Tomsk

I absolutely agree this is what DCS needs: a server that is based on COIN & low-intensity conflict. I've actually thought of making such a server myself: multiplayer PvE, based around infantry and light vehicles. No tanks, no enemy aircraft, no SAMs beyond MANPADs. My idea would be to dynamically create multiplayer "missions" for example: escort, responding to troops-in-contact, air-assault, base defense, artillery & mortar interdiction, resupply and CSAR. Focused around helicopters, but also allowing CAS with fixed wing assets like the A-10. My thought was to be like a dynamic (and obviously somewhat simpler) version of the kind of missions the Operation Piercing Fury campaign provides, but much lower-intensity and multiplayer. I'd reckon on using some of the new neural text-to-speech APIs that became available recently to provide realistic voices to troops on the ground and maybe even Chat GPT to add flavour to the text. I have the skills to do this (I'm a software developer) .. but the big question is whether I'll get round to it

You misunderstand: I own lots of (simulated) helicopters across many different flight sims. I regularly do CSAR, or civilian taxi services, or troop insertions. My question is not "Why fly helicopters?" I love helicopters, I have several hundred simulated hours in them. I have a complete set of full size dedicated helicopter controls. But I don't have a pokemon "Gotcha own them all!" attitude, each new helicopter has to bring something new. My question is "Why buy the Kiowa?": what can it do that's unique and exciting, compared to the other helicopters? Well for me that's about the mission it flew IRL: supporting troops on the ground. However, to get that kind of experience in DCS (IMO) requires scripted campaigns - DCS MP just won't give that kind of experience (sadly). Hence, for me personally, what makes the Kiowa unique and exciting will be whether it comes with some good campaigns that really give a sense of what flying that mission in the Kiowa was like. If we get some great campaigns like that then the Kiowa will offer something unique: you can't find that kind of experience anywhere else. However, without them (for me personally) it's just another helicopter.

IMO the Kiowa is going to be very similar to the Gazelle: a lightly armed scout helicopter. In my experience this kind of helicopter doesn't have a lot of utility on most MP servers, and the best gameplay for these helicopters is found in scripted campaigns. MP servers are generally balanced for much more capable platforms like the Apache or fixed-wings. Sure you can load a Gazelle up with HOT missiles and use it like a crApache that can only carry 4 short-ranged missiles, which it can only (realistically) use from a hover. Or you can go air-quaking other helicopters, or use it like a transport helicopter with a very small capacity. None of these things are the kind of flying I really want to do with the Gazelle or Kiowa: guns and rockets, hell-for-leather flying, supporting troops in contact. IMO where a helicopter like the Kiowa would shine most is how it was used IRL in Iraq and Afghanistan: doing COIN ops. Supporting troops, scouting ahead, engaging enemy infantry and light vehicles, coordinating with friendlies on the ground, and using those guns and rockets to suppress insurgent attacks. This is how I would most like to fly the Kiowa. IMO the only realistic way I can see we might get those kind of low-intensity COIN scenarios at the moment is via scripted campaigns. I remember in the past hearing that the Kiowa would come with several realistic campaigns. If it does, this will be an automatic buy for me. Even better if we get some campaigns for the upcoming Iraq or Aghanistan maps. However, if it doesn't I'm not so sure what I would use it for. As I said above, I don't think it has a huge amount of utility in general MP, which is always going to be balanced for much more capable aircraft. I really like the Gazelle now with its new flight model (you guys did a great job on that) .. but I don't fly it much because it doesn't have much of a role. Mostly when I have flown it it has been in one of the few campaigns that do exist for it, but there aren't many. I'm really hoping the Kiowa can provide a lot more here.

There's also a problem where it tells you to go into STT lock you should press lock again. This is no longer correct, you now need to use TWS/STT toggle.

Thanks, that's very useful. Are you sure "Maximum remaining fuel" isn't in addition to the "Full internal fuel" specified in the "Clean aircraft" config? Otherwise that would mean that a "Standard air-to-air" config can only make a standard landing if it has less than 1800lbs of fuel left (0.85 tonnes). That would be 25% capacity, almost empty .. you'd only get a couple of attempts at landing before you were out of fuel entirely. Surely almost all landings with combat loadout would then need to be uprated ones? Also the maximum uprated fuel for that config is 3.25 tonnes, that's 7,100 lbs which is essentially full internal capacity. Is it not safe to land the plane at all (i.e. even uprated) with 4 missiles, full internal fuel and an (essentially) empty centre tank? EDIT: Hmm looking at it that would make sense with the "Standard air-to-ground" having a normal MLW which is "< 0.5 min. res" which I guess means "minimum reserve". i.e. you'd be below the minimum safe amount of fuel for operating the jet with. That's interesting, I never knew the Mirage was quite so limited on landing weight! I believe the viper (the AC if fly the most) has effectively no maximum landing weight: if you can take off with it you can land with it.

Found time in my break, this was hot start from the runway with 2 tanks. Still requires full burner to hold on-speed in quite a modest level turn. Recorded in latest Open Beta: Mirage burner turner.trk

Thanks, I'll also try it from a hot start. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong during the cold start procedure. I'm not getting any warnings, but that doesn't mean something isn't off somewhere. Will go for a track, I fly VR exclusively so the video tends to look a bit weird anyway.

Hi, thanks for the reply. This is the "Cold Start" Instant Action in Nevada. I started the jet, took off and did a pattern round the airbase. In the Instant Action in Nevada the jet starts pretty heavy: 35,000 lbs with 3 bags and 2 Magics. I also tried the procedure with the Caucasus Cold Start Instant Action which is 2 Magics, 2 530s and no bags (26,000 lbs). Although this was better than Nellis, it still required some afterburner use to make the turn. My procedure was as follows: Towards the end of the downwind put the gear down and move to the correct AoA (FPM in the brackets, near the top). Can't tell you exactly what airspeed this is as I was flying AoA not airspeed, as is typical with modern jets. I did notice that putting the gear down seems to cause a massive increase in drag, far more than other similar aircraft. I then turned onto base whilst holding altitude. Bank angle was I'd guess roughly 20 degrees, not a steep turn. To hold the turn I had to go full afterburner, even then I couldn't hold altitude while I did it. Then after the turn I did the final descent. AoA was in the bracket, although I found the plane really struggled to hold that needing nearly full military power. I believe I did check for warnings/cautions, as I thought something was wrong, but I saw none. I'll see if I can get a video/track later, although it might have to wait a day or two.

Hi I used to fly the Mirage a lot many years ago, I must have several hundred hours in it. Recently I thought I'd give it another fly after a (very long) break. The plane has changed quite a bit I see: new radios, various displays have changed. Nice to see the progress. So I thought I'd go fly a pattern in the Mirage Instant Action at Nellis, something I've done hundreds of times in the Mirage in the past. However, I'm finding it doesn't have enough power to hold a level turn on-speed with the gear down at Nellis. As a result my turn from downwind onto base requires me to do it on full afterburner! Even the descent on final down to the runway requires nearlly full military power to hold on-speed correctly. I checked I don't have the speed brake out or anything stupid like that. The Mirage 2000C never used to do this back in the day. I never had any problems being unable to do patterns with it due to lack of engine power. Hell there's no plane in DCS that I've been unable to hold a level turn with the gear down. This surely can't be realistic, needing to do turns onto the base leg at full afterburner and landing at nearly full military?!

Would be great to eventually get a Typhoon in DCS that can use some unguided bombs. LGBs are not always the ideal tool for every job.

I don't think you can use any of those if you end up in a dogfight with two groups of F-16s. Our squadron simulated this scenario recently and it was utter carnage.

The F-18 and other planes have IFF indications for contacts on the HUD, the F-16 (in DCS) does not. Is this accurate to real life? If so it seems a very odd design choice. Especially given the F-16 is so widely exported. For example If Egypt & Israel ever got into a shooting match it could get real messy. They both fly the F-16 and as I understand it neither carries AMRAAMs, so it'd be pure WVR combat .. with no reliable means to identify friend from foe. It seems such a simple addition: to display an IFF indication on the HUD when you have a target locked.

Exactly this. I too run DCS in VR (HP Reverb, GTX 1080, 8700K). My frame rates have gotten worse and worse over time with new patches. I used to get solid 45fps, but since recent patches I'm lucky to get 35fps. What's more as far as I can tell the entire thing is hopelessy CPU limited. I can tell this because as soon as I high "pause" (so it's still rendering but not running the simulation) my frame rate shoots up. It's so incredibly frustrating. All I want is a solid framerate at a good resolution for VR, I don't care how bad it looks just let me see clearly and have a smooth experience. I used to enjoy playing the MBot DCE campaigns but now it's hopelessly slow, DCS just can't cope with having that many units in a mission. I'm not convinced any amount of upgrades will fix this, and it seems to be getting worse over time. This is the single biggest thing holding me back in DCS, and honestly it really makes me wonder how much extra I want to invest in the platform right now.

So that's not why this is being suggested, there is other (much better) evidence available.

You could be right .. but I can't see in that case why it would be listed in the PACAF standard conventional loads as an operational load to be used for war planning. I'd also find it surprising for it to be mentioned on the page for the 20th FW as being able to carry four HARMs if that doesn't include being able to use them. Do you have any evidence that they can't be launched from those pylons?

This is also my point of view. The evidence I've presented does seem to indicate the F-16 can carry 4 AGM88, it's just rarely used. If that's correct I would suggest the correct option is to allow it to be carried.

So I posted a bunch of evidence here that you might be interested in: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4491276&postcount=3

So I didn't include this image because this is a test aircraft from Edwards, as such it's not very compelling evidence IMO.

So I think this would be much more productive if people focus on evidence either way, rather than speculation. As such I'd like to suggest some evidence that the F-16 CJ Block 50 can indeed carry 4 AGM-88C HARMs, even if this loadout is not used very often. Evidence item one: The 2003 PACAF Standard Conventional Loads (google to find it), lists for the 35th Fighter Wing the following loadout on Page 20: The 35th Fighter Wing fly the F-16CM Block 50, the exact block that is modelled by our F-16 in DCS. The PACAF SCL is from 2003 which is close to the date modelled for our Viper. As noted in the document itself: Why would 4 HARMs be listed in the SCL as an acceptable load for the F-16 CM Block 50 if the fighter is unable to carry 4 HARMS? Note that it is also listed as a valid operational loadout for the F-16 CJ on page 9 of the 1997 PACAF Standard Conventional Load (again use google to find), suggesting this has been true for some time and that this is not a mistake in the 2003 PACAF SCL. Evidence item two: The F-16 fact sheet presented by Shaw Air force base says: This is the official site for the 20th Fighter Wing which fly the F-16CJ Block 50. Why would it be incorrect in stating the F-16CJ Block 50 can carry 4 HARMs? Personally I think this also indicates that 4 HARMs can be used operationally, I doubt they would say this if all you could do is ferry them. Evidence item three: There is evidence of other versions of the F-16 carrying 4 HARMs. The aircraft pictured is an F-16A rather than a C, but it is not a test aircraft (unlike this one) and it is clearly carrying 4 HARMs. Whilst this is clearly much weaker evidence than the items above that the F-16CJ Block 50 could carry 4 HARMs, it is still relevant. It shows that 4 HARMs is occasionally carried on the F-16. As noted I think this discussion would benefit most from people providing evidence to support their positions.

Yup the general tab is at 100%, and all settings for all programs are at 100% (including DCS). To take a less extreme example: the F-16 Free Flight over Persian Gulf. I get roughly 30 FPS in this scenario with my settings .. unless I PAUSE the mission in which case I get rock solid 45 FPS (i.e. the cap) even if I then use the camera to pan around. Given it's still rendering when paused, it seems likely that the problem is that when the simulation code is running it is stalling the graphics pipeline (I'm a software developer with a background in computer graphics).

I have nothing of note running in the background that is consuming CPU or GPU. I am running at native resolution for the headset in Steam VR. Even if I run at PD of 0.5 in the DCS VR options settings I still cannot get more than 25 FPS in some missions. This is not a result of a windows update, the FPS has been very poor since 2.5.6 and particularly since the last few updates (I'm running the most recent Open Beta). As shown in Windows Task Manager Performance tab.

Have other people been finding of late that the the performance of DCS in VR seems to have dropped very significantly? I'm running a GTX 1080 and an i7 8700K, and used to be able to run most missions at solid 45 fps at low settings on my HP Reverb. Now I'm running those same missions on 2.5.6 at absolute total minimum settings (everything OFF or minimal) and I frequently struggle to get 30 fps. In some busier missions with a few more units I often struggle to get 15 fps. It's making DCS essentially unplayable for me at this point. Even more frustratingly when I look at my CPU & GPU usage during a mission I see roughly 25% CPU usage, and 50% GPU usage. So it doesn't even seem certain that more expensive hardware would make DCS go any faster ...

Ah thank you mvsgas, I tried searching for "oscillation" but didn't find it. Yeah looks like the same issue.

Positive. Yeah so the ATC does work but receiving sounds over the radio (as happens in the campaign) does not work. You can check this by toggling the UHF SIL switch: if only the battery is on you do not hear any static. If the engine or ground power is on, you do hear static. Turning on the ground power does also fix the issue, although as I understand it the ground power is optional in the Mirage (the plane certainly starts without it). It's also very confusing because with just the battery on the radio looks like it should work. The frequency display works, you can change presets or interact with the VHF displays, you can call ATC .. you just can't receive audio.

Pitot heat definitely turned on.