zaelu

Rlaxoxo I want to tell you first that I appreciate a lot the things you've done and do for DCS (mods, youtube films, etc) but I find your (continuous) remarks over the "hyper realism guys" or whatever you call it, un-sporting or a bit disrespectful. It's like me going to a gym club and start lifting weights and doing a good job but no real performance stuff because I'm not interested and then... just start making a mockery on the people doing that stuff. I mean... I don't do weights lifting (as a sport) in real life but I can imagine this is like playing DCS. You realize most of BF - Warthunder or whatever else arcade style player doesn't give a rats arse on a correct alignment procedure for INS system on Mirage 2000C (C not other sub variant that might have different procedure), don't you? So your playing this style of simulation are just as ridiculous to them as the guys you laugh about are for you. For example, I don't play A-10C hardcore style... or any other aircraft but I do understand the ones that want to and I don't find appropriate to make mockery of their style. We can do jokes because we are not too stiff isn't it but... If people that play the game like this are for constant mockery from you then it must be the same with those who program such things like this because they must take them selves even more serious. So maybe you can ease up a bit on this making fun of "realistic people" because they are after all... your people. === I would also want to ask Zeus what he thinks about limiting this D2M system to be available as an option only if Air to Ground weapons are mounted on the pylons. This as a measure of limiting any potential abuse of the system in A2A combat by... design or limits of the DCS simulation. It would be a shame to ruin the immersion of many players with any future bug that would let people not only use this in A2A but to use it more than it would be possible even in a "dream".

Let's not exaggerate on the difference between Visual and IR. You say IR is easier to see and track? It's very fine by me. I even found some videos true not from incoming point of view

Well... FBW simulation limits have been used to "expand" aircraft envelope... you think those limits are infallible in a simulation? :) You can't simulate the entire physics of that sensor especially when it's classified. I'm not sure how you could detect the heat of an opposite facing rocket engine but... maybe. Still "optic" system nonetheless isn't it?

I have no big problem in providing this "sensor" for M2KC in principle. However... People keep saying "I don't understand xxxx". I guess you know that is just an expression which in most languages means you actually do understand or have a strong opinion about and don't agree with it. Otherwise, as Freud would probably say... look no further than the direct meaning of the words you say. "You don't understand something"... ask for information to be "enlightened about the issue". I... do have an opinion. I think people that like this option only think at the way this would be abused in multiplayer in AA combat. A Battlefield style anti-IR-Warning Receiver. Why I say this? All the people that jumped in happiness about this said nothing - NOTHING! about how bad such thing would perform for ground attack, how unreliable would be. 135° rear side coverage, no upper coverage AT ALL down facing coverage EXTREMELY limited or close to a blade like zone range... probably a small zone under 2-3km Zeus said that he extrapolated 135° and looks OK, also he said that upper coverage is ZERO because of the wing above the sensor and down facing coverage we can assume is far far far far worse than its 135° lateral which is made by using the angle shaped prisms. Downwards it has no angled prisms for help. So probably it has something like 2° coverage. Now how this would work although classified it's is not really hard to understand. It's an optical sensor similar with an optic mouse sensor. It constantly analyse the image it gets (the poor one) and searches for certain patterns. Like big white puffs on green/brown background. It could have some algorithms for optimizing this to avoid false positives (like passing over some white buildings and system going haywire). The system probably is tuned to have a very shallow "depth of field" so it can focus itself on a certain dangerous range (from 1km to 2Km maybe or even less)and probably it has things to filter out any alarm that may be triggered by a wing moving the sensor view above the horizon exposing it to blue sky with puffs of white clouds. Probably the systems turns it self off for every flare launches from own aircraft for a while. For the Rafale the system might be activated only when in Close Combat Modes and probably it will first try to find the launching plane as a darker spot on the sky and then distinguish any white puffs from a launch (any launch Radar guided included) from it. For people that "don't understand the strive for realism of others... uh-oh... "... Try to imagine someone would hack your DCS World game and make all the planes/helicopters mix between them Cockpits/FMs/External models. Would you "feel" the same? Would you like it the same as it is now? If not then understand that you are exactly like the others that want "100%" realism is just that you settle for less where that less is not a measurable value. Its subjective and not worthy to fight over it. You don't want to fly in DCS a F18 like in Battlefield 2 would you? Then if you understand yourself when compared with BF2 F18 players then you can understand also the others that want planes in DCS as close as possible with reality and ESPECIALLY avoid unrealistic things that are completely avoidable. So maybe this thing should be attached to the plane as an option only when the plane caries ground attack ordnance? Let's see who is against this "option"?!? :music_whistling:

:D propose (English) titles as we can edit the nomination category at any time

Mina has 3 apron spaces. In DCS... in real life it seems it's different: https://www.google.fr/maps/@38.3602918,-118.0932454,2404a,20y,40.87t/data=!3m1!1e3 http://www.sunrisevalley.com/32mina.htm So I guess OP request is not only valid but with good chances of being fulfilled in the future. edit This post is FUBAR as I confused Mina with Beatty. Still Mina is a dirt strip so being asphalted in DCS maybe it could be expanded a bit with some spawn places to the side of the airstrip..

It also turns itself off after take off... :) Normally it's on because you are suppose to test the FBW, isn't it?

Yes the video shows older type of fuel tanks or ordnance but the idea is simple. The test pilots test the envelope of the aircraft for all operations. Then the real life experience adds and rules for operating the aircraft are written and amended. But, if we already have a lot of experience about bad separation from aircraft of payloads in normal situations... why would we risk our life in an abnormal situation? If we are limited to 5.5G with tanks, flipping the limiter to A/A mode just to be able to pull maximum Gs and not pressing the nearby Jettison All button makes little sense. I don't know exactly how they are locked to the wing but imagine it has more than one locking system and the tank ruptures one lock and remains attached to the other and because of the turn it twists and hits the wing. Just one tank. Now you have a dangling tank, a damage/bent wing and asymmetric load. Imagine how hard the guy in the back that is trying to shoot you down is laughing :D .

So you disagree with the fact you would be able to pull only 5.5G? :D The switch is just near that big jettison all button... For your safety... after flipping the switch... while jinxing graciously, sure... press that button. Real physics is not limited to few aspects like a simulation. look: As I told you. One tank left on one wing or stuck on only one lock while turning and destroying your plane is a far worse situation you've put yourself in than the fact you let one bandit sneak behind you for a sneaky gunkill.

dcs_manifest.x86_64 files can appear modified even if they are not modified directly. I observed this after trying to install some mods with modified ground objects. Example the "improved static Mi-8". With that mod installed you will fail dcs_manifest.x86_64 although that mod does not affect the file at all. I suppose that file is not only read from the HDD/SSD but also filled with things from mods and the IC makes the check at the end and... Bam! In your case Ironhand it could be something similar but not exactly what I gave as example. But your file might appear modified even if you clean install the module.

+1 And +1 for planes with shields for engine intakes :P

Yes. One snapshot is done per profile/config.

+1 for this suggestion.

+1 It would be nice that instead of drop down lists maybe some more modern interfaces would slipstream the selection. Example. Click an airbase and aircraft options appear around the airbase name like a rose radio/option menu from current games. Also Side switching prohibiting should be build in the standard game without advanced scripts loading by the user. The server creator even if its just one guy hosting a temporary server and not a 24/7 almost dedicated server should be able to enforce this very simply. Each player that connects to a server must give its DCS Multiplayer Unic ID to the server (silently without player intervention) and after side selection be locked on it until server restarts or changes the mission if such is the wish of the host.

When your game fails IC you can click on the red icon on top of the server list (the one that signifies that you fail IC) and a window will pop up showing you what exact files are failing the check. If you have only Starways mod you will see only one failing file. That shadows.lua. The mod does not depend critically on that file. That file just fine tunes some shadows to fit even more on Starway's take on how the game should look. The mod still looks 99.9% the same without that file. So yes, it's safe to delete it.

Sometimes I got crashes while building an archived mod. It didn't destroyed the archive, all was OK I just needed to restart OVGME so I didn't wanted to bother you. You think this issue with the snapshot was related? Must be located in C:\Program Data\OVGME\Profile(Config) But you should use the function "Compare" which becomes active after doing the snapshot. edit: Here it is. But it's a dat file so I don't think you can "read" it and the compare option/function

Even in DCS as we can see in the first movie posted in second post the tanks are not separating instantly, always nor both at the same time. The mess you would be with just one tank under one of your wings would be far greater than the one you describe above with sudden enemy in your close six ready to gun you WW2 style. Just wait until the physics of max performance 9G turn with one single tank under a wing will be simulated in DCS M2K and we can discuss that scenario again :D .

Specifications are one thing, operations another. If the tanks don't break the plane I'm sure the mechanics will break your legs. And if they don't... you will be grounded anyway. :D Many things can go wrong while jettisoning stuff normally. Trying to make things break off the wings by violence when you can simply push a button is madness. If your life depends on the 9g turns you can do without the wing fuel tanks your life doesn't depend on the fuel you still got in the center one. Press the big round black/yellow striped button because that's its role. It keeps the IR missiles for this purpose only. Dispatch the threat with internal fuel then either refuel with the tanker or go towards friendlies and eject as close as possible to a safe zone if making to the base is not possible. Anything else is just GTA stunts.

Yes, theoretically. 1. With INS you set the offset point from one waypoint as the target. After the preparations you come low towards the target and follow the cues on the HUD. When close you pull up keeping the trigger pressed. The system makes all the calculations and somewhere at somepoint when you climb it will release. 2. With CCRP is the same but you go and mark the target first with your TAS diamond reticule then come low, follow the HUD cues... pull up... squeeze... system will release automatically. 3. With JTAC laser should work almost the same. Follow the 9line. Mark the target with the HUD diamond, call for lase, come low... pull, squeeze, system will release... bomb will pick the lasing and... boom! Theoretically, I didn't tried yet... I'm still trying to perfect the INS bombing first :) .

Could be. I don't remember to be in the manual but I think I saw something about it in some tutorial, maybe I understood wrong that. Anyway. in 2.04 I tried to INS bomb and no go. When I see the cue I press and hold but the bombs are instantly released.

Technically the INS bombing should do this. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2841863&postcount=1

I don't think you can. You were suppose to bring them back as they are expensive and in case of emergency/dogfight you drop them all. Also they are pretty aerodynamically so you have no problem with flying with them empty. The big ones under the wings look badass also... like boosters... too bad they eat two big missiles.

Well... for the same reasons we change the coordinates of 00 Waypoint... it shows an error of 1-2 meters at the cold start. I thought maybe it's important to start with a first waypoint as precise as possible. But apparently you can't change that altitude. You can try to edit it but when you press "insert" it reverts to the preexistent number.

So can someone that tried in 2.04 confirm that it works? For me the bombs are released immediately as I press and hold the trigger. The cross on the ground doesn't update. I can't enter altitude for 00 waypoint (not the offset BAD)

Well, OP asked for some jet in general iirc. I'm sure F16 resembles more a Mig21 than a Cessna 172 would :) . It's all I could find with a quick search. I see you found one with an F18. Both show that such violence may ensue in an upset jetfighter. What I wanted to add was that in a simulation such "departures" might be very difficult to model, for example BadHabit's youtube recording showed the Afterburner light and happy all the time the plane did its thing. I'm doubtfull nothing would happen with the engine in those circumstances and if it hicks then flight dynamic would be again affected. And many other details can complicate this simulation in such extremes beyond the purpose of the DCS.