motherboard: X470 Gaming plus by MSI Cable: Syntech 16ft USB 3.0 Primary Monitor: 3480x2160 (My DCS profile swaps it to 1920x1080) Secondary Monitor: 1920x1080 (Unused for DCS but still being rendered) For what it's worth, I got the 6900XT during the great GPU shortage (particularly for the copious VRAM) and I have yet to have issues with it in VR, same for the 5600X. I will be staying with AMD for the foreseeable future. Quest 3: -90hz @ 4128x2208 (Native) -Honzvr perscription lenses -APEXINNO silicone interface cover Quest 2: -90hz @ 3712x1872 (1.0 according to Oculus) DCS Settings: Performance Results vs Quest 2: No major difference. My desired FPS is 45 FPS locked without ASW, and so far this setup delivers, both on Caucasus and Syria. Neither the Mi-24, F-16 nor Mi-8 brought it consistently below this. It typically hovered around ~55 FPS when unlocked as I flew around Syria in a Hind on a local-hosted sandbox multiplayer mission. I was CPU bound the entire time according to the in-game FPS monitoring utility. Thoughts on the Quest 3: Worth it. Visuals: I am in perhaps the best circumstances for running it at the native resolution as I got my eyes checked the same day I ordered it and the lenses. I can read the F-16 MFDs reliably (except for small text like the bullesye numbers, which is a bit of a challenge.) The switches on the sides are a bit more difficult but are usually still legible. If not, a quick lean to one side solves the issue. My regular office, the front seat of the Hind, was similarly workable. I can clearly read the little charts on the right side with relative ease and the dials are a no-brainer. The CPG's weapon dial is a bit difficult (I can decipher the '30' but not the other letters for the store, for example). Something that I really want to emphasize is the edge-to-edge clarity the Q3 offers. I can read the contents of the right F-16 MFD while the headset is directly pointed at the left one. Hell, I can read the Oil Pressure gauge while looking at the left MFD! Interestingly, the edges almost seem clearer, though maybe that's my lenses. Absolutely not happening with the Quest 2. The days of looking directly at a particular switch and zooming in on it are thankfully over. So are the days of tilting the headset vertically in an awkward and never-ending quest to get the perfect angle on the CRT-looking lenses. The Honzvr lenses were themselves a big upgrade from glasses. I have a mismatched prescription but both eyes are in the negatives above -2.5 and I have astigmatism in one eye. Fitting my glasses in the Q2 headset was a big pain and I am very happy I don't have to worry about it anymore. Shipping to me in the central US took 5 days. I also ordered the optics cover for when I am not using the headset, eliminating the problem of dust settling on them. The Quest 3's dial for precise IPD adjustment is very handy. Comfort: I don't use aftermarket straps, the vanilla straps on both were sufficient for me. The Quest 3's do feel a bit more robust. The silicone face cover is a must for me, a greasy sponge being held against my face isn't very fun. My only real complaint with the Q3 is that its sidepieces go perhaps a further quarter-inch back than the Q2's, complicating the wearing of my Hyperx Cloud III. I had to angle the pieces a bit up to fit the ear cups over my ears, and it still could be better. This wasn't an issue with the Q2. If you are like me and use a wired connection I would strongly recommend that you loop a cable management strap around the strap of the headset and route your cable through that. It reduces the vertical stress on the port substantially and also keeps the cable off the side of your face. Note on Privacy: Remember that you can used windows defender firewall to block inbound and outbound connections to basically anything, including Quest software, and still use the headset once you have it initially configured. I set my headsets up using my phone's temporary hotspot so Meta never has access to my home's Wifi, disable the firewall rules so it can run updates, and then lock everything down again once I have everything good to go. I can then use it at my leisure for months on end without worrying about the mic and cameras next to me. I would encourage anyone that strictly uses their headset for DCS to do this. Conclusion: It was worth the cost for me. No matter what comes out next, I probably won't upgrade until I rebuild my PC. Even then I may just upscale it instead of buying a new model. It's simply good enough for me, and it would take a lot to make that next step up worth it.