ACS_Dev

This would indeed be huge.

All very good stuff. Also, as I have essentially proven elsewhere, the Viper still lacks the appropriate AIM-120 variants and of course a litany of training munitions. Sim pilots desiring to accurately simulate the operations of a 2007 Viper cannot do so for the most part because the appropriate training munitions do not exist.

Hello all, For those who were curious, the AIM-9X and M damage models were indeed adjusted in this last patch, though (as is typical for weapon changes), it didn't make the change log. Eagle Dynamics has taken a middle-of-the-road stance on the two missiles. AIM-9X: Old/New damage value: 21.25/23.6 (refer to AIM_9X.lua line 5) Old/New warhead explosive mass, kg: 8.5/9.435 (refer to AIM-9X_warhead.lua line 7) Old/new warhead piercing mass, kg: 1.7/1.887 (refer to AIM_9X_warhead.lua line 11) AIM-9M: Old/New damage value: 25/23.6 (refer to AIM_9M.lua line 5) Old/New warhead explosive mass, kg: 10/9.44 (refer to AIM_9M_warhead.lua line 7) Old/New warhead piercing mass, kg: 2/1.88 (refer to AIM_9M_warhead.lua line 11) Thank you for the quick change. AIM_9M.lua AIM_9X.lua AIM_9X_Warhead.lua AIM_9M_Warhead.lua

If pilot slots in and the server is unpaused and then WSO slots in, the plane gets CM. Otherwise seemingly no. Dials show zero.

Since my last 'post' on this forum I have gotten an entirely separate computer for running DCS on a dedicated server for my friends and I, multiple updates have released (some ostensibly containing VOIP fixes), my internet speed was upgraded several times over and I switched to windows 11. Additionally, the F-4 released, and with it, the urgent need for a segregated communications solution. The boys and I (4 of us this time) have another go at running it. We are sharing 2 F-4s, all set up (I have become quite familiar with how VOIP is supposed to be set up at this point) and try it out. Mic checks go out and back. One guy can't hear anyone. He can speak, we can hear him, the other guys can hear and talk to each other, but no matter what he does with his volume knobs, no matter what his input is (yes it is stereo, yes he has a mic set up, yes he has voip enabled, yes he is on the latest update (we all are), yes he doesn't have us all muted, yes he is in the lobby, yes he can see the red tx, I can go on...) he cant. hear. anyone. 4 guys in a server and 1 can't make it work. I do a mic check with my pilot (I am a WSO main in the F-4). I like cold mic, so does he. Unfortunately for us, DCS doesn't care and makes it hot mic anyways. Is the ICS switch on hot mic? DCS makes it hot mic. Is the switch on cold mic? DCS makes it hot mic. Is the switch on override? No, it's actually still hot mic. For the first time in a couple years flying with him I also get to hear, as loud as his voice, the ambient sounds of his room, including the wonderful clacking of his dog walking across the floor. It's hardwood by the way. These guys are invested in it as they hate having 2 crews in a discord call (it sucks) and want to make it work. We do some troubleshooting, reslotting, reconnecting etc, no dice. 4 guys working at it for about 15 minutes, an hour of wasted time. I was actually surprised that they tried it, they already know its track record and how I keep insisting that we give it another go, always with the same result. At this point I kind of let them go through the motions because I know it's game over as soon as the one guy comes back into discord and announces that he can't hear us. I want this thing to work so bad. It would make managing a server so much easier, I would love it. I would lobby any servers I play on to use it. I would personally help anyone in my circle set it up. Instead it sits there, occasionally sapping up the time of people like me while being perpetually broken and rejected by 8 out of the top 10 most popular servers online as of writing. How is it that SRS, a solution made by an unpaid hobbyist just works while ED's 'solution' simply doesn't? What's up? Why are all of these servers continuing to refuse VOIP, so long after the much lauded 2.9 release? Why are they instead choosing to push a 3rd party product that nags you for updates, requires another program, adds another link in the dcs startup chain and is just annoying in general to work with? I don't understand.

Hello, Last night a friend and I were trying to use the tomcat and were able to talk and hear each other on VOIP, however we always seemed to be on 'hot mic' regardless of whether either of our switches were on 'hot mic' or 'cold mic'. When he said something I would always hear it, regardless of our switch settings.

Hello, I have a quick-turnaround mission in an F-4 but the last crew to fly it still haven't gotten out of it yet...It's been 20 minutes already and a situation is developing. We are unable to convince them to leave the aircraft. Unlike other jets like the F-14, post-shutdown the crew of the F-4 will not leave it. No open canopy and no pilots spawning to the side. Also this aircraft was equipped with external tanks but it deleted them after shutdown. I discovered this while trying to make a scripted event in which a couple phantoms would return to base, shut down and then have fuel and maintenance trucks pull up afterwards. I had to scrap the idea because the crew never visibly leaves the jet, ever. After 30 minutes it will despawn like any other, pilots still inside.

That is not a credible source...It could be implied that you are talking about ED code (which itself may be of dubious veracity), not a mod made by a unverified source.

Will the new assets come with LODs?

Apologies, I worded that poorly. It is clear that it used to be called the C-5, I wasn't trying to claim otherwise. The 'however' was because I thought it might originally have been done quite recently, instead I looked back into the datamines and realized it was actually a pretty old change. Yeah I don't think so either. It was one of few possible explanations for the change. To be frank, I typed this up last night after having recently posted the thread and in my tired state I contemplated the idea that ED intentionally made the naming more ambiguous because they didn't want to get into modeling sub-variants. However, after looking back I realized this was not related to my post because it was more than a year older. Maybe they don't but it wasn't a recent development and certainly wasn't because of anything I wrote. The missile length thing is probably worthy of a bug report, I will submit one at some point when I figure out whether it's the AIM-120B being too long or the AIM-120C-ish one being too short or neither (which would be even weirder)

Hi NorthStar, I recently posted a lengthy thread on AIM-120C sub-variants that ED is now investigating. I'd say it's worth the read if you want to know the differences between the variants and their acquisition history within our module's timeframes. Assuming ED is modeling their AMRAAMS accurately: -We must have the AIM-120C-3 or better because the wings are clipped -We must have the AIM-120C-5 or better because of the lengthened rocket motor. A look at the modelviewer and the two missiles suggests that ED chose to model an AIM-120C-3 or AIM-120C-4, not the C-5 (Either that or the AIM-120B is incorrectly modeled), However the guidance section on the AIM-120C is marked as being a WGU-41 of the AIM-120B family. Until today I assumed that the lengthened rocket motor was present; a comparison of the AIM-120B and C rocket motor modules in-game revealed their length to be the same. Also I believe you on the C being named the C-5, however a review of my datamines as far back as last June showed it as just the C. Further, the modelviewer shows the missile model not being updated since I installed it in late December of last year. Historically ED has done things like rename L16 in the F-16's DED to TNDL in order to skirt copyright or something similar, this might be the case but I kind of doubt it. As I claim in the linked thread, certain modules, in particular the Viper, should have the AIM-120C-6 at the very minimum, likely also the AIM-120C-7. I proved in the linked thread that the USAF had taken delivery of hundreds of both missiles by 2007. I also argued that our viper would carry them into battle given the missile's test history and overlap with the OFP upgrade program as well as this particular viper variant being instrumental in SEAD operations. The question of the F-15 and F-18 is more complicated, again I'd encourage you to refer to my post. So in conclusion, I came here to tell you that ED modeled the C-5 and the model reflects it but now I am quite confused myself.

Понял, спасибо!

Относительно вашего комментария о С-300, вы сказали, что С-300В находится в списке желаний Есть ли планы добавить новые версии С-300П, помимо С-300ПС? (Например, С-300ПМ-2) Вы сказали, что будут новые модели С-300ПС, я не был уверен, что вы имеете в виду

What lua file data? Where is this lua file?

Да, это очень важный вопрос.

Планируются ли С-300ПМ-2, 9К37М1-2? С-300ПС очень старый.

Hello all, I saw mention of someone using an Optiplex Micro as a dedicated server machine in this thread and was intrigued. Through this process I had to go through countless bits of information distributed by others so I figured I would contribute here for those interested. This is going to be a long post but not a manual on how to set up a server. It won't have line-by-line details but should set you on the right path and give you some ideas. If you have any questions feel free to comment and I will do my best to help out. I am confident that if you are capable of playing DCS and setting up SRS you should also be capable of figuring this out. INTRODUCTION: I am the main mission creator for my little group of buddies and usually end up hosting the missions we fly. My computer is generally sufficient for these tasks but I wanted to eke out some extra performance as well as host some websites independent of my machine. There are 3rd party solutions for both of these issues but they are quite expensive, especially together. Now, understand from the start that part of the justification for the price tag of these 3rd party solutions is the hands-off and maintenance-free service they provide. For some people the reduced costs long term won't be worth it, especially if you are running a major MP server with expected 24/7/365 uptime (and expect to be paying for another service if you are running websites for your group) That being said, this setup will easily pay for itself well within a year if you use it regularly, don't absolutely need it to be online all the time and are willing to embrace the learning curve. Essentially, if you and your group run missions that last a couple of hours every week or so, this is probably something that will work very well for you. If you host a persistent multiplayer server with 60 people on it at all hours, a 3rd party solution is probably the safer (but much more expensive) bet. With about $400 (Which is a lot more than you will likely need to spend and a lot less than a new main PC) and day of effort all told (probably less as most of the issues you might encounter are discussed here with solutions) I have a monitor riser that requires pressing a power button to also function as a DCS Server. It boots, logs in and launches the .exe by itself. From some casual testing it seems to net me about ~5FPS minimum in performance benefit (over a server on my main PC) with more likely as players and jets stack up. I can restart my main PC whenever I want or shut if off entirely and the server will still be running, making the inevitable VR bug no longer a session-killer. It uses no connected keyboard, mouse, monitor or any other peripherals. Control is done mainly through my DCS account on ED's website and also optionally through the local WebGUI via Remote Desktop. I am happy with it so far. PC SELECTION: The linked thread got me onto the idea of using an Optiplex Micro as a server, and now having gone through the process I consider it a no-brainer. The Optiplex Micro is a boilerplate corporate PC just big enough to be a monitor riser. There are a number of form factors for Optiplexes however I chose a Micro for this reason. I have been working in IT for an international corporation for a little while now and have handled a lot of these little boxes, taken them apart, fixed various problems, set them up and recycled them. They are good little machines. Thousands come and go from the corporate sphere each year and flood the used market, driving prices down. I spent about $400 on mine and I got ripped off badly (An identical one is being auctioned at time of writing for $175, though it only has 16GB of RAM). With them comes a glut of relatively cheap spare parts. Most have replaceable CPUs, all that I have seen have replaceable RAM and multiple storage drive slots. If a part breaks you will be able to find a replacement and it won't be too hard to swap out. Of course there is no dedicated GPU so you won't be gaming with it, also most use -T coded CPUs with low (~35W) voltages. Fortunately that's irrelevant for my purposes. I got a 5070 with an I7 9700T, an 8C/8T 35W processor with 12Mb of cache, a 2GHz base speed and 4.2Ghz boost. It also has 32GB of DDR4-2133 RAM and a 1TB SSD. If you get one you will need to make sure you have the right CPU for the job as well as enough RAM and hard drive space. I used this website for comparing CPUs and this website to find out what was possible with my board. Keep in mind the age of what you are getting, also what constitutes a good deal will of course change over time. At this point I would consider 32GB of RAM to be a requirement and 500GB of SSD space a strong recommendation. Syria with 1 client (me) connected takes up more than 16GB server-side. I would strongly recommend you get one with a Pro version of windows installed so you can use Remote Desktop (11 works fine for me). I have also worked with similar machines from Lenovo. The company I worked for moved away from them awhile back and I would be a bit hesitant to go that route. I have since heard good things about them from people with more experience than me, so my opinion is not necessarily gospel. SETUP: My goal with this machine was to make it as hands-off after initial setup as possible. That meant more effort on the front end. If I had just installed windows and DCS Server I would probably never use the thing because I'm impatient. I also wanted it to be small. I don't want to have to plug in 3 different peripherals every time I want to use it. I achieved this but it's a bit of a process. Fortunately for you, I have already done it and (hopefully) already encountered the issues you may run into. Summary: I installed Windows and got it set up to login via password, set it up to auto-login for easy access, set up Remote Desktop for remote control, forwarded the ports, installed the server, tweaked the CPU config with Throttlestop (Herein referred to as TStop) and CPU-Z, set up both the Dedicated Server, Server GUI and TStop to run on login, transferred missions over and am now basically set. Don't worry if you don't know what some of these things are yet. The ideal end result of this process is a computer that powers on and then logs straight in, including to your DCS account, and starts launching programs by itself with elevated privileges, so it should go without saying that you should ensure your machine is not going to grow legs or be exposed to bad actors. I would go as far as to say you shouldn't be using it for anything other than hosting servers. Windows Install: My vendor had the PC ready for account set up when I powered it on, as it would be if it were new. If yours isn't at that step you will need to image it. If it already has an account I would re-image it anyway to mitigate the risk of malware. Account Setup: I initially had the computer set to use a PIN, as that is what was prompted during initial setup. That was a mistake as it prevented me from using Remote Desktop (herein referred to as RDP) properly. If I were to go through the process again I would try to skip any sort of password/pin setup entirely as it messed up the auto-login process. I had to set it to use a password after the fact. I also disabled the requirement for users to use a password to sign in. I used method 3, if you avoid my misstep you can probably use method 1. I don't know if you have to use a password for RDP to work, I just know that using PIN initially made RDP connection impossible due to 'bad credentials'. Overall I would say use no login for initial setup (if possible), then set a password if RDP rejects your creds, then disable the password entirely using method 3 from the linked site. To top it all off I disabled UAC (the popup that asks for admin creds when you run stuff). I am not sure you will need to do this but if elevated apps like DCS Server or TStop don't work off the bat it would be where I'd look first. I also set the PC to never turn off automatically. After setup I did some minor debloating, disabling the automatic startup of Edge and other un-needed programs. Also, as is tradition, I used Edge to install Firefox and then never touched it again. Be sure to record you credentials somewhere that you can access them. As your PC will be logging itself in it will be easy to forget what your password was, potentially causing problems in the future. Remote Desktop Setup: With windows basically set up I then configured RDP. RDP allows me to control the Server PC directly from my main PC so I can easily add missions to the list and do other basic work without having to plug in peripherals. It was straightforward other than the aforementioned PIN/Password issue. This is where having Windows Pro 10/11 comes into play as allegedly Home won't allow the slave PC to be connected to via RDP. This only applies to the Server, my main PC is Home and works fine. I removed the requirement for using credentials on connection. DCS Server Installation: There isn't a whole lot to say about this process other than that it was pretty uneventful. Once it was installed I set it to autologin as well. When you launch it it just looks like the DCS loading screen forever. Once it's installed you have the WebGUI to go with it. You can get to the WebGUI from your account on the DCS Website (not the forums). To get the server to be visible you need to forward two ports: The server control port and the server port itself. The process will vary depending on your ISP but it should be similar to if you wanted to port forward for a server on your main rig. I actually forwarded 10306 for the server so I could have 10308 for my main PC should I want it (I don't even know if they need to be different). If you want to do this it will be in the serverSettings file in the server folder. You may need to actually run the server once first to populate the file. Tuning the CPU: This actually was a bit frustrating and took some hours to figure out. I set the min/max states, high performance power plan and enabled Turbo Boost in the BIOS but my CPU was still stuck at about 800MHz. To solve the issue I ended up installing TStop and using the linked guide to tweak the settings. Unchecking "Disable Turbo" got rid of the problem. Among other things I initially set it to run between 3.5GHz and 4GHz at all times, tweaked the power settings and, just to be safe, made BD PROCHOT more aggressive at 70C instead of the default 100C. My max temp was 62C running the server so I doubt I will need to adjust it but can if needed. Be careful with TStop and read up before messing with it. The right settings will vary depending on your CPU, which might brick itself if you do the wrong thing. This will take tweaking, monitor the temps and voltage for awhile to see how it handles changes before leaving it. After two months of (non-constant) operation I became mildly concerned and annoyed by how loud the machine was, so I decided to walk back the clocks a bit to 3.0GHz. I noticed no decrease in practical performance in exchange for near-silent fan noise, 20C cooler temps and more peace of mind. Try to figure out what is appropriate for you and your users. If you are like me and have less than a dozen people on your server at any given time, this should work pretty well for you. Disabling the "you don't have a keyboard!" error: I wanted a desktop riser that doubled as a server. That means, among other things, no peripherals. Unfortunately by default it seems many PCs will throw a fit if you try to boot them without a keyboard. Fortunately this error can be disabled. Setting Up DCS Server and TStop to auto-run on login: This initially threw me for a loop as well, no more! (refer to the 'test scheduler' section). Just putting them in the startup folder didn't work because Windows (rightly) doesn't want it to. To save some extra power, don't make the WebGUI autologin as well as that will open up a browser on your server machine. Final Bits: Once all of this was done it was basically good to go. I ran the WebGUI and then the Server through a remote desktop connection, setting up the name and passwords and all of that stuff. I don't know but you might be able to do this via your DCS account page on another computer. The key thing is that the DCS Server application needs to run for the WebGUI to be useful, at least as far as I have seen. I set up the server list as well. An added perk of the server being a monitor riser is that transferring missions between the two machines is as simple as pulling a thumb drive out of one and putting it into another. You could probably set it up so that you can just move them virtually but I can't be bothered. When swapping maps it sometimes looks like the server went offline. Maybe it did but it usually comes back. RESULTS: Unfortunately I actually don't have many friends so it's hard to stress test my new setup. I did a minor test with 4 people including me on a Caucasus dogfight mission and we did not experience any rubber-banding or other issues. This was before I realized the server was at 800MHz! Rectifying the low clock seemed to make it much faster on load but I am not sure. Time will tell how well this machine holds up, however as the screenshots below show, it doesn't seem to be having that hard of a time so far. On my Soviet-Afghan helo sandbox on Syria more than half the RAM was used but it handled well. Note the low temps, internet utilization and RAM headroom. Nevada uses significantly less RAM. CONCLUSION: It was a lot of work but I think it is worth it. Again, all of this work should net a PC that literally goes from monitor riser to DCS server in about 2 minutes by itself with no peripherals and one button press. I hope this was worth the read. I will add to this as time goes on if I experience any issues or have more quantifiable performance data. 2-MONTH UPDATE: With the release of the F-4 my friends and I flew many training sorties on this machine, mostly on Nevada but also on Syria and Caucasus. We had anywhere from 2-6 people on the server at any given time. There were times when I left the server on overnight with no apparent issues. Having 1 ping is very nice and the excellent server performance made going on other servers quite jarring, especially ECW. It is very nice to be able to pause the server on command when someone needs to step away for a moment, change the mission whenever you feel like it and upload new ones in moments. All of these things are possible with self-hosting but I have lost track of the number of times where I experienced an issue on my main rig that would have resulted in a server crash for everyone had I not been using this machine for hosting instead. With the realization that I don't need 3.5-4.0GHz to comfortably run a server, I am even more confident in the future of this setup. I am satisfied with what it does and can't foresee anything that would force an upgrade, especially when the Dedicated Server becomes MT-compatible. Thanks for reading! ACS_Dev

I don't get many comments from ED and I have active DMs with both of the western CMs. I understand that there is a balance between realism and practicality they need to maintain with their developer resources. The developer that could accomplish this task could easily be busy with the guns on the Chinook, assuming that it's that simple and they don't wear many other hats. The other question is of value; how many people do you think actually fly it? Hopefully they keep this in mind for the long-awaited remodel. Bumping the price $10-30 would require some new gameplay additions in my book and a nose gunner would certainly be one of them.

How much FPS would you say? Are you happy with the performance overall? I understand that it was inexpensive but do you feel any desire to get something better?

How is this working out for you and what are you doing with it? Looking at doing something similar.

Good research effort!

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 "AIM-120C-5 – Lot 12. Implements 5 inch longer enhanced Rocket Motor and shortened control section" USAF Weapons File (Distribution A) 2003 P.17 As will be shown below, the AIM-120C-5's delivery preceded that of the 15th lot and thus would have to have occurred some time prior to FY2002, the time frame of ED's F-18C. We don't actually have a proper AIM-120C-5, as will be proven later on in this write up. 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 These lots all mention "improved electronic protection" as the main feature of the missile. This in itself isn't very clear and fails to mention the other improvements, namely the guidance section hardware/software, antenna/receiver section and signal processing updates. The "AIM-120C-5/6/7 EXPLAINED" section contains a quote from 2007 that references these upgrades as having occurred but the lots themselves do not. This may raise questions as to whether or not the C-7 actually included these upgrades. Fortunately, that question can be answered by analyzing the contracts being funded during the C-7's development. In the USAF RDT&E Budget Request for FY00, the contract for the "advanced EP" also explicitly includes an improved seeker. The total expenditure for this contract was planned to be $120.5 million over fiscal years 99-01. This same document also mentions the improved fuzing contract, whose timeline lines up with the production of the AIM-120C-6. The USAF RDT&E Budget Request for FY05 also mentions a $12 million contract for software upgrades to the missile. Together, these contracts confirm the veracity of the 2007 quote. SUMMARY: The C-4, 5, 6 and 7 variants of the AIM-120 are all part of a family of upgrades known as P3I Phase 2 (or 3 in the case of the -7) and were incrementally developed between the late 90s and 2007. The C-4 had a new warhead (not to be confused with the target detection device), the C-5 featured a lengthened rocket motor and shortened control section module, 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. WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN DCS? If you remember the AIM-120C being referred to as the AIM-120C-5 in the past, you are correct. At some point in the past few years Eagle Dynamics deliberately removed the -5 prefix from the missile and most things referencing it. It is however still referred to as the AIM-120C-5 in some of the in-game manuals, namely the F-16C's: Image Source: DCS F-16 Early Access Guide P.33 This is not an open-and-shut case. While researching for this writeup I concluded that we must have an earlier version because the missile length is the same as the AIM-120B's. This was an incorrect conclusion; the control section module was shortened 5 inches to maintain the missile's length. ED's AIM-120C model does not feature this change: Image Source: ModelViewer, AIM-120B above. ED made a conscious effort to differentiate the models of the two missiles by trimming the fins appropriately and changing the labels on each section. The decision not to change the length of the CSM is noteworthy. ED has made such errors in the past, so this by itself is not a guarantee that it was intentional. Another discrepancy can be found in the missile's respective lua files; The AIM_120.lua and AIM_120C.lua feature identical warheads. As previously stated, the AIM-120C-4 features an upgraded warhead. Therefore, again assuming ED knows this (which, as evidenced by the lack of mention of the new warhead in the aforementioned manual screenshot, they don't), the newest missile we could have is an AIM-120C-3. As the clipped wings were first featured as part of the AIM-120C-3, this lines up with the 3D model. The weapons file describes the AIM-120C as having slightly more (4.72kg/10.2 pounds) of fuel mass than the AIM-120B, which conversely is a sign that they are trying to model the AIM-120C-5. It is also a better missile in a number of areas, none of which clearly point to it being a C-5. There is a serious problem with the files however, first brought up to me by @DCS FIGHTER PILOT . The AIM-120B actually burns longer than the AIM-120C in DCS. Eagle Dynamics has given the AIM-120C a longer (6.5 seconds instead of 5) sustain motor burn time with an impulse of 234 instead of 227. At the same time though, they have entirely deleted the AIM-120C's boost section! As the 2003 USAF Weapons File states, all versions of the AMRAAM, at least up to that point (including the AIM-120C-5), had a boost AND sustain phase. The AIM-120B thus has 2.1 seconds of boost burn time with an impulse of 236 where the AIM-120C has nothing. It just goes straight to sustain. A crude comparison created by multiplying the burn times of the various stages by the impulse units assigned to them reveals that the C has 1521 total impulse units while the B has 1630.6, a difference of more than 7%. Consider also that the AIM-120C weighs 2.2% more than the B. At least in terms of raw power, the AIM-120B is likely the superior missile by a fairly wide margin. If the AIM-120C retained the AIM-120B's boost phase and added the more powerful, longer sustain phase (from the C-5's extended rocket motor) the total thrust units would be about 2016.6, an increase of more than 23%. Taking this new information into account, it is not possible to determine what AIM-120C ED is modeling. It's too messed up to be firmly decided upon. In terms of pure kinematics, the AIM-120B is probably the superior missile, something that does not make any sense at all. In summary, the missile has the clipped wings of the C-3, lacks the warhead of the C-4, has an incorrect implementation of the C-5's rocket motor and does not feature the appropriate external model changes. In conclusion: The missile's characteristics fit best with the AIM-120C-3, albeit missing part of its rocket motor and at least one key seeker mode (MPRF) 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. There is a distinct possibility that the 2010 CTU could also carry the AIM-120D (Deliveries seem to have begun in FY09 if not earlier per one of the previously posted charts), however I am not under the illusion that we will or should receive it. F-16C: Image Source: Official ED F-16 Roadmap Firstly, it is important to note that at this time the Air Force was the only operator of the F-16C Block 50. The ANG would not receive the block until around 2012. The F-16C Block 50 was, at the time, one of the US' most lethal platforms and was stationed in Europe accordingly. It is now certain that our Viper's existence coincided with the existence of hundreds (700+) 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 with a number stationed in Germany) 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-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7: No missiles will require a new 3D model. Only minor texture updates (the lettering on the missile and location of panel lines) will be required. All other changes will likely be edits to copies of existing AIM-120C files. AIM-120C-4: -Same characteristics as the current AIM-120C but with an upgraded warhead and using the AIM-120B's propulsion characteristics AIM-120C-5: -Same as the AIM-120C-4 but with an appropriate increase in fuel mass along with remodeled panel lines for the rocket motor and control section module and an increased sustain burn time in addition to the AIM-120C-4's boost phase (which the AIM-120C currently lacks) 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-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 -Later versions also receive the AIM-120C-7 and (technically) AIM-120C-8 (also known as the AIM-120D) F-16C: -Receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7 F-18C: -Receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5 and 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. @13sq*Axe@TheDogBadger@dutchili@andyc